Israeli troops attack ship carrying aid to Gaza killing 16 [Archive]

buglerbilly

31-05-10, 04:36 PM

Israeli commandos have stormed a flotilla of ships carrying activists and aid supplies to the blockaded Palestinian enclave of Gaza, killing as many as 16 of those on board.

By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent and Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem

Published: 7:48AM BST 31 May 2010

Link to this video Fighting broke out between the activists and the masked Israeli troops, who rappelled on to deck from helicopters before dawn.

A spokeswoman for the flotilla, Greta Berlin, said she had been told ten people had been killed and dozens wounded, accusing Israeli troops of indiscriminately shooting at "unarmed civilians". But an Israeli radio station said that between 14 and 16 were dead in a continuing operation.

"How could the Israeli military attack civilians like this?" Ms Berlin said. "Do they think that because they can attack Palestinians indiscriminately they can attack anyone?

"We have two other boats. This is not going to stop us."

But an Israeli military spokeswoman said that there had been a planned and organised attempt to "lynch" the boarding party. She said the activists were armed with knives and guns.

The Israeli government's handling of the confrontation was under intense international pressure even as it continued. The Israeli ambassador to Turkey, the base of one of the human rights organisation which organised the flotilla, was summoned by the foreign ministry in Anakara, as the Israeli consulate in Istanbul came under attack.

One Israeli minister issued immediate words of regret. "The images are certainly not pleasant. I can only voice regret at all the fatalities," Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the trade and industry minister, told army radio.

But he added that the commandoes had been attacked with batons and activists had sought to take their weapons off them.

Israeli military sources said four of its men had been injured, one stabbed, and that they had been shot at.

"The flotilla's participants were not innocent and used violence against the soldiers. They were waiting for the forces' arrival," they were quoted by a news website as saying.

The flotilla had set sail on Sunday from northern, or Turkish, Cyprus. Six boats were led by the Mavi Marmara, which carried 600 activists from around the world, including Mairead Corrigan Maguire, the Northern Ireland peace protester who won a Nobel Prize in 1976.

It came under almost immediate monitoring from Israeli drones and the navy, with two vessels flanking it in international waters. The flotilla, which had been warned that it would not be allowed to reach Gaza, attempted to slow and change course, hoping to prevent a confrontation until daylight, when the Israeli military action could be better filmed.

But in the early hours of this morning local time commandoes boarded from helicopters.

The activists were not carrying guns, but television footage shown by al-Jazeera and Turkish television channels show hand-to-hand fighting, with activists wearing life-jackets striking commandoes with sticks.

The Israeli army said its troops were assaulted with axes and knives.

The television footage did not show firing but shots could be heard in the background. One man was shown lying unconscious on the deck, while another man was helped away.

A woman wearing hijab, the Muslim headscarf, was seen carrying a stretcher covered in blood.

The al-Jazeera broadcast stopped with a voice shouting in Hebrew: "Everyone shut up".

Israel imposed its blockade on Gaza after the strip was taken over by the militant group Hamas in 2007. It has allowed some food and medical supplies through, but has prevented large-scale rebuilding following the bombardment and invasion of 2008-9.

The flotilla is the latest in a series of attempts by activists to break through the blockade. The boats were carrying food and building supplies.

Activists said at least two of the other boats, one Greek and one Turkish, had been boarded from Israeli naval vessels. Activists said two of the other boats in the flotilla were American-flagged.

The confrontation took place in international waters 80 miles off the Gaza coast.

It was attacked by the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh.

"We call on the Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, to shoulder his responsibilities to protect the safety of the solidarity groups who were on board these ships and to secure their way to Gaza," he said.

Turkish television meanwhile showed hundreds of protesters trying to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul. The incident will be particularly damaging for Israel's relations with what had been seen as its closest ally in the Muslim world.

"By targeting civilians, Israel has once again shown its disregard for human life and peaceful initiatives," a Turkish foreign ministry statement said. "We strongly condemn these inhumane practices of Israel.

"This deplorable incident, which took place in open seas and constitutes a fragrant breach of international law, may lead to irreparable consequences in our bilateral relations."

Israel's closest ally Washington described the loss of life as a "tragedy" on the eve of talks between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained and is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy," a White House spokesman said.

buglerbilly

31-05-10, 04:39 PM

Israel attack on gaza aid ship: US 'deeply regrets' loss of life

The United States has said it deeply regrets the deaths and injuries caused when Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of Gaza-bound aid ships leading to more than 10 deaths.

Published: 12:54PM BST 31 May 2010

An Israeli Army boat approaches a Turkish aid ship on course for Gaza Photo: AFP / GETTY

"The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained, and is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy," said White House spokesman William Burton.

President Barack Obama was in Chicago for the Memorial Day holiday. He had been scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Tuesday but that meeting was now in doubt as Netanyahu considered returning home to handle the crisis.

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague also deplored the loss of life in the incident.

He said: "I deplore the loss of life during the interception of the Gaza flotilla. Our embassy is in urgent contact with the Israeli government.

"We are asking for more information and urgent access to any UK nationals involved.

"We have consistently advised against attempting to access Gaza in this way because of the risks involved. But at the same time, there is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations.

"It would be important to establish the facts about this incident and especially whether enough was done to prevent death and injuries.

"This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza in line with UNSCR (UN Security Council Resolution) 1860."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was "shocked" by the Israeli raid.

"I am shocked by reports of killings and injuries of people on boats carrying supplies for Gaza," the UN chief said at a press conference following the opening in Uganda of a key conference on the International Criminal Court.

"I condemn this violence," Mr Ban added, as an Israeli television channel reported that as many as 19 pro-Palestinian activists may have been killed in the Israeli military raid.

"It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation," he added.

Other international reaction to the incident:

PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS:

"What Israel has committed on board the Freedom Flotilla was a massacre."

He declared three days of official mourning for the dead.

TURKISH PRESIDENT ABDULLAH GUL:

- Mr Gul said in a statement that Ankara is demanding an inquiry into the violent interdiction of the Turkey-backed convoy and the punishment of the culprits.

- Turkey said on Monday it had called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

ARAB LEAGUE CHIEF AMR MOUSSA:

- Amr Moussa called on Monday for an emergency meeting to discuss what the body that groups 22 Arab states described as Israel's "terrorist act".

"The Arab League strongly condemns this terrorist act."

IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD:

- "The inhuman acts of the Zionist regime against Palestinians and preventing humanitarian aid to the Gaza people does not show the strength of the Zionist regime but shows its weakness," Ahmadinejad told state broadcaster IRIB. "All these acts indicate the end of the heinous and fake regime and will bring it closer to the end of its existence."

FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY:

- "The President of the Republic expresses his profound emotion in the face of the tragic consequences of the Israeli military operation," Sarkozy's office said. "He condemns the disproportionate use of force and addresses his condolences to the families of the victims," it said.

ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER FRANCO FRATTINI:

- "I deplore in the strongest terms the killing of civilians. This is certainly a grave act".

GERMAN GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN ULRICH WILHELM:

- "The German government is shocked by events in the international waters by Gaza..."

- "Every German government supports unconditionally Israel's right to self defence," said Wilhelm, but added that Israeli actions should to correspond to what he described as the "basic principle" of proportionality.

EUROPEAN UNION:

- "High Representative Catherine Ashton expresses her deep regret at the news of loss of life and violence and extends her sympathies to families of the dead and wounded," said a spokesperson for Baroness Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief.

- "On behalf of the European Union she demands a full enquiry about the circumstances in which this happened... The continued policy of closure is unacceptable and politically counter-productive. She calls for an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of the crossing for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza," the spokesperson said.

THE VATICAN:

- "This is a very painful fact, in particularly because of the loss of human lives," said chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi. He said the Vatican was against violence "from whatever side it comes".

buglerbilly

31-05-10, 04:42 PM

Israeli attack on Gaza aid ship: analysis

Whether on land or now at sea, there is a terrible symmetry to Israel's engagement with the Palestinians and those who support them.

By Richard Spencer

Published: 9:34AM BST 31 May 2010

Israeli soldiers from a military helicopter and army personnel unload wounded people to stretchers as they arrive at a Tel Aviv hospital Photo: EPA

As in their invasion of Gaza a year and a half ago, and previous conflicts, Israeli forces are provoked. There can be no doubt that as they landed on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish flagship of the activist flotilla, their commandoes were met by a mob carrying sticks, if not knives and guns, as their military spokeswoman claimed.

But their reaction, as before, will be hard for many but their most devoted backers to view as proportionate.

Their troops used the unwavering force for which they have become celebrated at home, admired in some other militaries and condemned almost everywhere else. Six of their men were wounded, one seriously, but at least ten, and possibly as many as 16 of their opponents died.

The Israeli spokeswoman, Avital Liebovitch, told the scores of reporters who had gathered at Ashdod, the Israeli port to which the impounded ships were being sailed, that the protesters were out to "lynch" the boarding party.

She claimed that little else could be expected from a bunch of supporters of Hamas, words that will be popular among many Israelis but will almost certainly be used against them. Those "Hamas supporters" include activists from round the world, including politicians and academics from Israeli allies.

One is Mairead Corrigan Maguire, founder of the Northern Ireland "peace people", awarded a Nobel Prize in 1976.

How successfully Israel defends itself today will now be of crucial importance, including to its own future. Its relations with President Barack Obama are aleady rocky, but the administration this month finally managed to persuade both Israelis and Palestinians back to "proximity talks".

Mr Netanyahu was rewarded with a fresh invitation to the White House, after his last visit ended in a personal snub by the president, who left him alone while he went off to dine with "Michelle and the kids".

A key stage of those proximity talks may once again have been sabotaged by Israeli action, as it was when a visit to Israel by Vice-President Joseph Biden was overshadowed by a new announcement on settlement building in March.

Mr Netanyahu will once again have to explain how this has happened - and give assurances of Israeli sincerity.

He is in the right place: the White House visit was due to take place tomorrow. Assuming it goes ahead, it will be interesting to see if he maintains his usual self-confident posture.

buglerbilly

31-05-10, 04:47 PM

Video of the attack................

ARH v.3.1

31-05-10, 06:31 PM

Looks like the 'protesters' got what was coming to them...

Weasel

01-06-10, 05:40 AM

Looks like the 'protesters' got what was coming to them...
Depends where the boarding took place. Things are changing, International Law is changing, but it used to be that if you were in international waters then anyone (even those claiming to be military) boarding your vessel univited was considered a pirate by that simple act and therefore waived any human rights.

I know from my experience when anyone has attempted to board a vessel I have been on without permission in international waters, it has always been "game on", no quarter asked or given.

A good example of State run Piracy is Thailand and an Australian group called "Tide Water". One of Tide water's boats had discovered a sunken Junk full of archeological treasures in (as I understand) International waters and was in the process of recovering them, when one morning a Thai Navy vessel showed up, boarded them and confiscated everything. It may be a military vessel armed with an Oto Melera, but (like the sayng goes) if the "Dude looks like a lady" then he probably is.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

01-06-10, 06:17 AM

Depends where the boarding took place. Things are changing, International Law is changing, but it used to be that if you were in international waters then anyone (even those claiming to be military) boarding your vessel univited was considered a pirate by that simple act and therefore waived any human rights.

I know from my experience when anyone has attempted to board a vessel I have been on without permission in international waters, it has always been "game on", no quarter asked or given.

I would hate to inject some facts into the world wide frenzy over the Gaza Flotilla but the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides exceptions to the no-boarding rule of a flagged vessel (one flying a national flag, ie Mavi Marmara from Turkey) including when they are suspected of carrying weapons to combatants or warring parties. In addition there is the Law of Blockade which clearly Israel has a legal and effective blockade over the Gaza strip which enables it to stop, impound and inspect flagged vessels.

The Israeli sailors boarding the Mavi Marmara were clearly identified as such and only did so after considerable time escorting the ships and demanding they turn away or stop and be boarded. To argue that the Israeli sailors should be treated as pirates means this argument has to extend to Australian sailors boarding people smuggling or illegal fishing vessels in international waters?

It is clear that the pro Hamas partisans onboard the Mavi Marmara knew that it was Israeli sailors boarding their ship and were intent on killing or incapacitating them to be used as hostages to enable a standoff so the ship could penetrate the blockade and unload in Gaza. Under such a situation it is likely that all the Israeli sailors captured would have been murdered or held as hostages indefinitely without access to the Red Cross.

This is not a case of some peaceful, innocent vessel transiting the high seas that has been attacked in the middle of the night by dark shadowy figures. Rather it was a clearly contrived scenario in which the Hamas blockade runners took advantage of declared passive resistance campaigners on board their ship and the likely Israeli Navy low lethal configuration to such a passive response to try and either kidnap Israeli sailors or so provoke a lethal response. Either result would provide the Hamas forces with a significant public relations coup.

Mercator

01-06-10, 06:23 AM

Mercator

01-06-10, 06:30 AM

Also, just thinking about it a little more, there's also the little matter of being able to enforce your immigration laws within an EEZ. Australia does it all the time a long way out from the 12 mile limit every time we board a SIEV. I can't remember the exact provisions, but Gaza is not sovereign (just yet) so the EEZ is Israeli.

buglerbilly

01-06-10, 07:24 AM

I would like to know what "tripped" this raid/boarding cos something did..............:dunno

Gubler, A.

01-06-10, 07:53 AM

The Israeli government had been saying for weeks they would not let the Gaza Flotilla sail to Gaza and they would divert the ships to Ashdod, screen the cargo and transfer it to Gaza and deport the activists. They intercepted the flotilla at sea and the ships didn’t follow the Navy’s requests to head for Ashdod so after several hours they boarded all the ships. Only on the Mavi Marmara was there a violent response to the boarding.

The timeline of the actual boarding was that the team fast roped onto the middle of the ship was attacked and overwhelmed. One of the Israeli sailors was thrown from this upper deck and some others jumped overboard but a few were beaten to the ground and then heavily beaten without let up (with bars, knifes, etc). Another team at the rear of the boat which was reinforced by a second helo deployed team had to fight (non lethal) their war forward to rescue these sailors. When they reached this section they tried to fight off the militants with paint ball guns but this didn’t work and they continued to beat the initial sailors. Apparently the militants then fired on the rescue team with a captured Israeli pistol and they responded with lethal force.

The video is pretty straight forward and shows the militants attacking the fast roping Israelis before they even land on the deck. The only way the Israelis could have avoided shooting the militants was to let their sailors be held hostage and/or beaten to death.

buglerbilly

01-06-10, 10:04 AM

OK thanks for that, my lack of reading what I publish..............no time today...........

buglerbilly

01-06-10, 10:13 AM

Analysis: Condemnation of Israeli assault complicates relations with U.S.

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

The worldwide condemnation of the deadly Israeli assault on the Gaza aid flotilla will complicate the Obama administration's efforts to improve its tense relations with Jerusalem and will probably distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.

