Investigating the Collision between the Israeli Navy & the "Free Gaza" Flotilla: What Commission, What Questions? An Israeli View
By Uri Avnery, June 12, 2010
Who is Afraid of a real Inquiry?
If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?
3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?
4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?
5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?
6. Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?
7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?
8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?
9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?
10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?
11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?
12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?
13. Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?
14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?
Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:
15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)
16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)
17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)
18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)
19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?
20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?
21. Were there others who also advised doing so?
22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?
23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?
24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?
25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?
26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?
27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?
28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?
29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?
Question concerning the planning of the action:
30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)
31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?
32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?
33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?
34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?
35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?
36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?
37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?
38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?
39. Why was it executed in darkness?
40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?
41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?
Questions concerning the action itself:
42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?
43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?
44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?
45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?
46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?
47. Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?
48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?
49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?
50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?
51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?
52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?
53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?
54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?
55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?
56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?
57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?
58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?
59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?
60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?
Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:
61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?
62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?
63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?
64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?
65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?
66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?
67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?
68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?
69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?
70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?
71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?
72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?
73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?
74. Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?
Questions concerning the inquiry:
75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?
76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?
77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?
78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?
79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?
80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?
And, finally, the question of questions:
81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A cover-up commission, toothless and powerless
14/06/10
The Gush Shalom movement intends to petition the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, challenging the validity of the Netanyahu Government's decision to establish the Tirkel Commission which is supposed to probe the lethal raid on the Gaza Flotilla two weeks ago. The commission's terms of reference exclude in advance all the main points which should be investigated.
It is no coincidence that the government refrained from taking the judicial highway which Israeli law makes available for exactly such cases: appointing a truly independent Commission of Inquiry whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court and which is free of governmental interference. Such a commission may have uncovered facts, or come to conclusions, which would have proven uncomfortable to the government. Such a danger does not exist with the tame commission with which Netanyahu and his ministers came up.
The Tirkel Commission's terms of reference do not include looking into the decision-making process which led to bloodshed on the high seas, to the killing of nine people whose purpose had been to reach Gaza rather than clash with Israeli soldiers, to blackening Israel's image throughout the world and to the complete shattering of the alliance with Turkey which had been a cornerstone of Israeli foreign policy since the days of Ben Gurion. It is guaranteed in advance that those responsible for all this will not be touched, since the commission is not at all empowered to look into their doings.
Nor will the commission be able to look seriously into what actually happened on board the boats during these fateful moments. The commission is specifically and explicitly excluded from calling any soldier or officer to testify. It must place a blind trust in the army's own investigation of its own doings, which is carried on secretly and whose pre-selected results will be presented to the commission.
And it is highly unlikely that the commission would hear and seriously consider the eye-witness testimonies of the boat's Turkish, European and American passengers, whom the State of Israel already branded as "terrorists".
It is clear in advance that the Tirkel Commission would not conduct the investigation which needs to be undertaken. The commission was established primarily as a desperate attempt to placate international public opinion, but it is very difficult to believe that this goal would be achieved, or that a report clearing the government of Israel from all blame and fault would gain much credibility in the world.
To get a semblance of international respectability, two international observers were attached to the commission. It should be noted that one of them - David Trimble, Protestant Unionist leader from North Ireland – expressed his allegiance just two weeks ago by joining a "Friends of Israel" group established by Netanyahu loyalist Dore Gold. In addition, Trimble is a veteran member of the Henry Jackson Society, an international organization linked with the American "neo conservative" circles and which advocates the "spreading of democracy" by way of military incursions and invasions. At Trimble's side, this society's membership includes such people as Richard Perle, who under the Bush Administration was among the main initiators of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as well as William Kristol who is the main neo-conservative ideologue.
The other international observer on the commission is Ken Watkin, retired Canadian Army general and until recently Judge Advocate General. Watkin's name is associated with a sensational affair in Canada, regarding cases of Canadian forces in Afghanistan transferring dozens of prisoners to the custody of the Afghan government's security service – where they were tortured and some extrajudicially executed. Watkin refused to testify to the Canadian Parliament regarding the advice he had given to the military commanders on this issue, arguing that there existed between him and the Canadian government a privileged attorney–client relationship. This behavior does not bode well for Watkin 's willingness or ability to participate in exposing facts which might prove embarassing to the Government of Israel.
In short, it is unlikely that the "kosher certificate" provided by these "international observers" to the commission would greatly enhance the credibility given to its conclusions.
Contact: Uri Avnery 0505-306440 or Adam Keller 054-2340749
Comments
2 comments postedOn June 17, 2010, two US congressmen wrote a letter to the White House (www.conferenceofpresidents.org/media/user/images/poe-peters_letter.pdf )in which they defended Israel’s actions regarding the Freedom Flotilla in general and on the Maavi Marmara in particular. 336 other Congressional representatives joined them by becoming signatories to the letter.
