Tuesday, 1 June 2010, 4:05 pm Press Release: International Solidarity Movement US Activist Loses Eye; Shot in Face with Tear Gas Canister
31 May 2010: An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel’s murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.
21-year old Emily Henochowicz was hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired directly at her by an Israeli soldier during the demonstration at Qalandiya checkpoint today. Israeli occupation forces fired volleys of tear gas at unarmed Palestinian and international protesters, causing mass panic amongst the demonstrators and those queuing at the largest checkpoint separating the West Bank and Israel.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic wrote:A world-wide sanctioning and boycott of Israel, like what happened with the Apartheid South African government, is the logical next step.
Sadly, we live in an illogical world.
All we need is one teeny-weeny fake "terror" attack, and the whole thing will be forgotten instantly.
And guess what just knocked this story off the front page of Yahoo news?
This:
Al-Qaida: No. 3 official killed with family
WASHINGTON – Al-Qaida announced Monday that its No. 3 official, Mustafa al-Yazid, had been killed along with members of his family — perhaps one of the most severe blows to the terror movement since the U.S. campaign against al-Qaida began. A U.S. official said al-Yazid was believed to have died in a U.S. missile strike. Full Story »
So there you go. Peace activists bad. War on terror good. Terrorists scary, missiles and brutality required.
Wow.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
It is quite astounding that Israel has been able to create over the past 12 hours a news blackout, just as it did with its attack on Gaza 18 months ago, into which our main media organisations have willingly allowed Israeli spokespeople to step in unchallenged.
How many civilians were killed in Israel’s dawn attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla of aid? We still don’t know. How many wounded? Your guess is as good as mine. Were the aid activists armed with guns? Yes, says Israel. Were they in cahoots with al-Qaeda and Hamas? Certainly, says Israel. Did the soldiers act reasonably? Of course, they faced a lynch, says Israel.
If we needed any evidence of the degree to which Western TV journalists are simply stenographers to power, the BBC, CNN and others are amply proving it. Mark Regev, Israel’s propagandist-in-chief, has the airwaves largely to himself.
The passengers on the ships, meanwhile, have been kidnapped by Israel and are unable to provide an alternative version of events. We can guess they will remain in enforced silence until Israel is sure it has set the news agenda.
So before we get swamped by Israeli hasbara let’s reiterate a few simple facts:
* Israeli soldiers invaded these ships in international waters, breaking international law, and, in killing civilians, committed a war crime. The counter-claim by Israeli commanders that their soldiers responded to an imminent “lynch” by civilians should be dismissed with the loud contempt it deserves.
* The Israeli government approved the boarding of these aid ships by an elite unit of commandoes. They were armed with automatic weapons to pacify the civilians onboard, but not with crowd dispersal equipment in case of resistance. Whatever the circumstances of the confrontation, Israel must be held responsible for sending in soldiers and recklessly endangering the lives of all the civilians onboard, including a baby and a Holocaust survivor.
* Israel has no right to control Gaza’s sea as its own territorial waters and to stop aid convoys arriving that way. In doing so, it proves that it is still in belligerent occupation of the enclave and its 1.5 million inhabitants. And if it is occupying Gaza, then under international law Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Strip’s inhabitants. Given that the blockade has put Palestinians there on a starvation diet for the past four years, Israel should long ago have been in the dock for committing a crime against humanity.
Today Israel chose to direct its deadly assault not only at Palestinians under occupation but at the international community itself.
Will our leaders finally be moved to act?
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is the Quartet Representative in the Middle East, expressed his "deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life".
Blair... What a slippery, sanctimonious, statesmanlike shit he is. "Tragic"! That word is the first refuge of a scoundrel when he's required to comment on atrocities committed by an ally. Because of course it wasn't tragic, it was murderous, it was an act of fascist brutality. "The tragic loss of life" - for which, of course, no one was responsible.
Meanwhile, Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor has withdrawn from his scheduled appearance at the Hay Festival of Literature on Tuesday.
Coward. He knows damn well he would have been buried under a shower of shoes. (That would have meant a tragic loss of face, wouldn't it?)
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
So let's take the "boat situation". We got boats that are ready to go to attempt to save their coastline and a US military that is doing nothing about shit, publicly, as far as I can see other than being in Afghanistan for reasons that have never been spelled out. But they are not allowed to do shit yet -- BP controls this.
