Captain recounts attack on Flotilla
Press TV – June 1, 2010
A Turkish captain, among a Gaza-bound international relief convoy which was violently attacked by Israel, details the assault which killed 20 civilians.
Captain Huseyin Tokalak said the Israeli Navy had threatened to sink his ship, Gazze, before Israeli commandos took over the vessel at gun point, the Reuters news agency reported.
“They pointed two guns to the head of each of us,” Tokalak told a news conference on Tuesday. “They were really interesting guns, like the ones you see in the movies.”
The six-ship relief convoy, titled the Freedom Flotilla was carrying some 10,000 tons of construction material, medical equipment and school supplies.
Israeli forces attacked the Turkish-backed fleet in international waters 150km (90 miles) from Gaza on Monday, killing at least 20 people.
Tokalak said he and the other captains had assured the Israeli Navy that they were in international waters and carried nothing illegal.
“They started shooting directly at Mavi Marmara … They didn’t care if it was the front or back of the ship,” he also said referring to the lead ship of the convoy.
“I thought they would sink the ship.”
Concern grows over flotilla missing and prisoners
Free Gaza Movement & ISM London | June 1, 2010
International Solidarity Movement volunteers today expressed grave concern over the fate of wounded, imprisoned and missing flotilla activists.
The group said, with an information blackout from Israel preventing news of their plight reaching the media, speculation is mounting about the Internationals’ safety.
Theresa MacDermott (Scotland) Ewa Jasiewicz (Britain/Poland) and Caoimhe Butterly (Ireland) along with hundreds of other civilian passengers have not been heard from since before the Israeli attack on Monday morning.[1]
Israel has today refused Free Gaza lawyers permission to make contact with the human Rights defenders.
Sharyn Lock (England), founding member of The FreeGaza Movement and author of Gaza: Beneath the Bombs, said today:
“Through my experience volunteering with ambulances in Palestine, I know Israel regularly lets civilians die without allowing medical aid reach them.”[2]
She went on to say:
“It is deplorable that family and friends are being refused contact or information and we can only speculate as to their whereabouts and injuries.”
“We call on the EU member States to fulfil their obligation to protect the safety of human rights defenders.[3] We demand that Israel allows access to the injured and imprisoned immediately.” added Vittorio Arrigoni (Italy) who was himself injured by Israeli gunboats in 2008.
ISMers and former flotilla passengers Eva Bartlett (Canada) and Alberto Arce (Spain) are also waiting to hear from their missing colleagues.
“All of us are nonviolent activists who have personally come under fire from Israeli forces, and several of us have been wounded or detained. It is common for Israeli forces to open fire with live rounds on unarmed civilians, both Palestinian and Internationals.” said Eva, from Gaza.[4]
Human rights defenders in Gaza are attacked on a daily basis. Amongst them are Bianca Zammit (Malta), who was shot while accompanying farming families in Gaza on April 25th, 2010[5] and Adie Mormech (England),who was kidnapped and imprisoned after the FreeGaza boat The Spirit of Humanity was forcibly boarded by Israel on June 30, 2009.
All the ISMers mentioned in this release are available now for comment.
Contact
- Sharyn Lock (Free Gaza Movement, England) +44 7881651 259
- ISM London, +44 7913 067 189
- Vittorio Arrigoni (Italy, based in Gaza) +972 5977 50820
- Eva Bartlett (Canada, based in Gaza) +972 5987 10648
- Adie Mormech (England, based in Gaza) +972 5977 17696
- Bianca Zammit (Malta, based in Gaza) +972 5975 89688
- Alberto Arce (Spain) +0034 6556 50048
Notes
- Ewa Jaciezicz is a freelance journalist. She and Caoimhe Butterly have trained as First Responder Medics. Theresa MacDermott is a postal worker.
- Alongside flotilla passengers Caoimhe and Ewa, Eva Bartlett, Sharyn Lock, Alberto Arce, and Vittorio Arrigoni worked daily with Palestinian medics during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, with Eva and Alberto filming the shooting by an Israeli sniper of medic Hassan as he tried to retrieve a body. The footage taken by Alberto and Mohammed Rujailah became their award-winning film “To Shoot an Elephant” Alongside flotilla passenger Theresa MacDermott in 2008, Vittorio Arrigoni, Eva Bartlett, and Sharyn Lock came under regular fire as they accompanied unarmed Gaza fishermen, who are often shot at not only within three miles of the Gaza shore, but actually on the beach.
- EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/GuidelinesDefenders.pdfWith related resources here:
http://www.ishr.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=267
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/defenders/docs/Frontlinehandbook.pdf
- Bianca Zammit received a gunshot to the thigh when Israeli soldiers fired on farming families, Gaza, 2010. Vittorio Arrigoni required ten stitches after Israeli gunboats attacked the fishing boats he was accompanying, Gaza sea 2008. Caoimhe Butterly recieved a gunshot to the thigh while rescuing Palestinian children, West Bank 2002. Sharyn Lock was shot in the stomach from an Israeli armoured personel carrier while walking backwards with her hands in the air, one of ten internationals injured, West Bank 2002.
- Bianca says:
Israeli soldiers fire live ammunition at unarmed civilians, farmers and activists without any inhibition. On the day they shot me soldiers were shooting aggressively at the demonstrators. It was clear they had a policy of at least “shooting to injure”. I was filming and documenting when the bullet struck my leg. For me this was a clear message that Israeli soldiers do not hesitate to shoot at internationals but also that they feel threatened by our work.
The Legal Position on the Israeli Attack
By Craig Murray | May 31, 2010
I think that anybody with any fairness is bound to admit that the statement William Hague came out with is much better than anything on Israel which New Labour ever came out with, especially this bit:
“This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians.” – http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=22300485
But as I told this afternoon’s tremendous spontaneous demonstration on Whitehall, fine words are not enough and we must now see the kind of sanctions regime we saw against apartheid South Africa.
A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.
Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.
There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.
Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.
Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.
In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.
Israel vows more attacks on aid ships
Press TV – June 1, 2010
A defiant Israel downplays international condemnations of its deadly raid against a Gaza-bound aid convoy, vowing to prevent all aid ships trying to break the Gaza siege.
“We will not let any ships reach Gaza and supply what has become a terrorist base threatening the heart of Israel,” AFP quoted Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai as saying on Tuesday.
The remarks came in response to an announcement by organizers of Gaza Freedom Flotilla, saying they intended to send two more aid boats to Gaza, despite Israel’s deadly naval operation.
The commando raid killed some 20 people accompanying the six-ship fleet and left more than 50 others wounded, according to Palestinian sources.
Israel’s Army Radio reported that the MV Rachel Corrie, a converted merchant ship, would reach Gazan waters by Wednesday.
An unnamed Israeli marine lieutenant told the radio in an interview that he expected an easy takeover of the ship, saying the Israeli forces would be “ready” for the Rachel Corrie, Reuters reported.
Israel’s latest threat comes as a slap in the face of sharp criticism and envoy-summonings against Israel across the world, particularly in Muslim nations where a seething anti-Israeli sentiment erupted into angry street rallies.
On Tuesday, Israel announced a decision to hold 480 activists captured on Monday in jail, saying the international campaigners would face prosecution.
The UN Security Council condemned the bloodshed in the Monday’s attack and called for the immediate release of the civilians in the Israeli custody.
The 15-nation council also ordered an impartial investigation into the deadly Israeli attack on the freedom flotilla.
Released Detainees Deny Being Armed, Say Israel Used Bullets, Gas, Electroshock
Al-Manar TV – June 1, 2010
Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi, who was on board the Marmara ship when it was raided by Navy fighters, held a press conference in Nazareth on Tuesday, in which she accused Israel of committing crimes during its takeover of the Gaza-bound aid ship. She called for an international inquiry into the incident.
Zoabi added, “It was clear from the size of the force that boarded the ship that the purpose was not only to stop this sail, but to cause the largest possible number of fatalities in order to stop such initiatives in the future.”
She said the flotilla’s participants did not have any violent intentions: “Our goal was to break the siege. We had no plans for a confrontation. Israel carried out a provocative military operation. Israel is used to doing as it pleases with the Palestinians. The main problem is not the ship, but the siege.”
She also demanded the activists held in Beersheba be allowed visitation. “We also demand a UN inquiry commission probe the Israeli claims. This is an international issue, because the passengers were from different nations.”
Of the raid itself, she said, “I entered the captain’s room. He was asked to stop by the Israeli soldiers. He said, ‘We are a Turkish ship.’ We were 130 miles off. It was 11:30 pm. We saw four Israel vessels, they were at a distance because we were in international waters. At 4:15 am we saw the ships approaching. They were dinghies and choppers. At 4:30 am the forces landed quickly. I did not hear any warning from the ships, because noise was coming from the ships and the choppers. Within 10 minutes there were already three bodies. The entire operation took about an hour.”