The timing of the incident is remarkably bad for Israel and the United States. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama were scheduled to meet Tuesday in Washington as part of a "kiss and make up" session. The United Nations, meanwhile, was set to begin final deliberations on Iran in the weeks ahead.

Now the White House talks have been scrubbed, Israel's actions were the subject of an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting Monday and the administration increasingly faces a difficult balancing act as Israel's diplomatic isolation deepens.

In contrast with forceful statements from European, Arab and U.N. officials -- and impromptu demonstrations from Athens to Baghdad -- the White House responded to the assault Monday by saying only that Obama had held a phone conversation with Netanyahu in which the prime minister expressed "deep regret at the loss of life" and "the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events."

Hours later, the State Department issued a statement saying that the United States remains "deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza" and "will continue to engage the Israelis on a daily basis to expand the scope and type of goods allowed into Gaza."

Even before Monday's incident, Israel was on shaky diplomatic ground. After the government was accused of using forged foreign passports in the assassination of a Palestinian militant in Dubai, Britain expelled an Israeli diplomat in March. Australia did the same last week.

The latest furor may have caused irreparable harm to Israel's relations with Turkey -- a Muslim state with which Israel has long had close ties -- because so many of those onboard were Turkish. At the United Nations, Turkey's foreign minister urged the Security Council to condemn Israel's raid and set up a formal inquiry to hold those responsible for it accountable.

"This is terrible for Israel-Turkey relations," Namik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. "I am really saddened by it."

Tan, who served as ambassador to Israel from 2007 through 2009, said Israel's actions demand condemnation from every country because the flotilla incident took place in international waters and involved civilians on a humanitarian mission. But he said the Obama administration's initial statement was wanting. "We would have expected a much stronger reaction than this," he said.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will be in Washington on Tuesday to discuss Iran with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Turkey's fury over the Gaza incident will inevitably top the agenda.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator now at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it's not the first time Israel has done itself a disservice.

"Israel constantly claims it wants the world to focus on Iran, but then it ends up doing something that gets everyone to focus on itself," he said.

Apart from the raid, attention is likely to fall on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which has faced an Israeli blockade since the Hamas militant group seized power three years ago. Although the Obama administration has pressed quietly for less onerous restrictions on trade, it has not questioned Israeli policies. Special envoy George J. Mitchell has never visited Gaza in about a dozen trips to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Without high-level attention, the situation in Gaza -- a narrow coastal area with 1.5 million people -- has faded from view. Now that might change.

Robert Malley, Middle East director for the International Crisis Group, said Monday's deaths were a consequence of ignoring the "unhealed wound that is Gaza."

In condemning Israel's actions Monday, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton signaled that the European Union would press anew for a shift in policy. "The E.U. does not accept the continued policy of closure," she said in a statement. "It is unacceptable and politically counterproductive. We need to urgently achieve a durable solution to the situation in Gaza."

Malley said U.S. officials have told him that the situation in Gaza "is very high on Obama's agenda." Obama highlighted Gaza in his Cairo speech a year ago, saying, "Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security."

In that speech, Obama appeared to appeal to Palestinians to undertake acts of civil disobedience rather than violence, saying that it was "not violence that won full and equal rights" for African Americans but "a peaceful and determined insistence."

Whether the flotilla was an act of civil disobedience remains up for debate. Its organizers said it was, but Israeli officials said members of the Israel Defense Forces were met with violence when they boarded the ships.

Not only has the incident strengthened the Islamist Hamas, it has probably weakened the secular Palestinian leadership on the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas quickly condemned the attack as a "massacre," but he will probably face new pressure to abandon indirect talks with Israel.

Iran, whose nuclear ambitions deeply concern Israeli leaders, also is a beneficiary. Turkey holds one of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council and was already deeply skeptical of the U.S.-led push to impose new sanctions on the Islamic republic. But now the council's attention will be diverted by the Israeli assault.

Gubler, A.

01-06-10, 10:34 AM

One of the justifications for the boarding in international waters I've read goes something like this: Basically, once they announced their intention to run the blockade, they effectively renounced their neutrality and made themselves one of the 'belligerents'. Once that happened, boarding on the open seas became possible. It's very thin, but I can see some logic to it.

The law Israel is referring to for the boarding is Paragraph 146 of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. It states that merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states can be captured outside of neutral waters if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture". Neutral waters are other nation’s territorial seas, international straits, archipelagic sea lanes, etc and does not apply to this particular area of international sea. Paragraph 67 says it’s OK to attack such a ship as well!

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU

Also Israel has rights under the Oslo Accord (Gaza-Jericho Agreement Annex I, Article XI) to take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity in the Gaza coastline. Combined with the states adjudicative powers under international law provides Israel with the legal right to intercept on the high seas a ship bound for Gaza that they suspect of illegal activity.

Weasel

01-06-10, 09:05 PM

I would hate to inject some facts into the world wide frenzy over the Gaza Flotilla but the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides exceptions to the no-boarding rule of a flagged vessel (one flying a national flag, ie Mavi Marmara from Turkey) including when they are suspected of carrying weapons to combatants or warring parties. In addition there is the Law of Blockade which clearly Israel has a legal and effective blockade over the Gaza strip which enables it to stop, impound and inspect flagged vessels.

The Israeli sailors boarding the Mavi Marmara were clearly identified as such and only did so after considerable time escorting the ships and demanding they turn away or stop and be boarded. To argue that the Israeli sailors should be treated as pirates means this argument has to extend to Australian sailors boarding people smuggling or illegal fishing vessels in international waters?

It is clear that the pro Hamas partisans onboard the Mavi Marmara knew that it was Israeli sailors boarding their ship and were intent on killing or incapacitating them to be used as hostages to enable a standoff so the ship could penetrate the blockade and unload in Gaza. Under such a situation it is likely that all the Israeli sailors captured would have been murdered or held as hostages indefinitely without access to the Red Cross.

This is not a case of some peaceful, innocent vessel transiting the high seas that has been attacked in the middle of the night by dark shadowy figures. Rather it was a clearly contrived scenario in which the Hamas blockade runners took advantage of declared passive resistance campaigners on board their ship and the likely Israeli Navy low lethal configuration to such a passive response to try and either kidnap Israeli sailors or so provoke a lethal response. Either result would provide the Hamas forces with a significant public relations coup.
All good points, in particular the last paragraph. International Law is not Law of Tort...it is dynamic and changes literally on a daily basis. Re australian sailors and illegal fishing: there is an EEZ zone (200NM) around Australia... If the boarding takes place inside the zone and it is for the purpose of investigating theft of resources (fish) then all is good.

If the above purpose is to examine say human smuggling, or smuggling in general, then no, you have to wait until they are within 12NM before you are on "solid" ground.

and so the wheel turns...

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

02-06-10, 03:46 AM

If the above purpose is to examine say human smuggling, or smuggling in general, then no, you have to wait until they are within 12NM before you are on "solid" ground.

No they don't. They can use adjudicative powers under international law and the Migration Act 1958. Which is the same international law as intercepting drug runners on the high seas. If you have good reason to suspect the ship is bound for your waters and is breaking your law - ie running drugs, unauthorised refugees, smuggling, etc - you can intercept them in international waters.

This anti-Israeli hysteria is hell bent on over turning two principals of law: protection of borders outside the border and self defence. Yay!

buglerbilly

02-06-10, 03:57 AM

Israel Turns to YouTube, Twitter After Flotilla Fiasco

By Noah Shachtman June 1, 2010 | 1:55 pm

The Israeli government is hoping YouTube and Twitter can help restore its reputation after a botched raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla killed nine people. Don’t get your hopes up, Bibi. There’s only so much a technological tactic can do after such a big strategic blunder. Besides, the folks on those ships had camera phones, too.

Every few hours, the Israeli Defense Forces are uploading to YouTube a new video meant to demonstrate that their troops acted responsibly — and that the people in the “Free Gaza” flotilla were the hostile ones.

At around 10 p.m. local time Monday night, it was footage taken by IDF naval boat showing the passengers beating up Israeli troops. An hour later, it was a clip of the “knives, slingshots, rocks, smoke bombs, metal rods, improvised sharp metal objects, sticks and clubs” found on board the Mavi Marmara. About two hours ago, the IDF showed how it was unloading “humanitarian cargo” from the ships and into Gaza. In between, the IDF is providing a stream of Twitter updates and blog posts to reinforce its position.

But no one — not even the Israeli military — seems to think it’ll make much of a difference in the international tide of ill will following the raid. ”We know one thing for sure, in the media we are going to lose the war anyhow,” Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry, told the Christian Science Monitor. “It doesn’t matter what we do.”

Dror made those comments on May 28 — days before those commandos stormed the Free Gaza flotilla. Israel gave up on the information war before it even started.

The IDF has been practicing a willful indifference to global opinion for years. After the Hezbollah war of 2006, it decided that sensitivity to outside perception made its forces too hesitant, and put lives on both sides at risk. So in its 2009 Gaza campaign, the IDF decided to do the exact opposite: Shut out the international press, and fight without restraint and without a care about what anyone else thought.

The IDF did embed camera crews in its combat units, but they were there to defend troops against accusations of war crimes. Meanwhile, a young Israeli soldier — born in a small town in Hawaii, and converted to Judaism at Yale — got together with another American Israeli who thought it’d be cool to share some of those videos online. That became the IDF’s official YouTube channel, unexpectedly generating millions and millions of views. But social media (and information operations, generally) remained on the periphery of Israeli planning.

Just look at the heavy-handed, tone-deaf response to the “Free Gaza” ships. “The IDF had hoped to obtain a complete media blackout and planned to jam the signals from the Mavi Marmara,” the Jerusalem Post reports. “This did not work and the cameras on the boat successfully transmitted images throughout most of the takeover and enabled the activists to get their message out about the Israeli ‘aggression.’”

“If I am in charge of doing that for the Israeli Navy, I am going to assume these people are smart and are deliberately trying to provoke a crazy response from my sailors and soldiers that will produce ready-for-television images that both isolate Israel within the international community and further raise the ire of the Arabic-speaking and Islamic worlds…. The last thing you want to do is return fire with 7.62mm, killing a bunch of civilians and giving the enemy exactly the effect he was looking for,” Center for a New American Security fellow Andrew Exum blogs. “What happened today is the Israelis got their butts handed to them.”

Pro-Palestinian activist Hussein Ibish agrees. “The whole point of the ‘Gaza flotilla’ was to get a reaction out of Israel,” notes Ibish. “Israeli officials described it as ‘a provocation’ and I’m not sure that was entirely incorrect: Like all other acts of civil disobedience, it was designed to provoke a response. I’m shocked but not surprised that the Israeli military, which was determined to prevent those ships from reaching the Gaza port, managed to mishandle the situation so badly.”

Maybe there’s an argument to be made that certain countries — the United States, for example — are strong enough to ignore the rest of the planet. “With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications,” Stratfor observes. The U.N. Security Council has condemned the raid. Israel’s strongest ally in the Muslim world, Turkey, is speaking out against its one-time friend.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British [in the 1940s], they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world.

The next battle in that information war will come soon. Two more ships are headed towards Gaza. “Next time we’ll use more force,” one officer said.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/israel-turns-to-youtube-twitter-to-rescue-info-war/#more-25512#ixzz0pemKQQ5u

buglerbilly

03-06-10, 02:18 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

The Naval Fiasco Off Gaza: An Intelligence Blunder

Posted by David Eshel at 6/2/2010 6:53 AM CDT

As a lifetime soldier, I am certaining not condoning the loss of innocent civilian lives in any military operation, and the SS Avi Marmara fiasco Off-Gaza is no exception. But from a sheer, military professional viewpoint, separated from all political aspects, some comments seem imperative in placing the entire sordid affair into perspective.

The first question, which stands out quite clearly, but so far unanswered, is why the commandos, armed only with paintball rifles, were sent on their highly hazardous task, expecting a relatively passive reception from human-rights activists, while the militant Turkish and Palestinian Islamists known to be on board, were blatantly ignored during pre-mission briefing. Obviously, there must have been a serious intelligence blunder here, which prevented mission-planners from making the right decisions, based on sufficient information on their objective, for such a sensitive, politically prone operation.

The entire affair was organized, with full public relations baravado, by the Turkish IHH, the so-called "Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief", a group well known, for many years, as having links with Al-Qaeda and global jihad networks that supports Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2006, the Danish Institute for International Studies conducted a study on IHH's Islamic charity funds and its support for Jihadic terrorism. A CIA report also identified IHH as part of 15 organizations employing members or otherwise facilitating the activities of terrorist groups. All this should have been well known, at least to the political decision-makers, when ordering the military to mount such an operation on the sea and advising them to take appropriate action to defend their troops or avoid unnecessary risk.

As the ships set sail from Turkish ports and during their three day anchorage off Cyprus, the highly experienced Israeli intelligence communities should have gained sufficient time and opportunities to gather reliable inside information, on the nature of the occupants, the commandos would be facing when boarding the ships and especially the crowded SS Avi Marmara -- which was the main target. Devoid of such indispensable, indeed, life-saving information, the pre-mission briefing was inevitably faulty and the following chaos on the deck ended in deadly disaster.

In fact, the mission planners, lacking real-time intelligence, totally underestimated the number of troops needed to commandeer the Turkish ship, control the wheelhouse and turn it round to Ashdod port, as ordered by the political authorities. As each commando, armed only with paint guns, rappelled down the from a helicopter, he was immediately besieged by a violent crowd, beaten, stabbed and assaulted with flying objects. Some were pushed down into the hold and stripped of their anti-flak vests first. Only when reinforcements boarded the ship were weapons used to disperse the furious chaos, which raged uncontrolled aboard the ship's upper and lower decks.

Military analysts question why advanced intelligence systems, such as UAV sensors and sophisticated satellite images did not render real-time intelligence to the tactical commanders, which could have changed the entire mission to full success. The use of non-lethal munitions, such as stun grenades, smoke and even tear gas, could have prevented the initial riots, enabling sufficient troops to engage the violent crowd simultaneously during the take-over phase.

So far, unfortunately, these questions remain unanswered by the authorities and the troops, accused of using excessive force against "innocents" are left alone to shoulder the worldwide condemnation. But any soldier, who has ever faced such mortal combat will certainly not join the blown-up, out-of-proportion, media outrage in this blame of courageous frontline troops, who did only their best, under the deadly circumstances, to stay alive.

Photo: IDF

buglerbilly

03-06-10, 02:22 AM

The comments are interesting..........including those from our buddy Aussie Digger...........

Aussie Digger wrote:
One does wonder about the paintball guns. Is this the most advanced less than lethal force option available to IDF forces? What about shotgun fired bean bag rounds? Stun grenades, CS gas, TASER's, Capsicum spray/Pepper spray, shields, batons etc? The list of options that COULD have been employed is virtually endless. However none of these were seemingly.

