Civilians from more than 30 countries were on those floatillas of humanitarian aid. More than 30 news agencies were aboard. There was only aid on those floatillas.
The situation could not be more clear cut.
videos of protests
guardian
UN calls for inquiry into Israel flotilla attack
UN security council stops short of full condemnation after pro-Palestinian activists killed in botched Mavi Marmara raid
Harriet Sherwood in Ashdod and Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 June 2010 07.55 BST
The UN security council has called for an impartial investigation into Israel's botched assault on a flotilla carrying aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of an outright condemnation of the attack.
In a carefully worded compromise statement drafted after ten hours of debate the security also called for the immediate release of hundreds of civilians held after the raid.
At least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed in the raid yesterday as Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship in the flotilla carrying passengers. Dozens more were wounded, including at least one British man. The injured were taken to Israeli hospitals. It sparked a wave of global condemnation and protests.
Israel said more than 10 of its troops were injured, two seriously, in the battle that began early yesterday in international waters, about 40 miles from the Gaza coast. Israeli officials say about 50 of the 671 activists aboard the flotilla have been taken to Israel's international airport for deportation.
The flotilla was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which has been enforced for the past three years.
Organisers of the flotilla said today they are sending two more ships to the area within the next few days. Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza Movement said a cargo boat is already on the way to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza and a second boat carrying about three dozen passengers is expected to join it.
After a 10-hour emergency meeting that stretched into the earlier hours of today, the 15 council members agreed on a presidential statement that was weaker than that initially demanded by the Palestinians, Arabs and Turkey.
They had called for condemnation of the attack by Israeli forces "in the strongest terms" and "an independent international investigation".
But the statement said: "The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families."
Last night Turkey, whose relations with Israel have been severely strained since the war in Gaza in 2008-09, called for Nato to convene over the military assault.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who ordered the recall of the country's ambassador to Israel, described the operation as "state terrorism" and said Israel had violated international law. "We are not going to remain silent in the face of this inhumane state terrorism," he said.
Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists – some were taken by bus to Beersheva prison in the south of Israel – while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant. Its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who defended the assault, postponed today's meeting with Barack Obama at the White House back to deal with the crisis.
Activists with less serious injuries began to trickle into Israeli hospitals late yesterday afternoon. There were believed to be about 27 British civilians aboard the flotilla, and last night the Foreign Office confirmed that at least one had been injured. Most of the dead were reported to be Turkish nationals.
The deaths and injuries were condemned by the UN, EU and other countries. The US, in contrast, was restrained in its response, expressing regret and saying it was "currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy".
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the violence and called for an investigation. "I am shocked by reports of killing of people in boats carrying supply to Gaza. I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad," he said.
The prime minister David Cameron described the assault as "unacceptable". In a telephone conversation with Netanyahu last night, the prime minister insisted Britain remains committed to Israel's security, but called for a "constructive" response to "legitimate criticism" of its actions.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, issued a statement "deploring" the loss of life. "There is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations," he said.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, described the storming of the flotilla as a "massacre" and called for three days of national mourning. Israel's navy had promised to exercise restraint in dealing with the flotilla, and the bloodshed will inevitably leave Israel open to charges of a disproportionate response involving excessive force.
The Israeli government, however, defended its actions saying its troops had been provokedby activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
However, some Israeli commentators expressed reservations about the operation, fearing it would leave Israel internationally isolated. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey, told the Guardian the situation could have been averted. "Definitely we made mistakes and in retrospect anything would have been better – including letting the boats reach Gaza," he said.
The assault began at 4.30am as the convoy was heading to Gaza to deliver its aid cargo. According to a spokeswoman for the Israeli defence force (IDF), Avital Leibovich, officers aboard its warships gave the activists several warnings before commandos were winched from helicopters on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
"We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching," she told reporters in the Israeli port of Ashdod. About 10 activists had attacked commandos, taking their pistols, she said. "It was a massive attack," she said. "What happened was a last resort."
It was impossible to contact protesters on the ships, but the Free Gaza Movement, one of the organisers of the flotilla, said the IDF had started the violence, firing as soon as troops boarded the ship.
The Free Gaza Movement said later that one of the ships in the flotilla, the Irish-owned MV Rachel Corrie, was not intercepted, as it had been behind the rest of the vessels following a delay. Carrying among others the Northern Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Denis Halliday, the Irish former UN assistant secretary, it remained in international waters off Gaza, pending a decision as to where it would head next.