She denied any resistance from the ship’s passengers. “There was not a single passenger who raised a club. We put on our life vests. From where I was standing, I didn’t see any clubs or anything of the sort. There were gunshots, I don’t know if they were live bullets or not. There were gunshots fired from the ships in our direction.”
“A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We convened that we were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons. There was a sense that I many not come out of it alive. Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation.”
Zoabi was released to her home Tuesday morning after being questioned.
Shortly before the takeover, Zoabi said, “We are part of the Palestinian people. They are trying to break us. The ships took us by surprise and started to call out to us. For four years, no one spoke about Gaza. Only in this past week did the entire world get to the war crimes of Israel, a country that occupies and violates basic humanitarian rights.”
GREEK ACTIVIST: ISRAELIS USED BULLETS AND ELECTROSHOCK
Moreover, a Greek activist told of the moment Israeli troops stormed the ill-fated Gaza-bound aid flotilla, using rubber bullets, tear gas and electroshock weapons to subdue those aboard. “Israeli troops jumped onto the boat around 0530 on Monday,” Michalis Grigoropoulos said of the pre-dawn raid by Israeli forces.
Grigoropoulos was aboard the Eleftheri Mesogeio, smaller than the lead boat, the Mavi Marmara, which Israeli troops had attacked earlier. “They fired rubber coated bullets, tear gas and then used electroshock weapons on some activists,” he told Skai television shortly after Israel deported him and five compatriots to Athens.
“An hour beforehand, at 0430 local time, we heard gunfire on the Turkish boat Mavi Marmara, the Israelis jumped from helicopters onto the boat,” he said.
Israel is still holding hundreds of the 686 passengers they seized and took back to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where Grigoropoulos said he was kept incommunicado, denied access to a lawyer and made to sign papers he did not understand.
Grigoropoulos criticized “the wretched detention conditions at Ashdod (where) 500 people were packed in together” saying that “two Greek activists were beaten up” there by Israeli police. “They made me sign papers on my expulsion, without me knowing what was on the papers because I did not have the right to a translator, a lawyer or to communicate with my family,” he said.
The Eleftheri Mesogeio’s captain, Zaharias Stilianakis, who was among those returned to Athens, said that “after their assault on the boat, the commandos cut all means of communication.”
GERMAN WITNESSES: NO ONE ARMED ON GAZA FLOTILLA
Three visibly shaken Germans who experienced the deadly raid by the Israeli military denied on Tuesday that anyone on board was armed. “The Israeli government justifies the raid because they were attacked. This is absolutely not the case,” former Member of Parliament Norman Paech, 72, wrapped in a blue blanket, told reporters in Berlin. “This was not an act of self-defense.”
His comments were backed up by two others on board the convoy when it was raided at dawn on Monday in international waters, MPs Inge Hoeger, 59, and Annette Groth, 56. “We felt like we were in a war, like we were being kidnapped,” Hoeger said. “We wanted to bring aid to Gaza. Nobody had a weapon.”
What does Israel fear from media coverage?
By Glenn Greenwald | June 1, 2010
The New York Times, today:
A day after Israeli commandoes raided an aid flotilla seeking to breach the blockade of Gaza, Israel held hundreds of activists seized aboard the convoy on Tuesday . . . .Reuters reported that Israel was holding hundreds of activists incommunicado in and around the port city of Ashdod, refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel’s version of events.
Physically blocking journalists from reporting on their conduct is what Israel does (as well as others); recall this from The New York Times on January 6, 2009, regarding Israel’s war in Gaza:
Israel Puts Media Clamp on Gaza
Three times in recent days, a small group of foreign correspondents was told to appear at the border crossing to Gaza. The reporters were to be permitted in to cover firsthand the Israeli war on Hamas in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against the two-month-old Israeli ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza.
Each time, they were turned back on security grounds, even as relief workers and other foreign citizens were permitted to cross the border. On Tuesday the reporters were told to not even bother going to the border.
And so for an 11th day of Israel’s war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it waited in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering, but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel, where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups financed mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel’s history, in this one the government is seeking to entirely control the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy.
Isn’t it strange how Plucky, Democratic Israel goes to such extreme lengths to prevent any media coverage of what they do, any journalistic interference with their propaganda machine, in light of the fact that — as always — They Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong? Is physically blocking the media from covering what happens the act of a government that is in the right? Thomas Jefferson answered that question quite some time ago:
Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.