Here I have attempted to respond to many of the points raised in the letter (in italics), to provide an alternative perspective.
Poes-Peters Letter: We are writing to express our strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself.
This implies that Israel was engaged in self-defense when the IDF forces attacked the Turkish ship in international waters and without provocation. Under international law, what right does Israel have to impose a blockade on anybody, let alone a population that Israel has occupied illegally for over 40 years?
All human rights organizations with access to Gaza have reported that the situation in Gaza amounts to a humanitarian crisis. This includes the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is known for their political impartiality. Therefore, the inhabitants of Gaza are suffering under collective punishment, outlawed under the Fourth Geneva convention, making this blockade clearly illegal in international law.
If the blockade is illegal, attempts to enforce it are also illegal, including the prohibition of vessels from entering or leaving the occupied territory.
Poes-Peters Letter: …remain steadfast in the defense of Israel in the face of the international community’s rush to unfairly judge and condemn Israel in International fora such as the United Nations Security Council.
The next few paragraphs summarize points made in a report (www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/…/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf) issued by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, which appointed a mission to investigate possible violations of international law and human rights during the flotilla operation. Upon reading this report you may judge for yourself whether the judgment of the international community was fair or unfair.
“The mission consisted of three members: Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired Judge of the International Criminal Court to be Chairman and to head the Mission. The other appointed members were Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific.
The fact-finding mission conducted interviews with more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman.
It was not generally contested that the ships were carrying cargoes of a humanitarian nature.
The Permanent Representative of Israel advised in writing, after meeting with the Council, that the position of his Government was one of non-recognition of, and non-cooperation with, the Mission.
In ascertaining the facts, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews with eyewitnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with government officials. In light of the seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and the subsequent disclosure of only a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before it.”
Poes-Peters Letter: On May 3, after repeated warnings, Israeli forces intercepted a flotilla attempting to break through its naval blockade of Gaza. The blockade of Gaza was instituted to stop terrorists from smuggling weapons into Gaza to murder innocent civilians.
This statement is highly questionable given that Israel and the United States imposed a blockade immediately after the 2006 election in which Hamas, through a democratic vote, assumed control of the government. Following the elections, the United States and the EU halted financial assistance to the Hamas-led administration. After Hamas defeated an attempted takeover by the PA, Israel and Egypt imposed an economic blockade on Gaza,
Poes-Peters Letter: Since Israel disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israel’s civilian population.
This is contradicted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which reports (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terro…) that in 2005, 222 rockets landed in Israel; in 2006 (the year with the largest number), 946; in 2007, 896. In 2008, GlobalSecurity.org reports, 1,750 rockets were fired from Gaza. But since Israel had invaded Gaza and killed 6 Palestinians on November 4 of that year, this was taken as a declaration of war by Israel and Hamas ceased all attempts to restrain cross-border attacks by Palestinians. However, from November 4 to December 29 2008, a total of 300 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel. None of these official counts are consistent with the wild claims of “more than 10,000 rockets and mortars.”
It is important to remember that in the period following the “disengagement”, all human rights groups present reported that Gaza was in economic collapse as a result of the ongoing blockade and that a humanitarian crisis was occurring at the time. While I do not condone the firing of aerial weapons at civilian zones, one has to wonder what alternatives the Palestinians had in order to continue resistance to the Israeli’s severe repression. One could also take into account the number of aerial attacks the IDF made in Gaza in the same period which, while relatively few in numbers of sorties, were far more devastating in terms of casualties and deaths, since Israel uses the latest technology to drive their weapons, typically fired from helicopter gunships, jet fighters, or aerial drones.
Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza consisted of moving the occupation force from within the Gaza territory to just outside the door. Given that Israel at that point controlled Gaza’s air space, water, electrical power, imports of food and medical supplies, and exports from the Gazan economy, the Occupation simply continued under another name, i.e. “disengagement.”
During the Egyptian-brokered armistice beginning in May 2008, less than 30 mortar or rocket firings took place, none of which could be attributed to Hamas. In other words, Hamas lived up to the truce conditions. Israel, on the other hand, did nothing to lessen the effects of its blockade, breaking its truce commitments every day for six months. Israel finally ended the ceasefire with its cross-border incursion into Gaza on November 4 (coincidentally, the day of the national elections in the US).
In my view, one rocket fired at a civilian neighborhood is too many – so what’s the necessity for lying about it?
Poes-Peters Letter: Over the course of its blockade, Israeli forces have diverted nine such flotillas, all without incident. The same was true for five of the six ships in this flotilla. They were commandeered peacefully and directed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.
This “peaceful” boarding and diversion might be Interpreted differently by the passengers on the ships, who were forced to sit outside on deck for hours, with their hands cuffed behind their backs, with very limited access to toilets or medical attention.
