Knife Slits Water
16 minutes ago
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
As many as 19 killed as flotilla stormed, says Israeli army
Israeli naval forces stormed a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in international waters before dawn on Monday, killing up to 19 pro-Palestinian activists, most of them reportedly Turkish nationals.
The bloody ending to the high-profile mission to deliver supplies to the besieged Gaza Strip plunged Israel into a diplomatic crisis on the eve of talks between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As Israel pointed the finger of blame at passengers for initiating the violence, accusing them of using deadly force, activists from the ships countered with their own descriptions of how events unfolded in raid which took place in international waters at around 5am (12:00 AEST).
Click pic for more photos
Live footage taken from the Turkish passenger boat, which was posted all over the internet, showed black-clad Israeli commandos rappelling down from helicopters and clashing with activists, as well as several wounded people lying on the deck of the ship.
"Under darkness of night, Israeli commandos dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck," according to a report on the website of the Free Gaza Movement.
The shaky footage shows scenes of chaos, with the dark profiles of Israel missile boats looming in the background.
The Israeli army insisted its troops opened fire only after they were attacked with knives, clubs and even live fire.
Fairfax Journalist Paul McGeough and photographer Kate Geraghty were out of communication for some hours after the clash, sparking concern for their welfare.
"We are pleased to report that Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty, who are among the most experienced and well-trained Australian foreign correspondents, are safe, and being processed in an Israeli detention centre," Sydney Morning Herald Editor in Chief Peter Fray said.
"We remain hopeful that they will be allowed to do their job, and that they will have a terrific story to tell when they are released."
Mr Fray said his company had made representations to the Israeli and Australian governments seeking safe passage for the pair.
Unconfirmed media reports from Hamas' Al Aqsa television said up to 20 passengers had been killed, of whom nine were Turkish nationals.
Israeli private channel 10 television reported that Israeli marine commandos had opened fire after being attacked with axes and knives by a number of the passengers on board the aid ships. It did not give the source of its information.
It was not clear whether the clashes took place on just one of the six boats making up the aid convoy.
Hamas-run Al-Aqsa television showed footage of black-clad Israeli commandos descending from helicopters and clashing with activists, as well as several wounded people lying on the deck of the ship.
Israeli Defence Force radio was reporting passengers on board the aid-laden convoy of boats tried to wrest weapons from Israeli soldiers, The Jerusalem Post reported.
The Free Gaza organisation said on Twitter that its lawyer in the northern Israeli coastal city of Haifa said 10 people had been killed.
The group said the boats were being taken into Haifa by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
A Turkish diplomat said the Israeli ambassador was summoned to the Turkish foreign ministry today after a Turkish aid ship was stormed.
"The ambassador [Gabby Levy] was summoned to the foreign ministry. We will convey our reaction in the strongest terms," the diplomat, who asked not to be named, told AFP.
Meanwhile in Turkey, local media is reporting police have blocked dozens of stone-throwing protesters who tried to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul following the flotilla attack.
CNN-Turk and NTV televisions showed dozens of angry protesters scuffling with Turkish police, who are guarding the consulate in downtown Istanbul.
The protesters were shouting "damn Israel", the Associated Press reported.
The ships, carrying more than 700 passengers, were on the last leg of a high-profile mission to deliver about 10,000 tonnes of building and other supplies to Gaza, which has been under a crippling Israeli blockade since 2007.
Huwaida Arraf, chairwoman of the Free Gaza Movement, told AFP earlier by phone from the boat Challenger 1 that the ships had expected a confrontation with Israel today.
The boats had started heading towards Gaza from international waters of Cyprus at 3pm local time (1200 GMT) on Sunday, with organisers saying they hoped to enter Gaza waters during the daylight hours.
About six hours after their departure, three Israeli missile boats left their naval base in Haifa on a mission to intercept the flotilla, reporters on board one of the vessels said before being told to turn off their phones.
Israel has slammed as "illegal" the convoy's attempt to break the Gaza blockade and warned it would intercept the ships, tow them to the port of Ashdod and detain the activists before seeking to deport them.
In Gaza, anti-siege activists on Sunday called on the international community to ensure the protection of the flotilla, which had been aiming to arrive on Saturday but was repeatedly delayed.
"I am asking the international community to protect these boats from the Israeli threat," independent Palestinian MP Jamal al-Khudari told a news conference on a boat anchored outside the Gaza port.
"If Israel blocks them, they have a strategy for getting here," said Mr Khudari, who heads the Gaza-based Committee to Lift the Siege. He did not elaborate.
With the flotilla expected to approach at some stage over the next 24 hours, Gaza fishermen took to the sea flying Palestinian flags as well as those of Greece, Ireland, Sweden and Turkey - all of which sent boats.
Demonstrators also released scores of balloons with pictures tied to them of children killed during Israel's massive 22-day offensive against Gaza that ended in January 2009.
Mr Khudari said the convoy, which is carrying hundreds of civilians and a handful of European MPs, would stop outside Gaza territorial waters before attempting to make landfall.
It will travel "in two stages", he said: "First they will stop in international waters at 30 nautical miles [from Gaza], and tomorrow [Monday] they will reach the shore."
Audrey Bomse, legal adviser to the Free Gaza Movement, said the activists were considering sending "a second wave" of boats later this week.
Israel has called the convoy a media stunt, insisting the humanitarian situation is stable in Gaza despite reports to the contrary from aid agencies and offering to deliver the supplies through its own land crossings.
"This is a provocation intended to delegitimise Israel," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said on Saturday.
"If the flotilla had a genuine humanitarian goal, then its organisers should have transferred something for the abducted soldier Gilad Shalit as well," he said of the Israeli snatched by militants in 2006 and held by the Hamas Islamist movement, which runs the enclave.
The activists responded on their website that they had offered to take in a letter for the soldier from his family but received no response from their lawyer.
Hamas's refusal to release Mr Shalit is cited by Israel as one of the main reasons for imposing the economic blockade on Gaza in the wake of the group's violent takeover of the territory.
Pro-Palestinian activists have landed in Gaza five times, with another three unsuccessful attempts since their first such voyage in August 2008. The latest is their biggest operation.
Download Illegally, It's the Right Thing to Do
The music business is a touchy subject hinged between the pay for your consumption model and the instant gratification/I want it all for free mentality. The problem with the two downloading camps is the fact that they divide us into two distinct societal groups: One with penalty; one with privilege. And more unfortunate than the act of illegally downloading, is this behavior generating more power for those engaged in the practice. Illegal downloading, and the technological knowledge to conduct it effectively is continuing to increase the massive separation between the "haves" and the "have-nots."
Huge multi-national, multi-billion dollar enterprises come into this equation as helpless pawns under the ultimate discretion and control of the end computer user. A 15-year-old boy sitting in his living room eating Fritos is in control as he goes online. The zillions of dollars that have been spent to both stigmatize downloading as "illegal" and occasionally persecute perpetrators comes to fruition as a barely audible whisper as he sees the file dangling in the digital divide waiting to be picked from the tree.
I know this is unstable ground to tread, and this conversation runs deep with people. Warner/Elektra/Atlantic used to have me on the roster as an employee, but due to shifting of assets (read: illegal downloads taking the cash), my regional office in Novi, Michigan was disbanded quickly. I was annoyed after the news and angry at the shape that the music business was transforming into. I've lived with the resentment and, perhaps, had an epiphany. From my 2010 vantage point, after watching the war between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and illegal downloading for quite some time, I have no option but to say: go illegally download everything you want.
My reasoning for such a bold statement isn't for my own greed, frugality, or to stick it to the man. Instead, my thought process exists to protect the under privileged. We live in an economic period which is widening the class gap between rich and poor, and cutting out the middle. From this reasoning, if a kid in Silicon Valley with a $3,000 silver laptop has the privilege from his Palo Alto technical education allowing him to figure out how to go on ZTorrent (a file exchange program), and download away to his hearts content -- without paying Owl City for Fireflies, or a Mad Men episode, or for the $1,000 Final Cut Pro Suite -- the act of the file showing up on his hard drive speaks more of his societal privilege than of his moral ethics.
In contrast, a large portion of my student body at Wayne State University graduated from Detroit Public Schools and have no concept of how to go about downloading files illegally. Why should an underprivileged student in one of my Detroit classes say she is going to spend $4.50 to go rent a video for my course? She is being blatantly penalized for her lack of a technical education provided by her schools, peer group, and larger community. Her life does not need another penalty.
