Doc's Talk: The Italian govt's response to Fiamma Nirenstein's parliamentary question on the flotilla

Friday, June 24, 2011

The Italian govt's response to Fiamma Nirenstein's parliamentary question on the flotilla

Dear friends,

yesterday I received the answer from the Italian government to my parliamentary question regarding the "Freedom Flotilla 2 - Stay Human", which is about to set sail in the next few days and includes the Italian ship Stefano Chiarini. I’m very pleased by the Italian position opposing new flotillas bound for Gaza. It is a position that has been expressed in past months by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, as well as by Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini, asserting that “the best way to assist the population of Gaza is to deliver humanitarian aid via the land crossing, which would avoid any kind of provocation that could only result in a rise in tension”.

Below you can find my query and the reply.

Parliamentary question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Whereas:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has sent a letter to the governments of countries around the Mediterranean Sea expressing “concern for media reports of potential flotillas to Gaza, which carry the potential to escalate into violent conflict”. The Secretary-General called on all of these governments “to use their influence to discourage such flotillas”. He went on to express his belief that assistance and goods destined to Gaza should be channelled through legitimate border crossings and established channels; A new flotilla called "Freedom Flotilla 2 - Stay Human", and comprised of about 15 ships from multiple countries, including the Italian Stefano Chiarini, is about to set sail in the next few days. Many Italian organizations are participating, including ABSPP (Charity Association for the Palestinian People), chaired by Mohamed Hannoun, who has been investigated for links to organized crime involving terrorism. During this past year, ABSPP and other Italian activists fundraised for the "Freedom Flotilla 2", and also convened a meeting in June 2010 with the Turkish Amassador to Italy - Semih Lütfü Turgut;

This year's flotilla was primarily organized by the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a purportedly humanitarian organization which has been under investigation for international terrorism. As a member of the umbrella Islamic organization "Union of Good" (designated as supporting terrorism under Executive Order 13224 in November 2008), IHH finances organizations linked to Hamas, and Hamas itself, which has been designated as European Union terrorist organization since 2004;

The IHH has issued numerous statements supporting terrorism against Israel. Among the most recent, its chairperson, Bülent Yildirim, said the following about the next Freedom Flotilla: "We are not afraid todie as shahids". This increases the suspicious nature of this expedition, potentially causing serious clashes, as happened on May 31, 2010, when the Mavi Marmara, headed by the IHH, tried to break the Israeli naval block on Gaza, leading to a fight that left 9 deaths;

The Islamic fundamentalist nature of IHH has been documented by numerous declarations praising martyrdom and Israel’s destruction. On February 2009, during a demonstration in Gaza, the above mentioned Bülent Yildirim called for "Martyrdom for the Sake of Allah" against the Gaza Strip embargo. Several militants on the Mavi Marmara, before leaving told journalists that their goal was "the religious martyrdom". This emerged from interviews, films, witnesses of family members and also from the diaries of some of the victims of May 31;
The real purpose of this so-called humanitarian expedition was exposed by the activists refusal to accept Israel's repeated invitation to transfer any humanitarian aid through the port of Ashdod and the land crossing points, after being checked by the Israeli security forces;

Every two weeks, Israel, through the COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), delivers to the Gaza Strip an average of 50,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid, with 250 trucks crossing the borders daily;

The AHLC (Ad Hoc Liaison Committee), the main international coordination mechanism for the assistance to the Palestinian people, met in Brussels on April 13, 2011, stating that "there was continued progress in the implementation of the Israeli Security Cabinet announcement of 20 June and the announcement of 8 December 2010, both important for recovery in Gaza. There were some signals of recovery and other positive developments during that period, including a real GDP growth of 15 percent, increased volume of non-food imports, increased average annual sales of Gaza businesses, and further approvals of UN and other international projects. [...] Israeli measures to facilitate movement and access have also supported economic activity";

On May 18, the Egyptian government decided to open the Rafah Crossing linking Egypt to the Gaza Strip, which had been closed since 2007 following Hamas's violent coup in Gaza. The re-opening of the Rafah Crossing might contribute in solving supply problems to Gaza, so that aid coming via the sea simply won't be required;

Last April, Israeli radio reported that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declared he would work to prevent a flotilla sailing for Gaza, stating that he believed that the flotilla was not working to support peace in the Middle East;

Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini confirmed that "the best way to assist the population of Gaza is to deliver humanitarian aid via the land crossing, which would avoid any kind of provocation that could only result in a rise in tension”;

I would like to know the following:

How does the Italian Government intend to abide by the UN Secretary General request "to discourage new flotillas bound for Gaza", following therefore the position expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs? How does it intend to assert this position in every international body, starting from the European Union, aiming also at avoiding undermining the safety of Italian citizens in case they should be found on those ships, as it has been reported?

June 14, 2011

GOVERNMENT ANSWER (June 22, 2011):

• The Government is monitoring with attention the news regarding new flotillas bound for Gaza that might set sail from several Mediterranean countries, including Italy;

• As pointed out by Hon. Nirenstein, UN Secretary-General sent a letter to the governments of countries around the Mediterranean Sea expressing concern for the potential to escalate into violent conflict that might be generated by new flotillas. Ban Ki-Moon called on all of these governments to use their influence to discourage such flotillas: humanitarian aid to Gaza should be channelled through the existing and legitimate land crossings;

• The Italian Government fully shares the concerns and recommendations of UN Secretary-General. In April, Prime Minister Berlusconi stated that his executive intends to make every effort to avoid this year other initiatives that can damage the resumption of the Peace Process. Minister Frattini affirmed on May 10 that the best way to assist the population of Gaza is to deliver humanitarian aid via the land crossing, which would avoid any kind of provocation that could only result in a rise in tension. This is as well the position of the Quartet from June 21, 2010 and of the AHLC, the International donors coordination mechanism for the assistance to the Palestinian people, from April 13, 2011;

• We think that the Israeli measures to facilitate movement and access of goods and materials are going in the right direction;

• Italy keeps on pressuring at international level to implement Ban Ki-Moon recommendations, calling on all the parts to avoid provocations and situations of crisis in which new flotillas could be involved. We are committed to this purpose together with all the European partners, also considering the EU availability to restore EUBAM, the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point;

• We are on alert in order to prevent any kind of danger that might undermine the safety of Italian citizens. As it has been done by other European States - among them Austria, Germany, French, UK - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted on the website “Viaggiare sicuri” (travel safe) the risks linked to the attempts to reach Gaza via sea, in violation of the Israeli law.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk