Doc's Talk: The Upcoming Flotilla to the Gaza Strip

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Upcoming Flotilla to the Gaza Strip

Latest Developments (as of June 22, 2011)

1. IHH head Bülent Yildirim recently announced that due to technical difficulties, the Mavi Marmara would not sail with the other ships in the upcoming flotilla. The participation of the Turkish cargo ship was also canceled.

2. Yildirim denied that the difficulties were political. He said the Turkish government had not asked IHH to cancel Turkish participation the flotilla that that the reasons for the cancelation were purely technical. He added that some of the Turkish participants would sail on other ships but that he himself would not participate in the flotilla because of his strong spiritual connections to the Mavi Marmara (Hürriyet, June 27, 2011). However, it is not clear whether the more moderate participants will permit operatives belonging to IHH and other radical Islamist organizations sail with them. 3. The other organizations announced that they were planning to sail despite the lack of IHH participation.

1) According to an announcement issued by the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), the main umbrella network behind the flotilla, the Mavi Marmara's cancellation meant that the flotilla was not Turkish-Islamic in nature, as Israel claimed. Hundreds of participants, it said, and dozens of organizations from all over the world would participate, far more than in the first flotilla, even without the Turkish ship (FGM website, June 16, 2011).

2) Rami Abdo, a spokesman for the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG, one of the networks organizing the flotilla), said that a meeting [held by the flotilla's steering committee] in Istanbul on June 20, decided that the flotilla would set sail on June 25, as originally planned. He said the organizers did not want to reveal the number of participants until all administrative arrangements had been finalized (Radio Sawt al-Quds, June 21, 2011). In addition, the organizers of the flotilla in France said that a French ship (or two) would sail in the flotilla, contrary to a previous announcement.

4. The flotilla organizers claim that 10 of the planned 15 ships have already been acquired (Hürriyet, June 19; Agence France-Presse and The Toronto Star, June 20, 2011). In reality, the number of ships now available to the organizers may be smaller. According to the various announcements, there will be 500 to 600 passengers and the flotilla will set sail from the region of Greece on or around June 25-28. Some of the delegations (from the United States and Canada, for instance) flew to the region to join the ships anchored there (the Canadian delegation arrived in Greece on June 20). Some of the delegations were supposed to receive training in "passive resistance" tactics in view of possible scenarios for the flotilla.

The Significance of the Current Situation

5. The significance of the current developments is the following:

1) Apparently, the flotilla's organizers who do not belong to IHH are still planning to go ahead, although on a smaller scale than previously planned, with the participation of Western (American, Canadian, European and Australian) anti-Israeli networks. It is not known whether IHH activists will sail on the Western ships (which in our assessment are at full capacity) as announced by Bülent Yildirim, or whether the entire organization will not participate in the current flotilla. In any event, even if IHH activists do sail, their presence will be small and symbolic, as opposed to the central part they played in the previous flotilla.

2) Even if the flotilla does take place, there will be a significant difference between its original plan and final format. Since the previous flotilla, the organizers have been acting to dispatch an upgraded flotilla of 15 vessels whose flagship would be the Mavi Marmara. Their objective was to magnify the flotilla's propaganda effect and set a new high point in their anti-Israeli campaign, while making it difficult for Israel to respond to the challenge. In effect, there will be fewer ships than planned.

3) In addition, the flagship Mavi Marmara, which became a symbol and was supposed to carry a significant number of participants, will not sail. Moreover, during the political propaganda campaign which has been waged in recent months, the organizers faced a number of setbacks which eroded the legitimacy for flotilla as far as world opinion was concerned (reservations were expressed openly by the Secretary-General of the UN, the United States, the European Union and various Western countries). Thus the flotilla may set sail with a certain diminished public standing, for the organizers, may be seen as involving a certain risk, although the loss of prestige (and possible also of money) in cancelling it would be greater (at least at this point).

4) The announcement made by the IHH leader changed the flotilla's character. It will no longer be dominated by Turkish Islamists, but rather led by Western anti-Israeli networks which have been joined by social activists and human rights activists who identify with the Palestinian cause (although Arab-Muslim activists are also expected to participate, for example in the British delegation). The aforementioned situation will mean the following:

A) Rather than IHH, two umbrella networks which participated with IHH in the current (and previous) flotilla will now be prominent: the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), anchored in America's radical left, affiliated with the US Boat to Gaza, which plans to send 50 passengers on a ship called The Audacity of Hope; and the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), based in Britain and including Arab-Islamic activists, some of whom are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. They may be joined by a group of Arab extremists dominated by Jordanians (See below).

