Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East Analyst & Commentator
It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz.
I wondered: What was their mission? I also wondered about the practice take-off and landing sessions of U.S. and French aircraft on each other’s aircraft carriers. It sounds like a good idea if their likely targets are nuclear sites in Iran. BUT, what if it wasn’t? What if their alternate mission was to protect Iran from a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike by Israel on those Iranian nuclear sites?
What if their plan is as Zbigniew Brzezinski counseled President Barack Hussein Obama – to shoot down Israeli aircraft in order to insure that Iran reaches full maturity in its nuclear capability?
Do Obama and his advisors wish to see Iran and Syria achieve hegemony and dominate the entire Middle East because Obama finds it easier to deal with dictators? Now we come to the issue “TRUST”, honoring one’s word comes into play.
How can we forget the deliberate betrayal of Israel when, during Desert Storm, the First Gulf War January 16, 1991 to March, Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israel, hitting mostly Tel Aviv. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was prepared to order Israeli pilots sitting warmed up on the tarmac (runways) ready to find and kill the SCUD missile launchers.
“The Patriot anti-missile missiles of that day hit the motors of the incoming SCUDS.Their shrapnel and explosives hit residential areas [in Israel]. Israeli pilots, trained to fly at deck level could have found and hit those SCUDs and maybe could have saved the 28 American soldiers who were killed when their barracks in Saudi Arabia was hit by a Saddam SCUD.” (1)
BUT, President George Herbert Walker Bush, his Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of Defense Colin Powell and Chief of Staff Norman Schwarzkopf assured Shamir that America would send out U.S. aircraft to eliminate the launchers.
The reason given to Israel is that by Israel entering the war, it could break up the Arab Muslim coalition against Saddam.
However, Bush and group lied. They never issued those orders for U.S. strikes on Saddam’s launchers – a fact which was later confirmed by the U.S. GAO (General Accounting Office). Bush and his advisors were artfully protecting Iraq, based upon the philosophy that Saddam would be helpful in fighting Iran.
Perhaps so, but, they were willing to sacrifice Israel to Saddam’s SCUDs which could have been loaded with Chemical and Biological agents.
[Proof from the scene: At 3:59 am in Israel on January 16, 1991 after Saddam’s first SCUD attack, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said in a BBC radio interview: “It’s a particular tragedy that Nerve Gas was used.” He would know that Saddam had Nerve Gas. Israelis spent Desert Storm in sealed rooms with gas masks and protective baby tents because the American Administration knew Saddam had Nerve Gas.] (1)
Allowing Israel to take the SCUD hits was acceptable in the Americans’ plans – then and perhaps by Obama now.
When Bush and group succeeded in getting Syria to join a fake coalition, Syria was paid off in several ways. First, Syria arrived to the U.S.-led coalition mobilization Headquarters without arms and with no intentions of actually joining the U.S. in fighting Saddam. Syrians were stationed well away from the actual fighting.
For this great sacrifice on Syria’s part, the U.S. arranged a safe air corridor for Iraq’s aircraft (a mix of approximately 75 Russian fighters and cargo aircraft) to be shipped to Iran – who didn’t have the necessary Russian maintenance facilities and, therefore, had no use for the beneficent gift.
However, the planes were disassembled, crated and then shipped to Syria. Payment to Saddam for this strange transfer came in several Billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – paid to Iraq so Iraq could buy armaments from the U.S. and other international arms’ dealers. Saddam had used up his credit line in the arms market and desperately needed a cash infusion – which was why he attacked Kuwait in the first place where he stole $80 Billion in liquid assets.
One should ask James Baker, III and the others about this ‘little’ Kuwaiti hustle. After all, it was he who would ostensibly have ordered America’s Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie to give Saddam the “green light” by having her tell Saddam: “We’re not interested in your border disputes.”
Getting back to the matter of today’s mission for several (possibly four) U.S. aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of Iran, let us speculate on a few scenarios.
Israel has several missile capable submarines tasked as a backup threat to Iran if Ahmadinejad should use a Nuclear Weapon on Israel. Are they to be tracked and targeted by U.S. destroyers lest they launch their missiles at Iran?
The question remains: Why would Obama and his advisor wish to protect Iran and Syria? (Note! The American people and most of Congress consider Israel to be a valuable and loyal ally. But, certain Arabists in Washington act in concert with hostile Muslim Arab nations, both for oil and because of their deep-seated animus against the Jewish State.)
Unconfirmed reports indicate that the Saudis are so fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran that they will allow Israeli aircraft to use Saudi airspace to bomb Iran. Sounds good going in but, how good is the Saudis’ word to allow returning Israeli aircraft to refuel in the air or on the ground on their return and not to launch the very large Saudi (American-supplied) Air Force against the returning Israeli aircraft? After all, the Israeli’s would have done their good deed by (hopefully) eliminating all of Iran’s Nuclear R&D facilities. So would they still be needed?
Let’s remember the Good Deed Israel did by destroying the Osirik Nuclear Reactor in Iraq, an act which was condemned by the U.S., E.U., U.N. and Arab/Muslim bloc nations but, was celebrated in the Congressional cloak room and the very happy Saudis (all in secret).
Would Israel have to guarantee the safety of both its air re-fueling cargo planes and returning Israeli aircraft by having a sizable squadron of F-16s and F-15s flying near the Riyadh and Tobruk Air Bases in case the Saudis broke their agreement, no doubt, at the urging of the Arabist State Department?
The matter of trust and confidence building is based upon prior experience and words kept (or NOT kept). Israel has been lied to by both friends and dedicated enemies who rarely keep agreements when their interests have become mired in their vested self-interest and not in their integrity.
I have offered the reader my speculations in part, of what may be a Future War. Israel remains a small, even minuscule nation which could (G-d forbid) be snuffed out by enemies and supposed friends, anxious to pacify Israel’s enemies.
“Trust” can be a very expensive commodity when you can possibly disappear in a puff of smoke!
President Obama has demonstrated a decidedly pro-Muslim attitude and a hostility toward Israel never before seen by Israel or the American Congress. Both Houses of Congress have signed letters recognizing Obama’s hostility toward Israel and stating plainly that they view Israel as America’s staunch and valuable ally. Obama seems not to share the opinion of his Congress as he reaches out to Iran, Syria and other Islamic nations.
As is said: “ 'Trust' but verify.”
###
1. “Feelings From A Sealed Room in a Gas Mask” by Gail Winston JEWISH PRESS Jan. 25, 1991
2. “Ordered To Die Quietly” by Emanuel A. Winston MACCABEAN ONLINE from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies April 2003
Emanuel A. Winston is the Freeman Center's Middle East analyst. He has published over 3500 articles and given hundreds of radio and television interviews and has been a major supporter of Israeli institutions of higher learning for over two decades. He is a valued and prolific contributor to JewishIndy.
Monday, June 28, 2010
MPAC Denounces Hamas…In Words Only
IPT News
June 28, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2033/mpac-denounces-hamasin-words-only
The hypocrisy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has been on display in full force since last month's flotilla incident off the Gaza coast. In Washington, D.C., the organization's government relations liaison denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization, while in California two days later, a senior advisor omitted any mention of Hamas' complicity in the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip. We at the Investigative Project have repeatedly called upon MPAC to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as the terrorist organizations that the United States and the international community have recognized them to be. Typically, MPAC has skirted the issue by condemning "terrorism and any act of violence against civilians, including suicide bombings," while refusing to associate Hamas or Hizballah with those actions. Surprisingly, at a June 17 event on Capitol Hill titled, Perspectives on Countering Violent Extremism & Radicalization, Alejandro J. Beutel went the extra mile.
During the question and answer session, Beutel was asked whether MPAC considers Hamas and Hizballah to be terrorist organizations. At first he gave his organization's stock condemnation of "attacks against civilians," but then he was pressed further.
Audience Member: But in terms of their organization, not individual acts?
Beutel: Again, like I said, you can go to our website. It's been very clear what our stance is and we have condemned them as terrorist organizations.
There are two immediate take-aways from this exchange. The first is clear: Beutel should be commended for condemning the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas and Hizballah, and for calling them out as terrorist organizations. This one exchange, however, appears inconsistent with the public comments and actions of MPAC leading up to, and since, the event in Washington.
Beutel's comments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He claimed:
"Our stance has been very clear for a number of years. You can go check out our website…you can just go through it and do a simple search on it and you will be able to find that."
While there are a number of instances in which the organization broadly condemned acts of violence against civilians, there is not a single instance of the group explicitly identifying Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organizations. On the contrary, a review of MPAC's printed and spoken material reveal comments such as:
* "The whole country keeps condemning Hizballah. I disagree with them on other issues, but on the issue of fighting to liberate their land and attacking only armed forces, this is legitimate, that is an American value—freedom and liberty." Maher Hathout at the National Press Club (June 18, 1998).
* "[The Israeli withdrawal] is a clear sign that determination and will can lead to the liberation of an occupied homeland. Hezbullah, the Lebanese freedom fighter group that led the effort to drive Israel out, is being widely praised throughout the world." "World Celebrates Israeli Retreat," The Minaret (June 2000).
* "The Palestinians have the moral and legal right to resist the Israeli occupation and MPAC supports that right." Salam Al-Marayati (April 2006).
Like the Council on American Islamic Relations, MPAC often is quick to denounce "violence against civilians," and even acts of terrorism carried out by al Qaida, but when it comes to Hamas and Hizballah, MPAC's rhetoric is more reserved. It readily acknowledges that al Qaida is a terrorist organization, but MPAC hems and haws over whether Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organizations or freedom fighters.
At an ironically titled event, Set the Truth Free: The Freedom Flotilla & the Future of Palestine, held in California days after Beutel's comments were made, speakers gathered to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip and the fallout from the flotilla. Rather than a balanced report of what occurred on May 31, MPAC's message was clear: all the blame rests with Israel.
Even before a single person took to the stage to speak, a "talking points" memo distributed at the event provided some initial insight into the mindset of the organizers. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (see here and here), MPAC described those aboard the Mavi Marmara as "aid workers," "humanitarian workers," and "peace activists." Despite reports that Hamas refused to allow in aid after the ship was searched by Israeli authorities, MPAC claimed that "Israel is willing to use deadly force to prevent much-needed humanitarian supplies from reaching the population of Gaza."
This assertion isn't surprising, considering MPAC's long-standing double standard of castigating Israel while remaining silent in the face of similar Hamas actions. And while Beutel's comments just two days earlier seemed to indicate that America would see a more moderate MPAC, Maher Hathout's subsequent remarks hammered the message home that it was Israel, and Israel alone, that is responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people.
Hathout began his address by attempting to justify acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas or Hizballah, even if indirectly:
"When occupied people breathe, they breathe resistance. This is natural, this is survival, this is honorable, this is accepted by all international bodies and international laws. Occupied people should resist occupation."
At no point did Hathout or anyone else in MPAC call on Hamas to renounce terror, revoke its anti-Semitic, blood-lusting covenant and agree to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Rather, the talking points memo urged people to call their members of Congress and the White House and tell them:
"Israel is the occupier and aggressor in this conflict, and it has inflicted tremendous pain and desperation upon the Palestinian people. There is no moral symmetry between the violence that the occupier (Israel) commits and the violence that the oppressed (the Palestinians) commit. Palestinian acts of violence must be judged in the context of Israel's decades of aggression, dispossession, and oppression of the entire Palestinian people."
