Israel, and its neighbors

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hmm, guess JDN missed all of GM's posts re the islamification of the UK--you know, like the long thread on sharia law being imposed on UK citizens--and so finds it difficult to grasp that politicians who habitually cave tend to continue to do so, as we are learning full well in the US.

This is not complicated stuff: Turkey, Iranian clients, other usual suspects, along with sundry useful idiots sought an incident. They succeeded in creating one. Perhaps Israel got duped into overplaying its hand on the world stage, but just because a long list of people are applauding this piece of theater--many of whom we rarely find our interests aligned with--doesn't mean we have to join 'em in this farce.

[G M]

Or "effete euro-douche" if you prefer, in Blair's case.

[G M]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/anti_israel_sharks_sniff_weakness_n5AbqK6bk6NHcy6qEWK5jJ#ixzz0phPKSy8o


In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla fiasco, the air is thick with nonsense. Chief among the instant myths is that Israel has created a dilemma for President Obama.

Actually, it's the other way around.

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/anti_israel_sharks_sniff_weakness_n5AbqK6bk6NHcy6qEWK5jJ#ixzz0pjYfSvzH

[G M]

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/02/israels-actions-entirely-lawful-2/

While the international community has, once again, ganged up on Israel, one thing is for certain: the legality of Israel’s actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is not open to question. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed:

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

[Crafty_Dog]

Turkey and Israel Fight for U.S. Support
TUESDAY WAS ALL ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL FALLOUT from Israel’s move to raid the Turkish-led aid ship trying to circumvent the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which left 9 people dead (mostly Turkish nationals) and scores of others injured. In a speech before Turkey’s parliament, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Israel not to test Turkey’s patience, adding that the state did not want his country as an enemy. Elsewhere, the head of Israeli intelligence said in a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel’s strategic worth in the eyes of the United States was increasingly on the decline.

After deciding to forcibly bring an end to the Turkish flotilla saga, Israel finds itself in a major bind. They have much of the international community condemning them for the action, and there are growing calls that Israel end the blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. At the same time, additional flotillas are being organized, which will only exacerbate matters, especially since Israel has said —international condemnation notwithstanding — it will not end the blockade.

“After deciding to forcibly bring an end to the Turkish flotilla saga, Israel finds itself in a major bind.”
From Israel’s point of view, ending the blockade directly undermines the state’s national security. A Gaza with free access to the outside world does not simply mean relatively improved economic conditions for its inhabitants. It also translates into Hamas and its Islamist militant allies gaining a freer hand to try to acquire weapons, which would be used against Israel.

From Turkey’s point of view, it is no longer content being Israel’s only Muslim ally. Indeed, Turkey has moved beyond being a pro-Western state to one on the path of becoming a great independent power. And its path to regional player status involves assuming an aggressive stance toward Israel, which can help it gain the leadership of the Arab Middle East and the wider Islamic world.

Ankara’s encouragement of the flotilla is very much in keeping with this objective. While the Turks have been successful at creating an international uproar against Israel, they have yet to demonstrate that they can force the Israeli hand. Not having a whole lot of options, Turkey is looking to align itself with the United States against Israel — something Washington has hesitated to do thus far.

While the United States will not even consider the Turkish proposition, it is not exactly endorsing Israel’s position. Even so, there is a strong possibility that the United States could prefer Turkey to Israel in the future since it needs Turkey’s help in extricating itself from the complexities of the region. Which brings us back to the warning from Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who said Israel “is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.” Currently, the United States needs Turkey more than it needs Israel.

While STRATFOR has been pointing out the emerging divergence in U.S. and Israeli interests for quite some time now, this is the first time Israel has acknowledged that its great power patron has a diminishing need for it. Though historically Israel has never faced a challenge from any of its neighboring states, the threat has come from powers outside its immediate region, which is where the great power patron has come in handy. That its traditional ally, the United States, has a need to align with Turkey, a rising regional power and potential adversary to Israel, would explain the statements of the Israeli intelligence chief, which underscore the massive national security debate currently under way in the country.

[JDN]

That article makes some excellent points.

[JDN]

It seems General Petraeus also falls into the category of "useful idiot"....

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Cntcom] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

[G M]

No it doesn't. Turkey has internal fissures that could result in another military coup. Erdogan, given his islamist orientation is not the rational actor Stratfor likes to model in their analysis. If Israel doesn't blink, he loses. If he starts an armed conflict with Israel, he and his government may not survive it. Obama isn't a friend of Israel, but the majority of the American people are.

[G M]

**Were Israel wiped off the map tomorrow, the muslims would be outraged at the the continued occupation of al andalus.**

Loss of Spain hurts still, centuries after Moors' last sigh
March 14, 2004

 Iberia looms large in Islamist ambitions and regrets, writes Isambard Wilkinson in Madrid.

Thursday's bombings have raised an uncomfortable question for Spaniards. Is Osama bin Laden dreaming of exacting revenge for the loss of Al-Andalus, the ancient Moorish kingdom in Iberia?

A group said to be close to bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, sent a message to a London-based Arabic newspaper saying: "This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader and America's ally in its war against Islam."

While the authenticity of the message is open to doubt, there is no question that it reflects the thinking of Islamists who hold that any land that has once been part of the Muslim community should forever remain under Muslim rule.

At the beginning of the 11th century, three-quarters of Spain's population was Muslim. But as soon as the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella reconquered the country for Christianity, the Muslims were ordered out.

The humiliation has never been forgotten in the Arab world. But the sense of hurt may have grown since Spain, for decades a friend of the Arab world, backed the US-led war on Iraq, despite vast domestic opposition.


A dozen al-Qaeda-linked suspected terrorists have been arrested in Spain.

Bin Laden gave warning that Spain would be singled out for attack in a taped message released last October through an Arab satellite TV channel.

Bin Laden has also spoken of Al-Andalus, regarded with nostalgia by Islamists as the halcyon age of Muslim power and artistic achievement.

Moorish armies from North Africa conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century and transformed the region into an integral part of the Muslim umma, or nation.

The year 1492, when Granada was ceded to Ferdinand and Isabella, is a talismanic date for some Islamist scholars, who consider it as the beginning of the decline of the Muslim world.

The tale of the "Moors' last sigh" is recounted to epitomise the loss of one of the Islamic world's great jewels.

When King Boabdil fled Granada, the last bastion of Moorish rule, he looked back and wept. His mother chided him: "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."

- The Daily Telegraph

[Body-by-Guinness]

Wow, Generals parrot the views of the Commander and Chief? Who'd of thunk it? It's not like publicly veering from the party line would be a bad career move or anything, right?

Maybe next we can hear what Jimmy Carter thinks of all this. What with all his foreign policy successes, his history of veracity, and his unimpeachable middle-eastern credentials surely he's not a useful idiot either.

[ccp]

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of Cntcom] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

Appeasement is easy when what you are giving up is the security of the lives of those from *another* country.  7 million Israelis against a billion plus Arabs?
With regards to Mr. Grossman who finds the Gaza policy a big mistake.  I suppose if the Israelis simply opened up Gaza the problem would go away???

He ignores the commitment of many Palestinians to the death of all Jews?

He ignores decades of attempts at two state solutions?

What is he talking about?

Appeasement is NOT going to work.  Unless of course the appeasement were for all Jews to vacate Israel and go somewhere other than Muslim territory.
Again may I suggest Antartica?

[G M]

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/turkey-israel-relations-2010

Justification for nukes?

[G M]

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2786/yearning-for-a-holocaust

 I am a Jew.  The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally.  For or Against it?

Muslim Student Association member: For it.

[ccp]

So now to use hate speech against Jews is just as acceptable on campus as using hate speech against Christians.
Yet it would not be acceptable if say Ann Coutler came to town.

Like I have pointed out Nazis are not so bad.  It is the Republicans.  And now again the Jews.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/report-white-house-to-pressure-israel-to-end-blockade-of-gaza/

Good thing Obama is such a friend to Israel. Imagine how bad things could get if he had jihadist alliances and spent 20 years listening to an anti-semetic pastor....

[Crafty_Dog]

3 June 2010
Claire Berlinski
Murky in Turkey

What we don’t know about the Mavi Marmara incident: just about everything.

I live in Istanbul and for obvious reasons have been receiving e-mails and phone calls in the past few days asking what, exactly, is going on in Turkey. The answer is that I’m not sure. This is the only honest answer any journalist can give, unless she has managed to place a listening device in the meeting rooms of the Turkish Cabinet. It’s not, however, the answer all are giving. The events surrounding the bloodletting on the Mavi Marmara have prompted more media coverage, here and abroad, than any news event I can recently recall. Much of it is speculative and polemical nonsense. Journalists proclaim, over and over, that this has become a media war, which would seem to put them in an impressive position on the front lines, though in fact, should the worst come to pass and result in an outright Turkish-Israeli naval war—not impossible to imagine—journalists will, as usual, make no military decisions and will constitute only a tiny fraction of the dead. The media are certainly playing a role in this conflict, but in the end the power is, as it always has been, with those who control the militaries—and they’re saying little.

Here is what we don’t know. We don’t know why the Turkish government allowed the Mavi Marmara to sail. While it’s clear that some indeterminate proportion of the passengers were Islamist thugs, it’s also clear that many of the passengers were naive civilians. (You cannot argue that a one-year-old child is anything but a naive civilian.) We don’t yet know whether there was an active plot, among the thugs, to provoke this confrontation, or whether they decided to attack the Israeli commandos in an access of spontaneous enthusiasm. If the former, we don’t know whether the AKP government was aware of the organizers’ intentions or whether it never seriously considered the possibility. We can speculate, based on known connections between the İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri İnsani Yardım Vakfı, which organized the expedition, and well-known extremist groups, that this was a trap, set deliberately. We can speculate that the Turkish government conceived of the trap or lent it tacit support. But thus far we have no evidence.

Why might the Turkish government have permitted a Turkish boat packed with women, children, stupid people, and Islamic extremists to sail into the world’s most volatile military conflict zone? Why, especially, did they permit this while knowing that the Israeli government had made explicit its intention to stop that boat, by force if necessary? It’s tempting to think that the Turkish government anticipated or desired this outcome, all the more so if one looks at this conflict through a certain prism, to wit: one in which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an Islamist nut intent upon establishing Turkish hegemony over the Islamic world by becoming the populist champion of the Palestinians, even at the risk of provoking an all-out regional war. I don’t dismiss that possibility.

But in fact, bad decisions can be made in infinitely many human ways. It’s also possible that Erdoğan sincerely believed that the boats had been properly inspected and were free of any weapons, and therefore no serious conflict could occur. It’s possible that he spoke to the organizers of the flotilla and came away with assurances about their intentions; or that he simply thought the Israelis were bluffing; or that his mind was on other things. The latter species of blunder happens all the time. Clearly, President Obama’s mind was on other things—the oil spewing all over the Gulf of Mexico, namely.