Instead they carry a paintball gun, supported clearly by lethal use of force options (at least 9 possibly as many as 19 people WERE shot and killed as a result of this) but what could they possibly be thinking with paintball guns?

I have nothing but the highest respect for the operational capability of the IDF, so I must assume this was a political decision, not an operational decision and the blame needs to be laid with those responsible, those who denied the troops the ability to carry what they actually needed, not the troops themselves.

An absolute cluster of the highest order, deplorable in every way. On both sides. Hopefully those responsible ARE held accountable.
6/2/2010 9:38 AM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Solomon wrote:
What I'd like to know is how they justify the fast rope into a crowd ---once the first guy is on the deck, I understand that the rest of the team had to go but the HRST Master failed big time! I don't care how many superman schools you've been to that's just insane.

One thing is obvious and the IDF isn't getting enough credit for is that they were operating under EXTREMELY rigid ROE's. To be stabbed, hit over the head with iron pipes, thrown over the side of a ship and still be required to get permission to use deadly force is....familiar. They've taken a page out of General McChrystal's playbook.

Its a mess and the terrorist win again.
6/2/2010 10:10 AM CDT
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink

Marcase wrote:
All valid points. However, using stun grenades, CS gas and/or smoke aboard the confines of a ship can cause a serious panic among non-combattants (...) who in their panic may stampede and cause injuries. I'm pretty sure this was the reason it was not authorized by IDF higher ups.
The effect of stun grenades btw may be enhanced by the ships small spaces, and turn the stun effect lethal.
Paint-ball guns can really hurt, and that seems a viable option... on paper.

Pepper sprays can be blown away by either the wind over deck or helo down-wash - btw also note that some activists were wearing (make-shift) masks.

It's a helluva predicament the IDF naval commander was facing. He couldn't very well sink the ships, or shoot up the bridge(s) or rudders, yet he *had* to stop these ships with minimal collatoral damage.

The blockade is well-known, and other options were available if the IHH was really serious about delivering supplies (such as taking a southern route via the Egyptian side).
Israel had every legal right to board those ships, but is now paying the price for taking the bait laid out in front of them - hook, line and sinker.
6/2/2010 10:20 AM CDT
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink

Solomon wrote:
Oh and David, you list this as an intelligence failure. Sorry but I totally disagree. Intel can't give you a picture of what isn't there. It can give you insight into POSSIBLE enemy reaction/capabilities but the ole' saying about no plan surviving contact with the enemy and all that applies.

This wasn't an intelligence failure, it was an operational failure. Its called a complacency bias. The assault force was lulled into a false sense of security because the other boardings had gone off successfully.

So no, as much as the Israeli people want to place the blame elsewhere, its resides with the organization carrying out this operation--and its leadership--the IDF Navy.
6/2/2010 11:16 AM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

John wrote:
Bad intelligence definitely. What you have with these flotillas are terrorist supported groups linked with true humanitarian groups.

The thugs use the humanitarians (in true terrorist fashion) as shields, so if you fire on them then you run the risk of hitting true humanitarians.

6/2/2010 11:21 AM CDT
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink

Aussie Digger wrote:
A paintball gun does indeed sting, and often leaves a nasty bruise. However as should be quite obvious from these videos, they present neither a deterrent effect, nor a suppressive effect when employed against a determined opposing force that is quite willing to employ a greater degree of force, potentially lethal, than you yourself are capable of employing with such "weapons".

They are afterall a toy, designed for a game. I do not intend to get into a lengthy discussion about what sort of use of force options should have been available, but I'd suggest from your comments that you are not personally familiar with such things as stun grenades, CS gas options or other less than lethal systems and we can leave it at that.

The IDF operatives SHOULD have had the ability to escalate or de-escalate their use of force as necessary. Seemingly it was paintball gun or actual gun, being the only choices that were utilised in the event.

I am certain that IDF or Israeli police elements maintain a "riot" unit. The types and natures of equipment employed by these units are seemingly what was required on this operation, but for whatever reason was not employed.

Seemingly it was an intelligence failure that led to this situation, but that might be a bit harsh on the intelligence personnel. It would not be the first time, that political interference led to the bungling of a military operation, nor the unnecessary risking of lives (both military and civilian)...

I can recall a similar instance when Royal Australian Navy Clearance Divers, were deployed to the Gulf for GW1, un-armed in order to comply with our Prime Ministers, "no sand on the boots" edict.

Apparently it was fine to send the CDT's to participate in the Gulf War, but they weren't to be armed, for political reasons... Fortunately the Canadians helped out covertly, without our higher-ups being informed until it was too late...

But the fact was that the first war we had deployed ground troops to since Vietnam was the Gulf War and our Government wanted them to be without weapons, not even for self defence purposes...
6/2/2010 11:31 AM CDT
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink

Surface Navy wrote:
Pepperball guns http://www.pepperball.com/ Ditto with Marcase on relative wind and gas / pepper. Gas and Bios are tough to deploy due to relative wind. I have no clue what was in the paint balls. Might have been pepper, maybe not. I have not seen the pepperguns used. Where these really commandos or two year IDF Naval draftees? Give me a weekend and a high school wrestling team and we would have a much better fast rope. I have seen 7 year olds go faster down a rope then those guys. Israeli reaction to the slow work by India was made clear during Mumbai. Got to wonder what the response is to this. Every navy, coast guard and possible water police organization is going to have to review this operation and change their planning. The videos are really good to show what happened. The problem is that we are not seeing any of the shootings. That is going to leave a lot of unanswered questions. If the entire videos are released, unedited then I think we could come to a quick opinion on this action.

Also it is good to see that there are no political or nationalistic comments here. This is not the place.
6/2/2010 11:53 AM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Marcase wrote:
Re-watching the various videos again, apparently the IDF *did* use pepperspray - a naval commando is seen spraying a 'hot' substance on IR.

Yes, those commandoes were slow coming down, but they went down into that angry mob regardless.

You're not allowed to use guns, and almost all available non-lethals are out of the question as well.
How would you handle it?
6/2/2010 12:22 PM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Surface Navy wrote:
Even if I knew beforehand what to expect I do not have any clear way of conducting a boarding where there would have not been bloodshed. That was a very tough situation. I have never prior to this even considered how to conduct a boarding against a rioting crowd of that size. I would look closely at the ability to insert troops on the stern using some form of little bird. i.e. SOAR. Four on the rails. Look very closely at what helo is used. Can we use multiple ropes? The main problem that I see was a failure to get troops on deck quickly and in one spot. One idea would be to use multiple fire bombers to make runs down the ship dropping water to clear the top deck as the helos came in from the side. Honestly this is something very new that has to be looked at. There are some boarding ideas from other ships but you need a big enough ship of your own to conduct those types of boardings.
6/2/2010 1:04 PM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Obamanite wrote:
Humanitarian activists my a$$. I would have used a few of my namesake anti-ship missiles, the Gabriel, and sunk those boats. As Stalin once remarked, one death is a tragedy, 1,000 deaths is a statistic. What do people think a "blockade" is, anyhow? Terrorists, at least, can be "respected" for their convictions. They do what they must to achieve their aims. And we do what we must to kill them all. All perfectly acceptable in the bigger scheme of things. That's what armed conflict is all about. However, one can neither forgive nor respect the sheer idiocy of terrorist appeasers. They deserve a worse fate than terrorists themselves.
6/2/2010 1:24 PM CDT

Solomon wrote:
Not even the Delta guys fast roped into a mob during Black Hawk Down.

That's the mystifying thing for me---why would they do that?

It was already out of control before they even hit deck. The use of non-lethal force was erased when the mob arrived at the insertion point. When it became obvious that they were using iron bars, deck chairs etc...pepper spray guns become a non-issue (at least in conventional operations---oh and impact weapons unless used properly can be considered deadly weapons...)

By all rights they should have gone hot the second the first Commando faced opposition...that would mean that they should have started laying down covering fire from the helicopter.

I would pay good money to read the un-sterilized after action on this one. A good AAR would cover what the guys were thinking...their perception of events...etc. That would be FASCINATING---and it'll never happen.
6/2/2010 1:34 PM CDT
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink

Obamanite wrote:
This has got me to thinking... There was a time when "civilian casualties" were not given the political import they've been assigned these days due to PC and PR. There was a time when, if villagers were known to be harboring the enemy, the entire village would be razed. Basically, eventually the local populations would resist any association with the enemy for fear that they would be killed alongside them. So now, in Afghanistan, we face a situation wherein we "surgically" try to sift the enemy from so-called civilians. It'll never work. In the long run, a scorched-earth approach probably saves lives. It ain't pretty, but then again, war isn't pretty. Read "Heart of Darkness", watch "Apocalypse now". If there is anything crazier than war itself, it is the idea of waging an "ethical", "sanitized" war.
6/2/2010 1:54 PM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Solomon wrote:
I get what you're saying Obamanite but history shows that to be a losing proposition too.

All the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were "born" in Vietnam and it shapes alot of their decisions today. When we discount the civilian population then they become caught up in a terrible cycle.

We hit them because the terrorist are taking refuge in their area and when we move in and eventually leave, the terrorist hit them because they aided us.

I think the main gripe is this...we take the time to broadcast the location of our next strike, we give the population the knowledge necessary to leave the area of operations...we restrict supporting fires to the point where one squadron of fighters could cover half the country and one artillery battalion could do the same and the elders still b*tch and gripe that we're not doing enough.

What's being lost in all this is the turn that Turkey is taking toward Muslim fundamentalism. They're a member of NATO, they're trying to get into the EU yet they're acting like any other out of control radical state.

Add this to the move that they made with Iran recently and questions should be asked...not to mention that they've recently sidelined the military chief in that country...the same military that's kept them secular.

Israel made another friend that's about to bite them in the behind.
6/2/2010 2:51 PM CDT
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink

ghemago wrote:
When IDFN boarded the ship they were in international waters. Why they didn't wait to be in national waters?
For sure it wasn't well managed... and for sure they were not pacifists, not all at least.
6/2/2010 4:46 PM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Charley A. wrote:
I heard an radio interview on WAMU this afternoon with a retired US diplomat from Chevy Chase, MD who was aboard on of the smaller vessels in the flotilla. He readily admits to being an activist, but he also insisted that the "paintball guns" were underslung on regular assault rifles. An interesting omission from media coverage if indeed true. Perhaps the paintballs were meant to "mark" an individual to be dealt with later? Anyway, American University Radio has an excellent website where you can listen to archived programming - this particular interview aired on the "Kojo Nnamdi Show."
6/2/2010 5:24 PM CDT
Recommend Report Abuse Permalink

Marcase wrote:
National waters are only 12nm, and there were more than one (moving) ship to seize. Time was a factor.

Just info, but according to international law, Israel can forcibly board any ships challenging a blockade, and even intercept ships outside of the 12nm zone (the "high seas").

From Reuters -
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory (read: Gaza), legal experts say.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
6/2/2010 5:28 PM CDT

buglerbilly

03-06-10, 02:30 AM

From the U.S.Naval Institute blog.................

Herding Cats Off the Israeli Coast

June 2010

We typically design physical operations first, then craft supporting information operations to explain our actions. This is the reverse of al-Qaida’s approach. For all our professionalism, compared to the enemy’s, our public information is an afterthought. In military terms, for al-Qaida the ‘main effort’ is information; for us, information is a ‘supporting effort.

David Kilcullen, Countering the Terrorist Mentality, New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflict

In the late 1990s with the advent of massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGS), one of the early challenges that game developers and game masters faced was to generate expected behavior patterns from the mass of players that were flocking to these early games at the time. Large communities playing in these graphics based environments was a new phenomenon that many programmers did not have experience in dealing with, and it was initially difficult for the programmers to associate the impact their content would have on the larger gaming community. Sometime in 1999-2000 time frame, the process of programmers developing content to create expected behavior patterns by players within these massive online gaming communities was affectionately termed “Herding Cats.”

Manipulation of mass media for political influence is both art and science, and represents a psychological warfare capability that non-state actors and political non-government organizations continue to demonstrate remarkable skill and mastery. On May 28th, before the intercept of the Gaza flotilla by Israeli Defense Forces, the Christian Science Monitor ran a story with the headline Why Israel expects to lose the PR war. In the article, expectations of defeat are expressed before the intercept of the flotilla even began.

“We know one thing for sure, in the media we are going to lose the war anyhow,” says Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry. “It doesn’t matter what we do, if we let them into Gaza, they will speak against Israel. If we stop them it will also be a bad picture.”

What I find remarkable is the fatality of the operation expressed in the article. The expectation established in the information space was one of defeat – before the operation even began. If you read the article in full, you will note how the NGO narrative had already been established before the incident, indeed the conclusion in the article is how “The protesters could keep the story prominent in the international media if they fight deportation.” Noteworthy, the protesters are doing exactly that today by withholding their identities.

Whether one believes Israel has a chance to win the information war or not is almost irrelevant, the question I have is why Israel didn’t even try to compete in the information war? The videos that show the actions by the Gaza Flotilla are certainly powerful, but those videos arrived after the NGO had already established the narrative, and the release of the videos was hardly part of a coordinated effort. Indeed, understanding that the battlefield is the information space should give Israel the advantage in developing their operation – but there is little evidence that supports this is evident?

Consider for a moment – the operation that was executed involved fast roping Israels premier anti-terrorism commando unit, armed with paint guns, directly into an angry mob at night that had repeatedly expressed their intention to either run the blockade or generate a confrontation for information purposes – and the intelligence assessment used to develop this operation expected little resistance? There was failure in the tactics for boarding, failure in choosing the equipment used by the boarding party, and a massive failure in intelligence. It is hard to expect anything but failure in the information war as well – and sure enough…fail.

If you believe the Gaza Flotilla is an information operation intended to herd the cats of mass media into a narrative – which is what I believe is the ultimate intention of the NGO effort here – then we can presume to already know the narrative of the second flotilla. The NGO desires a clash on June 8th. Why? Because by creating a clash on June 8th the mass media can be expected to include a reminder of the anniversary of the USS Liberty incident 43 years ago as part of the narrative. We can expect the NGO to fortify the ship in ways that prevent the use of cameras from other ships or aircraft. Why? Because cameras from helicopters and Israeli ships represent a greater threat than the actual IDF commandos do – if you believe the battlefield is the information space. The ship will be more fortified internally? Why? Because the open space of the open deck favors the Israelis, but the small compartments of the ship favor the defenders in creating opportunities to control camera angles and perception of events to onlookers thousands of miles away.

The battlefield off the coast of Israel is in the information space, not the Mediterranean Sea. The weapons that matter most to the Free Gaza Movement are cameras, not firearms or paint guns. Political protests at sea can be defined in their basic form as a political strategy for maritime information war operations – thus to quote Sun Tzu, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy. Instead, Israel blundered with every step right into the enemy’s strategy.

buglerbilly

03-06-10, 02:39 AM

How Free Explains Israel’s Flotilla FAIL

By admin June 2, 2010 | 9:41 am

Amir Mizroch is the executive editor of The Jerusalem Post. This is his first contribution to Danger Room.