While Beutel's comments were a welcome statement of condemnation of Hamas and Hizballah, they remain anomalies for the organization that would rather blame Israel for everything while giving terrorist groups a pass. Last October, MPAC's Executive Director Salam al-Marayati spoke at a J Street panel on How Jews, Christians and Muslims Can Work Together for Peace. During the discussion he explained that while he is a proponent of interreligious dialogue, there are limits to what participants should expect of the other side. As he wouldn't expect Jews to promote Muslim unity or advocacy, "you shouldn't expect me to promote Zionism."
Nobody expects al-Marayati or MPAC to promote Zionism. And the organization and its leadership are entitled to their own opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But they are not entitled to their own facts, and continuing to denounce Israel while ignoring Hamas' responsibilitiy is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive.
June 28, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2033/mpac-denounces-hamasin-words-only
The hypocrisy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has been on display in full force since last month's flotilla incident off the Gaza coast. In Washington, D.C., the organization's government relations liaison denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization, while in California two days later, a senior advisor omitted any mention of Hamas' complicity in the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip. We at the Investigative Project have repeatedly called upon MPAC to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as the terrorist organizations that the United States and the international community have recognized them to be. Typically, MPAC has skirted the issue by condemning "terrorism and any act of violence against civilians, including suicide bombings," while refusing to associate Hamas or Hizballah with those actions. Surprisingly, at a June 17 event on Capitol Hill titled, Perspectives on Countering Violent Extremism & Radicalization, Alejandro J. Beutel went the extra mile.
During the question and answer session, Beutel was asked whether MPAC considers Hamas and Hizballah to be terrorist organizations. At first he gave his organization's stock condemnation of "attacks against civilians," but then he was pressed further.
Audience Member: But in terms of their organization, not individual acts?
Beutel: Again, like I said, you can go to our website. It's been very clear what our stance is and we have condemned them as terrorist organizations.
There are two immediate take-aways from this exchange. The first is clear: Beutel should be commended for condemning the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas and Hizballah, and for calling them out as terrorist organizations. This one exchange, however, appears inconsistent with the public comments and actions of MPAC leading up to, and since, the event in Washington.
Beutel's comments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He claimed:
"Our stance has been very clear for a number of years. You can go check out our website…you can just go through it and do a simple search on it and you will be able to find that."
While there are a number of instances in which the organization broadly condemned acts of violence against civilians, there is not a single instance of the group explicitly identifying Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organizations. On the contrary, a review of MPAC's printed and spoken material reveal comments such as:
* "The whole country keeps condemning Hizballah. I disagree with them on other issues, but on the issue of fighting to liberate their land and attacking only armed forces, this is legitimate, that is an American value—freedom and liberty." Maher Hathout at the National Press Club (June 18, 1998).
* "[The Israeli withdrawal] is a clear sign that determination and will can lead to the liberation of an occupied homeland. Hezbullah, the Lebanese freedom fighter group that led the effort to drive Israel out, is being widely praised throughout the world." "World Celebrates Israeli Retreat," The Minaret (June 2000).
* "The Palestinians have the moral and legal right to resist the Israeli occupation and MPAC supports that right." Salam Al-Marayati (April 2006).
Like the Council on American Islamic Relations, MPAC often is quick to denounce "violence against civilians," and even acts of terrorism carried out by al Qaida, but when it comes to Hamas and Hizballah, MPAC's rhetoric is more reserved. It readily acknowledges that al Qaida is a terrorist organization, but MPAC hems and haws over whether Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organizations or freedom fighters.
At an ironically titled event, Set the Truth Free: The Freedom Flotilla & the Future of Palestine, held in California days after Beutel's comments were made, speakers gathered to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip and the fallout from the flotilla. Rather than a balanced report of what occurred on May 31, MPAC's message was clear: all the blame rests with Israel.
Even before a single person took to the stage to speak, a "talking points" memo distributed at the event provided some initial insight into the mindset of the organizers. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (see here and here), MPAC described those aboard the Mavi Marmara as "aid workers," "humanitarian workers," and "peace activists." Despite reports that Hamas refused to allow in aid after the ship was searched by Israeli authorities, MPAC claimed that "Israel is willing to use deadly force to prevent much-needed humanitarian supplies from reaching the population of Gaza."
This assertion isn't surprising, considering MPAC's long-standing double standard of castigating Israel while remaining silent in the face of similar Hamas actions. And while Beutel's comments just two days earlier seemed to indicate that America would see a more moderate MPAC, Maher Hathout's subsequent remarks hammered the message home that it was Israel, and Israel alone, that is responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people.
Hathout began his address by attempting to justify acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas or Hizballah, even if indirectly:
"When occupied people breathe, they breathe resistance. This is natural, this is survival, this is honorable, this is accepted by all international bodies and international laws. Occupied people should resist occupation."
At no point did Hathout or anyone else in MPAC call on Hamas to renounce terror, revoke its anti-Semitic, blood-lusting covenant and agree to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Rather, the talking points memo urged people to call their members of Congress and the White House and tell them:
"Israel is the occupier and aggressor in this conflict, and it has inflicted tremendous pain and desperation upon the Palestinian people. There is no moral symmetry between the violence that the occupier (Israel) commits and the violence that the oppressed (the Palestinians) commit. Palestinian acts of violence must be judged in the context of Israel's decades of aggression, dispossession, and oppression of the entire Palestinian people."
While Beutel's comments were a welcome statement of condemnation of Hamas and Hizballah, they remain anomalies for the organization that would rather blame Israel for everything while giving terrorist groups a pass. Last October, MPAC's Executive Director Salam al-Marayati spoke at a J Street panel on How Jews, Christians and Muslims Can Work Together for Peace. During the discussion he explained that while he is a proponent of interreligious dialogue, there are limits to what participants should expect of the other side. As he wouldn't expect Jews to promote Muslim unity or advocacy, "you shouldn't expect me to promote Zionism."
Nobody expects al-Marayati or MPAC to promote Zionism. And the organization and its leadership are entitled to their own opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But they are not entitled to their own facts, and continuing to denounce Israel while ignoring Hamas' responsibilitiy is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive.
Obama zones out
Mark Steyn
What do Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and BP have in common? Aside from the fact that they're both Democratic Party supporters. Or they were. Gen. McChrystal is a liberal who voted for President Obama and banned Fox News from his headquarters TV. That may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone. They'll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The managers of BP were unable to vote for Mr. Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister, duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their "Beyond Petroleum" marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord John Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of "cap-and-trade." BP was the Democrats' favorite oil company. It was to Mr. Obama what TotalFinaElf was to Saddam Hussein.
But what do Gen. McChrystal's and BP's defenestrations tell us about the president of the United States? Mr. Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was "a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year." If finding Mr. Obama "not engaged" is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?
Only the other day, Sen. George LeMieux of Florida attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America's overpaid, overmanned and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something about the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States; weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their "superskimmers." Mr. Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Mr. LeMieux found the president unengaged and uninformed. "He doesn't seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers," the senator reported.
He doesn't seem to know, and he doesn't seem to care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't seem to care that he doesn't care. "It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama's foreign policy is no heart at all," Richard Cohen wrote in The Washington Post last week. "For instance, it's not clear that Obama is appalled by China's appalling human rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia. ... The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.
"This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?"
Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.
And even today, Mr. Cohen is still giving President Whoisthisguy a pass. After all, whatever he feels about "China's appalling human rights record" or "continued repression in Russia," Mr. Obama is not directly responsible for it. Whereas U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan are happening on his watch - and the border villagers killed by unmanned drones are being killed at his behest. Mr. Cohen calls the president "above all, a pragmatist," but with the best will in the world, you can't stretch the definition of "pragmatism" to mean "lack of interest."
"The ugly truth," wrote Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, "is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it."
Well, that's certainly ugly, but is it the truth? Afghanistan, you'll recall, was supposed to be the Democrats' war, the one they supposedly supported, the one from which the neocons' Iraq adventure was an unnecessary distraction. Granted the Dems' usual shell game - to avoid looking soft on national security, it helps to be in favor of some war other than the one you're opposing - candidate Obama was an especially ripe promoter. In one of the livelier moments of his campaign, he chugged down half a bottle of Geopolitical Viagra and claimed he was hot for invading Pakistan.
Then he found himself in the Oval Office, and the dime-store opportunism was no longer helpful. But, as Mr. Friedman puts it, "no one knew how to get out of it." The "pragmatist" settled for "nuance." He announced a semisurge plus a date for withdrawal of troops to begin. It's not "victory," it's not "defeat," but rather a more sophisticated melange of these two outmoded absolutes: If you need a word, "quagmire" would seem to cover it.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and the Pakistanis on the one hand and Britain and the other American allies heading for the checkout on the other all seem to have grasped the essentials of the message, even if Mr. Friedman and the other media Obammyboppers never quite did. Mr. Karzai is now talking to Islamabad about an accommodation that would see the most viscerally anti-American elements of the Taliban back in Kabul as part of a power-sharing regime. At the height of the shrillest shrieking about the Iraqi "quagmire," was there ever any talk of hard-core Saddamite Baathists returning to government in Baghdad?
To return to Mr. Cohen's question: "Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?" Well, he's a guy who was wafted ever upward from the Harvard Law Review to the state legislature to the U.S. Senate without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. "Who is this guy?" Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-40s with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. "What are his core beliefs?" It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It's the "nothing else" that the likes of Mr. Cohen are belatedly noticing.
Wasn't he kind of unengaged by the health care debate? That's why, for all his speeches, he could never quite articulate a rationale for it. In the end, he was happy to leave it to the Democratic Congress and, when his powers of persuasion failed, let them ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.
Likewise, on Afghanistan, his attitude seems to be "I don't want to hear about it." Unmanned drones take care of a lot of that, for a while. So do his courtiers in the media. Did all those hopey-changers realize that Mr. Obama's war would be run by George W. Bush's defense secretary and general? Hey, never mind: Moveon.org has quietly disappeared its celebrated "General Betray-us" ad from its website. Cindy Sheehan, the supposed conscience of the nation when she was railing against Mr. Bush from the front pages, is an irrelevant kook unworthy of coverage when she protests Mr. Obama. Why, a cynic might almost think the "antiwar" movement was really an anti-Bush movement and the protesters really don't care about dead foreigners, after all. The more things "change you can believe in," the more they stay the same.
Except in one respect. There is a big hole where our strategy should be. It's hard to fight a war without war aims, and in the end, they can only come from the top. It took the oil spill to alert Americans to the unengaged president. From Moscow to Tehran to the caves of Waziristan, our enemies got the message a lot earlier - and long ago figured out the rules of unengagement.
Mark Steyn is author of the New York Times best-seller "America Alone" (Regnery, 2006).
What do Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and BP have in common? Aside from the fact that they're both Democratic Party supporters. Or they were. Gen. McChrystal is a liberal who voted for President Obama and banned Fox News from his headquarters TV. That may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone. They'll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The managers of BP were unable to vote for Mr. Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister, duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their "Beyond Petroleum" marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord John Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of "cap-and-trade." BP was the Democrats' favorite oil company. It was to Mr. Obama what TotalFinaElf was to Saddam Hussein.
But what do Gen. McChrystal's and BP's defenestrations tell us about the president of the United States? Mr. Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was "a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year." If finding Mr. Obama "not engaged" is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?
Only the other day, Sen. George LeMieux of Florida attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America's overpaid, overmanned and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something about the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States; weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their "superskimmers." Mr. Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Mr. LeMieux found the president unengaged and uninformed. "He doesn't seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers," the senator reported.
He doesn't seem to know, and he doesn't seem to care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't seem to care that he doesn't care. "It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama's foreign policy is no heart at all," Richard Cohen wrote in The Washington Post last week. "For instance, it's not clear that Obama is appalled by China's appalling human rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia. ... The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.
"This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?"
Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.