Erdoğan no doubt does have much on his mind these days, with the new leader of the CHP posing the first serious challenge to his party since the AKP took power; with Turkish troops dying at the hands of the PKK and making a mockery of his Kurdish opening; with his trip to South America, punctuated by a now-overshadowed diplomatic crisis of its own. It’s possible that Erdoğan’s intentions in permitting the boat to sail were entirely malicious (or designed to distract the Turkish public from these recent events), but it’s also possible—and never a theory to be discounted—that he and his government were simply fatally oblivious and incompetent. Any journalist who claims to know the answer, without possessing evidence of it, is exaggerating his access and overstating his analytic abilities.

Likewise, we have no idea why the Israelis responded as they did. Little about their response makes much sense on the face of it. It seems clear now that the Israelis should have known that a boat with members of the İHH aboard had the potential to turn into a floating riot. But who made the decision to interdict the boat in that fashion, and why? We don’t know. Did the decision-makers fail to consider the possibility that the passengers would attack the commandos? It seems unlikely, but so many things seem likely only in hindsight. The Israelis, too, might well have been thinking that the boat had been properly inspected, and that there was no serious possibility of violence. Perhaps they received private assurances of this from the Turkish government.

Nor could any member of the media possibly know that the Israelis wanted a violent outcome, whether (as it has variously been hypothesized) to establish Israeli deterrence, to distract the world from Israel’s activities in the Persian Gulf, or to provoke Erdoğan into an overreaction that would at last discredit him in the West. None of the journalists offering speculation about Turkish or Israeli positions claim to have even an anonymous source or a secret document in their possession. Their speculations tend to conform with perfect precision to whatever line about Turkey or Israel they’ve endorsed before.

We also don’t know whether the Israelis received intelligence, real or faulty, about the nature of the goods being shipped on the Mavi Marmara. We don’t know whether they were told—by an honest source who believed it or by a corrupt one trying to make mischief—that the boat was another Karine A. We don’t know what really happened before the violence broke out or why the accounts conflict. It’s possible, of course, that they conflict because one or both sides are wicked propagandists, but eyewitness testimony is notoriously confused in the aftermath of traumatic events. We don’t know why the Israelis stopped the boat in international waters or whether they seriously considered disabling it by other means. We certainly don’t know what the Obama administration is doing about all of this, because it is either doing nothing, or doing something so quietly that it very much appears that way.

This much I do know, firsthand: the event is dominating the Turkish media. It’s on every television and radio station. Much of the media, the Islamist press in particular, is disgusting and utterly irresponsible. The Islamist fringe is running headlines that are not, to say the least, calculated to encourage confidence about Turkey’s future. Yeni Şafak, an Islamist rag favored by the prime minister, described the Israelis as “Hitler’s Children.” An AKP Deputy Chairman, Hüseyin Çelik, has speculated (without evidence) that it is “no coincidence” that in the past week, a PKK attack claimed the lives of seven Turkish soldiers in İskenderun. The more reputable Islamist papers, such asZaman, reported this claim uncritically. Few Turks read English and almost none read Hebrew, so the Turkish public is not exposed to a wide variety of opinion. The Turkish media is not helping matters.

I’ve seen street protests at Taksim, but not elsewhere; the protesters seem to be mainly young men, as to be expected, waving Palestinian flags. Apart from that, the mood is generally calm. People seem more anxious than angry. “We don’t know what’s going on,” said my Muay Thai teacher. “No one knows what’s going on.” Everyone at my gym, which I suppose politically represents a fairly random sample of Istanbul, seemed to agree that they did not want war. Many have voiced to me a suspicion that they are being manipulated.

I have about 500 Turkish Facebook friends, most of whom I’ve never met; we’ve come into contact through our shared interest in causes or hobbies—martial arts, rescuing animals, improving Istanbul’s construction codes. Of these 500, about three have clearly gone mad, posting insane anti-Israel diatribes, full of vulgarities, in capital letters. About 50 have posted something angry about the incident or joined a group devoted to denouncing it. The vast majority have done neither, and some have spoken out strongly against Islamism and anti-Semitism. I’ve spoken to a few people who say they don’t care about the Mavi Marmara. “I didn’t know them, what were they to me?” said one computer programmer. His friend, a chef, agreed: “Why should I care about the Palestinians just because they’re Muslims?” From these comments I can firmly conclude only that Turkey is not monolithic, and that if indeed Erdoğan provoked this crisis deliberately to buttress his popularity, he may well also provoke a backlash if it spins out of his control.

These are modest observations, to be sure, but I’ll conclude with an immodest suggestion: it would be best for this region if journalists contained their observations to what they do, in fact, know. A media war is actually quite different from a real one. Whatever is really happening, however little of it we understand, is obviously minatory and extremely dangerous. The best thing journalists can do under the circumstances is to stop playing with fire unless they have something real to report.

Claire Berlinski is an American journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of  There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

[rachelg]

A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo
By DANIEL GORDIS

June 3, 2010

Jerusalem

IN the last few days, Jerusalem has been blanketed by an unusual combination of humiliation and steely determination. How is it, people here wondered aloud, that the same country that tripled its size in three lightning days in June 1967 and then pulled off the rescue at Entebbe nine years later now seems to botch everything?




We lost the 2006 war in Lebanon, believing - incorrectly - that our venerated air force could win the war from the skies. The strikes on Gaza in December 2008 were a military success, but we have utterly failed to convince the world that it was a defensive effort precipitated by eight years of Hamas's firing Qassam rockets at us, killing and maiming and destroying any semblance of a normal life for Israelis living near the border. And then came Monday's attack on the flotilla trying to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.

Yet, despite widespread criticism at the way the raid was conducted, few here doubted that stopping the flotilla was the right thing to do. Life in Gaza is unquestionably oppressive; no one in his right mind would choose to live there. But there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; if anyone goes without food, shelter or medicine, that is by the choice of the Hamas government, which puts garnering international sympathy above taking care of its citizens. Israel has readily agreed to send into Gaza all the food and humanitarian supplies on the boats after they had been inspected for weapons.

Thus this flotilla was no "peace operation." It was intended to break the blockade or to increase international pressure to end it. Its leaders, with the connivance of the Turkish government, set a trap, and Israel blundered smack into it.

But that does not make the blockade wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization that completed its takeover of Gaza through brute force. It executes its political enemies at will. It is one of the world's most misogynist regimes, allowing the murder of women for the slightest infraction of family honor.

Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from Israeli territory and has held him for four years without giving the Red Cross any access to him, in violation of the most basic international standards of conduct. And, of course, Hamas openly insists that it will countenance no long-term peace with Israel; the resistance will not end, it says, until Israel is destroyed.

Like every other country, Israel has as its foremost obligation the protection of its citizens. Given that, why should it have allowed the flotilla to enter without inspecting its goods? If the United States were to impose a blockade on Iran (which seems unlikely), and another country dispatched a string of ships in a similar operation, is there any chance the United States Navy would let them through without inspection?

Israel will, of course, endure tremendous international condemnation for this week's events. Sadly, though, we Israelis are becoming somewhat inured to such criticism. And we know that we dare not capitulate now.

It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara's warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East.

Iran finances Hezbollah and Hamas and does everything it can to weaken and marginalize Israel, inching toward its vision of a world without a Jewish state. The West has known of Iran's nuclear intentions for well over a decade, but has effectively done nothing. Israelis understand that we - and we alone - will have to ensure our security and our survival.

The recent avalanche of international condemnation is very painful for Israelis, who remember the years in which we were seen as a beacon of democracy and sophistication in a repressive part of the world. Those days are gone, of course, because of the world's impatience with the "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza.

Our problem is that though most Israelis want peace with two states - one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side by side - we cannot find anyone to make a deal with us. A decade ago, President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, tried, but Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, walked away. Now the supposedly moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, refuses to negotiate, as of course does Hamas.

Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world's blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is "criminal"; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in placesince 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel's attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to sit with Fatah leaders any time, anywhere, but they insist on mere "proximity talks," which they will probably now scuttle, using the flotilla as an excuse.

Israel's geographic vulnerability means that we do not have the luxury of caving in to the world's condemnation. We will have to gird ourselves for the long, dangerous and lonely road ahead, buoyed by hope that what ultimately prevails will be not what is momentarily popular, but rather what is just.

 
[Credit: Both Text and Image from New York Times]
 
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CAN BE POSTED HERE:
http://danielgordis.org/2010/06/03/a-botched-raid-a-vital-embargo-new-york-times-op-ed/
 
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE IS AT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03gordis.html?ref=global
 

[rachelg]

Calling it an apple doesn't make it one
http://www.treppenwitz.com/2010/06/asymmetrical-use-of-language.html
[Zahava weighs in with a guest post]

So the news..... Argh!....  is not good. (Is it ever?!)

For the past week, as the "peace flotilla" made their preparations and neared our shores, the foreign politicians and media have been doing their best to ensure that no matter what happened when Israel intercepted the flotilla, there would be a receptive audience of sharks gathered when the blood hit the water.

I don't think anyone who keeps up with the news is particularly shocked by the way things turned out or how they have been reported. On the contrary, I think that to some degree most people have been waiting -- some with no small amount of dread -- for these exact events to unfold.

What is, however, truly amazing to me -- is the insistence that the passengers aboard the flotilla were peace activists and that we are meant to accept/believe that they were simply exercising their rights to civil disobedience in a public place, and that we should be outraged by the use of force against them.

There exists a well-documented history of civil disobedience in world history. I am by no means a scholar of history, but it seems to me that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would both be horrified by the hijacking of the terminology to describe their non-violent methodologies to affect social and political change to describe a well-planned-and-executed operation which culminated in the protesters bearing arms.

When I was a student, my teachers taught us that what precisely was so powerful about both Gandhi and Dr. King was that even in the face of violence being employed against their followers, the violence was not returned. The public quickly grew sick from seeing peaceful, unarmed participants -- many of whom were youths -- being indiscriminately beaten without there having been violent provocation toward their attackers. It was the resolute maintenance of non-violence on the part of the protesters which caused the public to become involved in the issues and to democratically institute change.

Peace activists BY DEFINITION do NOT bear arms and utilize them against others. FULL STOP.

Civil disobedience only deserves the name when violence is not employed by the individuals engaging in the protest/demonstration.

“Peace activists” aboard a ship who attack military personnel as they are boarding a blockade runner are not engaged in peaceful protest — they are engaged in offensive combat.

If we -- and by "we" I mean any person capable of distinguishing between "black" and "white" regardless of our political affinities -- tolerate such misuse of language to describe the passengers of this flotilla, then we make it impossible to have meaningful discussion because we will have stripped important -- and formerly potent -- words of their meaning.