Poes-Peters Letter: However, those aboard the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, violently resisted. As dramatic video depicts, the passengers on the ship attacked Israeli soldiers with clubs, metal rods, and iron bars as they attempted to board the ship. The soldiers were brutally beaten and one was even thrown off the top deck.
Let us imagine that a passenger or commercial vessel flying the US flag was intercepted and forcibly boarded by members of the Cuban armed forces – in international waters, no less. Let us further suppose that some of the passengers decided (see Flight 93 for reference) to use whatever crude weapons were available to deter this clearly illegal intrusion. Would you then condemn the passengers if they actually managed to restrain, injure, or even kill some of their attackers? Think about it. Open your mind, for heaven’s sake.
By the way, the “dramatic video” to which you refer consists of one minute out of the hours of footage that passengers gathered, but lost since the Israeli forces confiscated almost all of the camera equipment and cell phones. What little footage has managed to escape the clutches of Israel tell another story: that IDF troops shot enough live ammunition aboard a crowded ship’s deck to kill 9 passengers and wound 24 others. Five of the dead, as ascertained by the Human Rights Council investigation, were shot in the back, others in the face at point-blank range, clearly executions of unarmed passengers. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity, which it shocks me that you defend.
Don ‘t you wonder why the Israeli government has been so careful to release that one minute of video – but nothing else?
Poes-Peters Letter: With their Jives threatened, Israeli forces used necessary force as an act of self-defense and of last resort.
A quote from the Human Rights Council report: “At no stage was a request made by the Israeli Navy for the cargo to be inspected.” To speak candidly, all of the violence was gratuitously initiated by Israel’s armed forces, with no attempt to negotiate a peaceful and cooperative boarding. Further, the available video footage shows the Israeli forces boarding the ship wearing masks and heavily armed. Given that the flotilla organizers repeatedly stated their peaceful intentions and their careful exclusion of firearms from the ships (he only knives found on board were from the galleys), what do you suppose the Israeli’s intentions were?
Poes-Peters Letter: The several dozen who attacked the Israeli soldiers were not peaceful aid workers, but extremists who sought to aid the Iran-backed terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza. Days before. as broadcast on al-Jazeera, they proclaimed their willingness to be martyrs for the destruction of Israel, revealing a sinister element of premeditated violence.
Once again I ask you to consider how you would assign blame if someone attempted to hijack your car and you chose to fight back. Who is the attacker and who the victim? Then again, the letter’s use of the phrase “Iran-backed terrorist Hamas regime” makes me nostalgic for the Joe McCarthy days, when communist-inspired was the adjective of the day. Are we supposed to shrink in fear every time someone says the word “Iran”?
Poes-Peters Letter: Furthermore, as confirmed by the State Department and intelligence agencies around the world, the Turkish aid group that sent out the flotilla. Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), has met with senior officials of recognized terrorist groups over the last three years.
I don‘t doubt that this could happen, but… is this similar to the report by intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein had met with Al Qaeda officials? Or the State Department reports on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I could go on at length, but I hope you get my point: why on earth should anyone trust an assertion like this? And: recognized by whom?
Poes-Peters Letter: If the flotilla had been truly intent on bringing aid to Gaza, it could have done that. Israeli officials repeatedly offered their ports to harbor the ships and disperse the aid so that it would not go into the hands of corrupt Hamas officials but directly to the people living in Gaza. But the flotilla refused these overtures, instead revealing their intent to break the blockade and sail unchecked into Gaza.
At last, a truthful statement. The flotilla organizers clearly stated that one of their aims was to break the blockade or at least show the world what it really was. Think about it: How many ships carrying humanitarian aid would it take to compensate for the vital supplies Israel denies to 1.5 million people every day? I also have to reiterate that if Israel was really concerned about the nature of the cargo their naval forces could have asked to inspect it.
The term “corrupt Hamas officials” clearly intends to prejudicially stigmatize a government which, while we may not like, was nevertheless democratically elected by the people of Gaza and which is certainly not as corrupt as many non-elected dictatorships that we support generously.
Regarding the offer Israel made to deliver aid “directly to the people living in Gaza”, one must ask, as Israeli writer Gideon Levy asks (http://www.theshalomcenter.org/node/1731): If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)? And why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)? Following that, I would ask: Why should anyone trust the Israeli government to deliver to the people of Gaza thing that would make life somewhat tolerable for them, when its long standing record shows intent to starve those people into submission?
Poes-Peters Letter: The U.S. should make every effort to thwart international condemnation and focus the international community on the crimes of the Iran-backed Hamas leadership against Israel and the Palestinian people.
