A video has been racing around the Internet — purportedly showing heavy weapons discovered behind bags of flour on the Mavi Marmara. The find would serve to justify the lethal raid on the flotilla to Gaza and some posters have asked why no uproar? The answer is because the video is a fraud — it shows a boat that was actually searched in 2009.
The video is often accompanied by the same text, which was posted by a commenter on this blog:
This video shows that during the unloading of the Marmara boat in the port of Ashdod, behind the bags of flour were boxes of heavy weapons and ammunition: mortars, artillery shells, bazookas, without counting a trunk where more than one million euros was found intended for Hamas. This video should be widely distributed as evidence of why the IDF Naval commandos were dispatched to intercept the six vessels including the M/S Mavi Marmara. One wonders what is aboard the Irish vessel, the M/S. Rachel Corrie, that Israel will intercept sometime today when it approaches the Naval blockade line off the coast of Gaza. Clearly the Turkish AKP Islamist government is complicit in permitting this military cargo to be loaded on the ‘peaceful’ Free Gaza Flotilla. Please distribute this video widely. If you had any doubt about what was on the flotilla, here is the video. The French explains that the arms on display were hidden behind sacks of grain.
There appears to be a conscious misinformation campaign afoot. The people who originally posted this video obviously knew it was false but wanted to mislead viewers. They succeeded.
Buddha:
From the op-ed:
What Israel in turn must realize — before it is too late — is that the real threat it faces today is not one of destruction but of de-legitimization. Its tactical lurches, often violent, do not add up to a strategy; they have resulted in a shocking erosion of Israel’s stature. I was talking the other day to the Israeli ambassador to a West European nation and he complained that he could rarely set foot on a university campus these days. Universities represent the future.
While I agree with the general sentiment that de-ligitimization is a threat to Israel’s survival, I do not believe it paramount to security. It’s Maslow’s “Heirarchy of Needs” adapted for the body politic: Safety for the citizenry must be secured before seeking legitimization.
Buddha,
Nice link — thanks
An interesting op-ed by Roger Cohen from the NYT on the subject of the Mavi Marmara: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11iht-edcohen.html?hp
Jill,
MIA is probably a kind description of what’s happened to the coverage of this story. I think a better term might be drawn from the historical lessons of oppression in Chile: “disappeared”.
Now that the “wrong” information is coming out, this story has gone MIA. Our news is nearly compete in its management by our ruling elite. Here are two headlines from Democracy Now:
“Israel & US Agree on Israeli Probe into Flotilla Attack
The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports Israel and the United States have agreed on the nature of the Israeli probe into last week’s deadly raid on a flotilla of humanitarian aid ships bound for Gaza. The committee is being formed after Israel and the United States rejected calls for an international inquiry into the assault. There will be no official international role in Israeli’s investigation, except one American and one European will be allowed to observe the proceedings.
Video Shows Israeli Commandos Executing Flotilla Passenger
Video has been posted on the internet that apparently shows Israeli commandos executing a passenger aboard the Mavi Marmara. In the video, Israeli commandos are seen kicking a passenger while he lies on the deck of the boat. The commandos are then seen firing one and possibly two point-blank shots from above into the victim. The video was first aired on Turkish TV. It has been claimed the video shows the nineteen-year-old US citizen Furkan Dogan being killed, but it has not been possible to verify the identity of the victim.”
mespo,
I couldn’t agree more. Sadly, it seems to me that is a sentiment sorrily lacking the legal profession as a whole though. There are way too many people in the profession who are there strictly for the money, damn the consequences or their actual utility to the system.
Colbert talked about the incident on Wednesday night’s show and had on the Israeli ambassador to the US. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312100/june-09-2010/formidable-opponent—michael-oren
mespo and Buddha,
Thank you … that was a most informative read.
BUddha:
“Just as Sun Tzu advised that “It is best to win without fighting” he also said “Appraise war in terms of the fundamental factors. The first of these factors is moral influence.” Methinks you may sell us a bit short, my friend. We call this fight, our shared battle we regulars wage, the “good fight” for a reason.”
***************************
“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
~Sun Tzu
I think it applies to lawyers, too.
mespo,
Thank you, kind sir, and right back at you. It is an honor to argue with one of such obvious skill.