If we allow it to persist, the asymmetrical application of language will lead us to anarchy. If we allow the definition of a peace activist to change from "one who refrains from violence" to "one who refrains from violence except when...", then we create a situation with limitless opportunities to continually modify language to suit the needs and political sympathies of the speaker, and we simultaneously erode the possibility of achieving understanding and agreement.

Our society has evolved to the point that we expect and demand a certain amount of honesty from the entities which sell us things; we call it 'truth in advertising'. While it is true that this has resulted in the shifting of some of the responsibility of representing truth to those in the business of marketing it, it doesn't completely absolve us of the responsibility to question the validity of the claims we are hearing and reading.

Let's not collectively surrender our ability to call things by their correct name.  You can't very well compare apples to apples unless everyone can agree on what an apple is... and is not.

[rachelg]

I am not agreeing with this entire post but I thought was really interesting an interesting perspective


Separating fact from fiction

I'm glad I resisted the temptation to weigh in yesterday on the Gaza Flotilla raid because most of what was being reported turned out to be either wrong or grossly incomplete.

1.  Let's start in a place where few if any of the media outlets care to go; the blockade of Gaza.

a)  Is it legal? 

Simply put; yes.  Actually, in technical/legal terms, it is not a blockade per se since although Israel handed over all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005, we retained control of the airspace and borders (including both land and sea borders).  [Note: This, not incidentally, is one of the reasons that our claims of no longer occupying Gaza are relatively weak.]  But if we never relinquished control of the borders and airspace, is it legally a blockade?  Not really. The result is the same (at least as far as Hamas is concerned), but blockading our own coast is not the same as if we were blockading another sovereign state.

While there are many countries around the world who do not support the so-called blockade of Gaza, few except NGOs and 'interested parties' use the term 'illegal' to describe it. 

b)  Is Israel alone in the 'blockade' of Gaza?

No.  While Israel controls the borders of Gaza, Egypt also controls its borders with Gaza and is a full participant in controlling the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza.  It doesn't get much press, but Egypt is actually much more violent in the control of its borders with Gaza; shooting dozens of refugees from Africa trying to enter Israel and Gaza... and using lethal force against Palestinians trying to enter Sinai.

Egypt's interest in maintaining the blockade is different from Israel's.    They maintain "that they cannot open Rafah crossing [and any other border crossing] unless the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas controls the crossing and international monitors are present. Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Hamas wants the border opened because it would represent Egyptian recognition of the group's control of Gaza. "Of course this is something we cannot do," he said, "because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank." [Source].

Update:  Egypt has just opened (albeit temporarily) their border with Gaza in order to "alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers".  They're not complete idiots.  When the sh*t starts to stick to Israel over the blockade, they don't want to be seen standing guard along any of the borders.   

It is worth mentioning that the U.S.government supports the blockading of Gaza and the isolation of the Hamas terror organization.

c)  Is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a result of the blockade as Palestinian supporters claim?

No.  As much as the Palestinians and their supporters have tried to portray the blockade of Gaza as causing a humanitarian crisis, the truth is that Israel supplies all of their electricity, and allows entry of humanitarian aid from recognized organizations via the border crossings it controls.  Whether Hamas allows all of that aid to reach the people is quite another question.    The sponsors of the flotilla were informed in advance that they could save themselves a trip and allow Israel to transfer all of their aid via official land crossings into Gaza.  needless to say, they refused.

There is also a flourishing smuggling economy that operates via a network of tunnels between Gaza and Egyptian Sinai.

While the idea of being virtual prisoners in Gaza must not be very palatable to the population or the Hamas leadership that runs the strip, the stores there are full of food and consumer products and the standard of living in Gaza is higher than most of the third/developing world.  Additionally, Israel has allowed Gazans access to its own medical facilities for more serious/emergent cases; something that has been exploited cynically many times by individuals and by Hamas.

2.  Next, let's talk about the issue of 'international waters' and what this actually means in the the context of the current situation.

a)  Claims vs. actual practice:

The news media and the players in this latest drama have been throwing around the term 'International Waters', but few people really understand the idea of maritime territorial claims.  The following illustration should help provide much of the vocabulary you'll need to discuss this topic:



I've posted this, not because there is some magic loophole that Israel has exploited (quite the opposite, actually)... but because it bothers me to hear people using terminology that they don't fully understand.

Simply put, every country on earth has a legal claim to 12 nautical miles of coastal waters (from the mean low water mark), assuming they have a coastline, that is.  Some countries (Israel, interestingly, is not among them) claim an additional 12 nautical mile 'contiguous zone'.  Whether 12 or 24 nautical miles, this area claimed by all countries is still open to 'innocent passage' (a concept under Admiralty Law) and anchoring.   But a country really has the final say over what it considered 'innocent'.

b)  EEZ:

It is worth noting that many countries claim and enforce a much larger maritime claim... some out to as far as 200 nautical miles.  While this is considered an Economic Exclusion Zone and is mainly relevant for protecting natural resources (i.e. drilling and fishing rights, etc.), quite a few countries patrol their EEZ with the same vigor as they do their legal territorial claims of 12 or 24 nautical miles.  Don't think so?  Try approaching North Korea's coast.  Or for that matter, try sailing from Cuba to Florida and let me know how that works out for you.  You won't get anywhere near 12 miles before the Coast Guard boards you.


c)  Current law vs. current practice regarding interdiction

Thanks to Somali pirates, and less recently to the ongoing drug trafficking between Caribbean islands and the U.S., the rules regarding when and how boats can be approached and boarded in international waters has been constantly evolving.

While most of the Navies currently operating in the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea to protect commercial shipping from the Somali pirates rely on a legal concept called "Hostis humani generis" (Latin for "enemy of mankind") a legal term originating from the admiralty law that basically allows nearly unrestricted engagement on the high seas of pirates, slave traders, torturers and a few other select populations that the entire world has an interest in fighting, sadly, smugglers are a more difficult group to legally engage... and terrorists are not yet officially defined as Hostis humani generis.

For context let's look at the U.S. Coast Guard.  On a daily basis the USCG boards and inspects hundreds of boats and ships on the high seas (meaning in international waters) far from their own territorial claims.  In addition, they approach and challenge hundreds more each day but opt for any number of reasons not to board.  How can they do this so far outside their recognized national claims?

The reason is simple.  On a significant number (but certainly not all) of the vessels that the USCG challenges/boards, illegal drugs and weapons are found.   The U.S. has enacted Federal Laws that allow the Coast Guard to operate and interdict suspected smugglers...  even on the high seas far from its legal territorial claims.  Certainly part of the reason this is allowed is that many of the Island nations in the Caribbean do not have the means to adequately control their own maritime claims (and are sometimes directly or indirectly involved in the smuggling), so the U.S. has unilaterally - and sometimes through agreements with neighbors - taken it upon themselves to act as the cops for that part of the world's oceans.

Israel, for its part, is in a similar situation.  It's neighbors are unable or unwilling to control maritime smuggling that both directly and indirectly affects Israel's economic and physical security.  So when ample intelligence indicates that a ship or boat is engaged in smuggling or terror, Israel often acts in this gray area of international law.

Simply put, when Israel engaged the Gaza Flotilla in international waters, they were not on as solid ground (figuratively, of course) as our supporters claim, nor as legally wrong as our many detractors claim.

The flotilla had declared it's intention to smuggle goods and people into an area that Israel controls (and has declared a closed military zone), and when contacted via radio and offered the chance to alter course to an Israeli port for the purposes of transferring the cargo to Gaza (after inspection, of course), or even turning around and returning to their port of origin, the flotilla again clearly stated their intention to violate Israel's sovereignty.

Under international law, you don't necessarily have to wait for someone to breach your sovereignty before engaging them.  It is often enough that they say they are going to do it; that they demonstrate that they have the means to do it; and that they actually set in motion a physical act that makes it clear they intend to make good on their threats.

c)  How far from Israel's coast did the interdiction take place:

Approximately 40 nautical miles (although I have not seen confirmation of this from Israel sources).  Close enough to infer intent even without the flotilla's declaration of intent to violate Israel's territorial sovereignty.
 

3.  Now that we have some of the necessary background to discuss the flotilla raid responsibly, what happened... and more importantly, what went wrong?

a)  The 'boats':

There were five craft used in the so-called Freedom Flotilla.  There were originally at least two more - flying Swedish and Irish flags, respectively - but they did not participate due to mechanical problems.

There were two U.S. flagged craft; Challenger I and Challenger II, two Greek flagged craft; the Eleftheri Mesogeios and the Sfendoni, and a Turkish flagged craft called the MV Mavi Marmara.  This latter ship is where all the problems took place

It wasn't until yesterday that the actual dimensions of the participating ships, and most specifically the ship where all the trouble occurred, began to come to light.  The MV Mavi Marmara, far from being a small fishing or pleasure vessel is actually a small-medium sized cruise ship which is over 300 feet in length.  This is significant because the early reports of the mighty Israel military boarding and shooting up some tiny vessels with helpless crew seem silly when placed alongside the image of a cruise ship with hundreds of people aboard.

b)  The sponsors/supporters:

There is a feeling afoot that just because there were representatives of many countries around the world and several high profile participants in the flotilla, that the methods and goals of the flotilla had international sanction and support.  This is only partly true.  The flotilla had widespread, but unofficial, international support... and now that the botched raid has pushed the flotilla onto the front page of every newspaper ni the world, many countries have condemned Israel's handling of the situation.  But condemning Israel and officially supporting the goals and methods of the flotilla are not the same thing.  To officially support the flotilla would be madness for any country that wants to protect its own homeland and coastline from smugglers and terrorists.
c)  The 'peace activists'

The videos of anti-Israel/Islamic incitement before and during the cruise from Turkey, and the revelation that many of the people on-board the MV Mavi Marmara were not 'peace activists' but rather armed agitators (many with ties to what I'll euphemistically call militant Islamic organizations), give a clear indication that we weren't dealing with disciples of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr..

d)  The Israel Navy:

"Just before the raid, the Israeli Navy again contacted the Mavi Marmara, warning it that it was approaching an "area of hostility which is under naval blockade", and telling it that it could instead dock in the Port of Ashdod, where the supplies would be delivered through the "formal land crossings" under the observation of activists, after which the fleet would be allowed to leave to their home ports. The Mavi Marmara replied "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza"."  [Source]

Most of you know by now that the IDF naval commandos were given impossible Rules of Engagement.  Far from the bloodthirsty savages who allegedly boarded the ships intent upon murder and mayhem, the commandos were sent aboard with paint ball guns - toys, essentially - and told that even those non-lethal tools were to be used only if necessary for crowd control.  They also each had a pistol for self defense, but were warned repeatedly that their lives had to be in danger before they could use them... and even then they would need to ask for and receive authorization.  We now know that by the time permission was received to use the meager lethal means at their disposal, at least two of the soldiers had been beaten unconscious, stripped of their sidearms and these pistols (and other weapons) were being used against the rest of the group.