There are ramifications for my willy nilly sentiments, and I understand them. It is estimated in a March 2010 International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) study that two million people are employed in the broader music economy. Roughly 4,000 artists are signed to major record company rosters. The Institute of Policy Innovation commissioned a 2005 study covering sound recording, motion pictures, business software and video games. The study found that the losses due to piracy in the 2005 U.S. economy accounted for $58 billion in output, over 370,000 jobs, and $2.6 billion in tax revenue. We can expect the ramifications to have increased significantly in a current view.
I also understand there is some serious financial outlay given to signed artists by the record labels, and they deserve compensation for the risks they engage in. The majority of artists signed to record labels will lose money. The current costs associated with breaking a successful pop act in major markets, according to a March 9, 2010 IFPI study, is typically hovering around the million dollar mark per act. That is a big coin to lose if it doesn't work out. It rarely does.
Currently, the labels are still huge corporations operating adequately in conjunction with illegal downloading. Maybe it is just my Detroit genetics, which is quite used to seeing massive companies (a.k.a. the Big 3) scaling back across the board. The industries becoming more lean doesn't mean that they are gone, or even that they are not profitable -- just that they are different entities now than they were before all the globalized hoopla began.
Perhaps it is a good idea to have the music industry give some power back to the people. I think the working class, not the most privileged, need a vitamin B12 shot of support. As of the January 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, corporations can now provide endless funding to political candidates and now more significantly than ever alter the influence of the individual citizen in the democracy. If that's the case, I am going to make the assumption that corporations have more than enough clout in my society.
Author and media critic Douglas Rushkoff argues in his book, Life, Inc., that, in fact, corporations trump humans in all kinds of ways. They don't die. They don't get sick. They can wait out a new political election to get officials (who they can legally buy off now) into office to amend legislation to fit their needs and bottom lines. Nearly always the changes corporations make to society take power and control away from average citizens for the end goal of providing a higher rate of return for the company shareholders.
Case and point: the RIAA in 2008 convinced Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to sign a bill (SB 3794) into law which requires colleges in his state to exercise appropriate means to ensure that computers on campuses are not being abused for distributing copyrighted material. Although the 2008 legislation looked to be the start of something big, IFPI released its report on digital music as of 2009. The report says that despite initiatives by the music industry, 95% of music downloads continue to be illegal. This is one of the rare cases in society where the masses are winning against the corporate elite.
Not for long. The RIAA and associates recently trotted to the courts for some more help to quell this nuisance to their gross sales. This time it looks to stick a little more firmly. A May 12, 2010 federal court ruled that P2P service provided by LimeWire and its operators are liable for inducing widespread theft (or information delivery). It didn't take all that long to get the big courts on the side of the company. The RIAA states, "The court decision is an important milestone in the creative community's fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce."
Let's look at the act of downloading and the concept of "legitimate commerce." The April 2010 Report to Congressional Committees on Intellectual Property pays respect to the fact that if a consumer "illegally" downloads media, the copyright infringer will have extra disposable income (due to significant consumer savings) and the money can be found to reappear in the U.S. economy as the consumer spends the funds on other goods and services.
Although the act of "illegally" downloading a file is taking away the profit margin from the copyright holder, we see the quest to maintain copyright exclusiveness in nearly all manufacturing/technology industries. Ford Motor Company always loses engineering ideas to India. The iPods and iPads of the world have been reverse-engineered by hundreds of global firms trying to improve their products. It is well known that companies in the global economy need to adopt the leakages into their business models. At least the power as it relates to illegal music downloading in the U.S. keeps the economic funds hanging around our own back door.
The divide of illegal music downloading doesn't exist exclusively from pedagogical differences of communities such as Detroit and Palo Alto. It also rears its head socioeconomically and relates to age. Does the average Wal-Mart shopper, who stereotypically isn't the highest on the socioeconomic totem pole, really need to send $13.50 toward the Britney Spears' camp due to their lack of education, older age, or lack of "know how" in a digital society? The problem here is, due to the restructuring of the industry, most artists do not see much of the $13.50. The money that is being paid by the less advantaged is paying a dying infrastructure that has huge interest bearing loans that are given by some of the top banks who borrow their money primarily from the Chinese.
The plea from the music industry, which seems to have only gross sales in mind, is that if you illegally download you are hurting the artists themselves. This logic is far from true. The Internet sensation Fireflies by Owl City would not have broke without the web. The song now is the most downloaded song on the web and the creator Adam Young has mounted a very profit heavy world tour in its shadow.