Israel is now not only detaining the victims of its aggression, but also threatening to prosecute and imprison them. Israeli Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said yesterday: “All those who lifted a hand against a soldier will be punished to the full extent of the law.” So when Israel seizes ships in international waters and kills anyone who resists (and others standing near them), that is an act of noble, plucky self-defense. But those who fail to submit completely to this lawless and barbarous act of aggression are the Real Criminals who will be prosecuted and imprisoned “to the fullest extent of the law.” In other words, not only is Israel — which seized ships in international waters and killed civilians — the Real Victim, but the Real Criminals are those on the ship. But doesn’t the victim of a crime usually want media coverage of what the criminal did? How odd for the victim in this case to take such extreme steps to ensure that the world cannot hear from the witnesses.
* * * * *
Two other related points: (1) as I noted yesterday, the real question for Americans is our own country’s responsibility for what Israel does; as virtually the entire world vehemently condemns Israel’s conduct, the U.S. — as usual — acts to protect the Israelis at the U.N. and joins it in heaping blame on its victims; and (2) Robert Farley highlights a small though typical piece of false Israeli propaganda, this one from supreme propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, which pervades our discourse in unchallenged form.
Israeli’s Nuclear Policy: From South Africa to Iran
JAMES PETRAS | 01. Jun, 2010
On May 24, 2010, the Guardian (U.K.) published a highly confidential document released by the South African government. The 1975 document reveals a secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, Israel’s Foreign Minister at the time (and today Israel’s President) and South Africa’s Defense Minister P. W. Botha. Israel offered to sell the apartheid regime, weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and conventional weaponry to destroy and defeat the million person African resistance movement. The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization, immediately set in motion the Lying Machine claiming the official minutes of the Israeli nuclear offer and a far reaching agreement on military ties between two apartheid regimes were merely a “conversation” (sic) and that Israel did not “make an offer”.1 Then without blinking Israel’s apologists went on to contradict themselves by speculating that a nuclear agreement would not have had the approval of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (Daily Alert May 25, 2010). The documents were discovered by a US academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in South African archives and are published in his book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Alliance with Apartheid South Africa. Apparently Israel’s regime thought the documents were more than a “conversation” because they pressured the post-apartheid South African government not to release them.2
The Israeli nuclear offer and the South African request took place at a time of rising popular struggles throughout South Africa, from Sharpeville to Soweto, including armed resistance and the beginning of international boycotts. South Africa expanded its military offensive invading Angola where they were eventually defeated by a joint Cuban-Angolan army. As a result it was facing problems buying the kinds of deadly weapons of mass destruction which would not only decapitate the leadership of the South African freedom movement but destroy its grass roots support and national allies. Israel was prepared to serve as a willing accomplice to a Nuclear Solution.
The Genocidal Implications of Israel’s Nuclear Offer
Most liberal commentators and critics of Israel’s offer to supply apartheid South Africa with nuclear warheads merely focused on Israel’s “irresponsible behavior” in violating the non-proliferation treaty.3 For others the issue was merely an “embarrassment” for the Jewish state, given a forthcoming meeting (June 2010) on non-proliferation.4 Few if any raised the great moral and political question of the profound human consequences of complicity in a genocidal nuclear assault on millions of Africans. The question is Israel’s moral responsibility, if South Africa had followed up the Jewish State’s offer, bought the nuclear warheads and sent the missiles raining down on millions of Africans demanding freedom. One might ask if complicity in a potential genocidal act is subject to a war crimes tribunal, in the same way that the German industrial manufacturers of poison gas for concentration camp prisoners were put on trial at Nuremberg for complicity in the war crimes of the Nazi State.?5
Israel’s offer to supply nuclear missiles if implemented would most likely have led to the shelling of shanty towns and refugee camps across the borders, housing millions of South Africans, killing hundreds of thousands and radiating many more to a slow painful death. Nuking a mass popular resistance in this case through the deliberate efforts of two racist regimes, is more than a ‘war crime’, it is a monstrous crime against humanity.
More than any other single factor, American Zionism’s defense of Israel’s military alliance and support of Apartheid South Africa deeply offended knowledgeable Afro-Americans and soured longstanding amicable relations between Jews and American blacks.
On the other hand, Israel had no compunctions about strengthening its military and economic ties with racist South Africa6, a relation backed by Zionist business leaders in Johannesburg.
Why Israel Offered Nukes to Botha
Israel’s decision to offer nuclear missiles to South Africa was based on commercial, political and ideological considerations. South Africa was an emphatic and unconditional backer of Israel’s invasions of Arab countries, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Above all it sympathized with a likeminded settler-colonial regime at a time when Israel was condemned by the United Nations, most of Europe, and the newly independent post-colonial countries. Two pariah states had a lot of common enemies and a need to support each other in the face of the world’s rejection of colonial-settler regimes.