And even today, Mr. Cohen is still giving President Whoisthisguy a pass. After all, whatever he feels about "China's appalling human rights record" or "continued repression in Russia," Mr. Obama is not directly responsible for it. Whereas U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan are happening on his watch - and the border villagers killed by unmanned drones are being killed at his behest. Mr. Cohen calls the president "above all, a pragmatist," but with the best will in the world, you can't stretch the definition of "pragmatism" to mean "lack of interest."
"The ugly truth," wrote Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, "is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it."
Well, that's certainly ugly, but is it the truth? Afghanistan, you'll recall, was supposed to be the Democrats' war, the one they supposedly supported, the one from which the neocons' Iraq adventure was an unnecessary distraction. Granted the Dems' usual shell game - to avoid looking soft on national security, it helps to be in favor of some war other than the one you're opposing - candidate Obama was an especially ripe promoter. In one of the livelier moments of his campaign, he chugged down half a bottle of Geopolitical Viagra and claimed he was hot for invading Pakistan.
Then he found himself in the Oval Office, and the dime-store opportunism was no longer helpful. But, as Mr. Friedman puts it, "no one knew how to get out of it." The "pragmatist" settled for "nuance." He announced a semisurge plus a date for withdrawal of troops to begin. It's not "victory," it's not "defeat," but rather a more sophisticated melange of these two outmoded absolutes: If you need a word, "quagmire" would seem to cover it.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and the Pakistanis on the one hand and Britain and the other American allies heading for the checkout on the other all seem to have grasped the essentials of the message, even if Mr. Friedman and the other media Obammyboppers never quite did. Mr. Karzai is now talking to Islamabad about an accommodation that would see the most viscerally anti-American elements of the Taliban back in Kabul as part of a power-sharing regime. At the height of the shrillest shrieking about the Iraqi "quagmire," was there ever any talk of hard-core Saddamite Baathists returning to government in Baghdad?
To return to Mr. Cohen's question: "Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?" Well, he's a guy who was wafted ever upward from the Harvard Law Review to the state legislature to the U.S. Senate without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. "Who is this guy?" Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-40s with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. "What are his core beliefs?" It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It's the "nothing else" that the likes of Mr. Cohen are belatedly noticing.
Wasn't he kind of unengaged by the health care debate? That's why, for all his speeches, he could never quite articulate a rationale for it. In the end, he was happy to leave it to the Democratic Congress and, when his powers of persuasion failed, let them ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.
Likewise, on Afghanistan, his attitude seems to be "I don't want to hear about it." Unmanned drones take care of a lot of that, for a while. So do his courtiers in the media. Did all those hopey-changers realize that Mr. Obama's war would be run by George W. Bush's defense secretary and general? Hey, never mind: Moveon.org has quietly disappeared its celebrated "General Betray-us" ad from its website. Cindy Sheehan, the supposed conscience of the nation when she was railing against Mr. Bush from the front pages, is an irrelevant kook unworthy of coverage when she protests Mr. Obama. Why, a cynic might almost think the "antiwar" movement was really an anti-Bush movement and the protesters really don't care about dead foreigners, after all. The more things "change you can believe in," the more they stay the same.
Except in one respect. There is a big hole where our strategy should be. It's hard to fight a war without war aims, and in the end, they can only come from the top. It took the oil spill to alert Americans to the unengaged president. From Moscow to Tehran to the caves of Waziristan, our enemies got the message a lot earlier - and long ago figured out the rules of unengagement.
Mark Steyn is author of the New York Times best-seller "America Alone" (Regnery, 2006).
Cracking the Code of Civilization
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/06/cracking-code-of-civilization.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29
Civilization is a code, and while we easily fall into the habit of assuming that civilized norms are universal, they are limited to the civilized. Kindness, humility and reaching out to the enemy are valid behaviors only when they are likely to be reciprocated. Practicing that code toward nations and cultures which markedly refuse to be civilized, is the same thing as painting a target on your own back. Because civilized codes of conduct only work when they are reciprocal. They allow us to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves and permit us to find common ground based on underlying principles. But to those who choose to be outside the code, such concessions are a weakness. Not a sign of moral strength, but physical cowardice. To the Muslim who has been raised on the tales of the Koranic conquests of Mohammed and his successors, only force represents moral truth. In the Koran, the infidels negotiate in good faith, while Muslims negotiate in bad faith. That is because Islam was meant to supersede the old tribal codes with a superior moral system, based not on honor, but on submission to Allah and Mohammed.
What we might consider foul treachery, was to the Muslim only a means to an end. Because moral behavior no longer had anything to do with trust, only with forcing more victims to submit to Islam. Negotiating in good faith was itself a symptom of a lack of faith. For the true Muslim could never honestly accept any enduring compromise with an infidel that would lessen the temporal power of Islam. He could only do so as a stratagem for weakening the infidel. To do otherwise would be blasphemy and heresy, two charges still commonly raised in the Muslim world against their own leaders who make even the appearance of honest negotiations with Western leaders. Meanwhile the willingness of the infidels to negotiate in good faith, in the Muslim worldview only demonstrated their lack of faith.
Paradoxically the willingness to negotiate in bad faith, to betray and assassinate shows a commitment to something greater. While negotiating in good faith and treating your enemy kindly shows a lack of confidence and principles. This attitude is not unique to Muslim fanatics, it is just as ubiquitous the left of our own cities, which considers radicalism and ruthless terrorism the mark of a true revolutionary conscience. From Lenin to Mao to Che, Communists ridiculed and murdered those who were not willing to be as ruthlessly amoral as them. The Western left has long since absorbed that same attitude, treating political activism as a kind of fevered passion that does not answer to any moral code. From the Paris Commune to the Baader Meinhof Brigade. From the Chicago Anarchists to the Chicago Seven. From the Black Panthers to the PLO. The left admires most those who are willing to kill or die, as evidence of their sincerity.
And such people, whether they are Hamas members in Gaza or the descendants of the Mayflower in Berkeley, are savages. Not savages by race, but savages by choice. They know what civilization is. They have often benefited from it. But they despise it as weak and unprincipled. To them the civilized code is a sign of the cowardice of the infidel or the bourgeois, who want to make limited concessions in order to protect their possessions and privileges. To them civilization is the compact of materialism over spirituality for the Muslim and passionate political engagement for the leftist. And they are entirely willing to exploit it, but they have no interest in honoring it.
When we treat savages as civilized, we let ourselves be vulnerable by pretending that people who do not share our code, are nevertheless entitled to its privileges. But civilization can only be a reciprocal code, or it risks being overrun by the barbarians at the gate. Because civilization only has value if membership has its privileges. If one can be a savage and still benefit from being treated according to civilized codes-- then civilization becomes a mug's game. Such a conception of civilization cannot and will not last.
Imagine if taxes were done on the honor system. Or if stores were equally willing to extend credit to thieves as to valued customers. Very soon, honesty and decency would become endangered traits. Instead those who ripped off the system would thrive, while those with integrity would suffer. And that is exactly the consequence of extending the benefit of civilized codes to savages. Civilization itself becomes a devalued and worthless commodity.
A savage can be reformed only by providing him with the incentive to be civilized. That requires a two tiered system. One for those who follow civilized codes. And one for those who do not. The former are protected by mutual agreements. The latter have no protection whatsoever. They are treated as they treat others. They have no rights, but those which they are willing to permit to others. If they are willing to live and let live, so much the better. If they are not, then so much the worse for them. Let them not hide behind words or excuses, because only civilized people may be judged by their words-- savages can only be judged by their deeds.
What is the savage then? He is not a savage because he is illiterate or uneducated. He may have the finest education that civilization has to offer. The savage may be wealthy or poor, but in the civilized world he is more likely to be wealthy. He may be of any race and skin color. These things do not matter. Only this does.
The savage seeks power to rule over others. He lives by no true laws, instead laws for him are means of achieving his goals. His word is worthless, as there is nothing he will not betray for his greater aims. He may believe in all sorts of things, but there is one thing he does not believe in, that others have the same rights that he does. Therefore he cannot be a citizen of any civilized nation. Alone he is a wolf seeking prey. When he finds a pack, then he sets to sniffing around the walls of the city, he looks for a way to bring down the city and all within it.
Mohammed, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Hassan al Banna Bill Ayers, Charles Manson, Eldridge Cleaver, Yasser Arafat, Idi Amin, Lori Berenson, Abu Hamza and so many others-- all savages. And when the savage stands in the light of civilization, his only impulse is to burn it all down. The savage has cracked the code of civilization and to allow him to exploit it, is to let the civilized world burn.
A PR Fiasco In the Making?
Honest Reporting
Why is the Daily Telegraph recycling photos of suffering Gazans? Take a good look at the image used in this update.This photo was originally taken in January, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead. Is the Telegraph recycling photos because Gaza isn't really suffering as much as they'd like you to believe?
Comment: Again, the MSM fabricates events and circumstances. This is being done ahead of the next Flotilla arrival to "gin up" the anger of the readers against Israel. The problem is we have so much data demonstrating just the opposite exists.Never allow the facts to get in the way of the truth-but, of course, this has never mattered for a certain element of our society.
Calling the Ground Zero imam's bluff
Jihad Watch
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf wants us to believe that he is moderate, tolerant, peaceful, the whole nine yards. Pay no attention to the lies, the deceptions, the advocacy for Sharia, the blaming America for 9/11 -- no, none of it matters. He is for peace. He is for tolerance. He is for understanding. And so now, in a brilliant open letter, Pamela Geller calls his bluff. Taking his self-definition at face value, she calls on him to act upon it -- by canceling plans for an Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
"Dear Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan...............A Heartfelt Plea," by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, June 27:
Dear Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan,
The remains of another seventy-two people were discovered on Friday not far from where you plan to build a thirteen-story Islamic center and mosque. Here we are, close to ten years after the largest jihadist attack ever to take place on American soil, and bodies, corpses, are still being recovered. Who knows how many body parts were found in the Burlington Coat Factory building when the landing gear crashed through all five floors? Thousands were never recovered. Their cemetery, their burial ground, is the area in and around Ground Zero.
Of course, as one of the leaders of the opposition to the painful and strangely thoughtless "Cordoba Initiative," my group SIOA will be pursuing legal avenues to stop or at least dramatically slow down the building of this mosque on the site that many consider to be a war memorial, while also staging mega-protests and sit-ins if and when construction begins, etc. But must it come to that?
You and I are New Yorkers. We are Americans, first. You, too, felt the devastating pain and anguish when the military arm of Islam (al qaeda) unleashed its attack on America on September 11th. The gaping hole at Ground Zero is a constant reminder of that terrible war.
Must we go legal? Must we stage more rallies with tens of thousands of Americans opposing the mosque? Can we not, as human beings, and in the interest of building bridges, mutual understanding and respect, implore you to reconsider your plans? I am sure your motivation to build bridges was a good one. But as you can see, it has had the opposite effect. The public outcry of millions of Americans make plain the wound that has been reopened and the terrible pain this is causing for families, for patriots, for Muslims of conscience. It is unbearable. This surely was not your intent.
Interfaith dialogue is a two-way street. I believe we should all be sensitive to each other. I don't see Muslims separately or apart, I see Americans. Period. Americans who love this country, and don't share the idea of "pure Islam" or "original" Islam that is found in Islamic countries. In many of the emails I receive, many Muslims understand the pain "Cordoba" inflicts -- not just the idea but the name itself (evoking Islamic conquest over the West).
I call upon your conscience, your goodness, your love of America, to move you to reconsider. More rallies will be staged -- tens of thousands will show. People might get hurt in a sit-in trying to stop the ground breaking of a mosque looking down on Ground Zero. Why? In the interest of building bridges?