As Ronald Reagan famously said: “There you go again!” Iran-backed is supposed to evoke terror in the hearts of the true Americans, right? Look, I don’t object if you want to focus on the crimes of Hamas against Israel (the Palestinian people can take responsibility for putting Hamas in power, just as we had to suffer George Bush because of the votes of idiots in this country). However, to be fair we must also focus on the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians and Israelis. Imagine how much better Israeli life would be had they not had to suffer the effects of a 40-year brutal occupation of their neighbors.
Poes-Peters Letter: As Israel faces increased threats, most recently from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which announced that it could provide a naval escort to any additional aid ships wishing to reach Gaza, the United States must continue to stand by Israel, one of our strongest allies.
To my (and your) certain knowledge, Iran has never attacked anyone, whereas Israel has: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon (3 times!), Iraq, etc. Offering to protect innocent people from a callously inhumane regime hardly constitutes a threat to Israel. In fact, Israel has never claimed, nor could they, that a few ships carrying supplies constitutes a realistic threat against one of the strongest military powers in the world.
REVERSE FLOTILLA GROUP TO SUPPORT LOCAL CHARITIES
Dear Supporters of True Peace in the Middle East,
I ask you humbly before you take a strong position in this issue by commiting your money, be sure to get all the facts. There are strong narratives on both sides of the Conflict in the Middle East that go very far back. There has been tremendous pain and suffering on both sides. Too much blood has been spilled and we all want a more peaceful planet.
I encourage you to read opposing points of view on this issue. Here are some facts from the Israeli perspective followed by some Congressional letters and Spokes persons for various organizations.
In today’s Information Age, the amount of information, often contradictory is mind-boggling and confusing. Who to trust? In this process you may be told that you have to choose sides and that this is a clear case of good vs. evil. That is happening on both sides. Is Israel to be vilified or Hamas? Or both or neither or one of the other? So before you choose open your mind and heart first to prayer, peace and love. We all live on the same world and we are all part of one human family. Before you give your $50.00 to support this Conneticut River Flotilla, think if there are groups or charities here that you could help and just float down the Connecticut for free with our group. We encourage you to donate your $50.00 to the Western MA Food Bank which gets fresh produce to local elementary school children.
You will know will your dollars are going and you can do more research on this issue before deciding.
http://www.foodbankwma.org/
The vision of the Hebrew prophet is — Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3 They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
And in regard to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, it is said, Isaiah 56:7 I will bring them to my holy mountain of Jerusalem and will fill them with joy in my house of prayer. I will accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices, because my Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations.
With that introduction here are some facts about the current conflict and why the blockade is needed. It is said by our vice-President Joe Biden, that Hamas could end this conflict tomorrow, by changing their charter which calls for the Destruction of Israel, releasing Gilad Shalit and ending terrorism against Israel. We must as concerned citizens be aware of the real forces of radical Islamic Jihad.
Here are some facts from the Israeli perspective. . .
Trucks waiting to enter Gaza at the Kerem Shalom crossing (Photo: Reuters)
Immediately following the government decision, the number of trucks crossing into Gaza increased from an average of 80-90 to the present average of 150 trucks. It is estimated that by the first half of 2011, an average of 400 truckloads will cross into Gaza daily.
Israel has initiated a new policy towards Gaza, a policy that will greatly improve the lives of the residents of the Strip.
If in the past Israel regulated the entry of goods by publishing a list of items permitted into the Gaza Strip, Israel has now cancelled that practice. In its place, Israel published (6 July 2010) a limited list of forbidden items, designed solely to prevent the entry of weapons and materiel that could help the Hamas terror regime strike at Israeli citizens. The significance of this policy is that all but a limited number of goods deemed dangerous are now permitted. While there was no lack of humanitarian aid in Gaza in the past, the types of materials allowed in have been expanded exponentially.
Israel has also decided to expand the operations of the crossing points, meaning that the volume of goods entering Gaza will also increase drastically. Steps have already been taken to bolster the facilities and capacities at the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main conduit for goods. Immediately following the government decision (20 June), the number of trucks crossing per day increased from an average of 80-90 to the present average of 150 trucks. After completing necessary construction activities, Israel is planning to raise the number of trucks to 250, while by the first half of 2011, it is estimated that some 400 truckloads will cross Kerem Shalom daily.
In addition, Israel decided to expand the flow of construction material into Gaza, as long as they are used for Palestinian Authority-authorized projects that are implemented and supervised by the international community. In the coming months, Israel expects to see 45 active projects in the Gaza Strip, in the sectors of education, health, infrastructure in sewage and water, and later on, housing. Israel hopes to increase cooperation and coordination with the Palestinian Authority in order to strengthen its involvement in Gaza activities.
Concurrent with Israel’s actions to improve conditions in Gaza, it also has to act to defend its own civilian population. Israel must supervise the entry into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip of goods and materials that could pose a danger to Israeli citizens. Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization (recognized as such by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and that Hamas remained dedicated to the destruction of Israel, these controls are necessary.