Here are two important updates to this story: “EXCLUSIVE: New Video Smuggled Out From Mavi Marmara of Israel’s Deadly Assault on Gaza Aid Flotilla
In a Democracy Now! exclusive we bring you a sneak preview of previously unseen raw footage from the Mavi Marmara that will be formally released at a press conference at the United Nations later in the day. The footage shows the mood and the activities on board the Mavi Marmara in the time leading up to the attack, and the immediate reaction of the passengers during the attack. We are joined by filmmaker and activist Iara Lee, one of the few Americans on the Mavi Marmara ship. Her equipment was confiscated but she managed to smuggle out an hour’s worth of footage.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/06/10-1
“Published on Thursday, June 10, 2010 by McClatchy Newspapers
Israeli Document: Gaza Blockade Isn’t About Security
by Sheera Frenkel
JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.
Well thought, well argued, and well played – as always.
mespo,
I do not think that is an unfair analysis. However, San Remo does not exist in a vacuum and we must look at the totality of Israel’s bad actions to get the whole picture. Were this an isolated episode of disproportionate response, I might be more forgiving, but the State of Israel has gone well beyond reasonable in toto. I’d be more sympathetic now if this was not a recurring pattern with them. Patterns concern me as they are a good gauge of the systemic health of a government. Much like our own government (lest we be accused of living in glass houses), Israel suffers from a dark malaise of bad leadership. I’d hope that they’d have learned the bitter lessons of history better as victims of genocidal state actions by Germany and be better judges of when lethal force is appropriate in both the general and the specific.
The boarding and inspection of the flotilla simply did not merit lethal force. I’m no commando, but I’m fairly well trained and I know for a fact the Mavi Marmara could have been taken with no loss of life via technology applied in a properly designed strategic and tactical manner and good old fashioned martial arts on behalf of the commandos. These were people (admittedly with clubs and knives) repelling boarders by force – a right under international maritime law. The crew and passengers were not violating any law by defending themselves and they also tried non-lethal force first via the fire hoses – an ethical decision. If I can disarm someone with a knife trying to harm me and not kill them in the process (and I have – twice, a would be mugger in New Orleans who crawled home with a severe beating and my drunken ex-wife who was disarmed without a scratch or bruise to show for her efforts)? I have no doubt that an Israeli commando can do the same. There was no need to kill anyone. The deaths are due to Israeli incompetence at a minimum.
The reasonableness contention lies with me in this instance has more to do Israeli misapplication of force and a pattern of bad behavior by state actors – in specific actions that violate the Geneva Convention. I will for the sake of argument stipulate Hamas as state actors for the instant argument although I think they are just common terrorist thugs. Indeed, it’s not the blockade proper I have issue with, it’s their execution of said blockade. But now, the pattern . . .
Israel has created a situation where they cannot “safely” attack the thousands of Hamas members because they’ve quarantined them in Gaza along with 1.5 million people, most of whom just want a normal life – including food, adequate facilities and medical care. The Geneva Convention provides that “[i]n the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;“. (Protocol I, Art. 3, Sec. 1a-c)[emphasis added]. Ghettoizing the Palestinians in itself can be characterized as religious/ethic based confinement that is an outrage upon personal dignity and both humiliating and degrading. Most Palestinians in the territory live in conditions I wouldn’t be able to characterize as anything other than horrific. That Israel created this circumstance is not inconsequential.
For one example of the pattern, past bad actions by Israel include rocket attacks that have targeted civilians (including children). Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited under the Geneva Convention. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4). Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48). Attacking children is right out too (be this by discriminate or indiscriminate attack) because combatants “must respect children, provide them with any care or aid they require, and protect them from any form of indecent assault (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 1).” This applies even if the children themselves engage in hostilities. (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3d).
Another pattern element? The Mossad assassinations in Dubai. This not only violated international law by using fraudulent documents to misdirect blame to other nations, but it is in violation of the Geneva Convention again as Protocol I, Art. 4, Sec. 1d prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” It would be hypocritical to decry the war crimes of Cheney as a violation of our Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and point out that these assassinations were executions without due process being provided the victims on the Israelis part.
Then there is the question of disproportionate response. As I said before, Israel brought guns to a knife fight. They have a history of disproportionate response as illustrated by the rocket attacks and the use of white phosphorus shells – something Israel admits to using (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-shells). Chemical weapons are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
While here is an argument to be made that San Remo spells out the terms for a blockade, conversely there is a counter argument that in attacking civilians they have again violated the Geneva Convention. This is compounded by the fact that the civilians killed were from non-combatant and ally states – which would make their deaths simply murder and not casualties of war.
I do not question Israel’s right to self-defense, however, that right also comes with a responsibility to use force wisely and never do more harm than required especially where civilians and civilians of non-combatant states are the targets.