The organizers of the “Free Gaza” flotilla spent almost nothing on their campaign. The government of Israel poured millions into its botched raid on the ships — and now is in a worse position than when the flotilla launched. How did it happen? Part of the problem is that the Israeli government never bothered to read Wired.

Israeli commandos may not have known that members of the Free Gaza flotilla were carrying knives, guns and metal bars. But they should have known that many in the incoming flotilla were armed with cameras, cellphones, blogs and Twitter accounts. For a country so technologically advanced, and with such acute public diplomacy challenges, to fail so miserably at preparing a communications offensive over new media is a failure of strategic proportions.

And it was all so utterly predictable. In his book Free, Wired editor Chris Anderson lays out a new media model that foreshadowed the flotilla meltdown.

It’s now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned. Storage (unlimited email storage) now joins bandwidth (YouTube: free) and processing power (Google: free) in the race to the bottom. There’s never been a more competitive market than the Internet, and every day the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing.

How much money did it cost the organizers of the Free Gaza flotilla to get their message out across the world?

Answer: Almost nothing. Turkish TV placed a camera on one of the flotilla ships and kept it on all the time to livestream events on the boat, while constantly placing activists in front of the camera to speak about their cause. The costs of a camera, some other technical equipment, and hosting of a website are negligible.

The original sites that were established to livestream the events from the flotilla, like www.witnessgaza.com and www.livestream.com/insaniyardim were quickly mimicked and their numbers mushroomed.

The live streams and accompanying video, text and photos were twittered, Facebooked, Flickred and YouTubed without any additional costs.

How much did it cost the activists on some of the flotilla ships to tweet updates, messages and video from the boats?

Answer: Nothing. It’s free. All they had to do was put a # sign before the word “flotilla,” or “freedomflotilla” and everyone that follows them on Twitter automatically sees it, and can re-tweet and reply to the original message if they so wish. In the days leading up to the Free Gaza raid, #Flotilla, #Gazaflotilla, and #Freedomflotilla rose dramatically in Twitter’s popularity ranks. Now, with the added element of violence and death, and the increased media attention to the story, these Twitter trends are only spiking further.

On Monday, when flotilla activists felt there was a lack of coverage in the U.K. media of their story, they started twittering about it, and for a few hours, that became the discussion: Why are the BBC and others not reporting on the mission to #BreakTheSiege by the #FreedomFlotilla?

After several hours of this sustained campaign, dozens of bloggers and twitterers claimed success, saying that U.K. news websites were starting to devote more attention to the story.

Conversely, how much money did it cost the Israeli government to cancel all vacations for Navy personnel, have them all on standby, keep several surveillance planes in the air to watch the flotilla, keep destroyers ready to intercept the incoming flotilla, intercept the boats, set up a holding and transit facility at Ashdod to process all the activists brought there, put all the activists on planes and buy them tickets back to their countries of origin?

Answer: Millions of shekels.

And now after the fact, how much money is it costing Israel to bolster security at embassies and consulates across the world; to send out thousands of police across the country to quell riots; to treat all the foreign wounded at our hospitals? How costly will the worsening relations with much of the international community be?

Answer: This is hard to quantify, but it won’t be cheap.

The asymmetry in money spent and effect achieved between the two sides is staggering. Call it the # sign versus the $ sign. The flotilla organizers spent almost nothing and won the day; Israel spent huge amounts of money and ended up with egg on its face.

The narrative that navy commandos were attacked with metal bars, knives and possibly guns, while trying to take over a flotilla meant to break the naval blockade on Gaza — after Israel offered to transfer humanitarian aid — was drowned out on the social media networks by charges of an unprovoked massacre of peaceful activists on a humanitarian mission to besieged Gaza.

In events like these, the traditional media take their cue from social media, whose “reporters” are on the scene. TV stations use images and sounds they find posted on Twitter, not the other way round. This is also good for them because it means they don’t have to spend money on sending crews on site.

But why is Twitter so important? And does it have any real-world impact?

Just ask the Iranian regime, who pulled out all the stops, and the generators, to try shut down the social networking site just this year when the popular uprising against Ahmadinejad’s stolen re-election relied heavily on Twitter to organize rallies and smuggle out photos and videos of regime suppression. Here again, traditional media relied on material smuggled out through the social networks.

Social media is cheap and is antithetical to centralized bodies and subverts their authority. It is, so far, proving to be one of the asymmetrical weapons of choice for grassroots activists.

At the other end of the spectrum, Israeli officials, especially those in the Foreign Ministry, the Information Directorate of the Prime Minister’s Office, Minister for Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and others, decry the lack of money and resources that Israel spends on its public diplomacy, on its hasbara.

They point out that the MFA’s PR budget is smaller than the advertising budget for one of Israel’s yogurt companies. For instance, one of the ideas bandied about in recent years has been the establishment of an “Israeli Al-Jazeera” to pump out Israel’s message 24 hours a day on satellite TV. (And no, it wouldn’t feature videos this like this.) There have even been serious attempts to find the vast amount of money to do this, with the finances mostly coming from Jewish philanthropists in the United States.

But these attempts have come to naught. Other attempts to re-brand Israel away from its image as a land of conflict and occupation, such as creating “Tel-Aviv beaches” in Vienna, Manhattan and several other locations have failed abysmally. Each “beach” cost the state more than $100,000 — with the sand, the money and their purpose scattered by the first wind.

It is becoming increasingly clear that money is not the only issue, and that the people charged with disseminating Israel’s message still don’t get it.

Setting aside the obvious issue of real diplomatic progress with the Palestinians and other Arab states, and the effect that would have on Israel’s image, the tiny, brainy and resourceful Jewish state is light-years away from its adversaries on communicating its message. Money is not the answer: forward-looking and creative use of traditional and new media is of urgent importance.

Wired’s Anderson writes: “The Web is all about scale, finding ways to attract the most users for centralized resources, spreading those costs over larger and larger audiences as the technology gets more and more capable.”

While Israel is justifiably known as the world’s “Start-up Nation” for its technological dynamism and entrepreneurship, we are being beaten hands down on the PR uses of this new technology. We may be a start up nation, but we are bricks and mortar communicators. Our adversaries have cntrl-alt-deleted us.

– Amir Mizroch, cross-posted to Forecast Highs.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/how-free-explains-israels-flotilla-fiasco/#more-25549#ixzz0pkJHS6uK

robsled

03-06-10, 02:43 AM

Perhaps they needed "suppressive paintball fires" from the helicopter then.... to go with the whole paintball philosophy. Those guys just needed to get off the rope and into the superstructure/bridge, and if smoke wouldnt work how about shooting nets into the crowd to stop em moving just prior to roping in.

Gubler, A.

03-06-10, 04:06 AM

I think it’s pretty outrageous to expect that the Israelis could have foreseen this trap and somehow countered it. Someone always has to trip the wire to find the thing in the first place. Their counter ambush response was certainly effective enough in that they managed to get their sailors out alive.

But now it appears that visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS) operations need to take into account handling a street riot by thugs on board a passenger ferry! This is especially important for Australia as we are a major VBSS user and might one day face our own “Freedom Flotilla” heading for Australian shores. I would imagine two systems could be of assistance:

One of the less published aspects of the Israeli boarding was from RHIBs using boarding poles. They were resisted by the militants who threw all sorts of stuff at them (including explosive devices). They struggled to get the pole hooked onto the ship with the militants actively fighting it back. Solutions to this problem can be found in military history in naval boarding and escalades of fortifications.

In this case something like a Roman Corvus or Greek Sambuca aka a boarding ramp would be a good idea. This is a counter balanced fully covered, pivoted walkway much like a fire fighting ladder with a claw on the end. This enables the boarding ramp to be positioned and attached onto the ship in a way that resistors can’t impede (its too heavy). Also the cover on the ramp and the counter weight enables boarders to be at the top of the ramp before it is attached to the target ship. They are protected from missiles and can also suppress the anti boarding efforts of the target ship. Once the ramp is attached they can storm aboard very quickly and en masse.

To clear the open decks of a target ship to enable fast roping or other unprotected boarding a more effective non lethal weapon like the Raytheon Active Denial System (ADS) is needed. Mounted on a helicopter ADS would be effective at driving rioters from the decks. But because the beam needs to be targeted much like a machinegun a single system would only be effective on a single boarding area (not an entire ship at once). But it would enable suppression of rioters so a boarding team could fast rope into their midst without interference and then form up and begin to take over the ship without being individually overwhelmed.

Weasel

03-06-10, 02:39 PM

Gubler, A.

04-06-10, 12:03 AM

Ok, news flash to those involved in such operations. You don't have to board a merchantman to stop the ship. All you do is pay out several miles of polyprop fishing net and complete 4 turns around the ship you want to stop. The net entangles in the slow turning prop and binds the bearing and shaft ex the stern tube via melting and entanglement and freezes the prop solid. This is why you order "all stop" if you encounter a fishing net.

Yeah sure. Now if you think the international outcry against nine militants being killed in self defence was pretty high you should try and imagine what it would be like if 700 people drowned in a foundering ferry that had been imobilised by the Israeli Navy? It is well beyond anyone's risk margin to imobilise a large passenger carrying ship. Of course the Israeli Navy was "offered" this proposal in the public debate before the arrival of the Gaza Flotilla but rejected it because of safety concerns. Besides the laws providing Israel with the right to board, search and impound these vessels does not give them the right to disable them on the high seas.

Zen9

04-06-10, 12:48 AM

This looks like the Israelis made a right hash of this op.
Its not like they did'nt have time to plan it, scope out the vessels and ready appropriate forces properly equipped.

Now one rope to rappel down onto the deck? Whats that about? If the winds too harsh for it the risk of putting down one on a crowded deck is clear. So you drop gas or something to clear the deck, even if its just for a few seconds thats all that counts because after you've gotten a few lads aboard its harder to start smashing stuff in their heads. Theres limited access to the deck. Get four or six lads down and they can block access to keep it clear for the rest.
If the weather does'nt preclude four ropes then why in hell do you put one only down? No big helicopters available? 70nm out is not beyond the range of these things and waiting a few hours more for daylight is only excluded if the weather is predicted to turn nasty.

So you send them down with what? Paintballguns and holstered pistols....at night under lamplight where a civi will see only the thing in your hand, and being already predisposed to 'have a go' seeing you armed with nothing but a "ooh that stings" sort of notweapon is like a red rag to a bull. You lovely holstered gun is at your side in shadow and simply not visible to the guy who is headed your way with a deckchair in his hands.

Another elsewhere commented that the Israeli's needs to practice somewhere like Somalia's coast, but this got a comment that the merchents would end up begging the pirates back instead.

Gubler, A.

04-06-10, 01:00 AM

Everyone is a fricken expert after the action... Why stop here, lets use hindsight to suggest a completely new – and successful – path of history for the past 65 years?

And please stop with the over analyzed BS about holstered pistols, etc. The militants posing as peace protesters on the boat launched their attacks well before they could determine whether the Israelis were armed with Morris sticks or machineguns.

The facts are simple: Israel launched a relatively stock standard VBSS operation onto a protest ship. Accordingly they equipped their sailors with non lethal weapons and training. The protest ship was actually a Trojan Horse for a large group of Jihadi militants who apparently were intent on joining Hamas on Gaza. That being denied them they launched a severe attack against the Israelis armed with a range of weapons including metal poles cut from the ship’s railings.

This is very similar to the recent RAN boarding of an illegal immigrant boat where the refuges on board detonated fuel in the engine room. Supposedly according to the ‘purity of hindsight’ mob those sailors should have confiscated all matches and cigarette lighters on board and been able to *read* the body language between the refugees intent on lighting the fire…

Stop the Madness!

Gubler, A.

04-06-10, 03:05 AM

The full story of the events on the boat are starting to emerge:

Navy: Activists tried to kidnap 3 commandos during Gaza aid flotilla raid

According to preliminary navy investigation, some passengers on the Mavi Marmara boat dragged three unconscious commandos into one of the passenger halls below deck.

By Amos Harel

Published 02:02 04.06.10
Latest update 02:02 04.06.10
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/navy-activists-tried-to-kidnap-3-commandos-during-gaza-aid-flotilla-raid-1.294114

During Israel's takeover of a Turkish ship in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla this week, some passengers tried to take captive three commandos who lost consciousness as a result of the activists' blows, according to early findings of a navy investigation. The three were dragged into one of the passenger halls below deck and were held there for several minutes.

After dozens of other commandos began searching the ship, the Mavi Marmara, the three soldiers regained consciousness and managed to join their comrades.

Conversations with senior navy officers in the chain of command during the operation present a different view of the events on Monday. In Israel, the raid has been perceived as a failure, while abroad it has been derided as piracy or worse.

The navy rejects the claims that it was poorly prepared. Officials have been commending the commandos' performance in a situation in which they were confronted by dozens of activists who attacked them as they rappelled from helicopters. "They were terrorists - hired killers who came to murder soldiers, not to assist the residents of the Gaza Strip," said a navy officer.

The operation on the Mavi Marmara began at about 4:30 A.M. on Monday. Because of the presence of hard-core activists including members of the IHH, the Turkish group organizing the aid convoy, most attention went to that ship. Navy chief Eliezer Merom and the head of the naval commandos, Lt. Col. A., were on vessels next to the ship. Lt. Col. A. climbed on the Mavi Marmara during the takeover.

As seen on a video documenting the takeover, the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando, K., saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. K. jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the activist holding the gun. This happened 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.

The commanders of the first unit were hit by the mob as they landed. One of the soldiers managed to fix another rope, after there were problems with the original one, for 10 more soldiers to land. The commandos cared for the wounded and took over part of the upper deck of the ship.

At this stage, six minutes into the operation, another force landed from a second helicopter, led by a major. At that point they realized that three commandos were missing and they began looking for them. A short while later the naval commando chief landed along with dozens more soldiers, some of whom climbed from boats. Others landed from a third helicopter.

The search involved limited shooting, in the bridge and on the lower deck, until the three men were recovered. The head of the naval commandos gave orders by radio to use live fire, two minutes after the incident had begun.

Shots had been fired earlier, but Lt. Col. A. later explained that in his orders he wanted to make sure that the troops realized that "the mood of the incident had changed."

The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind not used by the naval commandos.

The Israel Defense Forces says that during the operation a number of pistols and an M-4 rifle were taken from soldiers, but they believe that the Turkish activists had other weapons. The captain of the ship told the naval commando chief that the guns were thrown overboard before the ship was completely taken over.

The wounded activists were airlifted to Israel for treatment, some seriously hurt whose lives were saved by the evacuation.