The senior echelons of the IDF who wrote up and approved these ROEs should be dismissed without delay.  Besides being an intelligence failure of the first water that we didn't know what our soldiers would be dropping into... you simply don't send commandos into action with their hands tied.  Take away a soldier's weapons and give him toys, and he cannot possibly be effective no matter what the mission.  I don't care if the mission is to go bring back Shwarma from the corner store... a solder will do it better in full gear with all his weapons.

Sadly, in this case, the powers that be decided to make Mike Tyson a bouncer and send him out to face an angry mob, forgetting that if he won't be allowed to do what he was trained to do, he will be nothing more than a target... and a big one, at that.

No, I won't join your facebook group.  No, I won't sign a petition or write to my (or your) representatives.  I won't be part of a spin campaign of any sort.  THis was not Israel's finest hour and I'm not going to try to make it out to be another Entebbe raid.  Even though I believe in my heart that Israel was morally and legally in the right, it was a botched operation from start to finish and we now have to see what can be done to see that no further damage is done.

We've seen the grainy video taken from one of the helicopters hovering overhead.  I don't know about you, but you could tell me Big Foot and the Lock Ness monster were both involved in the skirmishes and I'd have no choice but to take your word for it.

I hope that there were helmet cams used by at least some of the soldiers.  But barring that, we'll have to see what the physical evidence reveals once the boats are searched in Ashdod.

For the record, I am not a scholar of Admiralty Law, but neither are any of the talking heads raving about whether Israel was or wasn't within her rights to board the flotilla in International Waters.  Personally, I am confident that Israel will successfully assert her right to act as she did... and most of the civilized world will agree to her rationale since they (most of all the U.S.) have too much to lose if slapping Israel's wrist will set a precedent that will ultimately erode their own freedom of action on the high seas.

The best advice I can give you is to NOT become shrill and strident.  Those who are condemning us would do so no matter what.  Those who are inclined to wait for the facts have given very measured statements and are waiting to see how things play out.

I know the title of this post suggested that I would reveal some magical formula for separating fact from fiction.  But from here, I am in the same boat (literally and figuratively) as you.  I am reading the same news reports and filtering the same hype from both sides.  What I hope I've given you is enough background information to be able to read the news with a critical eye.

[JDN]

I don't think "legality" (international waters) is a serious issue.

And personally, and I think many agree with me, Israel, for various reasons, should have stopped the flotilla.

But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better.

"This was not Israel's finest hour and I'm not going to try to make it out to be another Entebbe raid.  Even though I believe in my heart that Israel was morally and legally in the right, it was a botched operation from start to finish and we now have to see what can be done to see that no further damage is done."  (see above)

Now that is a true statement.

I know Obama is not popular here on this forum, but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle. 

And it will cost America...

[G M]

How should have Israel handled the jihad flotilla?

"I know Obama is not popular here on this forum, but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle."  

No, he's just working behind closed doors to undercut Israel.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Israel, Disarmed
If even a blockade, the most passive and benign of defenses, is impermissible, what defenses does Israel have left?
 
The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiél, and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted weapons-laden ships from Iran destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically delegitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.

1. Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense — fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example), Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies — and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks, and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

2. Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense — military action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat (to borrow President Obama’s description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza operation of 2008–09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N.’s Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli — the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war — effectively delegitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

3. Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses — a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international delegitimization.

But, if none of these are permissible, what’s left?

Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, six million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized, and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://article.nationalreview.com/435513/israel-disarmed/charles-krauthammer

[ccp]

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

They asked to be able to transfer the haul to Gaza themselves.

I don't see what else all the talking heads think would have been better.  They could have shot a missle accross the bow. When the antagonists would not stop they could have sunk the ships.  Then the national "community" could have even had more to gang up on Israel about.

They could have had a small army board the ships perhaps with submachine guns.  Those on board would have then been screaming that this was a disproportionate response to a "peace" ship.

No matter what they did, if they did not let the ships pass, they would be condemned.  This was not botched at all.  It is the medias way of a mea culpa to the Muslims who are for this sort of thing.

To have talking heads speaking of "big nets" in the water, and on and on.  Give me a break.

"but he alone in the world has not condemned Israel for this debacle." 

Obama has hardly come out in support of Israel.  Indeed, his lack of support for Israel may have inspired this sort of thing.

"And it will cost America..."

How so in this case?  You are suggesting because he has publically tried to appear neutral this was not enough.  Thus are you saying he should be condeming Israel because that is in agreement with World opinion and that will keep us popular with the world and the Arabs?

[Body-by-Guinness]

The original piece has a lot of videos embedded within that are wealth worth viewing.

Israel Publishes Gaza Travel Guidebook For Pro-Hamas Freedom Flotilla

By Omri CerenPublished: May 26, 2010
Posted in: Arab and Muslim World, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Israel, Palestinians, Sticky, World News
Tags: Europe, gaza, hamas, Human Rights, Israel, Palestinians, terrorism

FROM: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TO: Free Gaza Freedom Flotilla
RE: Gaza Tourism Guide

Dear Crazy People,

We’ve been given to understand that you intend to stage another media stunt, wherein you’re again going to float some empty ships – they may be full this time, they were mostly empty last time – in the general direction of the Gaza Strip. Your hope is apparently that your cameramen will capture the Israeli reaction and edit it into an overreaction or, failing that, simply reprint your feverish fantasies with slack-jawed credulity. Again.

Our problem isn’t so much that your goal involves obfuscating the millions of tons of food and aid we’ve delivered to Gaza civilians, which allowed Hamas to move money away from infrastructure and into weaponry, which led to more of our cities getting bombarded with rockets and missiles. It’s not even how, knowing that we deliver 15,000 tons of goods every week, your 10,000 tons of concrete isn’t exactly a shining testament to your good intentions. Not when just last week we handed over 810,209 liters of heavy duty diesel fuel, 21 truckloads of milk powder and baby food, 897 tons of cooking gas, 66 truckloads of fruits and vegetables, 51 truckloads of wheat, 27 truckloads of meat, chicken and fish products, 40 truckloads of dairy products, 117 truckloads of animal feed, 36 truckloads of hygiene products, 38 trucks of clothing, 22 trucks of sugar and 4 trucks of medicine and medical equipment. But again: not the issue.

Really what we’re concerned about is that you suck at driving boats. Last time you only had one ship and you still managed to crash it because – of all things – you tried to outmaneuver an Israeli Navy vessel. This time you’re bringing nine boats. While we fully expect our Navy to interdict all of you, a legal and justified act under black letter maritime law, the odds are overwhelming that one of you tools is going to accidentally ground your boat. Given your obvious intention of creating a spectacle and your similarly obvious inability to manage same, it’s pretty much inevitable.

If and when that happens, we’d like you to have at least some sense of how to survive in Gaza City. The alternative is you running across the border – complaining the whole time about our security checkpoints – and that would be awkward for everyone.

So we’ve put together this Gaza Tourism Guide, complete with picture galleries, which we believe to be the most comprehensive ever assembled on the web.

We know that after looking over everything, you’ll be as excited to stay in Gaza as we are to have you there. Feel free to pass this on at your ISM tabling sessions at Evergreen or whatever you people do on college campuses in between advocating genocide. And in the future, if you really want to repeatedly create Gaza media spectacles so you can damage Israel’s reputation, do what everyone else does. Join the UN.

WHERE TO SLEEP

Gaza City’s luxury hotels are located on the Gaza coastline in the posh district of Ramal, which gets its name from the Arabic word for “sands.” Ramal serves as a central gathering place for international and domestic dignitaries. Foreign officials are often found in the area, speaking about Gaza’s unbearable plight at the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights during the day, before retiring to the United Nations beach club at night. Top Hamas officials also congregate in the area, and can be easily identified during wartime as the ones hiding in the half-bunker/half-silo basement of the district’s Shifa Hospital. As can be expected the accommodations and eateries in Ramal are superb.

At the far end of the luxury spectrum, the Grand Palace Hotel has a direct beach view and puts guests literally across the street from the Mediterranean Sea. The building’s decadent Crystal Hall – included in the gallery below – makes it a much-desired banquet location for first weddings, second weddings, and martyrdom celebrations. Those seeking to secure the room are advised to book well in advance.

The Grand Palace’s sprawling facilities also make it a prime location for political and corporate events. When Fatah leader Nabil Shaath returned to the Gaza Strip in 2010, entering the territory for the first time since Hamas had violently seized control in a 2007 campaign that involved shooting out the kneecaps of Fatah-linked civilians, throwing them off roofs, and executing them in the streets – this is where Shaath met with his Hamas counterparts.


If you’re looking for a younger vibe you might want to check out the Marna House. The warm family-run establishment is like a home away from home. Though it’s Gaza’s oldest hotel, the blending of modern luxury with the ethos of anti-Zionist resistance has made it a favorite with college-aged ISM volunteers. Stable Internet means guests can – and do – blog about the savagery of targeted Israeli self-defense operations, tweet about the wonderful bravery of Hamas’s human shields, and even upload galleries of the beach side terrace to Flickr. Since the clientele skews young, it’s no surprise that past guests have set up a Marna House hotel & restaurant Facebook page so they can “share memories” of their bitter twilight struggle against Occupation. The crappy resolution on the uploaded photos are a testament to the grittiness of the experience:


The Al Deira hotel, built along Gaza’s coast in sun dried mud bricks, is an option somewhere in between the Al Deira and the Marna House. Though the hotel boasts 22 spacious rooms and a world-class staff – enough so that some regular Western European diplomats and anti-Israel human rights investigators actually prefer it to the Grand Palace – the experience exudes down-to-earth Mediterranean hospitality. Bookworms will find a shop in the lobby specializing in Middle Eastern works of fiction, historical biographies, and conspiracy theories demonizing Jews. Wireless Internet is available for $2/hr or $10/day, and a fully equipped business center is available for $6/hr.


WHERE TO SHOP

Gaza’s markets are simply overflowing with goods supplied by hundreds of smuggling tunnels, from food and clothing to widescreen TVs and even live cows. The depth and breadth of the selection is so astounding that smaller tunnel operators are actually getting run out of business because they can’t compete with the scale of the larger operations.

Tourists hoping for bargains may nonetheless find themselves disappointed, however. Gaza’s relatively healthy per capita income – higher than India’s as a result of being the world’s largest per-capita aid recipient – keeps demand robust and prices stable.

Still, wily locals will know where great deals can be found. Don’t be afraid to ask for tips, either from your hotel clerk or from the attentive Hamas-provided tour guides who will be accompanying you everywhere. If you’re lucky they might be able to track down one of the souvenir Goldstone headscarves, honoring brutal apartheid judge Richard Goldstone. They’ve unfortunately been selling out all over Gaza, so nothing’s certain. Much more common are open air swap meets filled with kids selling automatic weapons.