Can we talk about this? Can we discuss this? Can the building have a church and a synagogue as well as a mosque? Or perhaps no mosque at all -- much the way community centers like the 92nd Street Y or the YWCA, to which you have compared your plan, don't have churches or synagogues.
As a man of the clergy, you must understand the pain this is causing for the victims who mourn their dead, for Americans who mourn their country's losses ........ You can not have wanted to create such sorrow.
What can we do to get you to withdraw this plan? Should we try to raise the money to release you from this tragic mistake? How can we help you? We want to work with you and do the right thing, build bridges and show each other mutual understanding and mutual respect. As a religious man, you would never mean to cause such overwhelming sadness and grief.
Imam Rauf, please withdraw this plan and show the world real understanding and kindness and empathy.
Sincerely yours,
Pamela Geller
Please sign this appeal to the Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan. Let them hear us.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf wants us to believe that he is moderate, tolerant, peaceful, the whole nine yards. Pay no attention to the lies, the deceptions, the advocacy for Sharia, the blaming America for 9/11 -- no, none of it matters. He is for peace. He is for tolerance. He is for understanding. And so now, in a brilliant open letter, Pamela Geller calls his bluff. Taking his self-definition at face value, she calls on him to act upon it -- by canceling plans for an Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
"Dear Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan...............A Heartfelt Plea," by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, June 27:
Dear Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan,
The remains of another seventy-two people were discovered on Friday not far from where you plan to build a thirteen-story Islamic center and mosque. Here we are, close to ten years after the largest jihadist attack ever to take place on American soil, and bodies, corpses, are still being recovered. Who knows how many body parts were found in the Burlington Coat Factory building when the landing gear crashed through all five floors? Thousands were never recovered. Their cemetery, their burial ground, is the area in and around Ground Zero.
Of course, as one of the leaders of the opposition to the painful and strangely thoughtless "Cordoba Initiative," my group SIOA will be pursuing legal avenues to stop or at least dramatically slow down the building of this mosque on the site that many consider to be a war memorial, while also staging mega-protests and sit-ins if and when construction begins, etc. But must it come to that?
You and I are New Yorkers. We are Americans, first. You, too, felt the devastating pain and anguish when the military arm of Islam (al qaeda) unleashed its attack on America on September 11th. The gaping hole at Ground Zero is a constant reminder of that terrible war.
Must we go legal? Must we stage more rallies with tens of thousands of Americans opposing the mosque? Can we not, as human beings, and in the interest of building bridges, mutual understanding and respect, implore you to reconsider your plans? I am sure your motivation to build bridges was a good one. But as you can see, it has had the opposite effect. The public outcry of millions of Americans make plain the wound that has been reopened and the terrible pain this is causing for families, for patriots, for Muslims of conscience. It is unbearable. This surely was not your intent.
Interfaith dialogue is a two-way street. I believe we should all be sensitive to each other. I don't see Muslims separately or apart, I see Americans. Period. Americans who love this country, and don't share the idea of "pure Islam" or "original" Islam that is found in Islamic countries. In many of the emails I receive, many Muslims understand the pain "Cordoba" inflicts -- not just the idea but the name itself (evoking Islamic conquest over the West).
I call upon your conscience, your goodness, your love of America, to move you to reconsider. More rallies will be staged -- tens of thousands will show. People might get hurt in a sit-in trying to stop the ground breaking of a mosque looking down on Ground Zero. Why? In the interest of building bridges?
Can we talk about this? Can we discuss this? Can the building have a church and a synagogue as well as a mosque? Or perhaps no mosque at all -- much the way community centers like the 92nd Street Y or the YWCA, to which you have compared your plan, don't have churches or synagogues.
As a man of the clergy, you must understand the pain this is causing for the victims who mourn their dead, for Americans who mourn their country's losses ........ You can not have wanted to create such sorrow.
What can we do to get you to withdraw this plan? Should we try to raise the money to release you from this tragic mistake? How can we help you? We want to work with you and do the right thing, build bridges and show each other mutual understanding and mutual respect. As a religious man, you would never mean to cause such overwhelming sadness and grief.
Imam Rauf, please withdraw this plan and show the world real understanding and kindness and empathy.
Sincerely yours,
Pamela Geller
Please sign this appeal to the Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan. Let them hear us.
Gaza flotilla raid: Media presentation of Israeli video evidence
Just Journalism
The UK liberal media under-reported Israeli video evidence depicting flotilla passengers violently attacking Israeli soldiers London, 28 June 2010 – The Guardian and The Independent seriously under-reported and downplayed the Israel Defense Forces video footage, vividly depicting passengers on board the Mavi Marmara boat attacking Israeli commandos as they boarded the vessel last month in the Gaza flotilla incident.
The report, published today by Just Journalism, entitled, ‘Gaza flotilla raid: Media presentation of Israeli video evidence,’ is a comprehensive a review of coverage of the events in the five UK broadsheets – The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times - in the week following the raid.
The study shows a stark contrast between the publications which awarded due prominence to the film and incorporated its contents into their overarching narrative of events, and those which excluded it and belittled its significance, often dismissing it as public relations material.
The findings raise serious questions about the willingness on the parts of The Guardian and The Independent to deal appropriately with evidence which supports Israel’s side of a contested story. Given the high profile given by these same publications to stories involving serious allegations of wrongdoing against Israel, this is particularly noteworthy.
Executive Director of Just Journalism, Michael Weiss, said:
“The most show-stopping evidence to have emerged within hours of the deadly confrontation on board the Mavi Marmara was IDF video footage showing the passengers assaulting the Israeli commandos with crude but effective weapons. You’d think that such evidence would have been unignorable as forensic proof of what really happened on the night of May 31 but, as Just Journalism’s report clearly shows, The Guardian and Independent did their utmost to prove that assumption wrong.”
Key findings of the report:
• The Guardian and The Independent severely under-reported the IDF footage showing Israeli commandos coming under sustained attack from Mavi Marmara passengers
• The Guardian and The Independent presented Israel’s key evidence as public relations material and refused to incorporate it into their broader narratives on the event
• The Times and The Daily Telegraph gave the footage due prominence from the outset of reporting and treated it as a natural counter-point to passengers’ claims
• The Financial Times gave the footage due prominence but often treated it as public relations material
Comment: Part of PR for Israel is to hold all media accountable for their work. Obviously several great groups do this, e.g., Honest Reporting, CAMERA, PRIMER CT, and many others. We, in the blogosphere, need to understand that we also have a responsibility to carry on this critical assignment. The MSM abdicated this responsibility long ago-without a viable media any democracy will eventually fall and thus fail. Let us pick up the mantle of accountability!
The UK liberal media under-reported Israeli video evidence depicting flotilla passengers violently attacking Israeli soldiers London, 28 June 2010 – The Guardian and The Independent seriously under-reported and downplayed the Israel Defense Forces video footage, vividly depicting passengers on board the Mavi Marmara boat attacking Israeli commandos as they boarded the vessel last month in the Gaza flotilla incident.
The report, published today by Just Journalism, entitled, ‘Gaza flotilla raid: Media presentation of Israeli video evidence,’ is a comprehensive a review of coverage of the events in the five UK broadsheets – The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times - in the week following the raid.
The study shows a stark contrast between the publications which awarded due prominence to the film and incorporated its contents into their overarching narrative of events, and those which excluded it and belittled its significance, often dismissing it as public relations material.
The findings raise serious questions about the willingness on the parts of The Guardian and The Independent to deal appropriately with evidence which supports Israel’s side of a contested story. Given the high profile given by these same publications to stories involving serious allegations of wrongdoing against Israel, this is particularly noteworthy.
Executive Director of Just Journalism, Michael Weiss, said:
“The most show-stopping evidence to have emerged within hours of the deadly confrontation on board the Mavi Marmara was IDF video footage showing the passengers assaulting the Israeli commandos with crude but effective weapons. You’d think that such evidence would have been unignorable as forensic proof of what really happened on the night of May 31 but, as Just Journalism’s report clearly shows, The Guardian and Independent did their utmost to prove that assumption wrong.”
Key findings of the report:
• The Guardian and The Independent severely under-reported the IDF footage showing Israeli commandos coming under sustained attack from Mavi Marmara passengers
• The Guardian and The Independent presented Israel’s key evidence as public relations material and refused to incorporate it into their broader narratives on the event
• The Times and The Daily Telegraph gave the footage due prominence from the outset of reporting and treated it as a natural counter-point to passengers’ claims
• The Financial Times gave the footage due prominence but often treated it as public relations material
Comment: Part of PR for Israel is to hold all media accountable for their work. Obviously several great groups do this, e.g., Honest Reporting, CAMERA, PRIMER CT, and many others. We, in the blogosphere, need to understand that we also have a responsibility to carry on this critical assignment. The MSM abdicated this responsibility long ago-without a viable media any democracy will eventually fall and thus fail. Let us pick up the mantle of accountability!
Reuters' lying caption-again!
Elder of Ziyon
Over the weekend, Gazans were dismayed about the shutdown of the Gaza power plant. Hamas and Fatah pointed fingers at each other about this, and so far the plant is still not on line. Israel is willing to send the fuel needed but no one is paying for it.
So, Gazans protested the shutdown on Friday night. From Getty Images: Palestinian girls hold candles during a march in protest against the lack of fuel to Gaza's power station, and the continued power outages in the city, on June 25, 2010 in Gaza City.
Reuters has pictures of the very same girls at the very same protest - but it represents the protest in far different terms:
Palestinian children hold candles during a protest in Gaza City calling for an end to Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip June 25, 2010.
Of course, Reuters cannot fathom that any Palestinian Arab protest would be against anyone besides Israel. Besides, Reuters has spent years making Israel look as evil as possible while minimizing Hamas and Fatah crimes against their own people; why dilute the narrative with facts?
Is a military strike on Iran imminent? The G8 thinks Israel will do it
Robin Shepherd
Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, is an unconventional politician and he is difficult to predict. But even Berlusconi is surely too well versed in the customs of international diplomacy to make predictions about Israel attacking Iran without very good grounds for doing so. On the sidelines of the G8* summit in Canada on Saturday he said the following:
“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react pre-emptively.” (My italics) Unless Berlusconi is being completely irresponsible, this sounds like a warning that something may be imminent. It is also worth noting that Berlusconi’s remarks came the day before CIA director Leon Panetta said Iran probably has enough uranium to build two nuclear weapons within the next two years.
It is highly unlikely that Panetta would have gone public on such a sensitive issue for no good reason. The same goes for Berlusconi. So, my guess as to what is going on is as follows: Either Israel is about to attack Iran and all of this is designed to prepare the world for what is coming; Or, this is a last ditch attempt to frighten the Iranians into compliance by explicitly putting the imminent use of force on the table.
Obviously, I have no inside track on what is going on. But you don’t need a sixth sense to recognise that something significant is afoot.
* The G8 is made up of the following countries: The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada.
Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, is an unconventional politician and he is difficult to predict. But even Berlusconi is surely too well versed in the customs of international diplomacy to make predictions about Israel attacking Iran without very good grounds for doing so. On the sidelines of the G8* summit in Canada on Saturday he said the following:
“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react pre-emptively.” (My italics) Unless Berlusconi is being completely irresponsible, this sounds like a warning that something may be imminent. It is also worth noting that Berlusconi’s remarks came the day before CIA director Leon Panetta said Iran probably has enough uranium to build two nuclear weapons within the next two years.
It is highly unlikely that Panetta would have gone public on such a sensitive issue for no good reason. The same goes for Berlusconi. So, my guess as to what is going on is as follows: Either Israel is about to attack Iran and all of this is designed to prepare the world for what is coming; Or, this is a last ditch attempt to frighten the Iranians into compliance by explicitly putting the imminent use of force on the table.