Israel has failed in these respects. They are becoming an oppressive regime that has sad and striking similarities to the state sponsored crimes that led to their creation. Do I blame the Jews for this? No. I blame their government, which like ours, is corrupted by Neocon warhawks with vested interests in violence and perpetual war. Fear and hatred are their tools in this endeavor and it what they sow. How can they expect to reap anything but more of the same? I weep for the people of Israel just as I weep for the people of America – all victims of our respective governments corruption by zealots and sociopaths. The deaths on the Mavi Marmara is just further proof the government of Israel is rapidly becoming an uncontrolled and uncontrollable aggressor willing to follow no law except perhaps the law of expedience.
This is also one of the reasons the United State government, unlike most of the rest of the world including our allies and fellow NATO memebers, have been slow in governmental condemnation of the botched blockade. The Bush Administration (and by extension the Obama Administration) are guilty of the very same kind of bad behavior vis a vis the Invasion of Iraq. One does not attack a third party in self-defense of an attack by a second party. That is unethical.
SIDEBAR: Personally, I think we are both a bit poetic. Artful language is something neither of us lack. As to moralists? I prefer the term ethicists but in chasing that shadow of justice via the rule of law, do we not seek to bring peace, promote the common good and encourage the better angels of our human nature by using rules and due process over brute force? Is that not the paradigm of both ethics and good strategy? Just as Sun Tzu advised that “It is best to win without fighting” he also said “Appraise war in terms of the fundamental factors. The first of these factors is moral influence.” Methinks you may sell us a bit short, my friend. We call this fight, our shared battle we regulars wage, the “good fight” for a reason.
Buddha:
I think our disagreement centers more on the “reasonableness” of the blockade rather than the Fermi paradox. (By the way, I am doing some reading on the topic. I have started with the classic book “The Ghost in the Machine” by Arthur Koestler.)
You quite properly express sympathy for the Gazan civilian population facing “oppressive” (your word) conditions due to the Israeli blockade which admittedly has slowed the flow of goods and supplies to a fraction of its pre-occupation days. My sympathy is for the Israeli innocents preyed upon by terrorists who now stand in positions of power in Gaza due to their election by these same “oppressed” Gazans.
Let me agree with you that armed conflict in the nuclear age is both outmoded and dangerous. It is likely to fail in the long run, but that is not universally the case (for example, the destruction of the Nazi regime in 1945). We seem to agree with David Wilson that, “War creates peace like hate creates love.” Nonetheless and, in this case, sadly, we are lawyers and not poets or moralists and it is upon the law that we rely for guidance to intellectually resolve these dilemmas.
I see the issue quite simply as this: Israel has the right by virtue of casus belli to defend itself from its avowed enemies by force of arms. It must do so with the least harm possible to the surrounding civilian population, but that does not mean the civilian population mustn’t suffer at all.
I accept Justice Grier’s analysis in the Prize cases of the rights of belligerents in an internal war. The Justice said:
WAR is simply the exercise of force by bodies politic, or bodies assuming to be bodies politic, against each other, for the purpose of coercion. The means and modes of doing this are called belligerent powers. The customs and opinions of modern civilization have recognized certain modes of coercing the power you are acting against as justifiable. Injury to private persons or their property is avoided as far as it reasonably can be. Wherever private property is taken or destroyed, it is because it is of such a character, or so situated, as to make its capture a justifiable means of coercing the power with which you are at war. For war is not upon the theory of punishing individuals for offenses, on the contrary (except for violations of rules of war), it ignores jurisdiction, penalties and crimes, and is only a system of coercion of the power you are acting against.
Hamas is a declared terrorist organization with demonstrated proclivities to ignore the rules of war and engage in attacks against innocent civilians by means of suicide bombers and rocket attacks against, inter alia, Israeli school children.
The blockade is an intermediate step to suppress arms shipments and war-making supplies to Israel’s enemies and is a lawful exercise of state sovereignty following numerous attacks by Hamas. Israel appears to be in compliance with the San Remo Manual and is thus acting reasonably and avoiding harm to the Gazan citizenry as “far as it reasonably can be.”