Secondly, the two had an ideological affinity based on a racial ideology rooted in biblical belief of Chosen People destined by Divine power as Superior People. Judaism and Christianity rooted in ethnic pre-eminence legitimated rule over blacks and Arabs! Equally important arms sales and military advisory services were the leading export sectors of the Israeli economy and the backbone of its manufacturing, technology and communications sectors. The Zionist-racist trade union confederation Histadrut was deeply rooted among workers in the war industries and was a champion of arms sales to South Africa. Israeli Uzis upheld white capital and repressed black labor especially in the mines.
The Central Role of the Zionist Labor Left in the Nuclear Arms Offer
Contrary to the assumptions of many gentile and Jewish leftists, liberals and progressives who attribute all of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians to neo-conservatives or “Likud” or rightwing religious parties, the authors and proponents of a nuclear weapons sales to South Africa were leaders of the Labor Party. Shimon Peres (the Defense Minister) and Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister) were the major figures involved in the nuclear deal. All of Israel’s early wars of conquests, massive expulsions of Palestinians and the construction of Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile were undertaken under the aegis of the Labor Party. The latter never lacked in socialist rhetoric [they are members of the “Socialist” International (sic)] or anti-racist speeches when the occasion warranted, but never lost an opportunity to sell conventional arms to a Latin dictator (Pinochet in Chile, Videla in Argentina, Rios Mont in Guatemala), or offer nukes to a brutal South African regime under siege from its black majority.
The central role of the Israeli Labor Party in offering a nuclear solution to the minority white regime demonstrates that all major Israeli parties are capable of pursuing a genocidal policy if it serves their perceptions of “Jewish interests”. The leading role of the Labor Party confirms the idea that there are no basic differences between the Israeli Left and Right when it comes to committing crimes against humanity. The underlying belief system is that Chosen People are exempt from the laws against war crimes.
Nuclear Revelation: The Reactions of the Leading American Jewish Organizations
The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations, true to their role as an unconditional transmission belt of the Israel state, echoed the line that Israel did not offer nuclear weapons to South Africa, denying the documented proof and predictably refused to condemn Israel’s complicity with the genocidal implications of nuking millions active in the African freedom movement7. One of the leading Zionist organizations the “Anti Defamation League”, in fact had a long standing relation with South Africa’s secret services, hiring private agents to collect information and spy on the anti-apartheid movement up through the 1980’s.8 Most of the Zionist influenced mass media including the New York Times, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN and the Washington Post blocked the story ,as if Israel’s complicity in a plan nuking millions of Africans was unworthy of publication, let alone an object of the harshest condemnation. Let us be clear about why this crime, comparable to the Holocaust was not consummated. It was not because of any influence of the Hebraic moral traditions or “Jewish guilt” or even irresolution because of fear of the subsequent worldwide outcry. The Israeli sale of nukes did not go through because, according to authoritative South African accounts, the latter decided not to go through with the purchase, relying on Israeli “conventional” arms instead.9 There is no definitive explanation for why Israel’s nuclear war industry lost a sale but there are several possible explanations, from the high price that the Jewish state was asking, to the fear that the fallout from nuclear weapons might radiate whites as well as blacks. The “collateral costs” to the white racist population may have caused the apartheid regime to rethink its purchase.
Let us be clear: Israeli complicity in this venture into nuclear genocide was freely given, under no duress. In fact the Jewish state in the best traditions of a Nazi haberdasher, offered the racist state a choice of three ‘styles’ of weapons: nuclear, chemical and conventional. Take your pick they all fit in nicely with protecting the user from any further annoyances by the black majority.
Given the enormity of this crime of complicity, is it surprising that the Zionist and even most of the anti-Zionist media and spokespeople gave scant attention to this crime against humanity. A mention one day, a pronouncement here or there, nothing more. More likely, if the genocidal act was carried out, the moral outrage would have focused exclusively on … the South Africans not their weapon suppliers and accomplices before the act.
What explains the fact that the vast majority of American Zionist Jews who play a leading role in defending and apologizing for Israel’s role in offering nukes to racist South Africa, are high income, well educated professionals, businesspeople, scientists, academics, media performers and the like? Many are respectable family persons and civic minded. A majority consider themselves liberals, defenders of the environment and social programs. A few even speak favorably of ‘democratic socialism’. Yet, they are the same individuals who willingly support and apologize for a regime ready and willing to supply the means to radiate millions of Africans in the past, nuke tens of millions of Iranians today and massacre scores of peaceful humaniarians on the high seas.