Many tourists, especially Americans, find bartering to be distasteful or uncomfortable. This is especially true in the hustle and bustle of a market. If it’s not your cup of tea, you can head over to Gaza’s professional and well-stocked supermarkets for the kind of experience that you would find in any American chain.


WHERE TO DINE

All of the major luxury hotels have food facilities, with the seaside terrace restaurant at the Al Diera hotel being a local favorite. It’s known for its view, its mezes (small Mediterranean-style dishes), and its fresh strawberry juice. Gazans will top the juice off with a scoop of vanilla ice cream, which is perfect for getting through the hot desert summer days.

If you’re looking to get away from hotels, you can’t do better than Roots. The well-known restaurant, part of the Cactus for Development Group’s family of fine dining restaurants – “new standards in the hospitality business in Palestine!!!” – emphasizes that you should call ahead for reservations. Their full blown interactive menu here.


Visitors are strongly cautioned not to drink tap water while in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have severely overpumped Gaza’s wells, perhaps irreparably depleting the water table and leaving it open to mass contamination. Ground water is therefore not potable. Stick instead to bottled water, which is regularly supplied by Israel and imported through smuggling tunnels.

WHERE TO PLAY

Gaza summers revolve around whatever Gaza beaches aren’t being used at the time to hack up critically endangered sea turtles for their ostensibly magical blood. Whether it’s relaxing with friends, exercising with a partner, or watching an AP stringer set up photo shoots in anticipation of captions about beach life being “the only escape available to Gaza children” – there’s always something interesting going on.

The beaches do get crowded, and the new mandatory Hamas dress code makes them somewhat drab, so at some point you may want to join other relatively wealthy foreigners at Gaza’s nearby, full-time luxury spa. There you’ll find a steam room, a sauna, a small gym and a beauty parlor that offers facials and massages.


WHERE TO DRINK

Unfortunately, the Hamas government declared a total ban on alcohol importation and consumption in 2009. Even hotels frequented by well-intentioned Westerners such as yourselves are banned from serving liquor, a substance that Muslims find objectionable. Stores and clubs that fail to adhere to the ban get bombed.

WHERE TO WORSHIP

Unfortunately, non-Muslims will find few options for worship in the Gaza Strip. The synagogues left by withdrawing Israelis were immediately desecrated and destroyed. Most Christian churches were long ago transformed into mosques. Visiters are also advised to avoid gathering in Christian bookstores, which increasingly get bombed, or around actual Christians, who increasingly get killed.

WHERE TO DANCE

Unfortunately, Hamas has banned women from dancing, as well as from wearing all but the most conservative outfits.

WHERE TO LISTEN

Unfortunately, music shops and performances have also been deemed un-Islamic in recent years, to the detriment of music shop owners and performers.

WHERE TO GET ONLINE

Unfortunately, visitors are advised to avoid Internet cafes because they get bombed.

References:
* CNN Lends Credence to Protestors Embellishment [News Busters]
* Behind the Headlines: The Israeli humanitarian lifeline to Gaza [Israel MFA]
* Thwart the ‘peace crusaders’ [YNet]
* Gaza protest boat sails into Lebanon [Jerusalem Post]
* Watchers Council – What American Universities Will Tolerate These Days… [Mere Rhetoric]
* UN Palestinian Stooge: “It’s Obvious” That Israeli Attack Violated 48-Hour Truce That No One Knew About Until Now [Mere Rhetoric]
* UN: “Clerical Error” Made Us Mistakenly Think Israel Bombed UNRWA School. Opps. [Mere Rhetoric]
* Gaza Hospitals Overflowing With Hamas Weapons, Palestinian Vigilante Murder [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas Blowing Out The Kneecaps Of Fatah-Linked Gaza Civilians, Executing Dozens [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian Non-Civil War Watch – Now They’re Throwing Each Other Off Roofs [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian Non-Civil War Watch – Insanity (Updated: Content Warning) [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinian senior Fatah leader, Nabil Shaath, right, meets Hamas leader Khalil Al-Haya, left, in the Grand Palace hotel in Gaza City, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010. [AP Photo]
* Hamas Prepares 15,000 Soldiers, Civilian Human Shields For Full Confrontation With Israel [Mere Rhetoric]
* Marna House hotel & resturant [Facebook]
* New Data Confirms Old Data: Blaming Israel For Gaza’s Medical Collapse Is A Vicious Lie [Mere Rhetoric]
* More Photos from the Gaza Concentration Camp [IndyMedia]
* Wide Screen TV in Gaza [Solomonia]
* A cow is lowered into an underground chamber as Palestinians continue to smuggle supplies and animals through tunnels between Rafah, southern Gaza Strip and Egypt [Getty Images]
* Aww… Glut Of Gaza Products Putting Small-Time Smugglers Out Of Business [Mere Rhetoric]
* EU: Another 40 Million Euros To Hamas Will Totally Bring Peace To Middle East [Mere Rhetoric]
* Gaza gift shop markets ‘Goldstone’ headscarves [AFP]
* Anti-Israel Left Ignores Goldstone’s Apartheid Past, Fabricates Israeli/South African Nuke Deal Instead [Mere Rhetoric]
* Kids Selling Weapons At Gaza Auto Market [Mere Rhetoric]
* New Data Confirms Old Data: Blaming Israel For Gaza’s Medical Collapse Is A Vicious Lie [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Parch Themselves, Blame Israel [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Hack Up Critically Endangered Giant Sea Turtle For Its Magical Blood [Video] [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas patrols beaches in Gaza to enforce conservative dress code [Guardian]
* At Gaza’s only spa, the well-heeled find relief [AFP]
* Palestinians End Truce They Never Started. AP Blames Israel, Comes Frighteningly Close to Outright Lying [Mere Rhetoric]
* Palestinians Rampage, Destroy Synagogues [Mere Rhetoric]
* Peaceful Relations Watch – Christian Bookstore Director Murdered In Gaza [Mere Rhetoric]
* AP: Gaza Christians Have Been Living Peacefully, Now Under Attack By Unknown Extremists [Mere Rhetoric]
* Hamas Bans Women Dancers, Scooter Riders in Gaza Push (Update1) [Bloomberg]
* Schoolgirls in Hamas-run Gaza told to wear Islamic dress [AFP]
* Who Are These Peaceful Loving Palestinian People, And Why Do They Seem So Non-Peace Loving? [Mere Rhetoric]
* And the Wheels Come Off – (2) Gaza [Mere Rhetoric]

http://www.mererhetoric.com/2010/05/26/israel-publishes-gaza-travel-guidebook-for-pro-hamas-freedom-flotilla/

[ccp]

I used the phrase F* Jews.  Charles is nicer about it and uses the term "troublesome".

****Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

This Story
Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Nudging Israel toward a Gaza fix
Cairo's unmet promise
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.


Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.****

[JDN]

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

I suppose it a matter of opinion. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say a group of aggressive civilian protestors armed only with a few slingshots, a pipe or two, and a few knives were marching in your town. 
Let's assume it was an illegal (no permit) rally and therefore the police were called.  The police move in to disperse the crowd.
The crowd resisted.  The police became more aggressive.  Somehow one or two handguns were stolen from the police.  Shots were supposedly fired.
The police were then instructed by their onsite commander to fire upon the crowd. Results:

"Autopsy results by forensics experts revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had
planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.  Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head".  Plus, nearly 60 civilians were injured.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified.  And I'm not a policeman, but I bet your city council, your mayor, your governor, the press, and privately even the
Chief of Police would call this a giant "fiasco" as he/she tried to quell the fallout.  And there would be a thorough impartial investigation. 

[ccp]

The police analagy is wrong.

This was not some police action asking for a parking permit.  They were going out to intercept the possible transfer of deadly arms to an enemy combatant.

This is war.

And yes, guns are taken from the soldiers and shots are fired it certainly is appropriate to defend themselves and ask questions later.

Your position as in Kruathammer's article points out makes it nearly impossible for Israel to defend itself without some ciriticism always being justified at the end.

Then again I am not a student of this theory that everything challenge has to be met with "proportionate" force.  Quite the contrary I believe the opposite.
But that is another issue for another thread.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hey, and lets say these aggressive protestors were trying to aid and abet terrorists who had shot 4000 missiles into your town with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible and were hoping to make it easier for those nasty folks to shoot 4000 more? What's that do to the inane analogy already well disputed by the pieces posted above?

Just another matter of opinion, no doubt. 

[G M]

"But it was a fiasco.  I deeply respect Israel; but they can/could/should have done better."

Everyone keeps repeating this.  It was not a fiasco.  It was a confrontation.  Israelis tried to do it peacefully by gently boarding the ship.

I suppose it a matter of opinion. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say a group of aggressive civilian protestors armed only with a few slingshots, a pipe or two, and a few knives were marching in your town. 
Let's assume it was an illegal (no permit) rally and therefore the police were called.  The police move in to disperse the crowd.
The crowd resisted.  The police became more aggressive.  Somehow one or two handguns were stolen from the police.  Shots were supposedly fired.
The police were then instructed by their onsite commander to fire upon the crowd. Results:

"Autopsy results by forensics experts revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had
planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.  Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head".  Plus, nearly 60 civilians were injured.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified.  And I'm not a policeman, but I bet your city council, your mayor, your governor, the press, and privately even the
Chief of Police would call this a giant "fiasco" as he/she tried to quell the fallout.  And there would be a thorough impartial investigation. 

Rioters armed with edged and impact weapons attempting to attack poliice officers would be shot early and often, until they no longer are a threat.

[JDN]

Rioters armed with edged and impact weapons attempting to attack poliice officers would be shot early and often, until they no longer are a threat.

I understand; that reaction may well be justified.

But my question is, in the aftermath, don't you think there would be serious fallout in the press if nine civilians died, five with head shots, and nearly 60 more were injured?  And
don't you think that many politicians on all levels would assign blame and call it a fiasco?  And finally don't you think in the aftermath that there would be demands
for a thorough and impartial investigation? 

[G M]

Politicians pandering to various groups, as well as the uninformed love to second guess those that actually go into harms way to face things the sheltered critics would never dream of facing. Violence is sometimes the only answer, and real violence is never pretty.

[Crafty_Dog]

EVer wonder why Israel gets such even handed coverage in the media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded

[G M]

We'll see who in the MSM condemns her for this.

[Crafty_Dog]

Israel's Isolation, Turkey's Rise
UNNAMED SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS LEAKED to The New York Times Thursday that U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration was considering a policy shift on Israel’s blockade of Gaza. The U.S. officials reportedly described the Israeli blockade of Gaza as “untenable” and the deadly Israeli raid on the Turkish-led aid flotilla as impetus for a new U.S. approach to Gaza.