Now let's take this "flotilla" of boats meant to bring aid to Gaza. What was it, 11 killed? For what. There's not much you can do on a boat to overtake special-ops motherfuckers. Why the fuck wasn't this mechanism of attack used on the so called Somali Pirates? Perhaps it was. Yet I still question the financing of this flotilla. Not because it wasn't necessary, but because it was TOO necessary to vouch for all out war. The financing. You can't just throw a dozen mid-sized ships in the water and think that it is free. Something else is behind this.
This spill surely demonstrates that the emperor wears no clothes as well.
I truly do believe war is eminent in order to restart the "global" economy. To invigorate capitalism once again. To put the boot to our faces even more. This is where it begins, the beginning of the end.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
Username wrote:~ Krauthammer - "Israel clearly is a victim here."
HAHAHAHAHA!
As per Krauthammer --- "Gaza declared war on Israel two years ago". Man oh man, they will stoop to nothing. It's a fucking slender strip of land of impoverished people!! Good christ. How anybody buys this shit is way beyond me. How they can have straight faces about it too. I know we're talking FOX NEWS here. But Christ on a cracker. That is some of the most ludicrous shit I have ever seen ever.
This shit may have been an evil financing trip from the get go. Unbeknownst to the crew. Rich liberal foreign aid tourists. Don't doubt me on that one. Don't think I am being a dick either. But they are amping this up every which way. Nothing is safe. Stay humane, but also stay skeptical. They literally are going to do what they want.
I call set up and I also call this is WWIII. I do hope I am wrong. But it seems inevitable at this point.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
The FT included the following in its editorial of this morning (via Craig Murray, I'll only quote bits as I'm not a subscriber). I don't think it'll be business as usual after this, this is an exceptionally fair piece, in a Murdoch paper no less. The US government is at odds with the UK over this.
With Monday’s brazen act of piracy, Israel dealt a blow to the legitimacy of its own struggle. The killing of activists aboard the captured ships sent Israel’s way of defending its security, which it was already imperative to return within the bounds of international law, hurtling into lawlessness. [...] Outrageous as this behaviour was, the true outrage is the illegal blockade of Gaza that it enforced.[...]Hamas engages in terrorism and fires occasional rockets into Israel, but it is an example of that rarest of Middle Eastern species: a popularly elected government.[...] The attack on the blockade-busters lays bare the country’s slide into contempt for international law, intolerance of dissent and wilful sabotage of viable representation for Palestinians.
Echoes of Raid on ‘Exodus’ Ship in 1947 By ROBERT MACKEY
The New York Times The “Exodus 1947,” a ship filled with Jewish Holocaust survivors who wanted to immigrate to Palestine, after it was seized by the British Navy in a deadly struggle at sea and brought to Haifa in July, 1947. Updated | 8:51 p.m. To some Israeli observers, it was impossible to miss the parallels between Monday’s killing of pro-Palestinian activists by Israel’s military in international waters, as commandos intercepted a flotilla of ships trying to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza, and a seminal event in the Jewish struggle for an independent homeland.
Noam Sheizaf, an Israeli journalist who is rounding up reports and commentary on the attack on his blog, “Promised Land,” points to a post in Hebrew by Rafi Man of the Israel Democracy Institute which asks: “Will This Be the Palestinian Exodus?”
Mr. Man was referring to the story of the “Exodus 1947,” a ship filled with Jewish Holocaust survivors who wanted to immigrate to Palestine in July 1947. That month, the British Navy intercepted the ship to enforce a ban on Jewish immigration to the territory, which was then under British control.
As my colleague Margalit Fox wrote in December — in an obituary for Yitzhak Ahronovitch, the captain of the Exodus 1947 — the violent way the British Navy seized that ship and deported the refugees backfired, creating global sympathy for the plight of stateless Jews. Ms. Fox explained:
The refugees had no legal authority to enter Palestine, and the British were determined to block the ship. In the battle that ensued, three Jews aboard the Exodus were killed. The ship’s passengers — more than 4,500 men, women and children — were ultimately deported to Germany.
The attack and its aftermath, which focused attention on the plight of many European Jews after the war, made headlines worldwide and helped marshal support for an Israeli state. [...]
Captain Ahronovitch was 23 when he took the helm of the Exodus. On July 11, 1947, he picked up the refugees at Sète, in southern France. On July 18, as the ship neared the coast of Palestine, the British Navy intercepted it. Captain Ahronovitch tried to break through, but two British destroyers rammed the ship.