The IDF did not question the activists extensively because of the decision to release them. In conversations after the takeover, activists said they were surprised by the use of helicopters, even though the navy had used this method before. However, nothing else appears to have surprised them because international law requires sufficient warnings before ships are boarded.

Post-operation assessments have the number of hard-core activists involved in the fighting at between 60 and 100. It appears that they were well trained and experienced, especially in view of the arsenal found and code books used to pass on orders from group leaders. Among the rioters, in addition to Turks, were Yemenis, Afghans and one person from Eritrea. All were apparently experienced in hand-to-hand fighting. Some of them did not retreat when shots were fired.

The operation involved a month of training, with dummy takeovers of a ship at sea with 50 soldiers performing the role of activists. The navy admits that it trained mostly for "a Bil'in type of opposition, but there was no feeling that this was going to be a walk in the park." He was referring to a village at the separation fence where demonstrations take place.

The navy says it needs to look into whether the psychological preparations of the force were sufficient, and whether it had emphasized an easier scenario that did not take place.

The navy says it went over "incidents and responses" in preparation; these included opening fire at charging activists with melee weapons. In case of a threat to their lives, the commandos were ordered to shoot to kill even as they were on their way onto the deck.

"The main gap between preparations and intelligence was that we did not know we would face dozens of rioters," a senior officer involved in the operation said. "This was not a disturbance that went awry. It was a planned ambush."

Another officer added that "I still wake up at 3 A.M. and wonder how the hell we did not know more."

Another officer said said that "we became a little spoiled, as a society, expecting perfect performances."

According to a senior officer, "Under the circumstances, and I do not like the result, I think we did the best we could. We took care of five ships without injuries. On the sixth ship, we faced a harsh attack and killed nine saboteurs.

"No real peace activist was injured. No soldier was killed, even though it came pretty close. In the end the ships are docked at Ashdod. It was very complicated and the result is near perfect."

robsled

04-06-10, 05:18 AM

Everyone is a fricken expert after the action... Why stop here, lets use hindsight to suggest a completely new – and successful – path of history for the past 65 years?

Y be so anal sis, its only analysis :)

Weasel

04-06-10, 05:40 AM

Yeah sure. Now if you think the international outcry against nine militants being killed in self defence was pretty high you should try and imagine what it would be like if 700 people drowned in a foundering ferry that had been imobilised by the Israeli Navy? It is well beyond anyone's risk margin to imobilise a large passenger carrying ship. Of course the Israeli Navy was "offered" this proposal in the public debate before the arrival of the Gaza Flotilla but rejected it because of safety concerns. Besides the laws providing Israel with the right to board, search and impound these vessels does not give them the right to disable them on the high seas. I think you are swerving a bit off center Abe. Its a net, its not a viable tactic to cause a ferry to sink. It simply stops the propeller from working. If the propeller doesn't work then then the ferry captain asks for assistance and you offer to give it to him.

I apologize for being so boring, but it is cheap, effective, very low risk and no one needs to get nailed to a cross.

There is an old addage that in order to survive a traumatic event (e.g. car crash) you need to slow it down. Disabling a chameleon peaceful-or-is-it-a-terrorist vessel, meets the needs of the State and slows down the publicity car crash. Everyone can huff and puff as they seem to be doing now, but one can't fault a totally painless way of achieving a peaceful resolution to publicity node in an ongoing conflict.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

04-06-10, 06:01 AM

I think you are swerving a bit off center Abe. Its a net, its not a viable tactic to cause a ferry to sink. It simply stops the propeller from working. If the propeller doesn't work then then the ferry captain asks for assistance and you offer to give it to him.

I apologize for being so boring, but it is cheap, effective, very low risk and no one needs to get nailed to a cross.

This is what I disagree with: that it is a safe action that has any positive contribution to make. Disabling the propeller may be fine in calm waters but come a storm and the ship is in a major risk of broaching. With 700 passengers on board that is an action far too risky to take even if the skies are clear. Further with the “break the blockade” nature of the convoy it would be crazy to assume that the immobilised ship would ask for assistance from the Israeli Navy.

There is an old addage that in order to survive a traumatic event (e.g. car crash) you need to slow it down. Disabling a chameleon peaceful-or-is-it-a-terrorist vessel, meets the needs of the State and slows down the publicity car crash. Everyone can huff and puff as they seem to be doing now, but one can't fault a totally painless way of achieving a peaceful resolution to publicity node in an ongoing conflict.

Adages deserve their time and place. But cutting the ship’s speed or mobility would have very little effect on defusing the action. The ship’s captain appeared to keep the ship on a steady course and made no attempt to run over Israeli RHIBs. However the passengers on board violently resisted any attempt to board the ship. If it was stationary this would make for very little difference.

Like I said in my initial response disabling and just leaving a passenger ferry on the high seas is an illegal and highly dangerous act.

Gubler, A.

04-06-10, 06:09 AM

Y be so anal sis, its only analysis :)

Leave your butthurt at home friend. "Should have done" and "they stuffed up" is not the best way to introduce "analysis". Its unfair hindsight laden criticism.

There is a simple trait required of anyone with pretentions of crisis leadership - keep a level head. The amount of headless chicken squeaking from so called defence experts and strategic leaders after strong words are screamed on TV in relation to this action is amazing. Of course now after the evidence is compiled and the scene emerges – that was quite visible from the first moments to any level headed analysis – the hysteria dissipates.

Weasel

04-06-10, 01:38 PM

Like I said in my initial response disabling and just leaving a passenger ferry on the high seas is an illegal and highly dangerous act.
No, its not. It is something that an agrieved party can ARGUE is illegal after the fact. Even if that turns out to be the case they have to show that this action (which can be shown to be REASONABLE) taken is worse than the alternatives. I.e. It is not as "illegal" as what Israel did a few days ago, because it is safer and less violent and doesn't endanger the Safety Of Life At Sea.

As to dangerous. I guess that is a difference of opinion. It is certainly less dangerous then attempting to board a ship. It simply would not compromise stability of a vessel. Just its ability to commit actions that required mobility. And no, one wouldn't leave a vessel disabled at sea. If you are a state and take such action like this (boarding or disabling) then you assume responsibility of the vessel and all the lives aboard that vessel.

cheers

w

buglerbilly

05-06-10, 12:47 PM

Israeli navy seizes Gaza-bound aid ship, meet no resistance

By Janine Zacharia and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Foreign Service

Saturday, June 5, 2010; 6:36 AM

JERUSALEM -- Israeli naval commandos boarded an Irish humanitarian aid ship bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip on Saturday but encountered no resistance and reported no injuries, an Israeli military statement said.

"The use of force was unnecessary and no shots were fired," it said. The navy was escorting the Rachel Corrie and its crew to the Israeli port of Ashdod. The statement said the boarding of the ship was done "with the full compliance of the ship's crew members."

Activists onboard the Rachel Corrie spotted two Israeli warships tailing the aid ship Saturday morning, news services reported. The navy "issued numerous calls" for the ship to change course but "the calls were ignored," the Israeli statement said. "It became clear that the boat intended to reach Gaza's shores."

Israel pledged Friday to stop the Rachel Corrie from reaching Gaza. Israel stressed that it had "no desire for a confrontation" after the clashes aboard a Turkish ship this week in which nine civilians, including a U.S. citizen, died. Officials said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was weighing possible changes that might allow some aid vessels to reach Gaza if they first submitted to inspections in non-Israeli ports.

Netanyahu has rejected calls to lift the blockade of Gaza, which the Israel government says is intended to prevent the development of weapons that can be used for cross-border attacks and to isolate and marginalize the anti-Hamas regime.

But the international pressure that followed the deadly raid aboard the Turkish ship appears to be pushing the prime minister toward changes that might soften the Israeli approach, by providing for international inspections of the aid shipments and by revising the terms of an economic embargo to permit delivery of items that do not pose a security risk.

Possible changes

A person familiar with the conversations said Netanyahu had spoken with U.S. and British officials Friday to discuss possible changes. "We're exploring additional ways to implement our goals, and the goals are first, to prevent arms reaching Hamas," an Israeli official said.

The Rachel Corrie was supposed to be part of the aid flotilla that arrived off the Mediterranean coast early Monday and was taken over by Israeli forces. The ship was delayed by technical problems.

Few expected a second confrontation in part because the Irish vessel included 11 passengers and eight crew members, far fewer than the 600 passengers who were aboard the Turkish vessel. Still, the White House on Friday echoed Israel's call for the Rachel Corrie to sail to the port of Ashdod.

Those aboard include an Irish Nobel peace laureate, a former U.N. diplomat and a best-selling Malaysian author.

Before the Jewish Sabbath began in Israel Friday, Netanyahu convened his top ministers to discuss calls for an international inquiry into Israel's actions on Monday. Israel, skeptical it can get a fair hearing by an outside panel, would prefer to conduct an internal military review.

Israel continued to feel the repercussions from the botched raid, particularly in its relations with Turkey, which threatened to cut ties with Israel. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered tough remarks in a televised speech on Friday, and the Turkish ambassador to the United States said Israel "first and foremost'' needs to apologize for the deaths.

"Israel cannot find any better friend in the region than Turkey,'' Namik Tan, the ambassador, told a small group of reporters. "And Israel is about to lose that friend." He said Ankara continues to be "disappointed" that the Obama administration has not condemned Israel's actions.

Israel: No apology

A senior Israeli official rejected the demand for an apology, saying "our soldiers are not going to apologize for defending themselves from a murderous assault." The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to engage in a tit-for-tat with Turkey, also rejected the call for a international probe.

For Israel, there have also been repercussions at home, most significantly in heightened tensions between Jewish and Arab Israelis. On Friday, a cabinet minister sought to revoke the citizenship of an Arab Israeli parliament member who sailed on the Turkish vessel and later said publicly Israel had committed a "massacre.'' Arab Israelis make up one-fifth of Israel's population.

Israel has strongly defended its raid on the flotilla. On Friday, senior Israeli officials in Washington briefed a small group of reporters about Operation "Sea Breeze." Members of the Israeli military, they said, spent four hours trying to persuade the 300-foot-long Turkish ship to shift course away from Gaza. He said the activists responded repeatedly with shouts -- "Go back to Auschwitz!" -- and kept the ship at its maximum speed of 10 knots.

The officials insist they had no choice but to enforce the blockade of Gaza, controlled by the Hamas militant group, because allowing selective ships to pass would have rendered it legally meaningless. "Either you have a blockade or not," one military official said.

Turkish officials have angrily said that the blockade is illegal, that the assault should not have taken place in international waters and that the use of force was disproportionate and even criminal.

The Israeli officials conceded that their intelligence was poor. They thought the soldiers would encounter protesters who might, at worst, chain themselves to prevent access to the ship's control room. The soldiers were equipped with paintball guns and beanbags, and also "low-velocity" pistols to protect themselves, the officials said.

Kessler reported from Washington.

buglerbilly

05-06-10, 12:50 PM

Obama's agenda, Israel's ambitions often at odds

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Since its creation more than six decades ago, the state of Israel has been at times a vexing ally to the United States. But it poses a special challenge for President Obama, whose foreign policy emphasizes the importance of international rules and organizations that successive Israeli governments have clashed with and often ignored.

His dilemma has come into clear focus after Israel's military operation this week, in which commandos boarded a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in international waters, killing nine civilians, among them a 19-year-old U.S. citizen of Turkish descent.

The head of Israel's foreign intelligence service warned parliament the next day that the country is "gradually turning from an asset of the United States to a burden." An Irish aid ship was steaming toward Gaza on Friday night despite Israeli warnings that it would be stopped.

Israel has a unique set of security threats and national ambitions that have fostered policies inconsistent with Obama's broader agenda, including his push to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and repair U.S. relations with the Islamic world. That has forced him to carve out exceptions for Israel that undermine the consistency he seeks in dealing with allies and antagonists alike.

Those differences have also made it hard for Obama to speak unequivocally in support of Israel during difficult times. Asked by CNN's Larry King on Thursday if it were "premature then to condemn Israel," Obama said, "I think that we need to know what all of the facts are."

Israeli officials "look at the world quite differently from the way from this president does, and they are not willing to just fall in line because he is the president," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who advised Obama's campaign and now teaches at Princeton University. "Israel and the United States are seeing the threat environment in the region -- and the ways to deal with the threat environment -- in increasingly different ways. And for the United States that means Israel is a problem, as an ally heading in a very different direction."

So far, Obama has little tangible to show for his Middle East policy; the raid threatens to undercut what progress he has made. His attempt to turn "proximity talks" between Israelis and Palestinians into direct negotiations has been complicated by the Gaza operation. So has his bid for new sanctions against Iran at the United Nations.

Before the raid, the administration was working to patch up relations with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which frayed this year over Israel's settlement policy, and with an American Jewish community that has long viewed Obama as an uncertain friend of Israel.

Last week, Obama marked Jewish American Heritage Month with a White House reception for 200 guests, who encountered at the entrance President Harry Truman's May 1948 statement recognizing the state of Israel. Obama also met last month with three dozen Jewish members of Congress, telling them, according to one participant, that he "can't impose" a peace settlement on Israelis and Palestinians but "may outline a solution for the parties."

To Israel and its supporters, though, Obama must show an emotional understanding of the threats they face before pushing peace proposals. Israeli leaders have traditionally found few places besides the United States to turn to for support. Israel mistrusts international organizations such as the United Nations, whose General Assembly once passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. It was later reversed.

David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that "both Bill Clinton and [George W.] Bush were able to evince a visceral identification with an Israel that exists in a very difficult neighborhood." That identification, he said, was essential to good relations with the Israeli government and public, which has a low opinion of Obama.

"Obama has been more detached and programmatic in his approach," said Makovsky, who wrote the 2009 book "Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction in the Middle East" with Dennis Ross, an Obama adviser on the region. "But there's a paradox in this because you need a shared agenda to have trust. And you need trust to forge a shared agenda."

In his June 2009 address to the Muslim world at Cairo University, Obama drew applause for stating that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" in territories Israel occupied in the 1967 war. He said that "this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace."

Those remarks represented a sharp turn from the Bush administration's position that Israel could expect to keep its largest West Bank settlement blocs.

"The key to understanding this president is to know that he is about change -- it wasn't just a slogan," said Michael B. Oren, Israel's ambassador to Washington. "This is a changing relationship, but change doesn't necessarily mean friction."

Israeli leaders have argued that Jewish settlements in the West Bank serve as a buffer against Arab attack from the east. But many members of Netanyahu's Likud party also believe Jews have a biblical claim to the land, making it politically difficult for the prime minister to stop settlement construction.

"We have areas of disagreement -- Jerusalem is one, and the friction around the settlements," said Oren, who spent four hours at the White House this week meeting with senior administration officials. "They want us to be more flexible on the Gaza issue, and we also want to change the status quo. The fact we are having this dialogue is a sign of our shared interests."