These hints of a U.S. shift toward Israel and Gaza, while still in the unofficial stage of newspaper leaks, are deeply troubling for the state of Israel. The comments by anonymous U.S. officials come after Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday, that “Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality.” Though Turkey is stopping short of threatening a breach in its relations with Israel, it is clearly looking to publicly downgrade the alliance. And though the United States is not about to abandon its Jewish ally, Washington is not about to rush to Israel’s defense in this difficult time, either.

Israel is not a country that can survive in isolation. It is a small country surrounded by hostile states that sits on the edge of the Mediterranean basin, where larger, more distant powers with greater resources will inevitably entangle Israel in pursuit of their own interests. In such a dynamic neighborhood, Israel has to maneuver very carefully in trying to ensure its own security. Israel can do this by making itself attractive enough to the Mediterranean power of the day such that the Mediterranean power sees in its interest to fulfill the role of Israel’s security patron. The second Israel becomes a liability to that patron, however, the country’s vulnerability soars and its survivability comes into question.

“Israel is not a country that can survive in isolation.”
The Soviet Union — eyeing a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean Basin — was a patron to Israel since the state’s inception. Israel, wanting to balance its relationship with the Soviets and unnerved by Soviet sponsorship of the Arabs, then joined forces with France, which was fighting its own bloody war in Algeria and was already in a hostile relationship with the Arabs. French interest in Israel began to wane, however, in 1962 with the end of the Algerian civil war. Paris quickly began to view Israel as a liability to its efforts to maintain influence in the Middle East. By 1967, the United States was prepared to forge an alliance with Israel as a strategic counter to a Soviet push in the eastern Mediterranean. By aligning with both Israel and Turkey during the Cold War, the United States had two strategic pressure points in the Mediterranean basin to counter Soviet footholds in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Israel and Turkey were natural allies facing common foes, while the United States was the glue that held this alliance structure together.

But times have changed. Turkey is no longer a vulnerable power in need of a bodyguard to fend off the Soviets. Present-day Turkey is rediscovering its Ottoman roots in the Middle East, Caucasus, Europe and Central Asia, and is using its Islamic credentials to spread Turkish influence throughout the Muslim world. A tight alliance with Israel does not fit with this agenda. Turkey derives leverage from having a relationship with both Israel and the Muslim states (and so is unlikely to break ties with Israel), but is also viewing its alliance with Israel as a liability to its expansionist agenda. The United States, while needing to maintain a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean basin, is trying desperately to follow through with a timeline to militarily extricate itself from Iraq and reach some sort of understanding with the Iranians. Turkey, unhindered by the Persian-Arab and Israeli-Arab rivalries, can do things for the United States in this region that Israel simply can’t achieve. In short, Turkey is the more valuable ally to Washington than Israel at this point in time.

With Jordan locked into an alliance, Egypt being more interested in maintaining peace with Israel than making war and Syria too militarily weak to pose a meaningful challenge, Israel is not as dependent on the United States as it used to be. This decline in dependence explains why Israel feels able to push the envelope with the United States when it comes to thorny issues like Iran and settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. With Turkey regaining flexibility in the region and Israel not under heavy military pressure, the U.S. adhesive in the Turkish-Israeli relationship is wearing off. Washington no longer has the influence over these two powers it once had.

The United States thus finds itself in the difficult position of having to choose between its two allies in the Middle East. Washington will try a balancing act, but it has no choice but to lean toward the Turks in the wake of the flotilla crisis. A little animosity with Israel might also help the United States gain some credibility in this part of the world. Israel, on the other hand, finds itself backed into a corner. Turkey means it when it says its relationship with Israel will not go back to what it once was. The two countries will likely maintain relations, but Israel will not be able to rely on Turkey as a regional ally. The United States, meanwhile, cannot afford to prioritize Israel’s interests over Turkey’s. In this geopolitical climate, Israel lacks the luxury of options.

[G M]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO4tIlz0ZiA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NsuV_FVquY&feature=related[/youtube]

It appears that the US Coast Guard boards ships with more than teddy bears and lollypops when facing potential terrorists. Exactly what sort of greeting might a jihad flotilla get trying to enter US waters?

[ccp]

There was something about the Helen Thomas thing that made me wonder if she has Arab roots.  Only a Jew hating person (or Jew hating Arab - of course many don't feel this way - I do not speak of all Arabs this way) would make such comments.
On Wikepedia it is noted she is the child of Lebanese emigrees to the US.
I am not clear if they were Lebanese Christains or Muslims.  There is a big difference in their regard to Jews I think.
Her parents were most likely from Muslin heritage.  The Christain Lebenese I have met don't dislike Jews.  Indeed they are more tired of the Palestinian Muslims.

So in this context  her remarks are not surprising.  At her age she may have some cognitive defects and sometimes these defects manifest by people making statments or outbursts that normally they would be able to suppress.  I had a 93 yo. Polish lady who yelled at me while I was clearing wax out of her ears screaming about the "damn Jews", and "Nazis".  Her son a wonderful man kind of laughed.

He has thanked me many times for my care of her (she recently passed away).

I never came out and told him I am a Jew.  I guess I figured I didn't want him to feel embarrased by his senile old mother's remarks.

Yet one cannot dispute she had a deep seated hatred of Jews. 
The glee and delight that many Poles had as the Jews were carted away to be murdered is of course legendary.

Just like Thomas' comments whether made because of early or mild dementia or not, indicate she too has a deep hatred of Jews.

On the other hand, I remember a senile old lady back in the early 1980s when I worked as an orderly.  She was Jewish.  She had the number tatooed on her forearm.
She was so senile she could not even tell you her name.  Yet when they brought a stretcher to take her down from her hospital room to go get an Xray she started seeing "bodies all around her".  Her memories of Auschwitz were vividly described as they took her away (just to go downstairs).  She probably thought she was being taken to the ovens.

Now nearly 30 years later I still remember watching and listening with tears welling in my eyes while she made those comments.

It amazes me regarding the last memories people have as they gradually slip into full blown dementia.

And now too we see Iran's leaders telling the world straight out their plans on how to deal with the Jewish "problem".

I was not old enough to have lived through WW2.  But I have seen enough of the bullshit of the world to know this is the real deal - again.  I have NO reaon to doubt they mean what they say.
Mark my words.  It is coming. 

[Body-by-Guinness]

Small potatoes in light of current geopolitical conflict, but this sort of casual, systemic racism--racism fellow travelers, useful idiots, jihadists and their western apologists consistently overlook--speaks to just how inconsistent and one-sided the current climate of outrage is.

Egyptians married to Israelis to lose citizenship

By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF
Associated Press Writer

CAIRO (AP) -- An Egyptian appeals court on Saturday upheld a ruling that orders the country's Interior Ministry to strip the citizenship from Egyptians married to Israeli women.

The case underlines the deep animosity many Egyptians still hold toward Israelis, despite a peace treaty signed between the two countries 31 years ago.

The Supreme Administrative Court's decision also scores a point for Egyptian hard-liners who have long resisted any improvement in ties with Israel since the signing of the 1979 peace treaty.

In upholding last year's lower court ruling, the appeals court said Saturday that the Interior Ministry should present each marriage case to the Cabinet on an individual basis. The Cabinet will then rule on whether to strip the Egyptian of his citizenship.

The court also said officials should take into consideration whether a man married an Israeli Arab or a Jew when making its decision to revoke citizenship.

Saturday's decision, which cannot be appealed, comes more than year after a lower court ruled that the Interior Ministry, which deals with citizenship documents, must implement the 1976 article of the citizenship law. That bill revokes citizenship of Egyptians who married Israelis who have served in the army or embrace Zionism as an ideology. The Interior Ministry appealed that ruling.

The lawyer who brought the original suit to court, Nabih el-Wahsh, celebrated Saturday's ruling, saying it "is aimed at protecting Egyptian youth and Egypt's national security."

The government has not released figures of Egyptians married to Israeli women, but some estimates put the number around 30,000.

Israeli officials said they had no comment on Saturday's ruling.

In 2005, former Grand Mufti Nasr Farid Wasel issued a religious edict, or fatwa, saying Muslim Egyptians may not marry Israeli nationals, "whether Arab, Muslim, or Christian." The possibility of a Jewish spouse was not mentioned.

Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, the late Grand Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's premier institution and oldest university, has said that while marriage between an Egyptian man and an Israeli woman is not religiously forbidden, the government has the right to strip the man of his citizenship for marrying a woman from "an enemy state."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_MARRYING_ISRAELIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-06-05-13-37-30

[G M]

Islam allows for muslim men to marry non-muslim women, but a muslim woman can only marry a muslim man.

[JDN]

I guess it happens sometimes....


Serviceman and Iraqi wife caught in a paperwork prison

Army reservist becomes the subject of a military investigation after marrying a translator he met while serving in the Mideast.

Steve Lopez

9:42 PM PDT, May 28, 2010


When David Bloom of Los Angeles shipped to Iraq in 2005 with the U.S. Army Reserves, the last thing he expected to find there was a wife. But the first time he set eyes on an Iraqi woman named Zee, who worked for U.S. forces as a translator, Bloom told a buddy he was going to marry her one day.

Marriage, as we know, can be a complicated undertaking. All the more so when international complexities and military rules are thrown in.

Here now, just in time for Memorial Day, is the saga of Sgt. Bloom, 41, and 24-year-old Zee, who asked that I not use her last name because of concerns about her family's safety in Iraq.

Bloom, who grew up in Highland Park, began pasting American flag bumper stickers on his car after the attacks of Sept. 11. Even though he felt misled by the original justification for war, he believed some good could be accomplished in Iraq. So in 2003 he suited up with the U.S. Army Reserves, 425th Civil Affairs Battalion.

Bloom and his unit landed in Baghdad in June 2005 to build schools and soccer fields and help deliver healthcare to children. It was a dangerous time, he said, with plenty of casualties.

"You're getting up every day wondering if these are the clothes you're going to die in," said Bloom, a former freelance journalist who now works in public relations for the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

He often videotaped his excursions, and toward the end of his deployment, Bloom asked a translator if she would help him translate interviews. That would be Zee.

There was no romance, the two now say, even though Bloom had feelings. She was beautiful, she supported the U.S. mission and risked her life to support it, using her pay to buy a home for her family. Zee had served in the Iraqi National Guard, which was extremely rare for women, and worked as a medic. She stayed on the U.S. base each night instead of going home; others had been followed and killed for being collaborators.

Bloom's unit shipped back home in 2006 without him ever confessing his feelings for Zee, other than to promise he'd see her again. Back home, he couldn't get her out of his head. He called as often as possible, and five months into it, Bloom told Zee he loved her.

"I wasn't really shocked," says Zee, who told him she loved him, too.

It took a full year for the paperwork to come through so they could meet in Turkey and marry; then Zee had to go back to Iraq and wait, agonizingly, for a visa to join Bloom in Los Angeles. But that wasn't their only problem.

"Don't you realize," Bloom's commander asked, "that you married a woman from a country we're at war with?"

