Doc's Talk: "The Flytilla Flop"

Monday, July 11, 2011

"The Flytilla Flop"

Arlene Kushner

The efforts by radical "activists," mostly out of Europe, to fly into Ben Gurion and cause a ruckus has been largely a failure.

At least in part, this is because Israel has not been working alone. Last week Israel provided airlines in key European nations with the names of persons known to be provocateurs, and there was subsequent cooperation in preventing them from boarding planes to Israel.

This is the information that I have:

According to the JPost, 200 people were denied permission to board planes to Israel. The "activists" are saying it was roughly double that.
As of last night, 124 individuals who had made it into Israel's airport were being held for deportation; this morning -- after extensive questioning -- four of these, two Dutch and two German, were released and permitted into Israel.

There may yet be trouble with some of those being held, if they refuse to board the planes back to where they came from: The Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain, Britain, Ireland and the US. (As you'll see below, it's not altogether certain that the provocateurs are in all cases actually from the countries that were their points of departure.)

Israeli immigration officials will be discussing the situation with the airlines concerned. Those airlines that have cooperated with Israeli requests for assistance include: Air France, Alitalia, Austrian Airlines, Lufthansa, Malev, and Easy Jet.

~~~~~~~~~~

Some 50 to 100 persons made it through Israeli passport control and are in PA-controlled areas now. They say they are planning protest events: starting at the Aida refugee camps north of Bethlehem today and ending in Jerusalem on Friday.

But as of yesterday, according to a YNet report, there was a protest in the Arab village of Nabi Saleh, near Ramallah, in which some of these "activists" participated. (Picture below shows Nabi Saleh protesters, but I am unable to determine if any of those photographed were "activists" from abroad.)

Reuters

Protesters clashed with security forces and threw rocks at IDF soldiers. The protest is against the "occupation," and Israel's refusal to acknowledge the "right of return."

~~~~~~~~~~

This Flytilla event has held an added fascination for me because my e-mail was picked up by the PR people for this gambit, so that for several days pro-Flytilla material was flooding my in-box. These messages contained all that might have been expected:

Plans were being shared, so that I was able to read, for example, that such and such, who couldn't get on a plane in France, was going to go to Belgium and try again. I have seen declarations of intention on the part of those arrested in Ben Gurion airport not to sign Israeli papers that would permit immediate deportation. And ludicrous charges of severe mistreatment of those arrested (while I am aware of how careful Israeli officials are being with regard to proper procedures and the law). Those who were taken into custody in Israel are said to have been "kidnapped;" Israel is referred to as the "apartheid regime," while their people are called "human rights activists."

Of course there were denials that the visitors had any intentions of causing disruption, as all they wanted to do is visit quietly with Palestinian families. The lie has already been put to this by what happened yesterday at Nabi Saleh, and it's just the beginning of the week.

~~~~~~~~~~

See Barry Rubin on the way in which the NYTimes misrepresented the Flytilla:

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/07/10/new-york-times-bites-israel-by-lying-about-the-flytilla/

After explaining how the Times twisted the story, Rubin wrote:

"If you don’t understand how an organ like the New York Times has gone from being a liberal-oriented but professional and responsible newspaper into a disgraceful propaganda sheet, it is impossible to comprehend what has gone wrong in America."

~~~~~~~~~~
Returning to the Flotilla issue -- actually, the first Flotilla of a year ago, this May:

The UN's Palmer Commission -- delegated by Ban Ki-Moon to investigate the "Mavi Marmara" incident, in which Turkish members of the terrorist IHH were killed after they attacked IDF soldiers who boarded their ship -- has completed its report. However, it will not be published until July 27th, in order to give Israel and Turkey time for reconciliation talks.

What the Commission -- headed by New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer -- has done is unofficially release its findings to Israel and Turkey. These findings have in turn have been leaked. According to various sources, the Commission has concluded that:

[] The Gaza Blockade is legal, and that in line with various treaties, Israel has the right to stop vessels even outside its territorial waters if the vessels intended destination is easily ascertained. It apparently upholds the legality and validity of a sea blockade on a territory.

[] The use of force by Israel on the Mavi Marmara was regrettable but did not merit an apology considering the extenuating factors. That said, excessive force was likely used.

[] Israel should however in a show of good faith set up a fund to donate to a humanitarian or related charitable cause. This because Israeli actions were 'lawful but disproportionate.'

[] Turkey is castigated for not stopping the Mavi Marmara, and for its links with the IHH.

[] The Turkish commission that investigated the matter was not staffed by experts, was biased -- heavily influenced by domestic politics.

[] Palmer himself -- an expert in maritime law -- apparently endorsed the Israeli Turkel Commission almost in its entirety, calling it "professional, independent and unbiased."

~~~~~~~~~~

This represents a huge victory for Israel and demonstrates again that we are not alone within the international community.

As to those reconciliation talks, I wouldn't hold out much hope. The Turks are demanding an apology from Israel as well as compensation to the families of the nine people killed.

The Israeli government has said it will not apologize, but would be willing to pay compensation as long as it was structured in a way that did not permit future claims -- already too much conciliation in my book, but not sufficient for Turkey.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let's end this with some great satire. Caroline Glick's Latma has done it again. This time the Audacity of Dopes band sings "Guns, guns, guns, please don't take Gaza's hobby away."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5CsGViY5JQ&feature=youtu.be

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

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