But Obama, who has sought to eliminate double standards in U.S. foreign policy since taking office, has had to make exceptions for Israel on some of his most important initiatives.

At the end of the Nuclear Security Summit he convened in April, Obama spoke at length about Iran's need to meet its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or face harsher sanctions for not doing so.

Asked if he would press Israel to declare its decades-old nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which moments earlier he had called "the cornerstone of our global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons," Obama said, "I'm not going to comment on their program."

"What I'm going to point to is the fact that consistently we have urged all countries to become members of the NPT," he added.

A major treaty review last month ended with a statement that singled out Israel's nuclear program for criticism, but did not condemn Iran's secret nuclear facilities. James L. Jones, Obama's national security adviser, called the omission "deplorable."

"This administration faces two very difficult stances to reconcile," said Robert Malley, a former Middle East adviser to Clinton. "You have Israel feeling that it stands apart because it faces challenges unlike anyone else. And you have an administration that wants to establish a rule-bound international order. The question is how effectively do they juggle the two, and the test of that will be whether they achieve their policy."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

rawcs

05-06-10, 10:35 PM

Interesting accounts from a couple of the Israeli commandos, paints a different picture to some of the other reports out there:

'They had murder in their eyes': Israeli commando (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/they-had-murder-in-their-eyes-israeli-commando/story-e6frg6so-1225875722494)

Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
June 05, 2010 12:00AM

AS the last of 15 Israeli naval commandos fast-roping down from a helicopter on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara on Monday, Staff Sergeant S saw three men who preceded him lying on the deck, one unconscious with a fractured skull and two wounded by bullets.

Sergeant S began dragging the wounded against the side of the Turkish passenger ship and formed a perimeter with the remaining commandos. The militants on deck charged them with metal staves, axes and knives. The attackers also had two pistols they had seized from commandos.

"There was murder in their eyes," Sergeant S said yesterday. "They were out to kill us."

The fighting took place on Monday, as the Israelis intercepted a six-ship flotilla of peace activists trying to breach the Jewish state's blockade of the Gaza Strip. The commandos regrouped and fought back, leaving nine activists dead - and Israel facing a PR disaster.

Most of the commandos had been outfitted with paintball rifles that had been considered sufficient to intimidate an unruly crowd - the worst that had been anticipated by the Israelis. All, however, had pistols. Sergeant S pulled his 9mm Glock and killed a militant pointing a pistol at the head of one of the wounded. He then shot dead five other militants. His colleagues killed another three.

"He did a remarkable job," said his commander, Lieutenant Colonel T. "He stabilised the situation."
Other commandos soon joined them from other helicopters and from rubber boats. In addition to the nine dead militants, more than 30 others were wounded.

Commando officers said every person shot was a militant and not a peace activist and, after the initial shootout, the commandos aimed only at legs.

Interviews given by the commando team to Israeli reporters depict the militants who attacked them as tough, well-trained men who had apparently seen battle before. Colonel T said he realised they probably had a military background when he dropped stun grenades on to the deck and fired warning shots before descending from his helicopter. "They didn't even flinch," he said. "Ordinary people would move."

The militants were organised into squads and were equipped with communication devices. All wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests. The Israel Defence Forces spokesman said the Marmara's captain had said the militants had come aboard with additional weapons of their own but threw them overboard after the commandos began gaining control of the vessel. The Marmara, carrying 600 activists, was the flagship of the six-ship Gaza-bound convoy forced by Israel into Ashdod port.

Contrary to an earlier report that the commandos had been given permission to use their weapons only after 45 minutes, Sergeant S said they pulled their pistols within a minute and a half when it was apparent they were facing a life-threatening situation.

The first commandos to reach the deck had been overwhelmed by the militants before they could get to their weapons. One was stabbed in the stomach and thrown over the rail on to the deck below.

Lieutenant A said that when he landed on the deck he saw two militants beating a fallen commando with iron bars.

"I brought down the first with a blow to the back and then was struck in the hand. I took my paintball rifle and fired paintballs at them but they smashed the rifle with a club and injured my arm. At that point I pulled my pistol." Cautioned beforehand about inflicting casualties, he did not fire the weapon and only used it to deter.
The initial commando force gained control of the upper deck in about three minutes and began moving towards the bridge. They were soon joined by others landing from helicopters and rubber boats.

Officials estimate the hardcore fighters on the upper and lower decks as numbering between 60 and 100. Group leaders had code books for use in transmitting orders. Although Turks were dominant, the group also included men from Yemen, Afghanistan and one from Eritrea. Israeli spokesmen said two martyr videos were found on the ship, left by militants who believed they would be going to their death in the anticipated fight with the Israelis.

It is believed within the defence establishment that members of the hardcore group had been trained in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and that they were affiliated with global jihad elements. None of them carried passports or other identification. Most had thousands of dollars in their pockets, in some cases $10,000. Some Israeli officers referred to them as "mercenaries".

buglerbilly

07-06-10, 04:49 AM

Gaza blockade: Iran offers escort to next aid convoy

• Aide threatens use of Revolutionary Guard
• Netanyahu warns of Jerusalem missile danger

Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 June 2010 21.20 BST

Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pledged Tehran would send Revolutionary Guard units to escort Gaza aid convoys. Photograph: Reuters

Iran has warned that it could send Revolutionary Guard naval units to escort humanitarian aid convoys seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza – a move that would certainly be challenged by Israel.

Any such Iranian involvement, raised today by an aide to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would constitute a serious escalation of already high tensions with Israel, which accuses Tehran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon and of backing Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls Gaza.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces are prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys that carry humanitarian assistance for the defenceless and oppressed people of Gaza with all their strength," pledged Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's personal representative to the guards corps.

The threat came as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week's commando assault on aid ships, in which nine people died. Another aid ship, the Rachel Corrie, carrying Irish and other peace activists, was boarded peacefully by Israeli forces on Saturday, escorted to the port of Ashdod, and its passengers deported.

Netanyahu has defended Israel's right to maintain the blockade by arguing that without it Gaza would become an "Iranian port" and Hamas missiles would strike Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israel's undeclared aim is to weaken or bring down the Hamas government.

Iran continued to exploit the "freedom flotilla" affair to lambast Israel. Its foreign minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, told the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah on Sunday that Israel's crime was "another instance of the Zionist regime's brazen and merciless treatment of Muslims, especially the oppressed Palestinian people."

Mottaki also called for a UN resolution condemning Israel. The security council is discussing imposing new sanctions on Iran because of its failure to meet international demands over its nuclear programme.

Iran and Israel have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 revolution and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly predicts the disappearance of the Jewish state as well as denying the Holocaust.

Shirazi said Iran should encourage international efforts to break the blockade. "We should expose our enemies to spontaneous global action and not let them achieve their heinous goals," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which have a command structure separate from the regular armed forces, are fiercely loyal to the supreme leader. Khamenei has attacked the raid as a "mistake" that "showed how barbaric the Zionists are".

Israel's determination to strike at links between Iran and Hamas was dramatically demonstrated in January when presumed Mossad agents in Dubai assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was described as the Hamas official in charge of smuggling Iranian weapons into Gaza.

Israel's no-compromise attitude to aid convoys could be tested again after two Lebanese organisations pledged to send boats to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders is attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement is planning a similar attempt.

George Galloway, the founder of Viva Palestina, announced in London that two simultaneous convoys "one by land via Egypt and the other by sea" would set out in September to break the Gaza blockade. The sea convoy of up to 60 ships will travel around the Mediterranean gathering ships, cargo and volunteers.

Chunder

07-06-10, 03:40 PM

Pardon me for saying so; but it was an absolute PR Disaster waiting to happen.

It costs Eff all for inter governmental agencies to arrange for boarding & inspection of said ships anyrate. It's NOT an in hindsight measure - and happens frequently. Infact in countries more interested in fostering the free flow of people & goods I,E Canada/US, it happens on a daily basis.

The Boardings in international waters were a political point gone awefully wrong. What happened PR wise over the course of a number of weeks turned from something the Israeli Govt thought it could handle hand fistedly to make a point. What it ultimately met is pretty unpalatable in my view.

Gaza is an effing stink hole regardless of political standpoints. A ticking time bomb with some pretty high emotions and stigmatised factions. Physchologically right from the start, at least some of these people didn't give a shit about peacefull surrender of an aid ship & intentions were clear. Thier very presence is because they feel aid is not getting through to Gaza. Anyone thinking peacefull surrender with zero resistence or proof of evil intentions of/from the flotilla (like they should be suprised if they take exception) either has shit for brains or is smoking too much weed.

This doesn't come across to me as a personell issue, nor even the actual use of eventual deadly force (and subjecting srvice personell to those very unenviable conditions) if justified within it's own right. But I suspect it wasn't justified in the context of available tools of government. it seems a typical lax, shortsighted knee jerk policy of the Netenyahoo Govt, concearned about projecting a hardline image. It put it's own personell @ risk, and lost the PR campaign at the same time.

There are lots of tools available for govt to protect it's interest before even getting to the point of using force in this manner, and thats just the point. No I Heart Israel, with a picture of Yahoo on the reverse side of it changes that. Customs agencies world wide must be rolling their heads! It's not the only of type scenario, or option existent either. Numerous Mediterranean countries have structures in place, intergovernmental agreements acting on and behalf of the interested parties for inspection/or policing of other countries policies Libya/Italy springs to mind. Australia has them for instance with Indonesia & boat people. Heck we even have offshore advertising & education programms to help us do it.

Political statement gone wrong IMO. Of course one can get caught in the sentiments of "Protecting Israel" Banner, Too bad the Yahoo Govt can use the same sentiment to mask the incompetence and play the "everyones gangning up on us again" line.

Regards

Gubler, A.

07-06-10, 05:20 PM

There are lots of tools available for govt to protect it's interest before even getting to the point of using force in this manner, and thats just the point. No I Heart Israel, with a picture of Yahoo on the reverse side of it changes that. Customs agencies world wide must be rolling their heads! It's not the only of type scenario, or option existent either. Numerous Mediterranean countries have structures in place, intergovernmental agreements acting on and behalf of the interested parties for inspection/or policing of other countries policies Libya/Italy springs to mind. Australia has them for instance with Indonesia & boat people. Heck we even have offshore advertising & education programms to help us do it.

LOL. So you're suggesting all this would have been avoided if Israel had some kind of inter-agency customs agreement with Hamas (a terrorist agency hell bent on destroying it) because freiendly states like Libya-India and Australia-Indonesia can do it.

Dude you've got to lay of the hydro!

buglerbilly

07-06-10, 11:19 PM

Helen Thomas Retires After Israel Remarks

June 07, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Longtime Washington journalist Helen Thomas abruptly retired Monday as a columnist for Hearst News Service following remarks she made about Israel that were denounced by the White House and her press corps colleagues.

The 89-year-old Thomas, dean of the White House press corps, has long been a fixture in Washington and has been lauded as a pioneering journalist who has covered presidents since 1960.

Known for her confrontational questioning, Thomas apologized for comments that were captured on video and have spread widely on the Internet. On the May 27 video, Thomas says Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine," suggesting they go to Germany, Poland or the U.S.

Hearst announced her retirement, effective immediately, shortly after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called her remarks "offensive and reprehensible."

The White House Correspondents Association also issued a rare statement, calling her comments "indefensible."

"Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trail blazer on the White House beat," said the statement, signed by journalists who are officers of the association.

Thomas had been scheduled to speak at the June 14 graduation of Walt Whitman High School in the Washington suburb of Bethesda, Md., but Principal Alan Goodwin wrote in a Sunday e-mail to students and parents that she was being replaced.

"Graduation celebrations are not the venue for divisiveness," Goodwin wrote.

Thomas wrote on her website that "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians."

She added: "They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, said Sunday that Thomas' apology didn't go far enough.

"Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history," Foxman said in a statement. "We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused."

Thomas began her long career with the wire service United Press International in 1943, and started covering the White House in 1960, according to a biography posted on her website. She became a columnist for Hearst in 2000.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Riđđu

08-06-10, 09:44 AM

Israeli Force, Adrift on the Sea

By AMOS OZ

The New York Times

ARAD, Israel

FOR 2,000 years, the Jews knew the force of force only in the form of lashes to our own backs. For several decades now, we have been able to wield force ourselves — and this power has, again and again, intoxicated us.

In the period before Israel was founded, a large portion of the Jewish population in Palestine, especially members of the extremely nationalist Irgun group, thought that military force could be used to achieve any goal, to drive the British out of the country, and to repel the Arabs who opposed the creation of our state.

Luckily, during Israel’s early years, prime ministers like David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol knew very well that force has its limits and were careful to use it only as a last resort. But ever since the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel has been fixated on military force. To a man with a big hammer, says the proverb, every problem looks like a nail.

Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip and Monday’s violent interception of civilian vessels carrying humanitarian aid there are the rank products of this mantra that what can’t be done by force can be done with even greater force. This view originates in the mistaken assumption that Hamas’s control of Gaza can be ended by force of arms or, in more general terms, that the Palestinian problem can be crushed instead of solved.

But Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians. No idea has ever been defeated by force — not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one.

Thus, the only way for Israel to edge out Hamas would be to quickly reach an agreement with the Palestinians on the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as defined by the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has to sign a peace agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government in the West Bank — and by doing so, reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip. That latter conflict, in turn, can be resolved only by negotiating with Hamas or, more reasonably, by the integration of Fatah with Hamas.

Even if Israel seizes 100 more ships on their way to Gaza, even if Israel sends in troops to occupy the Gaza Strip 100 more times, no matter how often Israel deploys its military, police and covert power, force cannot solve the problem that we are not alone in this land, and the Palestinians are not alone in this land. We are not alone in Jerusalem and the Palestinians are not alone in Jerusalem. Until Israelis and Palestinians recognize the logical consequences of this simple fact, we will all live in a permanent state of siege — Gaza under an Israeli siege, Israel under an international and Arab siege.

I do not discount the importance of force. Woe to the country that discounts the efficacy of force. Without it Israel would not be able to survive a single day. But we cannot allow ourselves to forget for even a moment that force is effective only as a preventative — to prevent the destruction and conquest of Israel, to protect our lives and freedom. Every attempt to use force not as a preventive measure, not in self-defense, but instead as a means of smashing problems and squashing ideas, will lead to more disasters, just like the one we brought on ourselves in international waters, opposite Gaza’s shores.

Amos Oz is the author, most recently, of the novel “Rhyming Life and Death.”

This was translated from the Hebrew by Haim Watzman.

Gubler, A.

08-06-10, 01:45 PM

But Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians.

Well thanks Amos Oz for that fundamental lesson in philosophy. But the word “organisation” does not preclude “idea” in fact it requires it. But if you take an idea and form a structured group of people doing things around that idea you have: an organisation.

No idea has ever been defeated by force — not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one.