No he hadn't, Bloom insisted. Saddam was gone and the war was against terrorists, not Iraq.

But Bloom was accused of failing to get clearance for the trip to Turkey. An investigating officer dug way back into his file and in early 2008, Bloom was accused of several infractions unrelated to his marriage, including the charge that he had skipped a training assignment.

Bloom denied any wrongdoing and suspected that in truth, the military was out to get him for marrying Zee. The investigator wrote in a report that although the marriage was not a violation of Army regulation, "that does not mean that his actions do not have serious consequences."

"His marriage makes him potentially vulnerable to coercion, influence or pressure that may cause conduct contrary to the national interest," the investigator added, saying that Zee and soldiers working with her could be at risk if she were targeted.

But she was already at risk, Bloom argued, simply for working with U.S. troops. Still, the allegations hung over Bloom for more than a year while he was separated from Zee. His right to transfer or promote was on hold, he couldn't return to battle and he lost education benefits pending a hearing.

It was finally held last May, and in the worst scenario, Bloom could have been discharged. He was defended by a lawyer from Hawaii named Charles Djou, who, by chance, was sworn in last week as a Republican U.S. congressman.

The hearing lasted one day, and Bloom says that when it ended, he was high-fiving Djou in the hallway. A three-person panel cleared him of all charges, with one note; he was held partially responsible for miscommunication that led to missing a training program.

Just one lingering problem. A year has gone by since that hearing, and the paperwork clearing Bloom's name has not yet been produced despite his efforts to have his restrictions officially lifted. A military spokesman told me the matter was private; no comment. Congressman Djou confirmed that Bloom had prevailed but told me he didn't have clearance to talk further.

Six months ago, Zee finally got a spousal visa and moved to Los Angeles to be with Bloom. She's studying to be a nurse, still has nightmares about the war and feels lucky to be able to walk freely down a street without fear. She said she is surprised, though, by the paperwork prisons we build here.

Last week, two days after I began making phone calls, Bloom said he'd been informed by a commander that his papers are about to come through. He said he'll believe it when they're in his hands.

"I did nothing wrong," said Bloom. "I served my country and I married the woman I love."

[G M]

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=33612ce6a3f3415db42bc971b123f3fb

Question
   I'm a muslum married to a chretien who asks a lot of time for convert: read first,do research and see if he will be conveinced or not..... i wants to get a child with him and my age doesn't allow me to wait too mutch.can i conceive a child with him even he is not convert yet to islam??
 
 
Answer
   In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful


Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

 

At the outset I wish to bring to your notice that it is not permissible for a Muslim female to marry a non Muslim male. Thus, your Nikah (marriage) has not taken place and according to the law of Shari’a, you are not married.

 

Alhamdulillah, you have stated that you tried on numerous occasions to convert him; don’t give up. Try your level best to show him the beauty of Islam; advise him to go to the ‘Aalim/ Sheikh (Religious leader) of your locality, in order that he may be explained the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam. If he embraces the Deen of Islam then the Nikah has to be performed

 

Unfortunately, at this very point in time you may not have any sexual relations with this man, nor are you allowed to have children. If a child had been conceived during this period, then this child will be an illegitimate child. Also, if there had been any intimacy between the two of you, then you should make sincere Taubah (turning to Almighty Allah) and Istigfar (seeking forgiveness) because no Nikah had taken place and every act of intimacy is considered as Zina (fornication).

 

If after all your efforts have been exhausted to convert him, he still does not accept the Deen of Islam, then we advise you leave this man. This will be in your best interest in this world and the Hereafter. Bear in mind that the ultimate aim of every Muslim is to please Allah Ta’ala and be admitted into Jannah (Paradise). Perhaps one day when you become a mother you would hope for your children to be righteous and pious and be good leaders for the nation. For them to reach that goal they would require a sound upbringing and a good father; a father who will advise them to do good actions and to worship Allah by performing Salah, Fasting in the great month of Ramadan, giving Zakah to the poor and needy, going for the magnificent journey of Haj etc.

 

Besides your feelings for this man, think of the outcome of your children if and when you have them. The pleasures of this world are temporary and short lived but the life of the Hereafter is eternal. Therefore, make sincere dua to Allah asking for His help and guidance. May Allah make this easy on you. Ameen

 

And Allah knows best

Wassalamu Alaikum

Ml. Zakariyya bin Ahmed,
Student Darul Iftaa

Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
 

[G M]

http://article.nationalreview.com/435606/israel-turkey-and-the-end-of-stability/mark-steyn

June 5, 2010 6:00 A.M.

Israel, Turkey, and the End of Stability
Contempt for Israel is contempt for Washington.




Foreign policy “realists,” back in the saddle since the Texan cowboy left town, are extremely fond of the concept of “stability”: America needs a stable Middle East, so we should learn to live with Mubarak and the mullahs and the House of Saud, etc. You can see the appeal of “stability” to your big-time geopolitical analyst: You don’t have to update your Rolodex too often, never mind rethink your assumptions. “Stability” is a fancy term to upgrade inertia and complacency into strategy. No wonder the fetishization of stability is one of the most stable features of foreign-policy analysis.

Unfortunately, back in what passes for the real world, there is no stability. History is always on the march, and, if it’s not moving in your direction, it’s generally moving in the other fellow’s. Take this “humanitarian” “aid” flotilla. Much of what went on — the dissembling of the Palestinian propagandists, the hysteria of the U.N. and the Euro-ninnies — was just business as usual. But what was most striking was the behavior of the Turks. In the wake of the Israeli raid, Ankara promised to provide Turkish naval protection for the next “aid” convoy to Gaza. This would be, in effect, an act of war — more to the point, an act of war by a NATO member against the State of Israel.

Ten years ago, Turkey’s behavior would have been unthinkable. Ankara was Israel’s best friend in a region where every other neighbor wishes, to one degree or another, the Jewish state’s destruction. Even when Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP was elected to power eight years ago, the experts assured us there was no need to worry. I remember sitting in a plush bar late one night with a former Turkish foreign minister, who told me, in between passing round the cigars and chugging back the Scotch, that, yes, the new crowd weren’t quite so convivial in the wee small hours but, other than that, they knew where their interests lay. Like many Turkish movers and shakers of his generation, my drinking companion loved the Israelis. “They’re tough hombres,” he said admiringly. “You have to be in this part of the world.” If you had suggested to him that in six years’ time the Turkish prime minister would be telling the Israeli president to his face that “I know well how you kill children on beaches,” he would have dismissed it as a fantasy concoction for some alternative universe.

Yet it happened. Erdogan said those words to Shimon Peres at Davos last year and then flounced off stage. Day by day what was formerly the Zionist entity’s staunchest pal talks more and more like just another cookie-cutter death-to-the-Great-Satan stan-of-the-month.

As the think-tankers like to say: “Who lost Turkey?” In a nutshell: Kemal Ataturk. Since he founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Sheez, JDN, do you really need the scale of your equivocation outlined for you? Are you truly comparing a judicial edict that voids citizenship if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen to to bureaucratic clowns behaving as they are wont to do? If so, the depth of the sophistry you regularly embrace remains unchanged.

[G M]

There comes a time
When we need to make a show
For the world, the Web and CNN
There's no people dying,
so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all

We must go on pretending day by day
That in Gaza, there's crisis, hunger and plague
Coz the billion bucks in aid won't buy their basic needs
Like some cheese and missiles for the kids

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
With guns and our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Ooooh, we'll stab them at heart
They are soldiers, no one cares
We are small, and we took some pictures with doves
As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand
So we will always gain the upper hand

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
we're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

If Islam and terror brighten up your mood
But you worry that it may not look so good
Well well well well don't you realize
You just gotta call yourself
An activist for peace and human aid

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

We con the world
We con the people
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
We con the world (Bruce: we con the world…)
We con the people (Bruce: we con the people…)
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
The truth will never find its way to your TV

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[JDN]

Sheez, JDN, do you really need the scale of your equivocation outlined for you? Are you truly comparing a judicial edict that voids citizenship if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen to to bureaucratic clowns behaving as they are wont to do? If so, the depth of the sophistry you regularly embrace remains unchanged.

GM posted, "Islam allows for muslim men to marry non-muslim women, but a muslim woman can only marry a muslim man."

I then posted a human interest story regarding a Christian marrying a Muslim; saying it that sometimes it happens...

GM then posted a comprehensive and concise article regarding the repercussions of a muslim woman marrying a Christian; the article in summary stating "not permissible for a Muslim female to marry a non Muslim male. Thus, your Nikah (marriage) has not taken place and according to the law of Shari’a, you are not married."
It was an excellent post explaining in detail the dire religious and cultural consequences.  The attitude is sexist, onerous, and totally unfair to women and simply wrong.  I agree.

And then you post something irrelevant about "judicial edict that voids citizenship"
Or, your extraneous reference to "Israeli citizen" "if one has the temerity to marry an Israeli citizen" when no mention of Israel or Jews had been mentioned, although
I presume an Israeli or a Jew falls into the category of "non Muslim male", but then so do I.

And then your wit(?) got the better of you and you went off on a pointless personal tirade against me....

Did you even have a point?  Or was it just to be rude to me at our supposedly congenial dinner table?
I could say more, but simple courtesy prohibits me for commenting...

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 It seems to me that Israel and the Palestinian people have a vested interest in establishing a peaceful Palestinian state and a secure Israeli state. The problem is that any step toward this common goal, like this blockade, is immediately attacked by outside and inside extremist to both parties. Now with America or at least Obama, the president of the world, seemingly wanting to stop Israel from securing itself from Hamas bringing weapons into Gaza, I don't see there being a chance in hell that either the Palestinians or Israelis will ever get beyond this point and will continue to fail so long as their failure is the worlds policy.
                                                           P.C.

[Body-by-Guinness]

JDN grouses:

I could say more, but simple courtesy prohibits me for commenting...

Wow, a self-reference and the word "courtesy" used in the same sentence. Irony abounds.

The preface I posted to my piece explains its relevance. If you are unable to connect those dots, that's on you. That same sort of simple preface would explain just what it is you are responding to, though your long history of equivocating and generally tossing sand in the air full well demonstrates that clarity is the last thing you seek.

I've made it clear in personal communication to Crafty what I think of the "dinner table conversation" pretensions you cling to your breast when seeking to disallow criticism of your many rhetorical shortcomings. If he didn't share them with you, I certainly can.

But by all means, "say more." I know you are an incorrigible attention seeker whose goal is to tie conversations up in knots, hence my words aren't aimed at you, but rather the rest of the list who likely have less experience dealing with chronic attention seekers and the schisms they try to create. So bring it, as all it does is underline that point.

[Crafty_Dog]

Oy vey.

All right gentlemen.  You have my permission to have a food fight for a while.  Rather than clutter up this thread with it however, please take it over to the Fire Hydrant thread.  Thank you.