Israel’s new list of controlled items is limited to weapons, war materiel and duel-use items. The first category of items includes arms, munitions and missile equipment that are forbidden to cross into Gaza under all circumstances. The second category is that of dual-use goods and items that could be deployed - alongside their civilian purposes - for the development, production, installation or enhancement of terrorist capabilities. Examples of dual-use materials are chemicals and certain fertilizers that may also be used in the production of explosives.
Israel’s guiding principle is to keep weapons, combat support measures, and terrorist operatives from entering and exiting Gaza, while letting in civilian goods and humanitarian aid that cannot be used for purposes of terrorism. The policy of liberalizing the entry of civilian goods into Gaza is meant to enable the civilian population to engage in routine activity, while simultaneously preventing the entry of weapons and materiel that could facilitate Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians.
At the same time that Israel is taking dramatic steps to assist the civilian population of Gaza, it must be remembered that the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is still being held illegally by Hamas. The international community should redouble its efforts to secure his immediate release.
An Assault, Cloaked in Peace
By MICHAEL B. OREN Israel Ambassador to the US
Published: June 2, 2010
PEACE activists are people who demonstrate nonviolently for peaceful co-existence and human rights. The mob that assaulted Israeli special forces on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace. On the contrary, the religious extremists embedded among those on board were paid and equipped to attack Israelis — both by their own hands as well as by aiding Hamas — and to destroy any hope of peace.
Millions have already seen the Al Jazeera broadcast showing these “activists” chanting “Khaibar! Khaibar!”— a reference to a Muslim massacre of Jews in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. YouTube viewers saw Israeli troops, armed with crowd-dispersing paintball guns and side arms for emergency protection, being beaten and hurled over the railings of the ship by attackers wielding iron bars.
What the videos don’t show, however, are several curious aspects Israeli authorities are now investigating. First, about 100 of those detained from the boats were carrying immense sums in their pockets — nearly a million euros in total. Second, Israel discovered spent bullet cartridges on the Mavi Marmara that are of a caliber not used by the Israeli commandos, some of whom suffered gunshot wounds. Also found on the boat were propaganda clips showing passengers “injured” by Israeli forces; these videos, however, were filmed during daylight, hours before the nighttime operation occurred.
The investigations of all this evidence will be transparent, in accordance with Israel’s security needs.
There is little doubt as to the real purpose of the Mavi Marmara’s voyage — not to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but to create a provocation that would put international pressure on Israel to drop the Gaza embargo, and thus allow the flow of seaborne military supplies to Hamas. Just as Hamas gunmen hide behind civilians in Gaza, so, too, do their sponsors cower behind shipments of seemingly innocent aid.
This is why the organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband. They also rebuffed an Israeli request to earmark some aid packages for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for four years.
In the recent past, Israeli forces have diverted nine such flotillas, all without incident, and peacefully boarded five of the ships in this week’s convoy. Their cargoes, after proper inspection, were delivered to non-Hamas institutions in Gaza. Only the Marmara, a vessel too large to be neutralized by technical means such as fouling the propeller, violently resisted. It is no coincidence that the ship was dispatched by Insani Yardim Vakfi (also called the I.H.H.), a supposed charity that Israeli and other intelligence services have linked to Islamic extremists.
The real intent of breaking the embargo is to allow rockets to be transported to Gaza from Hamas’s suppliers in Syria and Iran. Israel has already intercepted several such ships laden with munitions. Since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at our civilian population. This week, two Hamas rockets exploded near Ashkelon, one of Israel’s largest cities.
Israel has a right and a duty to defend itself from Hamas and its backers. Our struggle is not with the people of Gaza but only with the radical regime that overthrew the legitimate Palestinian Authority and has pledged to seek Israel’s destruction. Each day, Israel facilitates the passage into Gaza of more than 100 truckloads of food and medicine — there is no shortage of either. We, too, want a free Gaza — a Gaza liberated from brutal Hamas rule — as well as an Israel freed from terrorist threats.
Israel will scrupulously review the events surrounding the Marmara’s interception. But Israel will also persist in denying advanced weaponry to Hamas. At the same time, the Israeli government will vigorously pursue peace with the Palestinian Authority, which shares our need for defense against armed extremists. The real peace activists are those who support our vision of a two-state solution, not those supporting the terrorists bent on destroying it.
Michael B. Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.
The following are just 2 examples of statements from members of Congress on the Flotilla incident more are available at http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/Con…
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
June 16, 2010
Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on the President to give Israel the unequivocal, robust, and
vigorous support it deserves.