Obviously, I have no inside track on what is going on. But you don’t need a sixth sense to recognise that something significant is afoot.
* The G8 is made up of the following countries: The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada.
Surreptitious Ways of Striking at Jews -- An Old Story
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/
Many roads go to Rome and to Jerusalem for that matter.
One way to get to Jerusalem is to go through "non-governmental organizations" --NGOs-- ostensibly popular, independent grass roots orgs. Maybe like the Free Gaza Movement. But Free Gaza is actually astroturf, fake grass roots. It was created by Fenton Communications with Qatari money. Qatar is one of those super-rich per capita Arab emirates on the Persian Gulf. Funny thing is though that the so-called "Left" which poses as anti-capitalist, doesn't mind super-rich capitalists as long as they're Arabs. And if super-rich Arabs put up money for their pet anti-Israel projects [which both rich Arabs and Judeophobic Westerners are fond of], then that's OK.
Don't forget that "Free Gaza" [they don't want to free the folks of Gaza from Hamas to be sure] teamed up with the present authoritarian regime of Erdogan. They don't mind Erdogan's war against the Kurdish insurgents in southeastern Turkey [involving incursions into northern Iraq], nor his continued denial of Ottoman Turkey's genocide of Armenians, nor Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus which led to ethnic cleansing of Greeks from the occupation zone [later paralleled by ethnic cleansing of ethnic Turks from the southern part of the island, the still independent Republic of Cyprus]. We may point out here parenthetically that some occupations are viewed more favorably than others. Just as "Free Gaza" couldn't care less about
northern Cyprus being occupied, few in the West cared that Germany, Austria and Japan were occupied after WW 2 --and American troops are still in Germany and Japan, while Russia annexed huge areas of Japan and part of Germany and part of Finland. On the other hand, Israel is falsely accused of "occupying" parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, assigned by the League of Nations in 1922 to the Jewish National Home. But why go on with Western hypocrisy?
A semi-official branch of the US Govt, the Woodrow Wilson Center in DC, just last week gave an award to Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who recently called the Israeli boarding and seizure of the blockade-running Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, "Our 9/11." That hyperbole was worthy of an Arab, whom Turks often look down on. It is significant that the Wilson Center is headed by Lee Hamilton, a stuffed shirt white guy who is one of Obama's mentors [see previous post at bottom]. Hamilton praised Davutoglu. He "personifies the attributes we seek to honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center," Hamilton claimed. Just incidentally, Hamilton thereby contradicted the silly words of his spokeswoman who claimed that the award was not an "endorsement" of the Turkish FM. Now we have to wonder if the Wilson Center award to the Turkish FM was the White House's way of encouraging Turkey's anti-Israel policy, including the thugs on the Mavi Marmara ship. This is because, as said, Hamilton is one of Obama's mentors and John Brennan, Obama's so-called "counterterrorism czar" [pro-terrorism czar?], has a soft spot in his heart for both Hamas and Hizbullah.
This use of surreptitious methods, of subterfuges, against Jews is an unfortunate part of Jewish history. It was common in the Russian tsarist empire more than 100 years ago. These methods
went so far as organizing pogrom mobs to attack Jews, including a nasty group of thugs called the Tshernotentsy, the Black Hundreds. Here is the historian Solomon Grayzel:
For the six million Jews in the Russian empire, the decade and a half before World War I was a period of oppression and heroism. Russia was in the midst of its long overdue struggle for general emancipation . . . the Jews naturally aligned themselves with the forces of liberalism. The tottering czarist system and its reactionary supporters resorted to the old game of identifying the revolutionaries with the Jews and attempting to turn attention away from the existing abuses by stirring up anti-Jewish feeling. A wave of pogroms swept over Russia. The massacre in Kishineff [now Chisinau in Moldova] at Easter 1903 saw dozens killed, hundreds wounded, and thousands of homes sacked. The cry of horror which went up all over the civilized world and among the liberal elements in Russia itself did not stop the government from instigating similar pogroms in the city of Homel and elsewhere. The only police interference was with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves. [Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS 1959), pp 708-709]
Does that last sentence sound familiar? The Russian police interfered "with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves." How about the policy of the EU, UK, UN, OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], Turkey and others to prevent Israel from defending the Jews of Sderot and the rest of the south of Israel? How about all that sympathy for the trials and travails of a territory ruled by Nazi-like Muslim terrorists, the Hamas? The Hamas Charter calls for murdering all the Jews at Judgment Day. The noble Western states want the Hamas to have all the concrete and steel that it needs to build bigger and better underground bunkers so the Hamas leaders will have somewhere to hide the next time that they provoke Israel with hundreds of missiles.
Now are there any other parallels between then and now? Yes, Virginia, there are other parallels. Then there was the Mendel Beilis case. Beilis was a Jew accused in Kiev of murdering a non-Jewish boy [a prefiguration of Muhammad al-Durah]. The case became a blood libel with the Tsarist govt pressing for conviction of Beilis, hoping to arouse a pogrom atmosphere [see Grayzel, pp 709-710]. Fortunately, Beilis was defended by some of the best, most respected Russian attorneys. He was acquitted in a jury trial by the jury. The real murderer's of the boy who had disappeared were found.
What today is comparable to the Beilis case? First, the murdered boy has a parallel in young Muhammad al-Durah. But whereas the boy in Kiev had in fact been murdered by known criminals, al-Durah was not killed at the time and place alleged by France2's Charles Enderlin at the end of September 2000, in a notorious, very short film clip released by France2 free of charge to TV broadcasters throughout the world at that time. As we can see in the parts of the film taken by the same cameraman on that same day of al-Durah but not released to TV, little al-Durah was not killed and his death does not appear in the very short film clip meant to indict and convict Israel in a new blood libel, updated for the new century. A French court in Paris ordered Enderlin to produce the full, uncut film in court. He did not bring the full film but what he did bring was enough to overrule his accusation of libel against a media critic who had argued that the al-Durah affair was a hoax [an argument partly based on the reports of senior French journalists who had seen the full film or most of what was not shown on TV back in 2000]. Hence, today we don't know whether al-Durah is dead or alive , although in the parts of the film shown in court little Muhammad is shown holding a red cloth that might seem to be blood if you see it only for a few seconds.
Any other parallels? At least one, a host of false accusations are made against Israel. Some focus on alleged Israeli crimes against the Turkish jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara [one of them being an American citizen whose parents brought him to Turkey when he was 2 years old and never visited America afterwards] who are described as "peace activists" by the trained minions of Fenton Communications. The active Judeophobes in the United States show much more "sympathy" for that Turk of American birth than for the three thousand Americans murdered by jihadist fanatics not much different from the goons on the Mavi Marmara.
Then too we have the Goldstone "Fact Finding Mission" report prepared by the staff of the UN"human rights council" which is subject to the OIC, the most powerful bloc in the UN. The "goldstone report" was meant to be a trial and conviction in the court of public opinion worldwide of Israel and the Jews. Something like the Beilis trial. Another set of false charges as in the Beilis case.
We note that historian Solomon Grayzel was somewhat naive. He didn't know the "liberals" of today. Most of the most outspoken "liberals" around today are fascist rabble rousers and demagogures.
Many roads go to Rome and to Jerusalem for that matter.
One way to get to Jerusalem is to go through "non-governmental organizations" --NGOs-- ostensibly popular, independent grass roots orgs. Maybe like the Free Gaza Movement. But Free Gaza is actually astroturf, fake grass roots. It was created by Fenton Communications with Qatari money. Qatar is one of those super-rich per capita Arab emirates on the Persian Gulf. Funny thing is though that the so-called "Left" which poses as anti-capitalist, doesn't mind super-rich capitalists as long as they're Arabs. And if super-rich Arabs put up money for their pet anti-Israel projects [which both rich Arabs and Judeophobic Westerners are fond of], then that's OK.
Don't forget that "Free Gaza" [they don't want to free the folks of Gaza from Hamas to be sure] teamed up with the present authoritarian regime of Erdogan. They don't mind Erdogan's war against the Kurdish insurgents in southeastern Turkey [involving incursions into northern Iraq], nor his continued denial of Ottoman Turkey's genocide of Armenians, nor Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus which led to ethnic cleansing of Greeks from the occupation zone [later paralleled by ethnic cleansing of ethnic Turks from the southern part of the island, the still independent Republic of Cyprus]. We may point out here parenthetically that some occupations are viewed more favorably than others. Just as "Free Gaza" couldn't care less about
northern Cyprus being occupied, few in the West cared that Germany, Austria and Japan were occupied after WW 2 --and American troops are still in Germany and Japan, while Russia annexed huge areas of Japan and part of Germany and part of Finland. On the other hand, Israel is falsely accused of "occupying" parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, assigned by the League of Nations in 1922 to the Jewish National Home. But why go on with Western hypocrisy?
A semi-official branch of the US Govt, the Woodrow Wilson Center in DC, just last week gave an award to Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who recently called the Israeli boarding and seizure of the blockade-running Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, "Our 9/11." That hyperbole was worthy of an Arab, whom Turks often look down on. It is significant that the Wilson Center is headed by Lee Hamilton, a stuffed shirt white guy who is one of Obama's mentors [see previous post at bottom]. Hamilton praised Davutoglu. He "personifies the attributes we seek to honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center," Hamilton claimed. Just incidentally, Hamilton thereby contradicted the silly words of his spokeswoman who claimed that the award was not an "endorsement" of the Turkish FM. Now we have to wonder if the Wilson Center award to the Turkish FM was the White House's way of encouraging Turkey's anti-Israel policy, including the thugs on the Mavi Marmara ship. This is because, as said, Hamilton is one of Obama's mentors and John Brennan, Obama's so-called "counterterrorism czar" [pro-terrorism czar?], has a soft spot in his heart for both Hamas and Hizbullah.
This use of surreptitious methods, of subterfuges, against Jews is an unfortunate part of Jewish history. It was common in the Russian tsarist empire more than 100 years ago. These methods
went so far as organizing pogrom mobs to attack Jews, including a nasty group of thugs called the Tshernotentsy, the Black Hundreds. Here is the historian Solomon Grayzel:
For the six million Jews in the Russian empire, the decade and a half before World War I was a period of oppression and heroism. Russia was in the midst of its long overdue struggle for general emancipation . . . the Jews naturally aligned themselves with the forces of liberalism. The tottering czarist system and its reactionary supporters resorted to the old game of identifying the revolutionaries with the Jews and attempting to turn attention away from the existing abuses by stirring up anti-Jewish feeling. A wave of pogroms swept over Russia. The massacre in Kishineff [now Chisinau in Moldova] at Easter 1903 saw dozens killed, hundreds wounded, and thousands of homes sacked. The cry of horror which went up all over the civilized world and among the liberal elements in Russia itself did not stop the government from instigating similar pogroms in the city of Homel and elsewhere. The only police interference was with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves. [Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS 1959), pp 708-709]
Does that last sentence sound familiar? The Russian police interfered "with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves." How about the policy of the EU, UK, UN, OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], Turkey and others to prevent Israel from defending the Jews of Sderot and the rest of the south of Israel? How about all that sympathy for the trials and travails of a territory ruled by Nazi-like Muslim terrorists, the Hamas? The Hamas Charter calls for murdering all the Jews at Judgment Day. The noble Western states want the Hamas to have all the concrete and steel that it needs to build bigger and better underground bunkers so the Hamas leaders will have somewhere to hide the next time that they provoke Israel with hundreds of missiles.