Force - including siege, bombardment, the flattening effects of tank treads (more a ripping, really) and marine commandos - seemed to work pretty well eradicating the idea of Nazism from this world. And many other “ideas” as well.

What magic ingredient did this little media heavy attempted hostage taking gone wrong suddenly mean the world needed to be flooded by bullshit arguments by every idiot with a keyboard?

buglerbilly

09-06-10, 03:02 AM

Israeli Army Forms Team To Learn From Flotilla Raid

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 8 Jun 2010 08:43

JERUSALEM - Israel's army announced late Monday the creation of a team of high-ranking officials charged with examining and learning from the deadly May 31 operation against a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

The team - to be headed by a general in the reserves, Giora Eiland - would "examine the unfolding of the operation and to draw lessons from it," an army statement said.

"It must submit its conclusions between now and July 4," it added.

Besides Eiland, the panel includes two other generals in the reserves, a colonel in the marine reserves and a high official in the defence ministry, it said.

Israeli special forces stormed a flotilla of six ships carrying aid for blockaded Gaza, killing nine Turks on board one of the vessels and sparking international outrage.

Israel has defended itself saying it must stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas, an Islamist movement committed to the destruction of Israel which controls that Palestinian territory.

It also says the aid the activists wanted to deliver is not needed.

Israel has resisted calls for an international enquiry, but the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans for an internal examination of the events and whether the blockade and its implementation were in keeping with international law.

Media reports said the panel could include international figures chosen by Israel.

buglerbilly

10-06-10, 10:02 AM

Islamic charity at center of flotilla clash known for relief work and confrontation

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, June 10, 2010

ISTANBUL -- Across from a car-repair shop in this working-class city sits the home of IHH, an Islamic charity. One side of the building is painted with wistful-looking orphans; the other is surrounded by banners celebrating the group's recent effort to challenge the blockade of Gaza. One reads: "Israel, murderers, hands off our boats!"

The dual message of aid and confrontation defines the charity, which has grown in nearly two decades from a handful of Muslim students to a multimillion-dollar operation.

The group is under unprecedented scrutiny after a bloody clash May 31 involving Israeli soldiers trying to stop an IHH-led aid flotilla. Israel accused one of the charity's leaders this week of being connected to al-Qaeda, a charge the group denies.

Analysts in Turkey said it is unlikely that authorities would permit an organization linked to al-Qaeda to operate in Istanbul. IHH reflects something else, they said: the rise of a powerful religious middle class in a country where secularism was once strictly enforced.

With an Islamic-rooted party in power, Muslim organizations "have found a more congenial and welcoming atmosphere in which to work," said Ilter Turan, a political scientist at Istanbul Bilgi University.

Terrorist links denied

IHH, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, was formed during the war in Bosnia, when Turks were horrified by televised images of massacred Muslims. For years, the Istanbul-based charity has battled allegations of extremist ties.

French counterterrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière wrote that the charity's members planned in the 1990s to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya, according to a 2006 paper by Evan Kohlmann, a U.S. terrorism investigator. Calls were made in 1996 from IHH's headquarters to an al-Qaeda guesthouse in Milan, according to the report. And Bruguière testified during a 2001 trial related to a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport that IHH was involved in weapons trafficking, Kohlmann wrote.

An IHH board member, Murat Yilmaz, denied in an interview that the group was involved with terrorism. As for the phone calls, he said, "Our organization had people from all over the world coming in and out" at the time.

A think tank with ties to Israel's Defense Ministry, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, said recently that there was no known evidence of current links between IHH and "global jihad elements" but that "its activities in the past may indicate its nature."

Not so, IHH says.

"We are for humanitarianism. Nothing else," Huseyin Oruc, the group's vice president, said in an interview.

Israeli authorities accused Oruc this week of planning to smuggle al-Qaeda operatives into the Gaza Strip through Turkey. They presented no evidence, and Oruc said he was not asked about that allegation when Israeli authorities questioned occupants of the Mavi Marmara ferry after the clash. "It is a big lie," he said.

The Palestinian cause

In the group's two-story headquarters, IHH members -- mostly men in their 30s and 40s dressed in jeans or casual business attire -- oversee operations in dozens of countries. The group provides humanitarian aid such as freshwater wells and medical care, as well as Islamic services such as training for prayer leaders. A world map on one wall depicted Palestine, but not Israel.

The group takes in $100 million a year in cash and in-kind donations, Oruc said. Analysts said that reflects the generosity of religious Muslims in Turkey who have benefited from the country's economic boom.

"Twenty years ago, pious Muslims in Turkey were 99 percent the underclass. The seculars were the upper class," said Mustafa Akyol, a columnist with the Star newspaper. That has changed.

A major focus for IHH is the Palestinian cause, which is popular in Turkey. IHH says it has spent about $25 million over four years in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas, an Islamist group considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. IHH is banned in Israel because of its aid to Hamas. The charity is not on the U.S. terrorist list, although U.S. officials have expressed concern about its contacts with Hamas officials.

IHH's financial heft transformed a more modest effort by European and U.S.-based pro-Palestinian groups to challenge the economic blockade of Gaza. While the other groups managed to get small boats and load them with aid, IHH spent $1.8 million buying the Mavi Marmara, a used 250-foot passenger ferry, from the Istanbul municipal government, according to accounts from the charity and IDO, the city's water transport company.

Israeli officials have speculated that the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan helped promote the flotilla, which included two other IHH boats. In a ceremony before the ships set sail from Istanbul late last month, IHH's president, Bulent Yildirim, thanked supporters -- including the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, according to the IHH Web site and press reports.

But the Turkish government has denied that it was directly or indirectly involved in organizing the flotilla. A group of AKP deputies who were scheduled to take part in the trip dropped out at the last minute, reportedly under pressure from the government.

Years ago, the government and Turkey's powerful military were wary of conservative Muslim organizations. Now, after a series of reforms that have permitted more religious freedom, the groups operate with fewer constraints.

The melee on the Mavi Marmara, in which Israeli commandos came under attack with clubs and pipes and nine civilians were killed, has elevated the profile of IHH like never before. Contributions are expected to increase.

"Our budget will be billions now," Oruc said.

Correspondent Janine Zacharia in Jerusalem

Riđđu

10-06-10, 06:45 PM

Foreign Ministry warned Israel Navy not to raid Gaza flotilla in international waters

In preparatory discussions, government cautioned that such an action would hamper Israel on the diplomatic and public relations front worldwide.

from Haaretz.com

By Barak Ravid

During the government's preparatory discussions over how to handle the Gaza-bound aid flotilla, the Foreign Ministry advised that Israel's security forces wait for the ships to reach the country's territorial waters - which lie within 20 miles from the coast - before launching a takeover operation. According to a senior official in Jerusalem, Foreign Ministry diplomats said that despite the legality of overtaking the ships in international waters, such an action would hamper Israel on the diplomatic and public relations front worldwide.

Yesterday the forum of seven senior ministers convened again to discuss the creation of an inquiry committee that would be tasked with probing the flotilla raid and easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Following the meeting, the ministers did not release a statement regarding the formation of a panel, which is perhaps indicative of continuing disagreement with the Obama administration over the mandate and composition of the committee.

The Americans would like the committee to include an international entity to placate Turkey, which remains adamant in demanding an international investigation under the auspices of the United Nations.
Jerusalem is expected to announce the formation of a panel soon. One of the key issues to be examined by the committee is the legality of the navy's actions in the eyes of international law.

Speaking at a conference organized by TheMarker, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the world had focused too much on Israel without paying due attention to violent attacks by the activists.
"I want the whole truth to come to light," he said. "So it is important to include answers to questions that have until now been ignored by many actors within the international community."

"We have to establish who stood behind this extremist group, who financed its members, and how knives, axes and other weapons were brought aboard," Netanyahu said. "We also need to ask what large sums of money found aboard the boats were doing there, and for whom they were intended."
An Israel Defense Forces internal probe of the flotilla raid is already underway. The head of the investigation, General (res. ) Giora Eiland, will soon begin to compile the findings of the probe into a report. In discussions that preceded the flotilla's arrival and forcible takeover, legal experts with the Military Advocate General's Corps and the Foreign Ministry offered similar opinions which stated that there was no legal impediment to stopping a ship whose operators have already announced an intention to trespass a blockade, even if the takeover is done in international waters.

The legal opinions were based on precedent-setting cases involving the American and British navies as well as citations of the San Remo international law manual of 1994. Nonetheless, Foreign Ministry officials cautioned representatives of the defense establishment that it would be difficult to justify a military operation outside of Israel's territorial waters from both a political and public relations standpoint.

Thus, according to senior figures familiar with the details of the discussions, the Foreign Ministry urged defense officials to launch their operations to stop the flotilla only after the ships had crossed Gaza's maritime boundaries. The ministry's diplomats repeated this request on more than one occasion.
"If somebody breaks into your home and you shoot him after he enters the doorway, there's no problem in justifying this action in court," said a senior ministry official. "But if you attack the burglar while he is on his way to your house at a distance of two blocks away, then you have a problem."

"It was made clear that we can ultimately prove that we acted according to international law, but this will be very complicated and we will absorb many denunciations along the way," the official said.
Senior figures involved in the planning of the operation praised the improved cooperation between the defense establishment and the Foreign Ministry. While the diplomats' warnings were understood, their recommendation was not accepted due to "operational reasons."

"The navy expressed concern that it would not be able to stop the flotilla once the ships reached within 20 miles of the coast," said an official who had a hand in the planning of the operation. "The IDF was fearful that the naval forces would not have adequate time to complete the operation. The army wanted to overtake the ships gradually and at a relatively great distance from the coast." Defense and diplomatic officials began preparations for the flotilla's arrival two months prior to its voyage. The efforts were led by the IDF, the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, and the national media relations division of the Prime Minister's Office.

While officials who took part in the discussions reported full cooperation between the agencies, the National Security Council - the body legally empowered to direct the bureaucratic end of the government's diplomatic and security policy - first held a meeting on the flotilla just 10 days prior to its journey. The NSC was not included in the primary preparations and response.

Riđđu

12-07-10, 05:00 PM

IDF report defends navy decision to drop commandos into Gaza flotilla

from Haaretz.com

First Israeli probe of deadly May 31 raid, led by Maj. Gen. Eiland, cites intelligence failures but does not single out any officers for rebuke.

By Anshel Pfeffer (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/anshel-pfeffer-1.292)

The Israel Defense Force committee investigating the navy's deadly raid on a Turkish-flagged aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip found the incident to be the consequence of failed intelligence and a lack of improper preparation for the operation, according to its report released on Monday. Nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed in the May 31 raid after they used clubs and knives to attack Israel Navy commandos boarding the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara. Israel had previously warned that it would take over the ships to enforce its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The committee led by Maj. Gen. (res. ) Giora Eiland, however, characterized the failures made at the planning level as "mistakes," rather than as negligence or fault. The report also found that the navy would have had no means to stop the ship at sea without endangering the vessel, and thus backed the decision to carry out a commando operation. The committee said in its report that the navy had failed to sufficiently consider the possibility that the commandos would encounter violent resistance when attempting to keep the ships out of Gaza.

It also criticized the navy for not cooperating sufficiently with the Mossad in gathering information ahead of the flotilla's arrival and to discuss the process by which the raid was approved. The report did not, however, call for disciplinary action against particular officers. "To my relief, the investigation found no negligence or failures on any significant matters, and that it was due to mistakes made at the relatively top levels that caused the results to be different from what was planned," Eiland said. He also said that some aspects of the operation could be "praised," particularly the way the Shayetet 13 commandos acted during the operation and the quick and efficient evacuation of casualties.

Eiland's is the first to complete its investigation. The Turkel Committee, appointed by the government to examine whether the raid adhered to international law, has just begun its investigation. A team from the State Comptroller's Office will be beginning its own probe of the flotilla raid shortly. Meanwhile, the High Court of Justice on Monday opened the door to expanding the authority of the Turkel Commission. The five-member panel was was appointed by the cabinet in June to investigate the naval raid - which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists aboard the Mavi Marmara - and its adherence to international law.

The panel currently has a limited mandate. It is only supposed to determine whether Israel's efforts to stop the flotilla from reaching Gaza accorded with international law, and whether the soldiers' use of force was proportionate. It has no power to subpoena witnesses and cannot draw personal conclusions against those involved in the raid. Turkel, however, wants to turn it into a full-fledged governmental inquiry committee with real teeth. That would allow it to subpoena witnesses and documents, warn those who testify before it that the panel's findings could harm them, and hire outside experts in relevant fields. At the hearing Monday to address a petition against the committee's limited authority, the justices said the court would consider widening the panel's mandate if its members seek to probe persons or events outside of their jurisdiction, including Israel Defense Forces soldiers.

buglerbilly

23-09-10, 04:26 AM

Israel used 'incredible violence' against Gaza aid flotilla, says UN Human Rights Council

Israeli troops broke international law by storming an aid flotilla bound for Gaza, according to a UN inquiry, which found that the killings of activists on-board were comparable to "summary executions".

By Jon Swaine in New York and Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem

Published: 1:37AM BST 23 Sep 2010

The United Nations (that's a contraduction in terms if ever there was!) never ceases to amaze me with its bias, rampant stupidity and sheer waste of time and resources...............

The sharply critical report found there was "clear evidence to support prosecutions" against Israel for "wilful killing" and torture committed in the raid on the flotilla on May 31. Nine activists on a Turkish ship were killed as they attempted to breach the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

However, Israel brushed aside the findings of the UN Human Rights Council, which it has consistently denounced as biased against the Jewish state.

A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry accused the body of having a "politicised and extremist approach," adding: "The Human Rights Council blamed Israel prior to the investigation and it is no surprise that they condemn after."

The investigation mounted by the Council has largely been superseded by a separate inquiry launched by Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, which has won the backing of the United States, Britain and much of the international community.

This investigation, which is being headed by Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister of New Zealand, has yet to report its findings.

In an unprecedented move, Israel agreed to co-operate with Mr Palmer's inquiry in August, largely in an attempt to diminish the credibility of the Human Rights Council investigation.

Israel maintains that its soldiers acted in self-defence after coming under attack from activists wielding clubs, axes and metal rods.

However the report found that Israeli commandos' response to the flotilla was disproportionate and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality".

"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence," the report said.

"The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extralegal, arbitrary and summary execution," it added.

The 56-page report also said that the Israeli blockade was itself unlawful, because of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, meaning Israel's claim that it was entitled to use force to defend the blockade should be dismissed.

The Human Rights Council, a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly, has courted controversy for its excessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While it has passed over a dozen resolutions condemning Israel since it was created in 2006, the council has been more reluctant to censure states such as Sudan, which has been accused of serious human rights violations in Darfur.

The United States withdrew from the council in 2008 but rejoined when President Barack Obama became president last year.