The key to this apparent “contradiction” is the capacity of pro-Israel Jews to compartmentalize their professional work, family life and civic activity from their obsessive commitment to Israeli war crimes and genocidal pathologies. We have a case of respectable and focused high achievers with intense irrational attachments to a state engaged in crimes against humanity. An attachment voluntarily given and with full access to the knowledge and information pertaining to the deadly consequences of the Jewish state’s acts. Actions sanctioned at the highest level of the Israeli state and approved by the most prominent members of the mainline Jewish organizations.
Some liberal Jewish critics of Israel take offense at gentile and anti-zionist Jewish critics, accusing them of “picking on Israel”. This is a deliberate evasion, knowing full well that many of these same critics denounce criminal acts around the world. But there are reasons why Israel warrants special attention. It is the only state to offer nuclear weapons to a racist regime to destroy a liberation movement, nay an entire people. Israel is the only country which has blockaded an entire people 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, having bombed and destroyed their sources of water, food and habitation. Israel is the only country which butchers dozens of pacifists in international waters. More to the point, today Israel along with its Zionized supporters in the US government are the only two regimes which openly threaten to launch a nuclear war of mass destruction against 72 millions Iranians.
Given what we know about Israel’s nuclear complicity with South Africa this is not idle speculation. The precedent of collaborating with South Africa in the proposed nuking of millions of Africans, with absolutely no moral compunctions, makes Israel the major nuclear threat in the Middle East today.
Raising the issue of Israel’s sale of nukes to South Africa is not merely a historical incident of academic interest. Some liberal Zionists might say “after all Israel didn’t actually supply the nuclear missiles and the South Africans didn’t nuke the blacks” … More to the point, the same Israeli and American Zionist mindset that threatens to use nuclear weapons against Iran, especially evident in the rantings of Secretary of State Clinton, exhibits the same propensity to sell nuclear weapons as a means to resolve conflicts in the past. Worse still Israel and its American Zionist followers have instilled the same moral indifference to genocide among vast sectors of their captive mass media audience and their colonized American Congressional and White House leaders. One has only to glance at the news reports of how Clinton dismissed the Turkey-Brazil-Iran diplomatic resolution of the enriched uranium exchange.10 Clinton insists on proceeding with sanctions because her paymasters, led by ultra-Israel Firsters like Haim Saban, demand that Iran must be brought to its knees at best and nuked if necessary.11 Clinton knows that new sanctions will destroy the negotiated compromise, even if it is on the same terms proposed by the US several months earlier. A compromise which Israel never accepted and now insists, through each and every major Jewish Organization that the United States should sabotage via new harsh sanctions.
Despite Clinton’s claim of a “consensus” on new sanctions, Russia, China, India , the league of Arab States and even France have publicly praised the Iran-Turkish-Brazil diplomatic agreement.12 Only the British toadies themselves infested by Zionist parliamentarians at fundraisers toed the Clinton-Obama line. The question is whether the US Zionist power configuration, headed by Rahm Emmanuel and Hilary Clinton, will secure the sanctions over and above the wishes of governments representing two-thirds of mankind.
The policy of nuclear genocide by proxy, proposed by Israel toward Iran, is executed by its bimodal high achieving fifth columnists operating from the top positions in the State Department, National Security Council, Congress and above all in the White House. Let us remember and never forget that Israel’s willingness to supply nukes to South Africa has immense relevance to their efforts urging our own servile public officials to become perpetrators of nuclear genocide against 70 plus million Iranians. With racist South Africa, Israel was helping a racist ally and making a profit. With Iran it is destroying an adversary of colonial oppression. Today May 31,2010 American Zionists defend the Israeli assassination squad which machine gunned 600 pacifists, humanitarians, Nobel Prize winners, murdering 20 and wounding dozensin international waters. In both cases, Israel’s nuclear policy and its slaughter on the high seas, and their defense by American zionists are acts of moral depravity. The sooner the Middle East – namely Israel – is denuclearized, and demilitarized and the USA dezionized the safer the world will be.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles.
Obama Regime Blocks Condemnation of Israeli Crimes at UNSC Meeting
In defiance of international law the United States refuses to condemn Israel’s murder of peace activists in international waters.
Hamsayeh.Net – June 01, 2010
An emergency meeting of United Nation Security Council ended with United States once again blocking international efforts to condemn an Israeli attack on the peace flotilla on Monday morning.