Now are there any other parallels between then and now? Yes, Virginia, there are other parallels. Then there was the Mendel Beilis case. Beilis was a Jew accused in Kiev of murdering a non-Jewish boy [a prefiguration of Muhammad al-Durah]. The case became a blood libel with the Tsarist govt pressing for conviction of Beilis, hoping to arouse a pogrom atmosphere [see Grayzel, pp 709-710]. Fortunately, Beilis was defended by some of the best, most respected Russian attorneys. He was acquitted in a jury trial by the jury. The real murderer's of the boy who had disappeared were found.
What today is comparable to the Beilis case? First, the murdered boy has a parallel in young Muhammad al-Durah. But whereas the boy in Kiev had in fact been murdered by known criminals, al-Durah was not killed at the time and place alleged by France2's Charles Enderlin at the end of September 2000, in a notorious, very short film clip released by France2 free of charge to TV broadcasters throughout the world at that time. As we can see in the parts of the film taken by the same cameraman on that same day of al-Durah but not released to TV, little al-Durah was not killed and his death does not appear in the very short film clip meant to indict and convict Israel in a new blood libel, updated for the new century. A French court in Paris ordered Enderlin to produce the full, uncut film in court. He did not bring the full film but what he did bring was enough to overrule his accusation of libel against a media critic who had argued that the al-Durah affair was a hoax [an argument partly based on the reports of senior French journalists who had seen the full film or most of what was not shown on TV back in 2000]. Hence, today we don't know whether al-Durah is dead or alive , although in the parts of the film shown in court little Muhammad is shown holding a red cloth that might seem to be blood if you see it only for a few seconds.
Any other parallels? At least one, a host of false accusations are made against Israel. Some focus on alleged Israeli crimes against the Turkish jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara [one of them being an American citizen whose parents brought him to Turkey when he was 2 years old and never visited America afterwards] who are described as "peace activists" by the trained minions of Fenton Communications. The active Judeophobes in the United States show much more "sympathy" for that Turk of American birth than for the three thousand Americans murdered by jihadist fanatics not much different from the goons on the Mavi Marmara.
Then too we have the Goldstone "Fact Finding Mission" report prepared by the staff of the UN"human rights council" which is subject to the OIC, the most powerful bloc in the UN. The "goldstone report" was meant to be a trial and conviction in the court of public opinion worldwide of Israel and the Jews. Something like the Beilis trial. Another set of false charges as in the Beilis case.
We note that historian Solomon Grayzel was somewhat naive. He didn't know the "liberals" of today. Most of the most outspoken "liberals" around today are fascist rabble rousers and demagogures.
Legitimizing Hamas rule
BARRY RUBIN
The White House’s June 20 statement on the Gaza blockade shows that the Obama administration has abandoned all strategic concepts in its approach to the matter.
The White House’s June 20 statement on Gaza is immensely revealing of the shortcomings in US policy. It isn’t at all just a matter of policy toward Israel but of a failure to consider the broader US national interest. Here’s the real issue: Does the US want the long-term existence of a revolutionary Islamist mini-state on the Mediterranean, spreading terrorism and anti-Semitism, eager to go to war with Israel again, working hard to block any Israel-Palestinian peace, expelling Christians, oppressing women and subverting moderate Arab states? It begins: “The president has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change.”
One would expect the words “unsustainable” and “demands fundamental change” to mean the president demands the overthrow of the Hamas regime. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: He demands that regime’s stabilization.
The statement continues by describing Obama’s plan to give roughly $200 million to Gaza as “a down payment on the US commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”
Just think of that paragraph’s implications: a “down payment” on a “US commitment,” that is, not an act of generosity for which the US must get something in return. Rather, the phrasing makes it seem the US owes them the money.
Moreover, such aid retards rather than advances building a Palestinian state by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel and against a two-state solution.
Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the PA. And couldn’t the administration have said that the state must be built in the context of the Oslo Accords or under the PA’s leadership? There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: Nothing is said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel’s existence or submitting to the PA as the legitimate government.
The statement is absolutely unconditional. Only the “humanitarian” consideration counts, as if the US government is a community organizer building a welfare program.
THIS ABDICATION of strategy and politics would be like the US making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War or North Korea during the Korean War by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.
Don’t those who govern the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an anti-Semitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter one bit? The announcement continued by welcoming Israel’s new policy as something that “should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons.”
In other words, the US has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the US approach.
Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel’s concessions aren’t sufficient. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: “We will work...
to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank.”
Now while it is true that this could mean PA supporters go to Gaza and subvert the regime’s power, it’s more likely that the practical implication would be that Hamas militants, bomb-makers and agitators would get into the West Bank. When Israel restricts the passage between the two areas, would it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian “freedom of movement?” Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the US aid on Gilad Schalit’s release or some other Hamas concession? Of course not.
And the statement ends: “We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations.”
Of course, all of this won’t discourage ships sailing and pro-Hamas militants seeking confrontation. After all, Western policy teaches them that confrontation means massive victories in demonizing Israel and gaining concessions. Why should anyone dismiss them as “unnecessary”? In this statement there is not one word criticizing Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given to the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.
Let’s assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship.
The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I’m not saying this is my preferred policy, but it is a way for the Obama administration to implement its policy without abandoning any strategic interest in weakening Iran-backed revolutionary Islamism and terrorism.
In other words, the administration could have said: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don’t want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel.
But that was not the strategic line taken.
In this bland little White House statement we see the current US government’s massive strategic failure.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. He blogs at www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
Inside documents of the Free Gaza movement seized in the recent flotilla expose considerable discrepancies between its strategy and tactics and i
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
The documents prove, among other things, the attempts to conceal the aid to the Hamas administration since Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization in the US.
1. Established in 2006, the Free Gaza movement (hereinafter: Free Gaza) is a pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas group whose stated purpose is to “break the siege” imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas takeover. Free Gaza is registered in Cyprus as a human rights project and is headquartered in Nicosia. Its website says that Free Gaza has branches in 28 countries, including 11 in Europe, 5 in North America (4 in the US and one in Canada), and a branch in Israel (referred to on the movement's website as “Palestine 1948 territories”). The organizational framework of Free Gaza also includes the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which also took part in the latest flotilla. 2. Free Gaza played an important role in the coalition of organizations which orchestrated the latest flotilla, even though the dominant force was the Turkish IHH. Free Gaza started sending aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip in 2008. Prior to the latest flotilla, Free Gaza was able to send four other aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip:
a. August 2008: two ships departed from Cyprus and arrived at the port of Gaza on August 23 (BBC, August 23, 2008).
b. October 2008: a yacht named Dignity with 26 activists and medical supplies on board arrived in Gaza on October 29 (JTA, October 29, 2008).
c. December 2008: the same yacht, Dignity, with about 3 tons of medical supplies, attempted to penetrate the waters of Gaza but was stopped by the Israeli navy (ynet, December 30, 2008).
d. June 2009: a ship called Spirit of Humanity, which attempted to reach Gaza on June 30, was stopped by the Israeli navy near the Gaza port (Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2009).
3. The movement's mission, as appears on its website, is to break the siege of Gaza. It also states that it will not ask for Israel’s permission for its actions, since the movement's intent is “to overcome this brutal siege through civil resistance and non-violent direct action, and establish a permanent sea lane between Gaza and the rest of the world” (Free Gaza website).
4. Free Gaza is now organizing yet another flotilla to the Gaza Strip. Nidal Hejazi, a Free Gaza senior official in Norway, said that the movement is now planning to acquire yet another boat from Norway to depart for the Gaza Strip as soon as possible. He said he was hoping to organize a flotilla consisting of more than ten additional boats from European countries. According to Hejazi, upon returning from Turkey on June 3, the movement started working on a list of passengers from Norway to join the flotilla, and the list will be finalized in the coming days (Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, June 5, 2010).
5. Inside documents of Free Gaza seized in the latest flotilla (see appendices for the unedited, complete text) deal with the movement's strategy and with briefings given to its activists prior to the flotilla’s departure. Analysis and comparison of the inside documents to the movement's public stance shows significant discrepancies and even contradictions between them. For example:
a. Legal aspect: a legal briefing ("legal information") given by Free Gaza to its activists shows that the movement is well aware of the legal problem of delivering assistance to the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, particularly considering that the US designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Reading between the lines also shows that while Free Gaza publicly states that the aid is for the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, Free Gaza is aware that, in fact, it assists the Hamas de-facto administration. Therefore, at a legal briefing for activists who took part in the flotilla, they were warned against making any statement or taking any action that could be construed as providing material assistance to Hamas to avoid being incriminated in the US and in other countries (the movement has activists in the US whose participation in the flotilla seems to contradict US law; also, Free Gaza raises funds in the US, where it has a contact man for allegedly humanitarian purposes, yet those purposes are in fact clearly political).
b. Political aspect: during the legal briefing, as a way of solving the problem of Hamas’ designation as a terrorist organization, the activists were told that Free Gaza had publicly announced that it had no political agenda, and that it was committed to “non-violent humanitarian assistance” to the Palestinian people (Free Gaza is registered as a Human Rights Project, a definition which appears on its website). However, according to an inside document found on the Mavi Marmara, the goals of the flotilla were clearly political rather than humanitarian (the minimum goals defined in the document are generating media [impact] about the blockade on the Gaza Strip and pushing foreign governments to take punitive action against Israel; delivering humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip was not listed as a goal).
c. Response to possible scenarios during the voyage: Free Gaza drew up “defensive” scenarios for the flotilla based on the premise that the IDF would be unable to stop the boats without using force. Several tactics are listed to prevent the IDF from taking over the boat. One of the things mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck and barricading in the wheelhouse and the engine room.
d. Although those tactics pale in comparison to the organized violence used by IHH, they are still incompatible with instructions given by Free Gaza to its activists, which categorically prohibited the use of verbal of physical violence. It therefore appears that the term “non-violent resistance”, which appears in the instructions of human rights organizations which took part in the flotilla, was open to interpretation by the various organizations and the various activists, who were eager to confront the IDF soldiers (as demonstrated by the preparations made by IHH, which also defines itself as a humanitarian organization, for a violent confrontation with the IDF).
6. What follows is an analysis of Free Gaza inside documents seized in the latest flotilla
Appendix A
Legal briefing given by Free Gaza to passengers on the ship Challenger (it can be assumed that a similar briefing was given to Free Gaza activists on other ships)
1. A document titled “Legal Information” was seized aboard the Challenger, a Free Gaza ship. The document notes that Hamas is designated as a "global terrorist" organization by the US Treasury Department. In addition, it states that the UN has also blacklisted Hamas as a terrorist organization. Consequently, a US citizen providing “material support” to Hamas may face criminal charges in US courts. This may also pose a problem to citizens of other countries, which is why Free Gaza advises them to check the laws and regulations on dealing with Hamas in their countries.
2. Reading between the lines, it appears that Free Gaza is well aware that transporting aid to the Hamas de-facto administration, considered to be an inseparable part of Hamas by the US administration, is a violation of US law.
3. The document illustrates that Free Gaza is aware that it is legally problematic to deliver aid to the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, particularly in the US, where Hamas is banned.1 Therefore, the document contains a legal briefing of sorts ("legal information") to activists taking part in the flotilla, the main points of which are:
a. The activists from the various countries, particularly US residents, must avoid even the appearance of providing "material support" to Hamas, including its leadership.
b. Free Gaza has said publicly and repeatedly that it serves no political agenda whatsoever and that it is engaged solely in non-violent humanitarian support for the Palestinian people, not the Palestinian leadership. Under no circumstances should any participant make a public statement of affinity or admiration of any political group in Palestine (note: the public portrayal of providing humanitarian support for the Palestinian people as the movement's goal is incorrect, since an inside document found aboard the Mavi Marmara defined the goals of the flotilla to be political, not humanitarian—see Appendix B for details).