Countless other artists have recently gotten success holistically from their own talent. Not just from media campaigns orchestrated by huge multi-national labels, but from homegrown abilities. That seems liberating, fair, and exciting for my future on the planet. Perhaps digital files traded freely due to their usefulness, intrigue, or artistic merit (and not due to affiliation with multi-national companies) is one of the last true democracies left in our country.
If you think I am off track, there are swarms of people who will agree. Ted Nugent stated during an interview with me in 2008 that, "Technology has fucked the music thing. People think they can get bread for free because they have a direct pipeline to the bakery." Someone with the musical tenure of Nugent has seen his fair share of change in musical consumer evolution: from vinyl records to eight tracks to analog tapes to CD to the current end all, be all -- digital mp3s. I wish I wrote "Cat Scratch Fever" when society decided eight tracks were passé and millions had to go out and buy the same song on an analog tape and again on CD. Talk about profit for no extra work. The thoughts of the day would undoubtedly be hinged on what color do I want my new yacht to be.
For more recent artists, the made in the shade profits from album sales is a vernacular never learned fluently. Their lack of submersion in the artist royalty stream never occurred, which made these artists more willing to concede their album sales. Kid Rock is one such artist.
Rock is in direct opposition to Nugent's view and he stated in an interview with me in 2008 that, "I would give my records away for free if I could." His view has made his business relations more than a little shaky at times with Atlantic Records. The record label told Rock he should stand out against illegal downloading. Rock was far from agreement with their plea. Instead, Rock said, "the labels have been ripping off artists for years, now that somebody found a way to rip them off, they want me to speak up for them, fuck all those motherfuckers. I want to go play live, make my money there."
David Grohl of The Foo Fighters is in a similar vein as Kid Rock. Grohl says in a December 2009 Time interview that, "I don't have a problem with people downloading music. To me the important thing is that people come to the shows and see the music live and have that personal experience with the band. I've made a decent living making music. I'd feel greed if I asked for more."
This counterculture voice ringing the tone of "it is ok to download illegally" does not often carry far. Even if you are wielding some serious musical success like Kid Rock or David Grohl, few media channels will promote their stance, and they end up muting the counter arguments. So, when all is left to settle, we end up hearing the voices which promote "fair use" and "legitimate commerce." The voice which promotes illegal downloading is sanitized -- the same company that owns Kid Rock's label owns many of the radio stations that plays his songs and many of the magazines that report on his music. You can best bet a voice against the corporate mission doesn't have a chance.
I believe that if "wrong" is right for some kid in a Silicon Valley coffee shop then "wrong" must be right for all of society, including the less technologically savvy. If we continue to head down this downloading double standard path, we are continuing to hurt communities that have already seen their fair share of hardships and privilege those who are already privileged. From my view, most of the regional communities in the U.S. are in worse shape than the billion dollar record labels.
Jason Schmitt @'HuffPo'
Music For Deaf People Headphones Produce "Sound" Through Synesthesia
A concept from designer Frederik Podzuweit could deliver music to the deaf using synesthesia, aka perceiving one of the five senses, like hearing, via a different sense, like touch. Or, as the Beach Boys might call it, Good Vibrations.
The device is draped over the neck and shoulders, like a collar, and delivers bass, mid and treble to the skin. There are "volume" controls for vibration intensity.
As CrunchGear notes, even audiophiles who are able to hear might want to try this out, should it ever see the light of day. I'm inclined to agree.
It will only end up in tears...
Oh, for the love of–
Well, this is cute. Seems juniortan of Thingiverse has decided it’s a good idea for us to start carrying our iPhones around inside gun-shaped cases. Using a 3D printer, Tan has replicated a Ruger LCR that fits your iPhone and, from a reasonable distance, looks too authentic not to get you accidentally gunned down in the middle of the street. Tan has posted the necessary files for anyone with access to a 3D printer to go nuts and build their own, but for crap’s sake, people, can we please be careful, here? I know I usually champion over-manly tech accessories, but this is getting out of hand.
‘Answer calls with a really nasty look on your face,’ Tan instructs us sarcastically. As much as I appreciate the humor, dude, I really, really don’t want anyone to think I’m packing heat and beat me to the draw. I just can’t see that not happening.