A strong formal statement by Turkey demanding condemnation of Israel, a U.N. investigation, prosecution of those responsible for murder of peace activists, payment of compensation to the victims and an end to the Gaza blockade was vetoed by the US.
The Obama administration which according to some observers is under Zionist control tried to whitewash Israel’s crime on Monday. Many large corporations, media and financial centers in the United States function directly under a large network of Zionist elitites, which in turn handpick the North American country’s so-called democratically elected president every four years.
Following Monday’s attacks many countries condemned Israel’s crime against the international community. In Caracas Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Israel’s action ‘an act of war’ on innocent civilians carrying relief supplies to Gaza Strip. ‘Venezuela will continue to denounce the terrorist and criminal nature of Israel’s government, even as it reiterates, today more than ever, its unbreakable commitment to the fight of the Palestinian people for freedom, national sovereignty, and dignity,’ Chavez said in a statement on Monday.
Likewise, Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla as a gross breach of international law. ‘Russia’s Foreign Ministry expresses ‘condemnation and profound concern’ over the incident,’ read a statement. Russian Foreign Ministry demanded an immediate end to illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza Strip.
The Sudden Koehler Resignation
By Doug E. Steil | Aletho News | June 1, 2010
Yesterday’s surprise resignation, effective immediately, by the German President, who maintained a ceremonial office, is highly peculiar in light of its timing.
An article by the news agency Reuters, referred to controversial comments made by Koehler, prompting criticism, which he then claimed was not sufficiently respectful of his office:
Koehler, in office since 2004, said in a radio interview on his return from a trip to Afghanistan this month that German military action abroad also served economic interests.
A country like Germany with a heavy reliance on foreign trade, Koehler said, must know that “in emergencies military intervention is necessary to uphold our interests, like for example free trade routes, for example to prevent regional instabilities which could have a negative impact on our chances in terms of trade, jobs and income.”
This attitude was regarded as imperialistic and not consistent with the German Basic Law. However, an alternative and more reasonable interpretation of these comments, given German consistency in international diplomacy and lessons learned from history prior to the Second World War might be along the following lines:
Since Germany is so strongly dependent on exporting manufactured goods to maintain its income, a media smear campaign or boycott effort, which the Anglo-American axis would readily instigate against it, if its leaders did not do as they are told, would have adverse consequences. Since the Anglo-American axis has ordered Germany to maintain a stronger military presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere in support of a doomed and senseless effort, we really have no choice but to play along with this highly unpopular policy rather than risk the alternative.
In other words, Koehler was likely sending a coded signal, that the usual suspects were once again blackmailing Germany. These suspects are of course the same policy movers, who insist:
(a) on maintaining a continued military presence of US troops and air bases on German soil;
(b) on Germany’s large gold reserves remaining under strict custody in Manhattan (what good is gold if it isn’t also in your physical possession?);
(c) on Germany making yet additional reparations payments under the perennial war guilt trip;
(d) on Israel getting even more state-of-the-art submarines at giveaway terms;
(e) on Chancellor Merkel obsequiously groveling before the U.S. Congress and its masters to make a public display of who is really in control.
To make up for this indiscretion, opaque and codified though it apparently was, the usual suspects presumably forced Koehler to suffer the consequences, even though the public criticism did not go into this alternative interpretation anyway, which would be strictly taboo. Doing them a great big favor, Koehler, who had just recently been re-elected to a second term in office by the German parliament, pointedly timed his unusual resignation announcement, which of course nobody had anticipated, in a manner that could not have been coincidental.
Koehler’s announcement came after the news, that the Israeli terror attack on a humanitarian ship in international waters just a few hours earlier was already causing a massive public outrage in Turkey, where the incident had been broadcast live, and would surely cause outrage among the public elsewhere, including in Germany. Something very drastic would be necessary, to divert media attention away from the Israeli attack, which was destined to become another self-inflicted public relations disaster. Koehler obliged, and we will surely soon see that he will be rewarded accordingly in his next job.
In the meantime, since German law stipulates the formal selection into office of a new president within thirty days, this sudden predicament will surely distract German politicians and the media for the next few weeks, which of course must have been the intent of this maneuver.
The Enemies of Humanity Expose Themselves Again
By Doug Steil | Aletho News | June 1, 2010
The recent storming by Israeli state terrorists of a Turkish humanitarian aid ship Mavi Marmara in international waters, killing of at least 15 people during the illegal seizure, and subsequent kidnapping of nearly seven hundred passengers, is yet another of numerous Israeli operations that have highlighted the essence of Zionism and its utter disregard for humanity.