Since the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident, Israel has been under media attack, and even in the past
few days many articles and international newspapers take a grossly anti-Israel slant. Make no
mistake about it, the purpose of the flotilla was to provoke an incident, thereby to set up an
international media campaign against Israel . The flotilla was an aggressive and hypocritical
attempt to manipulate world public opinion and to isolate Israel . Thankfully, it has not worked
in the United States, where Rasmussen polling shows that despite the anti-Israel bias of so much
media coverage, less than 20 percent of Americans think that the Israeli Government is to blame
for the deaths that resulted from the incident.
Madam Speaker, the facts of the incident were clear within 48 hours, and it’s high time our
government sent a much more powerful and unambiguous message, that the United States fully
supports Israel’s action to intercept the flotilla. The administration should emphasize that Israel’s
action was legal, that it was right, and that the U.S. stands with Israel without any ifs, ands, or
buts, or so long as, or any other qualifiers.
It’s a matter of record that on May 25 the Israeli Government offered to offload at its port of
Ashdod the humanitarian aid the flotilla carried and to have the U.N. personnel deliver it to
Gaza. On that same day, the Israeli Government also stated it would not permit the flotilla to
break its blockade of Gaza, which is not only legal under international law; but I believe it’s also
just, given the rampant maritime arms smuggling, the 7,000 rocket attacks Hamas has launched
on Israel from Gaza since 2005, and the unlimited aid that can flow to Gaza through proper
checkpoints.
Madam Speaker, the Turkish group that organized the flotilla has documented ties to Hamas,
which is recognized by the U.S. Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization. Radicals
with ties to other terrorist groups were aboard the ships. The flotilla launch was marked by
violent, anti-Semitic rallies. Flotilla participants spoke to al Jazeera of martyrdom and sang
intifada songs. All this shows the grotesque hypocrisy of those who would portray the flotilla
participants as somehow being harmless peace activists. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Madam Speaker, the response of the Israeli Government was extraordinarily restrained and
responsible. Israeli troops boarded the ships in the flotilla carrying paint ball guns, but when the
crew beat them with iron rods, stabbed and lynched them and threw one of them off the deck,
they got the order to defend themselves with their side arms. This, too, was right. Every
government permits its troops to defend themselves when they are attacked.
I call on President Obama to give Israel our government’s full support and to make unmistakably
clear our government’s position that Israel , in its response to the Gaza flotilla, was fully in the
right. Whether or not the Israeli Government decides to adjust the blockade, our government
must make it perfectly clear to all that we will never permit an anti-Israel media campaign to
isolate America’s most faithful and trusted friend in the Middle East. (Congressional Record)
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
June 14, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the State of Israel and all peace-loving nations who
seek to defend their citizens and put an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, we live in an age when
those simple goals are under threat and we face enemies who will use any means at their disposal
to indiscriminately kill men, women and children who stand in their way.
As the world knows, on May 31, the Israeli navy stopped a flotilla of six ships headed toward the
Gaza Strip. These ships were flying under Turkish flags and claimed to be carrying tons of
humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. However, the real goal of these so-called “peace
activists” was—in their own words—to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza and allow Hamas to
import whatever they want to Gaza, including weapons. But these activists should remember that
Hamas can end the blockade at any moment by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, ending the
violence and releasing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas without access
to the Red Cross for four years.
When the Israeli navy attempted to commandeer the boats and bring them to Israeli ports for
inspection, most of the passengers aboard the boats cooperated and used only non-violent,
passive resistance to impede the Israeli efforts. However, one of the boats was filled with
members of an Islamist group with connections to Hamas and Hezbollah, called IHH (Insani
Yardim Vakfi). These “peace activists” immediately attacked the Israeli soldiers with knives,
metal bars, wrenches, clubs and rocks. The soldiers’ lives were clearly at risk and they fired back
to quell the fighting, killing nine.
It is important to point out that these IHH members were not serving a humanitarian mission. If
that were the case, they would have cooperated with the Israelis and the Egyptians in order to
expedite the arrival of their cargo. Prior to the incident, Israel offered to have the aid delivered to
an Israeli port for inspection and delivery to Gaza. There was even a similar Egyptian offer, but
the activists rejected both of those offers. As the organizers themselves said, this operation was
about more than just delivering aid, but rather about ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
I also reject the entire premise that there is any need for humanitarian supplies in Gaza. In 2009,
more than 738,000 tons of food and supplies entered Gaza. The total amount of aid transferred
from Israel to Gaza in 2009 increased by 180 percent, compared to the amount transferred in
2008. From January 1, 2010 through May 8, 2010, 230,690 tons of humanitarian aid was
transferred from Israel into Gaza through the Israel -Gaza goods crossings. This included
medical supplies, milk powder and baby food, meat, chicken, fish, grains, legumes, oil, flour,
salt, sugar, fresh vegetables and dairy products as well as animal feed, hygiene products and
clothes. That does not sound like a humanitarian crisis to me.