The Mavi Marmara was brought into port at Ashdod, 23 miles north of Gaza City, last night following the earlier arrival of two other passenger ships. The area was closed to the media.
Activists were expected to be processed in a large white tent on the quayside, where they would be offered the choice of immediate deportation to their country of origin or going through the lengthy process of the Israeli courts system.
The Israeli authorities gave no details of the injuries to activists, but confirmed that nine were dead, although government sources said the figure could rise.
Israel advised its nationals in Turkey to leave the country for fear of reprisals.
Israeli police cancelled leave and the army was on high alert, saying it feared possible rocket attacks from Islamist militants in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Last night a rocket fired from Gaza landed in Israel. No one was injured.
foreign policy - well worth reading
Israel's latest brutal blunder
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, May 31, 2010 - 11:10 PM
By now you'll all have heard about the IDF's unwarranted attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a fleet of six civilian vessels that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid (i.e., medicines, food, and building materials) to Gaza. The population of Gaza has been under a crippling Israeli siege since 2006. Israel imposed the blockade after Gaza's voters had the temerity to prefer Hamas in a free election held at the insistence of the Bush administration, which then refused to recognize the new government because it didn't like the results.
Late Sunday night, IDF naval forces and commandos attacked one of the unarmed ships in international waters, killing at least ten of the peace activists and injuring many more. IDF spokesman claim that the use of force was justified because the passengers resisted Israel's efforts to board and commandeer the ship. Other Israeli officials have sought to portray the activists, whose ranks included citizens from fifty countries, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a former U.S. ambassador, and an elderly Holocaust survivor, as terrorist sympathizers with ties to Hamas and even al Qaeda.
My first question when I heard the news was: "What could Israel's leaders have been thinking?" How could they possibly believe that a deadly assault against a humanitarian mission in international waters would play to their advantage? Israel's government and its hard-line supporters frequently complain about alleged efforts to "delegitimize" the country, but actions like this are the real reason Israel's standing around the world has plummeted to such low levels. This latest escapade is as bone-headed as the 2006 war in Lebanon (which killed over a thousand Lebanese and caused billions of dollars worth of damage) or the 2008-2009 onslaught that killed some 1300 Gazans, many of them innocent children. None of these actions achieved its strategic objective; indeed, all of them are just more evidence of the steady deterioration in Israel's strategic thinking that we have witnessed since 1967.
My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" President Obama likes to talk a lot about our wonderful American values, and his shiny new National Security Strategy says "we must always seek to uphold these values not just when it is easy, but when it is hard." The same document also talks about a "rule-based international order," and says "America's commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century."
Well if that is true, here is an excellent opportunity for Obama to prove that he means what he says. Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes.
More importantly, this latest act of misguided belligerence poses a broader threat to U.S. national interests. Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. This incident will harm our relations with other Middle Eastern countries, lend additional credence to jihadi narratives about the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," and complicate efforts to deal with Iran. It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability.
In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical. And Obama's Cairo speech -- which was entitled "A New Beginning" -- will be guaranteed a prominent place in the Hall of Fame of Empty Rhetoric.
How might the United States respond? We could start by denouncing Israel's action in plain English, without prevarication. We could help draft and push through a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's action and calling for an international commission of inquiry to determine what happened. And if American intelligence was monitoring the flotilla -- and it should have been -- we should make any information we collected available to the commission. We could also cancel or suspend elements of our military aid package to Israel. And we could say loudly and clearly that the blockade of Gaza is illegal, inhumane and counterproductive, and openly press Israel and Egypt to lift it immediately.
But even strong measures like these won't solve the underlying problem, which is the conflict itself. I've learned not to expect much from this administration when it comes to pushing the two sides toward a settlement, as Obama talks a good game, but doesn't follow through by putting meaningful pressure on the two sides. This latest incident, however, might convince Obama that he was right to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the front burner when he took office, and wrong to cave into Netanyahu when the latter dug in his heels last summer (2009) and again this past spring. The result of those retreats was a waste of precious time, while the situation in the Occupied Territories deteriorated.
Because time is rapidly running out on a two-state solution, Obama should seize this opportunity to explain to the American people why a different approach is needed and why bringing this conflict to an end is a national security priority for the United States. He should also explain why using U.S. leverage on both sides is in Israel's interest as well as America's interest. And he will need to bring some new people on board to help him do this, because the team he's been using has spent more than a year without achieving anything. (If his economic team was this decisive, our economy would still be spiraling into the abyss.) Getting the so-called "proximity talks" restarted doesn't count, because those discussions are a step backwards from earlier face-to-face negotiations and because they are likely to fail.