The original document:
The original document
Appendix B
Inside document detailing the strategy and tactics of
Free Gaza in preparation for the flotilla
Overview
1. Found on one of the computers seized aboard the Mavi Marmara was the draft of an inside document ("not for distribution") dated March 7, 2010. The document describes the goals of and preparations for the flotilla, lists problems and offers solutions.
2. Following are the main issues that appear in the document:
a. The goals of the flotilla: the goals of the flotilla as defined in the document are clearly political, contradicting the public image of “humanitarian support” which appears in the legal briefing. The “minimum goal” is to “generate a lot of media about the blockade on Gaza” and the “situation of Palestinians in Gaza”. A secondary goal is “taking legal/political action, including jail stays, to push foreign governments to do more than make statements, but to take punitive action towards Israel.” Elsewhere in the document, the goal is said to be generating media coverage and putting pressure on Israel.
b. Importance of flotilla’s success in view of Free Gaza’s financial difficulties: the document states that the movement is “in a bad financial position” for the current flotilla and for other flotillas to follow: “There is virtually no likelihood of us [i.e., the movement] being able to get more funds for a mission that does not result in tangible results for Gaza.”
c. "The Galloway Factor": George Galloway is a former British pro-Hamas parliament member who played a key role in organizing Lifeline-3, the previous aid convoy to the Gaza Strip. The participants of the previous convoy confronted Egyptian authorities, subsequent to which George Galloway was declared a persona non grata in Egypt. According to the Free Gaza document, George Galloway no longer assists Free Gaza as much as he did in the past (for his own reasons). The document notes that Galloway may not be able to get much support for a flotilla if the ships do not reach Gaza’s shores. In the view of Free Gaza, this factor makes it all the more important for the flotilla to reach Gaza.
d. Flotilla passengers: the passengers on behalf of Free Gaza were divided into three categories: celebrities and VIPs, parliament members (from national parliaments and ideally not backbenchers), and union leaders. Free Gaza considered increasing the number of passengers since it had permission to bring its passengers on the IHH passenger ship (i.e., the Mavi Marmara). That combination of passengers was designed to increase the media impact of the flotilla.
e. Potential scenarios for the voyage: the document analyzes several “defensive” scenarios, based on a premise that is the fundamental guideline of the flotilla: “We will not turn back. The only way for Israel to stop us is to use force” (from a sub-chapter titled “Mission Strategy”). The scenarios raised in the document can be summarized as follows:
1. Aerial boarding (of soldiers): the document examines how boarding can be prevented. One of the methods mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck, making it too dangerous for the soldiers to board (note: the behavior agreement distributed by Free Gaza to its activists prior to the launch of the flotilla says that the activists shall not use verbal or physical violence and that the mission was designed to support the “non-violent resistance of the Palestinians”. The inside document makes it clear that the term “non-violent resistance” is open to interpretation that may change the non-violent and “defensive” resistance into a violent and offensive one, which was what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara).
2. If IDF soldiers do manage to board the ship, the Free Gaza activists were to focus on two areas: the wheelhouse and the engine room. The document says that the wheelhouse had to be made “impenetrable”, which would require replacing glass with bullet-proof glass, replacing doors with steel doors, and adding locks.
3. Using a tugboat to prevent the ship from coming to Gaza. In that case, the ship would try to outmaneuver the tugboat and reach the Gaza Strip, even though its chances of success were unclear.
4. Opening fire (by IDF) or using explosives to neutralize the ship. Free Gaza’s “defensive option” for that scenario was putting VIPs on the cargo ship's deck (hoping their presence would deter the IDF soldiers).
5. Blocking the cargo ships while giving the passenger ship permission to proceed. In that case, the question was whether the mission was worth continuing with only the passenger ship. The decision was to be made only after the launch of the flotilla.
f. Behavior on the passenger ship: the author of the document believes that there would be a way to deter the kind of boarding Free Gaza had with the Spirit of Humanity (a ship sent by the movement on June 30, 2009, which was stopped by the Israeli navy near the Gaza port). This required putting 1.5-meter steel poles over the sides of the ship. A more likely option was that the Israelis would try to ram the ship, as they had done before.
g. Support from various bodies and organizations: letters from unions and letters from parliaments and governments calling on Israel not to interfere must be prepared; ambassadors in Tel-Aviv must be called on to request no interference from Israel (the countries mentioned are Venezuela, Chile, India, South Africa, Ireland, Belgium, Britain, and Norway); UNIFIL and NATO must be asked for inspection and escort; live broadcasts from the ship must be arranged (the document details a media plan to be implemented in the various stages of the flotilla’s journey).
The original document
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION – UPDATED 3/07/2010
Free Gaza Strategy
There are now two parts to the strategy – one for the overall FG situation and one for the mission. The two are not inseparable, as it is prudent to think not only of how we conduct this mission, but also what happens the day after.
CURRENT STATUS
Boats
2 new passenger ships for high profilers
1 FG boat for activists
1 Cargo ship from IHH
1 passenger ship from IHH (500 pax)
1 passenger ship from ECESG
pending –
cargo ship (FG)
cargo ship (Greece)
passenger ship (Turkey)
passenger ship (Greece)
cargo ship (Sweden)
ship (Indonesia)
Finances
The FG accounts (including what is being held aside and what is held elsewhere,
seems to have approximately 50,000 . From that, at least X will be needed up front for the FG cargo ship and other costs related to holding onto the passenger ships that FG possesses.
There is currently no money available for the mission itself for FG, though efforts are being made to secure those funds.
Ports
It is clear that Cyprus will not be a point of departure. Turkish ships can leave from Turkey. FG and Greek ships (if any) can leave from Greece, though the situation in Greece will have to be monitored in the event that the economy dives again and more strikes and unrest follow. The FG cargo ship can leave from its position now (if we get the ship).
Timing
The earliest we will know about cargo ship is March 20, and maybe not until March 31. We still do not know what, if any, kind of repairs will be needed and how long it will take. For this ship to be in position to join rest of flotilla, at least 2 weeks are needed. Therefore, if we are using this cargo ship, it is unlikely we can be ready to go with passengers from port before April 25.
Given the above factors, it seems that at as FG, we should next consider the overall FG situation, in order to make decisions that will affect the mission itself.
OVERALL FG SITUATION
As stated above, we are in a bad financial position for the mission and for afterwards, if we go ahead with the purchase of the cargo ship. We are also in a limited position in terms of trying to raise more funds if this mission is not successful, in that there is virtually no likelihood of us being able to get more funds for a mission that does not result in tangible results for Gaza. Getting media, creating pressure on Israel, etc. are all good, but unlikely to yield greater funding opportunities. This is particularly true if we end up not in possession of one or more of our ships, or with ships damaged, regardless of what legal strategy we pursue.
Additionally, we cannot ignore the Galloway factor, which practically means that while he may not find as much support as he has in the past, for various reasons mostly of his own doing, and while he may not be able to get as much support for a flotilla if ours does not reach Gaza’s shores, the fact is that he has far greater outreach ability by virtue of his name and the willingness of key people to support him because of his political position as an MP and what he has said/done vis-à-vis Arab governments. Thus, whatever effort we make in the wake of our mission, unless we arrive in Gaza, will undoubtedly be in competition with Galloway, and so far, we have not been able to meet that challenge in terms of funds raised, having a network operating to get funds at that level and to do so in a timely manner.
Now, moving on to other considerations that factor in the financial picture.
Given the responses to the email that was sent out asking for each of us to identify our minimum goal for this mission and the minimum ship requirement for launching this mission, the responses lined up pretty much in accordance with this position:
MINIMUM GOAL:
The goal of this mission is to generate a lot of media about the blockade on Gaza and the illegal/criminal nature of it, as well as the situation of Palestinians in Gaza. Secondly, but connected is the goal of taking legal/political action, including jail stays, pushing foreign governments to do more than make statements, but to take punitive action towards Israel.
Our position, then, is that reaching Gaza, while our intention is not our minimum strategic goal.
CARGO SHIP:
This point is seemingly this point is moot now. The IHH has a cargo ship, so we have a minimum of 1, which was the majority opinion of those who responded.
The question now is, does it make sense for FG to get a cargo ship – see below for explanation and for where we need to make a strategic decision.
HOLD 2 BOATS FOR IMMEDIATE FOLLOW UP:
There is basically a split among those who responded to this, so no decision here.
See below for further explanation why this might make sense, though given the minimum goal for the mission.
For strategic consideration for next mission and FG overall
Given the consensus mission goal, there needs to be decisions derived based on that position, regarding the other points listed above.
Since we have confirmation that we have 1 cargo ship, the pressing question becomes does FG need to get this other cargo ship that is in auction, now that there is competition and that it is potentially going to set us back in terms of timing for mission? I list here some Pros/Cons, but I think we need a decision on this ASAP. (I have tried not to factor in hypothetical situations, as this becomes a never-ending exercise, and should not be how we base this decision – for every ‘if’ on one side, we can add an ‘if’ on the other).
Pros
Cons
1. Allows more cargo to be brought
1. Cost involved is quite high (management) and a drain on resources that we are not secured of
2. Allows for more groups to participate in providing cargo for mission
2. Owning the ship post-mission will be costly and require full-time attention
3. One more ship that is part of flotilla
3. Given the minimum goal for the mission, there does not seem to be a strategic reason to have more than 1 cargo ship
4. Having 2 cargo ships will necessitate a bigger effort by Israel to stop the flotilla
4. Will require additional expense to secure more cargo, which will require more fundraising
5. While we can bring some material, this is still largely a symbolic measure that until proven that we can deliver, will not be seen as a viable undertaking – having the one cargo ship from IHH allows for the symbolic value already and for testing the viability of this tactic
PROS/CONS of having a FG Cargo Ship
OPTION 1 – GET FG CARGO SHIP
If we decide on getting this cargo ship, then we proceed accordingly and must stay in this position of being unable to take more concrete action with regard to date, cargo, etc. until we know for sure that this is our ship. Given that the idea of pursuing a back-up cargo ship was pretty much shot down, then we might yet end up in a position of not having a FG cargo ship.
OPTION 2 – NO FG CARGO SHIP
If we decide to not get this ship, then we have to first make sure it is OK with Malaysia, explaining why it is not strategic, and why we are still achieving what we/they want by having the IHH cargo ship. We can use those funds in part then, to procure cargo, which would allow Malaysia to still ‘take credit’ (if that is a concern) for providing building materials to Gaza. If we decide on not getting this ship, then we should be able to move more quickly towards setting time, procuring and getting cargo in place (from departure point of IHH ship), etc. Not getting the ship also frees up funds for FG work in the mission – not just the cost of the cargo ship, but also the cost of the management company and the cost of cargo.
When considering which option, I think we really need to consider financial/logistic aspects of this, notably:
- if we are planning to take legal action, political work and do media work for an extended period after a mission that is stopped, then we need to have funds to do so;
- for those of you who think that regardless of what happens on this mission that FG will continue to send missions to Gaza in some way, then FG must have financial resources to be able to do so;
- having a cargo ship in possession will require ongoing costs and management of the ship, and someone from FG will have to be involved in this.