Several hours of fighting followed, with the ship’s passengers spraying fuel oil and throwing smoke bombs, life rafts and whatever else came to hand, down on the British sailors trying to board, The Times reported at the time. Soon the British opened fire. Two immigrants and a crewman on the Exodus were killed; scores more were wounded, many seriously. The ship was towed to Haifa, and from there its passengers were deported, first to France and eventually to Germany, where they were placed in camps near Lübeck.
According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, when refugees from the Exodus 1947 were forced into displaced persons camps in Germany by the British military:
Large protests erupted on both sides of the Atlantic. The ensuing public embarrassment for Britain played a significant role in the diplomatic swing of sympathy toward the Jews and the eventual recognition of a Jewish state in 1948. A book by the journalist Ruth Gruber on the voyage, released in 1948 under the title “Destination Palestine,” was later renamed “Exodus 1947: The Ship That Launched a Nation.” In 2007, Israelis celebrated a recreation of the voyage.
Alex Rozkovsky/Associated Press Israeli medics rushed a pro-Palestinian activist wounded in an Israeli raid on Monday to a hospital in Haifa, Israel, for treatment. On Monday, activists wounded by the Israeli military during the raid on the ships were brought to Haifa for medical treatment. Sixty-three years ago, the world saw photographs and newsreel footage of dazed Jewish refugees, some wounded by the British military, disembarking the Exodus 1947, under armed guard, in Haifa.
Another parallel between the events of 1947 and those on Monday is a dispute over what might have justified the use of deadly force against civilians. Israeli officials insisted in initial statements that shooting activists in the flotilla was justified because commandos boarding one ship were met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” That assertion was called “a lie,” by one of the flotilla’s organizers. In his live-blog post, Mr. Sheizaf wrote that Channel 10, an Israeli television station, reported that the Israeli military had completed a search of the ship and “no weapons discovered except for the two pistols that were taken from the soldiers.” Later in the day an Israeli military Web site posted a photograph of knives and sticks that were found on the ship where civilians were shot and killed.
In August 1947, a New York Times article on the clash at sea the previous month was headlined: “Crew Man From the Exodus 1947 Denies the British Met Firearms; Grauel, on Arrival in New York, Says Naval Boarding Party Shot at Jews Whose Weapons Were Potatoes, Canned Goods.”
These days, of course, it does not take a month for a dispute over which version of events the world should accept to break out. Hours after the video of the raid shot from on board the ship by the Turkish news agency DHA was posted online and distributed to channels around the world, two posts appeared on the official blog of the Israel Defense Force Spokesperson with video shot by Israel’s military, showing, it said, “today’s incident in which IDF naval forces were met with extremely violent resistance on board the Mavi Marmara.”
This report on Monday’s events from Britain’s Channel 4 News includes some of the video of the raid from Turkish television and the response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
More video from the Turkish news agency, filmed in the aftermath of the shootings, was posted on YouTube.
Here are two Israeli military clips showing some part of the raid posted on the IDF spokesman’s blog (the military’s blog posts do not make clear if either video was filmed at the beginning of the raid, or after some shots had already been fired by the commandos):
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Readout from the Emergency Security Council Session on Israeli Raid of Gaza Bound Flotilla Mark Leon Goldberg - June 1, 2010 - 10:31 am Security CouncilSecurity Last night, the Security Council issued a "Presidential Statement" on the incident aboard the a Gaza-bound humanitarian convoy that was poised to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. Ten people were killed in the raid and hundreds of nationals from Europe and Turkey (including several dignitaries) are being detained by Israel.
The Security Council held an emergency session yesterday. Judging from the readout, the session produced some very volatile moments.
Turkey, which the New York Times describes as the "unnofficial sponsor of the convoy" happens to sit on the Security Council. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu issued a very harsh rebuke of Israel, it's erstwhile "ally."
Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, said he was distraught by the incident, which was a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy — it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification. A nation that followed that path lost its legitimacy as a respectable member of the international community. The children of Gaza, meanwhile, did not know where their next meal was coming from; they had received no education and had no future. Today, many humanitarian workers returned home in body bags. Israel had “blood on its hands”.