10
Hamas and its allies are simply using Israel’s legal blockade of Gaza as a propaganda tool to
undermine international support for the State of Israel. But if it weren’t for this blockade, Hamas
could import unlimited amounts of weaponry and rockets, which they would turn against Israeli
civilians, as they have done in the past. If the naval blockade were broken, as the activists seek,
every man, woman and child in Israel would be at risk from Iranian and Syrian missiles.
Unfortunately, efforts are now underway to unfairly paint Israel as the aggressor in this incident,
when they were simply acting to defend their citizens. Calls are mounting for an international
investigation like the biased and deeply-flawed Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war
crimes in its self-defensive Operation Cast Lead. I join Israel in rejecting these calls. Israel, a
strong democracy and America’s close ally, is perfectly capable of conducting a fair, credible
investigation that meets international standards.
I find it even more galling that such calls are now being made, given the silence following North
Korea’s horrific attack on a South Korean ship that killed 46 sailors. It is time the world focused
on such real threats to peace, while recognizing Israel’s right to defend its civilian population
against persistent terrorist threats.
I am also deeply disturbed by Turkey’s recent actions and statements regarding Israel and the
Palestinians. Their irresponsible support for this so-called “aid” flotilla actually sought to bolster
the Hamas terrorists in Gaza who have pledged to destroy Israel at any cost. By seeking an end
to the blockade, Turkey is trying to legitimize a terrorist group that targets civilians and harms
any chance for peace. As I’ve said, Turkey—and the world—should remember that Hamas can
end the blockade at any moment by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, ending the violence and
releasing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas without access to the Red
Cross for 4 years.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s actions have undermined the moderate Palestinians who have been
building institutions, ending corruption and cracking down on violent extremists. If there is a
chance for peace in the region, it does not come from the extremist elements Turkey is
supporting.
And Turkey is hardly in a position to criticize Israel. The world community should remember
that Turkey has been illegally occupying the northern part of Cyprus—a sovereign nation—for
over three decades, despite international calls to remove its troops. They have also steadfastly
refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide and have systematically denied basic religious
rights to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. With their recent actions, Turkey is once
again showing its true colors, as a supporter of terrorists, and not a champion of peacemaking.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the recent events and fear that the world is once again
blaming the victim. Israel must be allowed to defend itself—for its own sake, for ours, and for the
sake of all people around the world who are under threat of terror. We must not be duped into
believing that these Hamas-sympathizers are somehow acting in the name of peace. Nothing
could be further from the truth. We must take a united stand for democracy, for the rule of law,
and for peace. (Congressional Record)
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
June 14, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the State of Israel and all peace-loving nations who
seek to defend their citizens and put an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, we live in an age when
those simple goals are under threat and we face enemies who will use any means at their disposal
to indiscriminately kill men, women and children who stand in their way.
As the world knows, on May 31, the Israeli navy stopped a flotilla of six ships headed toward the
Gaza Strip. These ships were flying under Turkish flags and claimed to be carrying tons of
humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. However, the real goal of these so-called “peace
activists” was—in their own words—to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza and allow Hamas to
import whatever they want to Gaza, including weapons. But these activists should remember that
Hamas can end the blockade at any moment by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, ending the
violence and releasing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas without access
to the Red Cross for four years.
When the Israeli navy attempted to commandeer the boats and bring them to Israeli ports for
inspection, most of the passengers aboard the boats cooperated and used only non-violent,
passive resistance to impede the Israeli efforts. However, one of the boats was filled with
members of an Islamist group with connections to Hamas and Hezbollah, called IHH (Insani
Yardim Vakfi). These “peace activists” immediately attacked the Israeli soldiers with knives,
metal bars, wrenches, clubs and rocks. The soldiers’ lives were clearly at risk and they fired back
to quell the fighting, killing nine.
It is important to point out that these IHH members were not serving a humanitarian mission. If
that were the case, they would have cooperated with the Israelis and the Egyptians in order to
expedite the arrival of their cargo. Prior to the incident, Israel offered to have the aid delivered to
an Israeli port for inspection and delivery to Gaza. There was even a similar Egyptian offer, but
the activists rejected both of those offers. As the organizers themselves said, this operation was
about more than just delivering aid, but rather about ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
I also reject the entire premise that there is any need for humanitarian supplies in Gaza. In 2009,
more than 738,000 tons of food and supplies entered Gaza. The total amount of aid transferred
from Israel to Gaza in 2009 increased by 180 percent, compared to the amount transferred in
2008. From January 1, 2010 through May 8, 2010, 230,690 tons of humanitarian aid was
transferred from Israel into Gaza through the Israel -Gaza goods crossings. This included
medical supplies, milk powder and baby food, meat, chicken, fish, grains, legumes, oil, flour,
salt, sugar, fresh vegetables and dairy products as well as animal feed, hygiene products and
clothes. That does not sound like a humanitarian crisis to me.