B) In our assessment, without Bülent Yildirim (assuming that he really will not participate), leadership of the flotilla will pass to the senior leaders of the FGM and ECESG. The FGM's three leading figures are Huwaida Arraf (American with an Israeli Arab father and Palestinian mother), her husband Adam Shapiro (American, Jewish) and Greta Berlin (supposed to sail on board the American ship). The ECESG's leaders are Amin Abu Rashad (Holland), Arafat Madi Mahmoud Shukri (Britain) and Rami Abdo (Britain). So far it is unclear on which ships the flotilla leadership will sail (in the previous flotilla command was located aboard the Mavi Marmara).

C) In our assessment the change in the flotilla's character will also change the type of action the participants take. The extreme, organized violence instigated by IHH will be exchanged for tactics of passive resistance, in which Western activists are experienced, or by extreme violence instigated by the Arab group, which is radical and potentially more dangerous than the others. The presence of activists who participated in previous convoys and flotillas and gained experience in anti-Israeli activities in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories may inspire a physical confrontation with IDF soldiers, even if in public the flotilla organizers stress their commitment to nonviolence. Some of the participating delegations (the Canadian delegation, for instance) received a short training course (two days or so) in the tactics of passive resistance.2

D) Belonging to the Western networks are well-known public figures and celebrities, many media personnel, Jews (especially in the American delegation), politicians, human rights activists and social activists. Their presence can be expected to be highlighted (as was done by the FGM) to stress the flotilla's humanitarian character and to show that it is not composed of Islamist extremists, as Israel claims. The objective is to make points in the media campaign (which will also be waged during the flotilla) and to make it difficult for Israel to halt the flotilla.

5) Recent developments brought into prominence IHH's dependence on the Turkish government, in contrast to the independent decisions made by the Western anti-Israeli networks: IHH has been forced to accommodate the Turkish government's foreign policy considerations, and internal Turkish affairs (the elections) forced the sailing date to be postponed to the end of June. In the final analysis those considerations forced IHH to waive the participation of the Mavi Marmara (and not, as claimed, "technical difficulties," "the events in Syria," or the opening of the Rafah crossing, which made the flotilla less significant). However, Western NGOs are less dependent on governmental support and they still plan to dispatch the flotilla, despite reservations held by the international community. Nevertheless, Turkey apparently continues as an important focus for flotilla organizing activities (the flotilla's steering committee met in Istanbul on June 20, 2011).

6) The flotilla's objectives are geared toward political propaganda and not humanitarian objectives. While the organizers openly state that their objective is to lift the so-called "siege" of the Gaza Strip and bring supplies to the Gazans, the humanitarian assistance on board the ships will apparently be limited. For example, the American organizers have declared that most of their cargo will consist of thousands of letters written by Americans all over the country in support of and to identify with the Gazans. The previous flotilla as well brought only a small cargo of humanitarian assistance. It is another illustration of the fact that the true objectives of the flotilla are political, merging with the objectives of the campaign to delegitimize Israel: defamation of Israel in international public opinion, isolating Israel, complicating Israel's diplomatic relations with various countries and making it difficult for Israel to wage its war on terrorism (without inspection of the cargos there is nothing to prevent the ships from bringing weapons to the Gaza Strip). To increase the flotilla's media impact the organizers will accompany it with protests in various locations in Western countries,3 and perhaps even in the Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority-administered territories.

7) There is an issue of Arab-Muslim participation, whose scope and nature are currently unclear. Wael al-Saqa, chairman of the Jordan LifeLine committee, recently said that negotiations for purchasing an Arab ship were in their "final stages." It was also reported that a representative of the committee went to Greece in the middle of June to conduct the purchase of a ship (Watan News, June 15, 2011). [Note: On June 25 the Kuwaiti News Agency reported that the Jordanian committee announced it had signed for the purchase of a boat at the cost of €560,000, which would carry 70 Arab passengers. According to the announcement, it is registered to a company named Nur, which was set up by Arab investors for Arab participation in the flotilla.] However, the cancellation of the Mavi Marmara's participation may create difficulties for some of the Arab delegations which planned to sail with it. So far apparently Arab-Muslim participation will be smaller in comparison to the previous flotilla.

6. Apendices

1) Partial information about the ships expected to participate in the flotilla

2) Partial information about the participants from Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States.

1 The full version appears in Hebrew on the ITIC website. The full English version will appear shortly.

2 For further information about X, see the date ITIC bulletin, " The use of nonviolent tactics is planned for the upcoming flotilla to the Gaza Strip. In effect, it is liable to be translated into hard violence directed against the IDF " at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e202.pdf.

3 The organizers of the American delegation have appealed to the American public to hold protests, for example, in front of Israeli consulates and American administration institutions, by appealing to the White House and Congress, all to be accompanied by broad media activity.

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