Meanwhile, the United States, which is reliably on Israel's side in these sorts of deliberations, was much milder in its criticism. Said Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations: "The United States is deeply disturbed by the recent violence and regrets the tragic loss of life and injuries suffered among those involved in the incident last night aboard the Gaza-bound ships." He then went on to criticize "direct delivery by sea" of humanitarian aid.
As you can see, much different sentiments coming from Turkey and the United States.
Despite the tonal difference, there was apparently enough agreement in the council to reach consensus in the form of a presidential statement. In diplomatic terms, a presidential statement is less than a "resolution" in the sense that it does not have the force of law. It does, however, have political potency. Each of the 15 members of the Security Council have a veto over the process, meaning a presidential statement, once issued, has the unamimous backing of the council.
This is what the United States, Turkey, and the rest of the council agreed upon yesterday. You will note that Israel is not condemned directly, only "those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families." Presumably, that would also include attacks against the Israeli soldiers that boarded the ships. The Times reports this concession was granted in order to secure American approval of the final statement.
Presidential Statement
“The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting form 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 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
“The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.
“The Security Council takes note of the statement of the United Nations Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
“The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, they reiterate their grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stress the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza, as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
“The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasizes that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.
“The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and voices concern that this incident took place while proximity talks are under way and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region.
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Edward L. Peck is a retired career United States diplomat who served thirty-two-years in the U.S. Foreign Service (1956-1989).
Early Life and Career
Served in the US Army as a paratrooper.
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (U. Alexis Johnson), Nixon Administration, January 1971.[1][2]
Edward Peck served as Chief of Mission in Baghdad (Iraq 1977 to 1980) in the Carter Administration and later held senior posts in Washington and abroad. He also served as a Foreign Service Officer in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, and as Ambassador in Mauritania. At the State Department he served as Deputy Director of Covert Intelligence Programs, Director of the Office of Egyptian Affairs and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration. He is president of Foreign Services International, a consulting firm that works with governments, businesses and educational institutions across the world. [edit] Criticism of G. W. Bush plan to invade Iraq and of Middle East policy
Edward Peck argued against invading Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion. He argued, in part, "when you take out Saddam Hussein, the key question you have to ask then is, what happens after that? And we don't have a clue. Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be bad. And a lot of people are going to be very upset about that, because that really is not written into our role in this world is to decide who rules Iraq." Peck has been highly critical of U.S. policy toward Israel, arguing through the Council for the National Interest (CNI) in which he plays an active role, that the U.S. should be more even handed in its Middle East policy. He argues that while Hezbollah could be considered a terrorist organization, it is no more terrorist than Israel or the U.S. itself. He supports a dialogue with Hezbollah. He claims that in 2000, at the Camp David talks, Israel offered the Palestinians "12 little Bantustans [see December 22 interview link below]." [edit] Jeremiah Wright Controversy
Main article Jeremiah Wright controversy This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
In March 2008 the U.S. Presidential campaign of Barack Obama was affected when videos of sermons by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, came to media attention. In one broadcast on many media outlets, including ABC News, Wright, on Sept. 16, 2001, referenced an appearance of Peck on Fox News before saying, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." Wright attributed to Peck the credit for allegedly "pointing out" that "America's chickens are coming home to roost", a phrase Wright repeated several times. According to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, though Peck did cite numerous faults against America and criticized its foreign policy, Peck never actually used the expression "chickens coming home to roost". His answers were more nuanced.[citation needed] [edit] Israeli attack on Gaza aid flotilla Main article: Gaza flotilla clash
In May 30rd, 2010, Peck was involved in the Gaza flotilla clash when the Israel Defense Forces boarded an international aid convoy bound for the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces have killed 10 people, wounded more than 20 in the international waters. Peck was released the same date of the attack and flew to New York.[3][4]
Are they not allowed to defend themselves against what at best is a surprise attack by high-seas pirates, but more like an act of war?
Looking at the videos above, I'd have to say that it does matter. The activists knew from the onset that Israel was going to stop the ships (I mean, literally everyone knew), and this was the planned response against a military boarding of the vessel?
How likely is it that we are not being shown some aspect of ther boarding which preceeded these videos? I'd think that if there had been killing by the Israelis prior to this, the response by the activists would have been quite different.
I don't mean to insinuate that the Israelis acted appropriately, but footage like this, if genuine, creates a situation in which they can easilly equivocate responsibility for the incident and deaths.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
Am I wrong in thinking the ship was in international waters?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