Where we disagree is whether the actions of Israel are reasonable. That is to say, whether the blockade is founded on a rational basis or interposed merely to collectively punish the Gazans for their harboring of terrorists and their elevation of same to positions of power. If we accept the proposition (as we must as rational humans) that coercion of your enemy is a rational response to unprovoked attacks against Israeli citizens, the issue becomes one of degree. How much suffering is too much for Gazan civilians to bear under international law? Here the amount of acceptable suffering is established by law, specifically Article 102 of the San Remo Manual which prohibits blockades only if “it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.” [emphasis mine]
Thus even if the effect of the blockade did serve to starve out the Gazans, it is still permitted under international law if it serves another rational purpose, to wit, the interdiction of arms to be used against Israeli civilians. This is incredibly harsh law, but it is the black letter law of war and blockades. I can find no support under international law for the notion that the suffering of civilians – unintentionally inflicted and in the furtherance of a legitimate objective of war – is grounds for declaring a belligerent the perpetrator of a war crime or in violation of international law. Perhaps you can help me here.
What a surprise. The Israely government lies so that can continue their reenactment of the Warsaw Ghetto days with Israel playing the part of Germany.
Or South African aparthied will do as well.
U.S. Constitution
Article VIII
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article X
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
_______
Yeah, some people are against torture because IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS AND TORTURE PRISONERS.
Apologist propaganda troll nitwits.
Even if the far left, anti-Israel, Professor Turley is correct that the video is of the weapons in the Francop, can he dispute that if there is no Israeli blockade and no inspection of cargos brought to Gaza, the ships will be carrying the same kind of arms that were found on the Francop?
Professor Turley should read Andrew McCarthy’s “The Grand Jihad” which shows that the animus which has motivated attacks on the Jews in Palestine since the 1920s is the same as the motivation for the animus against the US and the UK, i.e. religous jihad or holy war against infidels. Israel is our first line of defense.
Far leftists such as Professor Turley share with the Islamists a dislike of the United States under a Republican form of government with a capitalist economy. Remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Turley is one of those who wants to punish the CIA for their harsh interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two or three others Guantanamo detainees that resulted in saving three more tall buildings in the US and the many lives that would have been lost and we not gotten the information from the enemy combatants.
Left-Wing Icon Daniel Ellsberg
‘Obama Deceives the Public’
Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the “Pentagon Papers” in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises — in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html
If aliens can get here? They can destroy us in a blink of an eye.
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575294231631318728.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
And yet what is a blockade but an occupation from without? As you pointed out on another thread (for which I am still anxiously awaiting your thoughts vis a vis the Fermi paradox), he who can destroy a thing ‘controls’ a thing. But is that truly control or the illusion of control? Destruction by bombs, destruction by starvation and deprivation – it’s all still destruction. Just as oppression is oppression no matter the source. Fear and resentment will still breed discontent and perpetual oppression leads to perpetual war. You don’t hand out an olive branch with one hand and use a club in the other unless you desire mixed results. That’s Bibi’s approach – use both sticks at the same time, screw the carrot. It comes back to fear and hatred as societal control mechanisms being self-destructive.
If our species is to survive, we must come to the conscious conclusion that wars and occupations are outmoded.
Especially in space. To return to the Fermi paradox.
Why?
Rocks are cheap, plentiful and easy to throw. Just park in the Oort cloud or asteroid belt and give a nudge. Gravity will do the hard part. If aliens can get here? They can destroy us in a blink of an eye. All it takes is one well placed comet.
I believe intelligent technologically advanced life is so rare that aliens would dare not contact us as long as we keep proving we can’t even coexist with each other without violence and fouling our nest. We’re too inherently unstable and dangerous to risk exposure. Our behavior as nations only reinforces this idea.
Israel has more than once crossed the line from self-defense and into provocation. A line the US also crossed when they invaded Iraq for the personal profit of the Bush administration instead of going after the manpower and money behind 9/11 in Saudi Arabia – the Bush family’s BFF. For what is provocation but a preemptive strike? A PR campaign? A blockade of humanitarian aid?
As to state actors, would you consider a radical political party such as the Teabaggers state actors? Or a fringe group of racist, theocratic ideologues blinded by the general climate of engendered by fear and hatred and able to leverage that fear and hatred into a form of control?
This problem goes beyond the messy law behind it (which the article shows is not as clear cut as you present it) and straight to the cause: using oppression against the whole to punish a subset.
Germany after WWI. What created the environment that Hitler flourished in? Economic oppression from the West as punishment for the acts of imperialist Germany kept the Weimar Republic in a state of constant disequilibrium through hyperinflation and shortages of basic necessities. Add to this the aggravation of the Allies retribution and continued hostility giving rise to a radicalized military.
Sound familiar yet?
What was a Hamas electoral victory but the very portrait of radicalization? Just as the Teabaggers represent that same threat here. Just as it engenders hatred and fear, oppression is the soil in which radicalization flourishes.