Ty Dunitz @'TECHi'
Monday, 31 May 2010
Israel attacks aid ship, kills at least 10 civilians
Late last night, Israel attacked a flotilla of ships in international waters carrying food, medicine and other aid to Gaza, killing at least 10 civilians on board and injuring at least 30 more (many reports now put the numbers at 19 dead and 60 injured). The Israeli Defense Forces is claiming that its soldiers were attacked with clubs, knives and "handguns" when they boarded the ship without permission, but none of the Israeli soldiers were killed while two are reported injured. Those on the ships emphatically state that the IDF came on board shooting. An IDF spokesman said: "Our initial findings show that at least 10 convoy participants were killed."
The six-ship flotilla was carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid along with 600 people, all civilians, which included 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor, Hedy Epstein, 85. In December, 2008, Israel, citing rocket attacks from Hamas, launched a 22-day, barbaric attack on Gaza, bombarding a trapped population, killing hundreds of innocent civilians (1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed), and devastating Gazan society. A U.N. report released earlier this month documented that, as a result of the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel and Egypt (the two largest recipients of U.S. aid), "[m]ost of the property and infrastructure damaged . . . was still unrepaired 12 months later."
The flotilla attacked by Israel last night was carrying materials such as cement, water purifiers, and other building materials, much of which Israel refuses to let pass into Gaza. At the end of 2009, a U.N. report found that "insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory," and also "blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare parts needed for repair get through the crossings."
It hardly seemed possible for Israel -- after its brutal devastation of Gaza and its ongoing blockade -- to engage in more heinous and repugnant crimes. But by attacking a flotilla in international waters carrying humanitarian aid, and slaughtering at least 10 people, Israel has managed to do exactly that. If Israel's goal were to provoke as much disgust and contempt for it as possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be doing a better job.
It is appropriate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Obama on Tuesday in Washington, because -- as always -- it is only American protection of Israel that permits the Israelis to engage in conduct like this. Initial reports speculate that Netanyahu would cancel that meeting in order to return to Israel in light of this attack. But there would be something quite symbolically appropriate about having the U.S. stand at the side of Israel in the aftermath of this latest massacre, because it is only the massive amounts of U.S. financial and military aid, and endless diplomatic protection, that enables Israel to act with impunity as a rogue and inhumane state. So complete is the devotion of the U.S. Congress to the mission of serving and protecting Israel that it even overwhelmingly condemned the Goldstone report, which found that Israel and Hamas had both commited war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during the Israeli attack on Gaza (the U.S. Congress, of course, never condemned the Israeli war crimes themselves -- only the Report which documented those crimes). Israeli actions are a direction reflection on, and by-product of, the U.S. Government, because it is the U.S. which enables and protects the behavior.
The one silver lining from these incidents is that the real face of Israel becomes increasingly revealed and undeniable. Not even the most intense propaganda systems can prettify a lethal military attack on ships carrying civilians and humanitarian aid to people living in some of the most wretched and tragic conditions anywhere in the world. It is crystal clear to anyone who looks what Israel has become, and the only question left is how will the rest of the world -- beginning with their American patrons -- will react.
As Americans suffer extreme cuts in education for their own children and a further deterioration in basic economic security (including Social Security), will they continue to acquiesce to the transfer of billions of dollars every year to the Israelis, who -- unlike Americans -- enjoy full, universal health care coverage? How is the revulsion justifiably provoked by this latest Israeli crime going to impact American efforts in the Muslim world (as but one of many examples to come, Al Jazeera reports that "Moqtada al-Sadr has called for a large anti-Israel rally across from the Green Zone in Baghdad")? How much longer will Americans be willing to pay the extreme prices for its endlessly entangled "alliance" with its prime Middle Eastern client state, whose capacity for criminal and inhumane acts appears limitless?
* * * * *
On a day when the meaning of "heroism" is often discussed, the people on these ships who tried to deliver aid to Gazans, knowing that they could easily find themselves in a confrontation with the Israeli Navy but doing it anyway in order to bring attention to the extraordinary injustice and cruelty of the blockade, are pure, unadulterated heroes.
UPDATE: Regarding the blockade of Gaza itself -- about which "Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister [said when it was first imposed]: 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger'" -- this post documents just some of the effects, with ample links to U.N. reports, including:
* since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, "the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed" (More than 80 UN and aid agencies [.pdf])
* "61% of people in the Gaza Strip are … food insecure," of which "65% are children under 18 years" (UN FAO)
* since June 2007, "the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled" (UNRWA)
* "in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%" (UN FAO)
The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, whose entire political world view is shaped by his devotion to Israel, today criticizes President Obama for rejecting "Bush's conclusion that the promotion of democracy and human rights is inseparable from the tasks of defeating al-Qaeda and establishing a workable international order." That's ironic, because if "human rights" played any role whatsoever in American foreign policy, the massive American aid and other protection for Israel which Diehl cherishes above all else would instantaneously disappear.