In terms of the prospect of holding 2 passenger boats back and have them ready for an immediate launch in the event that Israel stops the flotilla, the question to consider is does this fit into the minimum strategic goal for the mission. If the flotilla is not stopped, then these boats will be ready to head to Gaza with a follow up flotilla when the initial flotilla returns from Gaza. Again, some Pros/Cons are (these are only applicable for consideration in planning for if the flotilla is stopped):
Pros
Cons
1. Having an immediate follow up mission will generate more media and keep the drama of the situation in the forefront
1. Requires additional land crew and passengers willing to be in a wait and see position; including some key FG personnel to not join initial flotilla
2. More media likely to participate in follow up
2. Likely will not have VIPs on board, but perhaps is not necessary
3. Will keep media focus overall on mission, including on those in flotilla who are taken to jail
3. Requires keeping funds in reserve for this part of the overall mission, and thus potentially the need for having more money in hand to start with
4. Will give tangible action for politicians and governments to support and could result in enabling the kind of political work we need without having us have to go back to capitals to seek action
OPTION 1 – KEEP 2 BOATS BACK
If we decide to do this, then we need to identify from now which 2 ships, and start identifying passengers for this part of the mission, so they are clear from start. We should also prepare land crew and PR material for the backup teams, all of which should be in place and ready to go within hours of word of what happens with the flotilla when it is confronted by Israeli military.
OPTION 2 – DO NOT HOLD BACK BOATS
Continue our work as is.
Overall FG position
In considering the above, we need to consider not just for this mission but for the position of FG overall. Thus making the strategic choices above will impact not just the mission but the ‘day after’. To continue this work in a strategic manner, which requires keeping pressure on Israel, leveraging that by winning allies (organization and political) and generating tangible results (beyond statements of support), will mean that we have to be in position to do so. Choosing from the above choices should therefore be done with an eye to the mission and an eye to beyond the mission.
Mission Strategy
Passengers
We have decided that for passengers, there would a prioritization of:
1. Celebrities, VIPs
2. MPs (from national parliaments and ideally not those on fringe)
3. Union Leaders
Given the capacity of the IHH passenger ship, we can now accommodate many more passengers, so we do not have pressure to limit spots, but we should still maintain a kind of minimum number of passengers that we want to get per the three categories above.
The sheer number of passengers that we can bring on the IHH ship may result in a different tactic by Israel in terms of detention. To remove that many passengers to shore and to process them would be both a logistic challenge and also a costly maneuver by Israel, require long man-hours, processing time/cost and a challenge to their detention capacity in detention centers that are already crowded with refugees and asylum seekers.
It is thus possible, and potentially likely, that Israel will use a different tactic if it brings the ship to port, which would be to hold the passengers on the ship itself. This is something Israel has developed plans for in terms of housing the detainees it has, but has to implement. We need to strongly consider this possibility and what we could to in terms of this kind of maneuver. However, it should not necessarily change the strategy of the mission prior to capture, though we can take steps to prepare the ship with material/items that could be useful for such a situation.
MISSION STRATEGY
Basic Principle – We will not turn back. The only way for Israel to stop us is to use force.
Resistance?
On this next mission, we will be traveling with VIPs. Is there a likelihood that they will be willing to take action to resist interference from Israel? Not likely, though we can ask. At this point, we can assume no, and move forward in planning. Once we invite, we can check again.
If the minimum goal for the mission is media attention, etc. then is there a point of having any kind of resistance, including pre-emptive measures to prevent them from taking the ships?
We need a concrete decision here in order to make plans, and in order to work with our partners to develop clear understandings of what we are doing. We also would need to have time to make ships ready for such action.
If we do agree to pre-emptive action, then we can consider that there are basically 2 ways the Israelis have boarded ships – with speedboats the way they boarded the Spirit, and with a helicopter the way they boarded the Lebanese cargo ship.
Since we will have both kinds of ships, we must anticipate both types of boardings.
There is a fundamental question to answer before choosing any strategy – do we want to do all we can to keep the ships in our hands, given that if the Israelis take the boats the chances of us launching another mission become near impossible.
Assuming that we want to keep the boats, then these are possible strategies:
SCENARIOS AT SEA
In the event of an aerial boarding, one option is to try to prevent the boarding itself. If the soldiers are coming from the air, then there might be steps to take that can dissuade them from making such a boarding. Put obstructions on the deck of various heights and with sharp points might make such a landing too risky.
If the soldiers do land on the ship, then our choices would need to focus on two areas – the wheelhouse and the engine room. For the wheelhouse, we would have to try to make it impenetrable. This would require switching any glass to bullet-proof glass, replacing doors with steel doors (if not already steel) and adding locks that cannot be broken by conventional tools. For the engine room, we will have to check with the crew about what can be done in terms of safety. And we will have to investigate what possible options would be available.
In any event, even if we prevent a boarding or a take-over of the controls of the ship, Israel can still bring a tugboat out to force our ship. I do not know at this point how that would work if we still maintain ability to maneuver the ship if the tugboat can still force us.
If it can, then the only question left in terms of trying to prevent a takeover of the ship is how long it would take them to bring a tugboat out and if we would have enough time to get to Gaza. If they stop us at the 20-mile limit, that means we need 3 hours at the speed of the cargo ship to get to shore. Assuming the tugboat would come from Ashdod at 15 knots per hour, it does seem that we could conceivably have enough time to get to Gaza.
The Israelis might then open fire on the ship, though would not do so if their soldiers were on board. Another mechanism using some kind of explosive might be used to dismantle the ship, but that would be a serious escalation from the kind of force they have been using to date. Even hitting the Dignity is different than firing or using explosives. That said, we have to take this into consideration.
If we are putting VIPs on board the cargo ship, then they and the crew must be willing to go along with this strategy. If the VIPs are not, then we have to decide if we want to not put VIPs on the cargo ship and thereby have this defensive option open to us.
Another scenario might be that the Israelis try to block the cargo ship while letting the passenger ship go. Assuming we are not successful in preventing the cargo ship from being taken but the passenger ships are not interfered with, then the question to us is whether our mission is worth continuing with only passengers. This is something we have to decide as a board. If we decide to forego going to Gaza, then it seems the only option at that point would be to take the passengers and follow the cargo ship and force the Israelis to deal with us trying to enter Israel. The likelihood is that they would simply detain everyone and move for deportation. We can then put into motion whatever strategy we choose for a DETENTION SCENARIO.
For the passenger ship, it does seem that there would be a way to deter the kind of boarding we had with the Spirit. This would require putting steel poles pointing out from all directions on the boat out over sides of the ship, thus creating a kind of ring of steel poles jutting out 5 feet or so from the ship. I do not know how this would affect the handling of the ship, but assuming it is do-able, then the question is what would be the Israeli response. One option they would have – given they would not get close enough with the speedboats to get onboard – would be to come up alongside and ram the steel poles to break them off. But I think that would not necessarily work for them as they may break but not completely and would leave what remains as a continued deterrent to their boarding. A more likely option is that they would simply ram the ship, like they did with Dignity. Dennis will have to speak to how this new ship would respond to such a ramming. The decision then rests with us in terms of do we want to cause them to escalate. We can also take similar action as with the cargo ship in terms of barricading the wheelhouse and sealing the engine room, per safety issues. But we are not immune on this ship from ramming.
Other Mission Needs
SUPPORT
Letters from Unions
Letters from Governments and Parliaments calling on Israel to not
Interfere
Get Ambassadors in Tel Aviv to Meet with Israeli Ministers to Request no
Interference (Venezuela, Chile, India, S. Africa, Ireland, Belgium, UK, Norway)
Ask UNIFL for inspections and escort
Ask NATO for inspections and escort
Live Broadcast from Ship – use Sailor 500 & have trained people to use
MEDIA
3-prong strategy
- pre-mission media, including launch events
- during mission
- entry or interference
Pre-Mission
- Press Conference in Ireland for Cargo Launch
- Press Conference with Passengers from Port
- Op-Eds by Passengers in their Home Countries
- Op-Eds by Board of Advisors
- Media Briefing Papers on Humanitarian Situation in Gaza, International Law, Goldstone Report & Blockade, One-Year Later, etc.
- prep work for stories that we want to push with media
- website and YouTube materials
During Mission
- set up Press Center in Jerusalem/Ramallah or Athens or London
- Broadcast from Boat
- Media Interviews with VIPs from Boat – try to schedule in advance on SAT phones
- Media Helicopter from Cyprus
- Symbolic Launches from around the world
Entry
- prepare for stories we want told from Gaza – assuming limited time, what is critical to tell; also stories connected to our mission like Green Gaza, etc.
Interference
- Publish prepared statements by government officials, celebrities, VIPs, etc. condemning Israel’s actions and in support of Free Gaza Movement
- publish prepared Op-Eds for newspapers from passengers
- Press conference in Jerusalem (at a consulate?) and/or Tel Aviv airport or at embassy (if immediate deportation)
- Immediate filing for return of ship in Israeli court and foreign court where ship is registered
- file lawsuit against navy for aggression
- Malaysia to introduce General Assembly debate on issuing a UN Resolution for ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution 377, calling for international action to open Gaza
JAIL
If this mission is stopped and we are taken to jail, then it is extremely unlikely (and we should plan on it not happening) that VIPs and media will agree to a potential long-term jail strategy. We can put it out in the media that our plan is to stay in jail until we are allowed to go to Gaza, but unless we are serious about it, then it is very harmful to credibility to not follow through. We CAN file for immediate release based on the lack of charges (which is how we were held last time) and petition the court for visas to Israel for all of the passengers. This would allow us to use the court for more PR work and would potentially put Israel in the position of having to charge the passengers, which would also require taking a legal position on Gaza.
If passengers are detained on the 500-person passenger ship, then the likelihood is that any deportation hearings will be done at the port in a makeshift hearing room, although we also need to look at what the legal situation would be if the passengers were not turned over to civilian jurisdiction. That is, if we are kept at a naval base, and in military custody, what legal avenues are available. This should be sorted out prior to mission in the formulation of a legal strategy.
For passengers on the Free Gaza ship, then the question is are they ready for jail stay and to what end? Is Free Gaza in a position to strategically support those staying in jail, particularly if we are going to try to launch another mission/take advantage of the PR opportunities that will abound by virtue of this action. What is minimum number of volunteers needed for jail-solidarity team for media/legal work? Who is going to be available post-mission for touring/public speaking?
Appendix C
A document titled “Free Gaza Movement” found in the
possession of one of the movement's activists
1. Attached is a list of Free Gaza liaisons and their contact information based on a document found in the possession of one of the activists (with ITIC comments added). One of them, Ramzi Kysia, is located in the US.
Name
Position
Phone
Greta Berlin
On-board coordinator
33607374512 (French number)
iristulip@gmail.com
Niamh Moloughney (Ireland)
(Included on the list of Free Gaza board members, coordinators etc.)
353857747257 (Irish number)
freegazaireland@gmail.com
Ramzi Kysia
Washington coordinator
17039945422 (US number)
ramzi@freegaza.org
Alex Harrison
On-board coordinator
35796489805 (Irish number)
duvdaa@gmail.com
Angie Pal
Ship passenger
35796399715 (Irish number)
Derrick
Free Gaza coordinator in Cyprus
delgraham@gmail.com
Therese McDermott
Logistics administrator on Crete
306989943191 (Greek number)
Giorgos Klontzas
One of the captains
306944505400 (Greek number)
Caoimhe Butterly (Ireland)
ISM contact
353876114553 (Greek number)
Sahara78@hotmail.co.uk
Ism Gaza
ismgaza@yahoo.com
Eva Bartlett (Canada)
ISM contact in Gaza
Evabartlett@hotmail.com
Bianca Zammit
ISM volunteer in Gaza who was injured
biancazammit@gmail.com
1 The Israeli organization Shurat Hadin (Israel Law Center, ILC) sent a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder, asking him to investigate whether US law was violated by the organizations which funded the American flotilla. The authors of the letter ask to investigate whether Free Gaza was involved in money laundering and violation of US law (for details, see Shurat Hadin’s website: israellawcenter.org).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)