A third thought has to do with Israel itself, and especially its present government. How are we supposed to think about a country that has nuclear weapons, a superb army, an increasingly prosperous economy, and great technological sophistication, yet keeps more than a million people under siege in Gaza, denies political rights to millions more on the West Bank, is committed to expanding settlements there, and whose leaders feel little compunction about using deadly force not merely against well-armed enemies, but also against innocent civilians and international peace activists, while at the same time portraying itself as a blameless victim? Something has gone terribly wrong with the Zionist dream.
Fourth, this incident is a litmus test for the "pro-Israel" community here in the United States. One of the reasons why Israel keeps doing foolish things like this is that it has been insulated from the consequences of these actions by its hard-line sympathizers in the United States. AIPAC spokesmen are already bombarding journalists and pundits with emails spinning the assault, and we can confidently expect other apologists to prepare op-eds and blog posts defending Israel's conduct as a principled act of "self-defense." And if the Obama administration tries to proceed in any of the ways I've just suggested, it can count on fierce opposition from the most influential organizations in the Israel lobby.
In this context Peter Beinart's recent article in the New York Review of Books is even more salient, especially his question:
The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents' Conference should ask themselves what Israel's leaders would have to do or say to make them scream "no." ... If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?"
Over the next few days, keep an eye on how politicians and pundits line up on this issue. Which of them thinks that Israel "crossed a line" and deserves criticism -- and maybe even sanction -- and which of them thinks that what it did was entirely appropriate? Ironically, it is the former who are Israel's friends, because they are trying to save that country before it is too late. It is the latter whose misguided zeal is leading Israel down the road to further international isolation -- and maybe even worse.
The FT - a slightly more right wing take on the matter:
Israel faces global backlash
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem and Daniel Dombey in,Washington
Published: June 1 2010 03:00 Last updated: June 1 2010 03:00
Israel faced furious international condemnation yesterday after naval commandos attacked a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, killing at least nine pro-Palestinian activists and wounding many more.
Three of the boats were flying the Turkish flag and several of the passengers killed are believed to have been Turkish citizens. Turkey's government recalled its ambassador from Israel and gave warning that relations between the two countries had suffered irreparable damage.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, accused Israel of "inhuman state terror" and last night Ankara was leading a push at the United Nations for an international inquiry.
The Israeli forces attacked the flotilla of six vessels from helicopters and warships just before dawn, in international waters between Cyprus and the Gaza coast. Israeli officials said the troops opened fire only after coming under attack by activists, who charged them with knives and sticks, and allegedly fired live rounds.
Footage released by the Israeli authorities showed soldiers leaving a helicopter and abseiling on to a ship, only to be set upon by activists and beaten to the deck.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said the soldiers "had to defend themselves and defend their lives or else they would have been killed". Seven of the Israelis were wounded.
However, the organisers of the convoy accused the commandos of firing "directly into the crowd of civilians asleep".
The incident put an end to the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group.
But analysts warned that the assault by the naval Shayetet 13 commando unit was likely to carry a significant political price. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said he was "shocked" by the killings, stressing that the boats had been in international waters.
The UN Security Council was in emergency session last night seeking to agree a formal statement. Turkey said such a declaration should not just back an inquiry but also demand an Israeli apology and the release of the ships. Although such a move would fall short of a Security Council resolution, any UN backing for an international investigation would be deeply unwelcome to Israel.
While France called for an investigation that met international standards, the US, Israel's closest ally, did not endorse an international inquiry. US diplomats said they wanted to avoid any action that could jepoardise Middle East peace talks.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, told the Security Council that Israel had "lost its legitimacy as a respectful [sic] member of the international community" and called for the country to "be held accountable for its crimes". In its testimony to the council, Israel said the flotilla's organisers were connected to terrorists.
Mr Netanyahu cut short an official visit to Canada and the US to return to Israel to deal with the crisis, postponing a planned meeting today with Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington. Mr Obama spoke to the Israeli leader on the telephone, saying that he "understood" Mr Netanyahu's decision to return home and deeply regretted the loss of life.
William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, called for an "impartial investigation" into the incident and said one British citizen had been wounded.
Israeli leaders defended the assault and blamed the casualties on the activists. Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, described the flotilla as "an armada of hate and violence" and accused its organisers of a "premeditated and outrageous provocation". He said Israel had offered to allow aid into Gaza through the usual channels, but the convoy had been seeking a new route for weapons shipments to militants.
No comments:
Post a Comment