UPDATE II: Just ponder what we'd be hearing if Iran had raided a humanitarian ship in international waters and killed 15 or so civilians aboard.
UPDATE III: One of the ships attacked by Israel belonged to a Turkish aid organization, and it's been reported that among the dead are at least two Turks. Turkey today "warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy." Among other things, Turkey is a NATO member with increasing tensions with Israel. Its Prime Minister today condemned the Israeli action as "state terrorism." Amidst worldwide protests aimed at Israel, along with possible internal unrest if (as has been reported) an Israeli Arab leader was among the wounded or dead, it's possible that this incident could produce some serious unforeseen consequences for the Israelis.
UPDATE IV: So, to recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.
What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as "piracy" and demanding "that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes." When exactly did Israel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well? Their rights as sovereign are expanding faster than the BP oil spill.
UPDATE V: Israel's foreign minister is now actually claiming that attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza are "an attack on Israel's sovereignty." Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke? The only claim that I can recall that's remotely comparable is when the U.S. General serving as Commander of Guantanamo condemned suicides by three detainees there as an "act of asymmetric warfare waged against us." The U.S. and Israel are very adept at claiming victimhood: even when they're killing large numbers of civilians and locking people up in cages with no charges, they're the ones who are the suffering, wronged parties.
Thus, there are at least 10-20 dead passengers and 50-60 wounded on those ships -- compared to no Israeli fatalities and virtually no wounded -- but it's the passengers, delivering humanitarian aid in international waters when Israel seized their ships, who are the aggressors and were "attacking Israeli sovereignty." The only thing worse than this claim is how many apologists for Israel will start parroting it (see Andrew Sullivan for more refutation of the claim that it was the passengers who were somehow the "aggressors").
UPDATE VI: Among the countries condemning Israel for its attack are Russia, Turkey, India, China, Brazil, France, Spain and many more. By stark contrast, the White House issued a statement which conspicuously refused to condemn the Israelis (Obama "expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today’s incident, and concern for the wounded"), while the U.S. State Department actually hinted at condemning the civilians delivering the aid ("we support expanding the flow of goods to the people of Gaza. But this must be done in a spirit of cooperation, not confrontation").
Obama's call for "learning all the facts and circumstances" is reasonable enough, but all these other countries made clear that this attack could never be justified based on what is already indisputably known: namely, that the ship attacked by Israel was in international waters and it resulted in the deaths and injuries to dozens of civilians, but no Israeli soldiers were killed and a tiny handful injured. In any event, Obama's neutrality will have to give way to a definitive statement one way or the other, and soon.
UPDATE VII: The formal statement submitted to the U.N. by the U.S. Ambassador today rather clearly seeks to blame everyone -- from Hamas to those attempting to deliver the aid -- for what happened: everyone, that is, except for the party which actually did the illegal seizing of the ship and the killing (Israel):
As I stated in the Chamber in December 2008, when we were confronted by a similar situation, mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by member states and groups that want to do so. These non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms should be the ones used for the benefit of all those in Gaza. Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances. . . . We will continue to engage the Israelis on a daily basis to expand the scope and type of goods allowed into Gaza to address the full range of the population’s humanitarian and recovery needs. Hamas’ interference with international assistance shipments and the work of nongovernmental organizations complicates efforts in Gaza. Its continued arms smuggling and commitment to terrorism undermines security and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis alike.Given that the Israelis refuse to allow anything other than the most minimal "necessities" to enter Gaza, I'd love to know what "non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms" exist to deliver humanitarian assistance? And it's extraordinary that we refuse to condemn a blockade that, as classic "collective punishment," is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and even refuse to condemn today's violent seizure of ships in international water. But, of course, the central rule of American politics is that Israel cannot be criticized, even as the rest of the world condemns it. How do you think the rest of the world will perceive the U.S.'s extreme, out-of-step protection of the Israelis, while subtly (or not-so-subtly) heaping the blame on the victims of its aggression?
Glenn Greenwald @'Salon'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