Israel, which has also launched its own domestic inquiry into the raid on the aid flotilla, refused to co-operate with the council's probe.

But Hamas, the Islamist group which controls Gaza, welcomed the inquiry's findings and called on the international community to take action by bringing Israeli commanders involved in the raid to trial.

The inquiry was completed by Karl Hudson-Phillips, a former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Desmond de Silva, a former chief prosecutor of the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal, and Shanthi Dairiam, as Malaysian human rights expert.

buglerbilly

16-03-11, 03:35 AM

Israel Navy Intercepts Missile Loaded Cargo Vessel Bound for Gaza

March 15, 2011 tamir_eshel

Victoria being intercepted earlier today by Israeli Naval Commandos. Photo: IDF Spokesman

C-704 anti-ship missile found by the Israeli commandos on the Victoria. This Iranian made missile was destined for the Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Photo: IDF Spokesman,

This morning Israeli Naval vessels intercepted the Liberian flagged cargo ship ‘Victoria’ about 200 miles west of the Israeli coast, after intelligence reports indicated the vessel could be carrying arms shipments destined for Gaza.

An initial investigation revealed the ship was loaded with C-704 anti-ship missiles – shore-to-sea missiles with a range of 35 km that could put at risk Israeli vessels at sea as well as strategic infrastructure targets near Ashkelon. Iran is known to possess and is actually producing such missiles, which, along with identifying documents (including a missile identification document, below) gives substantial evidence of Iran’s involvement in the weapons smuggling attempt, and yet another example of Iran’s use of innocent merchant ships as a means of transferring arms to terrorist organizations.

By first daylight, Naval commandos boarded the vessel and verified the existence of weaponry on board. Following the encounter with the Israeli Navy the Victoria headed to an Israeli port of Ashdod for detailed inspection of its cargo. The vessel was on its way from Mersin Port in Turkey to Alexandria Port in Egypt. According to Israeli assessments, the true destination of the weapon shipment was probably the Egyptian port of El-Arish, from where the shipment would be smuggled on land, through tunnels, reching terror organizations operating in the Gaza Strip.

According to shipment documents and crew questioning, the vessel initially departed from Lattakia Port in Syria and then proceeded to Mersin Port in Turkey. “Turkey is not considered as involved in the incident in any way” an Israeli statement clarified.

The interception of the Victoria today is only one stop in the Israeli pursuit of arms transfers from Iran to terror organizations in the Middle East, including Hamas and Hizbollah. Interestingly, the recent vessels involved in arms smuggling from Iran – the Hansa India, Francop and Victoria were registered in Germany.

Some of the Iranian arms shipment interdicted by the Israel Navy in recent years include:

May 7th, 2001: The Santorini, a Syrian registered ship acquired by the PFLP-GC terrorist group, was intercepted on its way from Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. It carried 40 tons of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, mortars, rifles and guns, grenades, mines and explosive material, anti-tank RPG-7 missile-launchers, and artillery rockets. The ship’s captain, a convicted weapon smuggler and two of his relatives abroad the ship had been involved in three previous smuggling attempts backed by Hezbollah and PFLP-GC. Part of the anti-tank weaponry originated from Iran.

January 3rd, 2002: Karin-A was intercepted in the Red Sea, heading towards Gaza. The ship 50 tons of weapons packed in 80 submergible containers. The shipment included RPG-7 rockets, RPG-18 anti-tank rocket launchers, Iranian-made anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, 2,200 kg of military grade high-explosive, assault rifles, machine guns, and hand grenades, 700,000 rounds of small ammunition, and diving equipment. The submergible containers were to be dropped into the sea and then washed ashore the Gaza Strip or picked up by a smaller vessel and delivered to the Strip. The PLO and leadership of the Palestinian Authority were directly involved in the plan. The ship was purchased in Lebanon and sailed to Sudan and Yemen to pick up civilian goods to disguise the weapons aboard.

May 21st, 2003: Abu Hasan, a fishing boat was intercepted at sea west of the Israeli port of Haifa, sailing from Lebanon to Egypt carrying a shipment of explosives sent from Lebanon, bound for the Gaza Strip. The cargo also contained radio-activation systems for remote activation of explosive charges, rocket fuses and detonators.

October 12th, 2009 Hansa India sailing from Iran flying a German flag, Hansa India was due to unload a cargo of eight containers in Egypt. Following warnings from the German authorities, the vessel was not unloaded and continued to Malta where it was seized and found to be carrying bullets and industrial material intended for the production of weapons, seemingly bound for Syria.

November 3th, 2009: Francop, a German vessel was intercepted by the Israel Navy off the coast of Cyprus en route from Iran to Syria, The ship contained 36 containers with 500 tons of arms: 9,000 mortar bombs, 3,000 Katyusha rockets, 3,000 gun shells, 20,000 grenades and half of a million rounds of small ammunition, all hidden behind sacks of polyethelene. The arms shipment was bound to be transferred on land to Hezbullah in Lebanon. The Iranians exploited a civilian ship with its crew unaware of the cargo they were transporting. The weapons cache was loaded at the Bandar Abbas Port in Iran on an Iranian vessel and was transferred at an Egyptian port, unloaded onto the Francop.

A weapons cache uncovered in the cargo bay of a Liberian flagged vessel Victoria, intercepted toay by the Israel Navy. The cahche contained 120mm (shown here) and 60mm mortar bombs, and other arms. Photos: IDF Spokesman

© 2011 defense-update.com

buglerbilly

19-03-11, 05:42 AM

IDF Chief of Staff: "The War on Weapon Smuggling Continues"

Weaponry found on-board the Victoria on 16 March 2011. (Photo: Israel Defense Forces)

15:16 GMT, March 17, 2011

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) presented the Iraninan weaponry found on Victoria on Wednesday (Mar. 16), after the ship docked in Ashdod the previous. In three, large cargo containers, six ready-to-be-launched C-704 ani-ship missiles were found, two launchers, two exterior launchers and two launch pads.

Additionally, 230 mortar shells sized 60 to 120-mm with a range of 10 kilometers were found, 2,260 mortar shells of the same size but with a range of 2.5 kilometers and as many as 74,889 bullets for AK-47 rifles. The weaponry was concealed behind sacs of lentils and cotton, spread throughout 36 containters overall.

"The interception of this weapons-carrying ship gives an answer to all those who were dubious, attacked and criticized Israel about intercepting ships attempting to reach the Gaza Strip," stressed the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who'd seen the weapons found. The Prime Minister added saying, "This is our duty, not just our right, to stop these ships and strip them of their weapons, which came from Iran. They passed through Syria and were on their way to terrorist operatives in the Gaza Strip with a goal of harming citizens of the State of Israel."

"I have no doubt that the otherside will continue trying to acquire these weapons"

Minister of Defense, Ehud barak, congradulated the Chief of Staff on the success of the Naval Commando's operation and addressed their discovery saying, "A very dangerous attempt was thwarted, and I have no doubt that the otherside will continue trying to acquire these weapons. The missiles caught could have changed the face of the activities at the Gaza shores, to destroy ships and vessels."

According to him, "We are dealing with an axis that consists of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah trying to strengthen terrorist operatives in the Gaza Strip. The aerial struggle against them continues as well as those at sea, on land and in every place and every direction both near and far. It will continue and id a crucial battle."

"We don't need to be proud of these successes but to be satisfied"

The Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, was briefed about the weapons as well and said the Naval Commando's activities are done "quietly, modestly and with determination. What we are seeing here is the final result. We don't need to be proud of these successes but to be satisfied by professional achievements. There won't always be successes, this war will continue. We need to work from afar and in the region, overtly and hidden, in order to prevent weapon smuggling."

Commander of the Navy, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, addressed the success of the operation.

"Weapons are smuggled through the Red Sea and sometimes through the Mediterranean. On this ship we found a relatively small amount, but these weapons are different from anything we've seen to date," he said and added that the missiles found today, "Distrupt balance, weaponry that can cause harm to Navy ships, civilian vessels and some of the natural gas reserves in Israel's shores."

(To view more photos of weaponry found on Victoria, visit the IDF flickr page at: http://goo.gl/bLGDH)

----
Jonatan Urich, Tamara Shavit

buglerbilly

20-03-11, 04:00 AM

Hamas fires a barrage of mortars on southern Israel

Palestinian militants in Gaza fired more than 50 rockets into Israel on Saturday, the heaviest barrage in two years, Israeli officials said.

Palestinian Hamas border policemen inspect a destroyed Hamas compound after an Israeli strike in Gaza City Photo: AFP/GETTY

4:30PM GMT 19 Mar 2011

Palestinian militants in Gaza fired more than 50 rockets into Israel on Saturday, the heaviest barrage in two years, Israeli officials said.

A Hamas official was killed and four civilians were wounded when Israel hit back with tank fire and air strikes, said Gaza Health Ministry spokesman Adham Abu Salmia.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he will file a complaint at the U.N. after Saturday's unusually large barrage of rockets. In a statement, Lieberman said the Palestinians "primary goal is destroying Israel."

The violence comes amid increasing calls for reconciliation between Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his bitter rivals, the Islamic militant group Hamas. Abbas is seeking U.N. recognition for a Palestinian state by the fall and is currently lobbying for votes worldwide. Hamas used force to disperse a reconciliation rally in Gaza. Some reporters were later beaten up, threatened and briefly detained.

Israeli police spokesman Tamir Avtabi said Gaza militants fired 54 mortar shells at Israeli border communities within 15 minutes. He said two Israeli civilians were lightly wounded by shrapnel and residents were advised to stay at home or in bomb shelters.

Hayim Yellin, head of the Eshkol region where the mortars exploded, said they were of the same type as those intercepted on a cargo ship last week loaded with weapons Israel said were sent by Iran to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas acknowledged it launched some of the mortars — an unusual move as the Islamic militant group does not usually take responsibility for such attacks. Hamas fears triggering another Israeli invasion similar to a three-week operation aimed at stopping daily Palestinian shelling two years ago that killed about 1,400 Palestinians.

Israeli police said the mortar barrage Saturday was the heaviest since that round of fighting.

Israel holds Hamas responsible for all violence originating in Gaza, though Hamas usually blames smaller groups for rocket fire.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said the shelling was in reaction to recent Israeli airstrikes that killed militants. He warned Israel "not to test Hamas' response."

Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza in bloody street battles in 2007. Since then, Hamas controls Gaza and the Western backed secular Fatah rules the West Bank.

Repeated efforts to reconcile the two rival governments have failed. Palestinians have held rallies in Gaza and the West Bank in recent days calling for the two sides to resolve their differences.

The internal Palestinian rift makes their vision of statehood harder to achieve and hinders their ability to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed last year over disputes about Israeli construction in the West bank, areas Palestinians want as parts of their future state.

buglerbilly

04-04-11, 01:11 AM

Armed conflict laws must apply to all combatants, not just national armies

Richard Goldstone

April 4, 2011 .

Pretty much of a major climbdown by Goldstone..................reasons for it or not..............

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, that report would have been a different document.

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and "possibly crimes against humanity" by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying - its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander's erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack.

While I welcome Israel's investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the final report by the UN committee of independent experts, chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis, that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report. Few of Israel's inquiries have been concluded and I believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum.

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report does not negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

Israel's lack of co-operation with our investigation meant that we were unable to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. As I indicated from the beginning, I would have welcomed Israel's co-operation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. Something that has not been recognised often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the UN. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of even-handedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

Our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimises the criminality. The UN Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.

I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous "lessons learnt" and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defence Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of assassinations, torture and illegal detentions perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry.

Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.

Only if all parties are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.

Richard Goldstone, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, chaired the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. This article was first published at washingtonpost.com

buglerbilly

04-04-11, 02:40 PM

Goldstone's mea culpa has come too late

The damage Judge Richard Goldstone has caused Israel on the world stage cannot be exaggerated, argues Michael Weiss.

By Michael Weiss12:41PM BST 04 Apr 2011

As about-faces go, Judge Richard Goldstone’s recantation of the ferociously anti-Israel UN report that bears his name can only compete with fantasy examples, such as the Pope questioning the existence of God or Marx declaring in a tucked-away letter to Engels that capitalism is actually where it’s at.

Writing at the weekend in The Washington Post, the South African jurist announced that he and his “fact-finding mission", appointed with rank bias by the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 to investigate Operation Cast Lead, was wrong to accuse Israel of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The Goldstone Report had found Israel guilty of “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humilia and terrorise a civilian population.”

But that was all wrong, Goldstone admits now Israel has thoroughly investigated more than 400 allegations of military misconduct which, he writes, “indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy”. Whoops.

As for the terrorist organisation that rules Gaza and was treated by Goldstone’s commission as the moral equivalent of the Israel Defense Forces, Hamas has neglected to investigate its own battlefield misconduct and is still launching rockets and mortars into densely populated civilian areas in southern Israel. Only one man seems genuinely surprised by this behavior.

Goldstone’s mea culpa should be welcomed for its better-late-than-never candor, but the damage his notorious report has caused Israel on the world stage cannot be exaggerated. For two years, this document has served as a byword for rogue statehood, a cudgel taken up not only by rabid anti-Zionists but by seemingly dispassionate observers of human rights and international law to further Israel’s de-legitimisation.

The country’s elected officials have not been able to travel freely to the UK for fear of being arrested under universal jurisdiction. And Israel’s reasonable acts of self-defence have been categorically dismissed as government "spin" because of the taint that Goldstone lent to its military motives. Consider last May’s interception of the "Free Gaza" flotilla, during which video footage showed armed combatants aboard the Mavi Marmara laying siege to abseiling Israeli commandos with knives and poles. Somehow, for a week or so, the news story was still one of brutish Israelis killing innocent "humanitarian" campaigners in cold blood.

Part of the misfortune of seeing Goldstone correct himself is that the truth was plainly visible all along. The UN Human Rights Council, which he admits is a less than impartial body, carries a standing resolution to rebuke Israel every session. Yet it has so far never condemned the Sudanese regime for the genocide in Darfur. In 2009, the UNHRC even congratulated the Sri Lankan government for defeating the Tamil Tigers in a civil war that killed 20,000 people.

Goldstone doesn’t go far enough in indicting Hamas, which his report erroneously claimed did not use human shields in Gaza and did not store its munitions in civilian sites, such as mosques and hospitals. Israel had always maintained that Hamas’s misuse of its civilian population as a deterrent was the main reason for innocent loss of life during the war.

Even Palestinian human rights groups are drawing similar conclusions about Hamas’s conduct. Just Journalism reported last week that on March 29, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights condemned “members of the Palestinian resistance [Hamas]” for continuing to “store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas. This poses a major threat to the lives of the Palestinian civilians and constitutes a violation of both International Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.”

Now, just how likely is that Hamas only began shoring up weapons near residential areas after the Goldstone Report exonerated it for doing exactly that?

Michael Weiss is the Executive Director of Just Journalism, an independent research organisation focused on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the British media