Moving right along:
=====================


http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/TheForgottenRachels.html

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

“My Name is Rachel Corrie,” a new play based on the writings of the young American radical who was accidentally killed during an anti-Israeli demonstration in Gaza in 2003, opened in April 2005 at London’s prestigious Royal Court, a venue named by The New York Times as “the most important theatre in Europe.” In October, it reopened again in near record time, at the same theatre. In November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the UK government Arts Council – had its world premiere at another London theatre. Lincoln Center in New York has expressed interest to the Royal Court in staging the play, as have dozens of schools and universities. And that the play’s co-director was “Harry Potter” and “Die Hard” star Alan Rickman only served to add a touch of Hollywood glamour to the cult of Rachel Corrie.

But other Rachels have lost their lives as well – Jewish victims of the Intifada. Does anyone remember them? In Britain, where the play is being staged, how many people even know the name of Rachel Thaler, a British citizen who was murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber in an Israeli shopping mall at the age of 16?

“Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned Rachel’s death,” her mother Ginette Thaler told me three and a half years after her murder. Below, an article of mine published in the weekly British magazine, The Spectator, explores these phenomena and also marks the first time Rachel Thaler’s name has been mentioned in the mainstream British media. Earlier, in April 2005, I wrote another piece on “The Forgotten Rachels” for The Jerusalem Post, to mark the play’s initial staging.

-- Tom Gross

 

THE ARTICLE: THE FORGOTTEN RACHELS

<image001.jpg>
 
Rachel Levy, 17, blown up
in a Jerusalem grocery store
 
 
<image002.jpg>
 
Rachel Charhi, 36, blown up
while sitting in a café
 
 
<image003.jpg>
 
Rachel Gavish, 50, killed with her
husband and son while at home
 
 
<image004.jpg>
 
Rachel Kol, 53, who worked for
20 years in the neurology lab at
Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital,
murdered with her husband in a
drive-by shooting by the Fatah
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in
July 2005 (in the midst of a
supposed Palestinian truce)
 
 
<image005.jpg>
 
Rachel Ben Abu, 16, killed with
her teenage friends by a suicide
bomber at the Netanya shopping
mall, in July 2005 (in the midst
of a supposed Palestinian truce)
 
 
<image006.jpg>
 
Rachel Shabo, 40, murdered with
her three sons aged 5, 13 and 6,
while sitting at home
 
By Tom Gross, Oct. 22, 2005

RACHEL Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following a suicide bomb attack on a crowd of teenagers on 16 February 2002.

Even though Thaler was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live, her death has never been mentioned in a British newspaper.

Rachel Corrie, on the other hand, an American radical who died in 2003 while acting as a human shield during an Israeli anti-terror operation in Gaza, has been widely featured in the British press. According to the Guardian website, she has been written about or referred to on 57 separate occasions in the Guardian alone, including three articles the Saturday before last.

The cult of Rachel Corrie doesn’t stop there. Last week the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, reopened at the larger downstairs auditorium at the Royal Court Theatre (a venue which the New York Times recently described as “the most important theatre in Europe”). It previously played to sold-out audiences at the upstairs theatre when it opened in April. (It is very rare to revive a play so quickly.)

On 1 November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the Arts Council – has its world premiere at the Hackney Empire.

NOT A CAUSE CÉLÈBRE IN BRITAIN

But Rachel Thaler, unlike Rachel Corrie, was Jewish. And unlike Corrie, Jewish victims of Middle East violence have not become a cause célèbre in Britain. This lack of response is all the more disturbing at a time when an increasing number of British Jews feel that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism.

Thaler is by no means the only Jewish Rachel whose violent death has been entirely ignored by the British media. Other victims of the Intifada include Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus), Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home), Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall) and Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.

Corrie’s death was undoubtedly tragic but, unlike the death of these other Rachels, it was almost certainly an accident. She was killed when she was hit by an Israeli army bulldozer she was trying to stop from demolishing a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.

Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza at a pro-Hamas rally were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on 15 February 2003, a month before she died. (Those photos were not used in the British press.)

While Thaler’s parents, after donating their murdered daughter’s organs for transplant surgery, grieved quietly, Corrie’s parents embarked on a major publicity campaign with strong political overtones. They travelled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicise them. They have written op-ed pieces, including a recent one in the Guardian.

“ARMED STRUGGLE” IS A PALESTINIAN “RIGHT”

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the group with which Corrie was affiliated, is routinely described as a “peace group” in the media. Few make any mention of the ISM’s meeting with the British suicide bombers Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Muhammad Hanif who, a few days later, blew up Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv pub, killing three and injuring dozens, including British citizens. Or of the ISM’s sheltering in its office of Shadi Sukiya, a leading member of Islamic Jihad. Or of the fact that in its mission statement the ISM said “armed struggle” is a Palestinian “right”.

According to the “media co-ordinator” of the ISM, Flo Rosovski, “‘Israel’ is an illegal entity that should not exist” – which at any rate clarifies the ISM’s idea of peace.

Indeed, partly because of the efforts of Corrie’s fellow activists in the ISM, the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through the tunnels near where she was demonstrating. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel, and elsewhere.

However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have actor Alan Rickman and Guardian journalist Katharine Viner, co-creators of My Name is Rachel Corrie, leaving almost all the critics who reviewed the play completely ignorant about the background to the events with which it deals.

So in April, when reviewers first wrote about the play, they tended to take it completely at face value. “Corrie was murdered after joining a non-violent Palestinian resistance organisation,” wrote Emma Gosnell in the Sunday Telegraph. The Evening Standard, for example, described it as a “true-life tragedy” in which Corrie’s “unselfish goodness shines through”.

<image007.jpg>
 
Rachel Corrie, 23, burning a mock
U.S. flag at a pro-Hamas rally in Gaza
 
Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times) saw the play for the propaganda it is. At one point Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis notes, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.”

But ultimately the play, and many of the articles about Corrie that have appeared, are not really about the young American activist who died in such tragic circumstances. They are about promoting a hate-filled and glaringly one-sided view of Israel.

 

(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.)

[Body-by-Guinness]

The Gaza Flotilla Incident: U.N. Inquiry Will Be an Anti-Israel Farce
Published on June 4, 2010 by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and James Phillips
In the aftermath of the recent gun battle aboard a Turkish aid ship heading for Gaza, international leaders have been queuing up to attack Israel. From Ankara to Brussels, the condemnation of the only longstanding democracy in the Middle East has been swift and unequivocal. The United Nations, the European Union, and the Arab League have all engaged in a frenzy of denunciation—even before all the facts have been established. Israel continues to be the U.N.’s favorite whipping boy: In the past four years, 33 of the 40 resolutions passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) have condemned Israel.
On June 2, the 47-nation Geneva-based HRC voted 32–3 to condemn “in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces against the humanitarian flotilla of ships”[1] and called for an official investigation. The United States voted against the resolution alongside the Netherlands and Italy, with nine countries abstaining, including the U.K., France, Japan, and South Korea. The HRC, which replaced the hugely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2006, has been even more egregious than its predecessor in some respects, and the newly elected membership includes some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. According to Freedom House, less than half the newly elected members (42.6 percent) can be classified as “free.”
The Obama Administration should boycott the U.N. inquiry into the flotilla incident, which is highly likely to be a mirror image of the anti-Israeli 2009 Goldstone Commission report (“Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict”).
A Closer Look at the Gaza Flotilla Incident
The Gaza flotilla incident was provoked by a motley crew of Turkish Islamists, European leftists, and Israeli Arab leaders determined to spark a conflict with the Israeli forces enforcing an arms embargo against Hamas terrorists. The foundation for the incident was laid when six ships with more than 600 “peace activists” left Cyprus bound for Gaza. Before these ships reached Gaza, they were intercepted by the Israeli navy and special forces commandos. The first five ships complied with Israeli forces, but the passengers aboard the sixth vessel, the Mavi Marmara, attacked Israeli commandos with steel poles, knives, and pepper spray, provoking a battle that claimed at least nine lives.
Caught off guard by the violent attacks of the “peace activists,” the Israeli commandos were compelled to use firearms in self-defense. Many of the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were believed to be members of the Humanitarian Relief Fund, a Turkish charity organization that has a history of supporting radical Islamist causes and deploying jihadists to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. It is part of the Union for Good, an umbrella group that was created by Hamas leaders in 2000 to raise money for Hamas’s radical Islamist agenda. The U.S. government has designated the Union for Good as a terrorist organization.
The Biased Goldstone Commission
In September last year, the United Nations published a spectacularly biased, 575-page report accusing Israel of “war crimes” in Gaza and “possibly crimes against humanity.” It was a prime example of the U.N. publishing a supposedly neutral report written by a panel of “experts” that included key members who had already reached their own conclusions well before the investigation had even begun.
The document far less forcefully criticized Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, choosing instead to place the overwhelming emphasis on Israel’s actions. In effect, the U.N. established a dubious moral equivalence between the legitimate defensive measures of the Israeli security forces and the terrorist activities of groups such as Hamas that are deliberately targeting civilians.
The U.N.’s Gaza mission included Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a country that does not even have formal relations with Israel. Jilani previously served as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions and was a member of a 2004 U.N. panel of experts that controversially condemned Israel for its treatment of demonstrators in the Rafah refugee camp. The panel also included Professor Christine Chinkin, a London School of Economics lecturer with very strong opinions on Israeli actions in Gaza. Chinkin signed on to a letter by 27 academics to The Sunday Times of London in January 2009[2] accusing Israel of a “war crime” in its offensive on Gaza.
The United States Must Defend Israel’s Right to Self-Defense
Israel is on the front line of the war against Islamist terrorism and fights every day for its existence amidst a sea of hostility. The Israelis are engaged in a long-term war against vicious enemies and are a vital component of a global war the free world is waging against Islamists. The defeat of these terrorist organisations and the dictatorships that back them is in the fundamental national interest of the United States.
Washington must send a clear message that it will have no part in the U.N. investigation and will oppose any attempt by the U.N. to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and its right to defend itself. The Obama Administration should also reconsider its wrongheaded decision to join the highly flawed HRC and look to establish a credible alternative human rights body outside of the U.N. system.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. , is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, both divisions of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/The-Gaza-Flotilla-Incident-UN-Inquiry-Will-Be-an-Anti-Israel-Farce

[Body-by-Guinness]

Ran into this Mark Levin bon mot today, that left me chortling:

Pat Buchanan is Helen Thomas in drag

 Today at 9:33am

His hate and obsession is on display here:
http://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickBuchanan

Buchanan links to nut jobs, self-haters, leftists, et al, in a pathetic defese of the terrorists, militants and leftists who seek to destroy our ally Israel, and us for that matter. I would encourage you to read Andy McCarthy's great book, Grand Jihad, which describes the common enemy we, Israel, and all freedom loving societies face.
Buchanan is, in my view, a poisonous bigot.

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 Helen called it quits this morning.
                       P.C.