10
Hamas and its allies are simply using Israel’s legal blockade of Gaza as a propaganda tool to
undermine international support for the State of Israel. But if it weren’t for this blockade, Hamas
could import unlimited amounts of weaponry and rockets, which they would turn against Israeli
civilians, as they have done in the past. If the naval blockade were broken, as the activists seek,
every man, woman and child in Israel would be at risk from Iranian and Syrian missiles.
Unfortunately, efforts are now underway to unfairly paint Israel as the aggressor in this incident,
when they were simply acting to defend their citizens. Calls are mounting for an international
investigation like the biased and deeply-flawed Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war
crimes in its self-defensive Operation Cast Lead. I join Israel in rejecting these calls. Israel, a
strong democracy and America’s close ally, is perfectly capable of conducting a fair, credible
investigation that meets international standards.
I find it even more galling that such calls are now being made, given the silence following North
Korea’s horrific attack on a South Korean ship that killed 46 sailors. It is time the world focused
on such real threats to peace, while recognizing Israel’s right to defend its civilian population
against persistent terrorist threats.
I am also deeply disturbed by Turkey’s recent actions and statements regarding Israel and the
Palestinians. Their irresponsible support for this so-called “aid” flotilla actually sought to bolster
the Hamas terrorists in Gaza who have pledged to destroy Israel at any cost. By seeking an end
to the blockade, Turkey is trying to legitimize a terrorist group that targets civilians and harms
any chance for peace. As I’ve said, Turkey—and the world—should remember that Hamas can
end the blockade at any moment by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, ending the violence and
releasing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas without access to the Red
Cross for 4 years.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s actions have undermined the moderate Palestinians who have been
building institutions, ending corruption and cracking down on violent extremists. If there is a
chance for peace in the region, it does not come from the extremist elements Turkey is
supporting.
And Turkey is hardly in a position to criticize Israel. The world community should remember
that Turkey has been illegally occupying the northern part of Cyprus—a sovereign nation—for
over three decades, despite international calls to remove its troops. They have also steadfastly
refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide and have systematically denied basic religious
rights to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. With their recent actions, Turkey is once
again showing its true colors, as a supporter of terrorists, and not a champion of peacemaking.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the recent events and fear that the world is once again
blaming the victim. Israel must be allowed to defend itself—for its own sake, for ours, and for the
sake of all people around the world who are under threat of terror. We must not be duped into
believing that these Hamas-sympathizers are somehow acting in the name of peace. Nothing
could be further from the truth. We must take a united stand for democracy, for the rule of law,
and for peace. (Congressional Record)
Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) June 10, 2010
Supportive Statement:
“…in the aftermath of this event, Israel has been unfairly and wrongly condemned
for its actions. As criticism of Israel over this incident escalates, and investigations into the
matter proceed, we must not forget who really is under attack—Israel…”
“Israel is persistently targeted for violence by Hamas and other military groups in the region.
Hamas, which is officially designated by the United States as a terrorist group, is fervently
avowed to the destruction of Israel.”
“.. Since Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza, Hamas has fired more than 7,000 rockets and mortar shells
into Israel… “Blocking the movement of weapons by sea into Gaza prevents Hamas and other militant groups
from having the means to use violence against Israel to achieve their desired aims, chief among
them the annihilation of Israel….”
“Madam Speaker, it is imperative that members of this chamber give due attention to the
circumstantial evidence and historical facts surrounding the flotilla incident.
The relationship between the United States and Israel rests firmly upon the foundation of more
than half a century of history. It is grounded in mutual respect, supported by shared values, and
guided by common interests. For these reasons, we must remain resolutely committed to uphold Israel’s right to self-defense.”
Get the Facts before deciding on this situation… from www.wikipedia.com all articles on Wikipedia are referenced with source material, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla
Excerpt from Wikipedia…
Questions of flotilla’s humanitarian motives
Israel questions the humanitarian motives of flotilla organizers, saying, “Israel has invited the organizers of the flotilla to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all the reputable international organizations. However, they are less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid.”[75] Madeline Brooks, columnist for the Canada Free Press called the flotilla’s aid “phony,” given that it, “included expired medicine and old, outdated medical equipment.”[76] (see Cargo above)
According to Israeli sources, the Mavi Marmara carried 75 mercenaries with links to al-Qaeda, and other terror organizations, who carried $10,000 apiece on their persons.[77] Israel has said that the group boarded separately in a different city and went on deck under different procedures. The Turkish Customs officials and the İHH denied the allegations.[78][79]
Lastly, in the words of our Vice-President Joe Biden as recorded on the Charlie Rose show on June 2, 2010. . “so the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government withthe Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up.” And he included remarks about freeing Gilad Shalit also. . .