The massacre of Turks and Arabs defending themselves from an unwarranted attack aboard the humanitarian aid ship was the consequence of a seriously botched operation that has certainly achieved the opposite of its intent. It demonstrates both the arrogance and sloppiness of those master terrorists who planned it, since it derived from various miscalculations. Not only were many of the passengers aboard the main ship awake and vigilant, even though it was during the wee hours of the morning and the ship was roughly 150 km offshore in international waters, but the military operation, using helicopters, was indeed being simultaneously broadcast by journalists to Turkish and Arabic television viewers through a live satellite feed (satellite phone service had reportedly been jammed). Within hours, millions of other people around the world could watch the recorded videos directly on their laptops, of the killers dropping from the Israeli helicopter.
The evidence that the operational planners did not anticipate that the Turkish ship was equipped with a direct satellite link to broadcast the attack for all to see derives from the basic fact, that perpetrators do not relish their crimes broadcast in real time, coupled with the fact that the live broadcast came through. Apparently, there were no applicable jamming attempts, nor were the Israeli operatives monitoring the Turkish television media to get a clue that their terror event was being broadcast live on air. The natural consequence was emotional outrage and almost immediate mass demonstrations in Turkey followed later in other major cities such as Athens, Paris, and London, where many people are surely also aware, at some level, that the current economic crisis affecting them is a consequence of blatant misdeeds by eight prominent and powerful Zionist Jews in America (Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geithner, Maurice Greenberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Richard Fuld). That is to say, public outrage is accumulating amidst a discernible pattern of the usual suspects displaying contemptible hubris toward the general population.
Video cameras, held by reporters or amateurs, installed at hotels and airports, or inside mobile phones, tend to be ubiquitous nowadays. Earlier this year, during the course of a Mossad assassination operation at a luxury hotel in Dubai, images of the Israeli perpetrators were eventually broadcast around the world, though not in real time. The planners of this operation must have assumed in that case, that their victims were simply too stupid to discover, much less reconstruct the phases of, their conspiratorial plot. Similarly, the planners of the Israeli military operation of destruction in southern Lebanon must have assumed that Hezbollah was too disorganized and unsophisticated to have deployed fiber optic cables for their communications network, not subject to eavesdropping or jamming measures. This miscalculation ultimately gave the Hezbollah defenders the tactical edge on the battlefield that forced an Israeli retreat.
Whereas more than twenty years ago it was still possible for Israeli operatives to stage a false-flag event, such as the bombing of the PanAm jumbo jet over Scotland, without the public in the western world catching on, today, thanks to modern technologies and the Internet, many millions of people are no longer fooled by the insidious Jewish propaganda machine.
By now it is widely understood by millions of well-informed people throughout the world, that the attack on the World Trade Center by aircraft and the controlled implosion of three of the buildings using nano-thermite explosives was part of an elaborate Israeli operation. (The attack on lower Manhattan was thoroughly a Zionist operation, masterminded from Israel, with highly placed Jews in the media, among other places, actively participating in the subsequent cover-up.)
The masterminds of that spectacular operation certainly could not anticipate, more than a decade ago, the widespread availability of broadband Internet service in conjunction with the phenomenon of video file sharing and online blogging, along with the intelligence of thousands of people capable of analyzing slow motion video images and making logical inferences, shared with millions of others. Notwithstanding pervasive control over traditional motion picture, print, and broadcast media in America and elsewhere by Zionist Jews, who cultivate a strong emotional affinity to Israel, the facts, such as they are, can no longer be contained, due to modern technology, particularly the Internet.
A common thread in these instances of Israeli terror operations, cited above, including their inherent miscalculations, is the Talmudic based sense of Jewish supremacy, coupled with utter contempt for non-Jews. This sociopathic attitude is once again evident by the official public relation attempts to blame the victims for the crimes of the perpetrators. This is often accompanied by oblique innuendo invoking the conventional but increasingly discredited Holocaust narrative. Such behavior, of constant, habitual lying and bullying, insults the intelligence and dignity of millions of people, but appears to be a perpetual phenomenon throughout Jewish cultural history.
Zionism and support for Israel is merely the most expedient mechanism for attempting to attain the utopian goal of Jewish supremacy and domination, truly a lunatic fantasy, entertained by the enemies of humanity. To the extent that ordinary Jews not directly affiliated with the odious Zionist power nexus nonetheless express their support for Israel or provide apologies for its criminal actions in light of the continually emerging evidence, by extension or through their tacit complicity, they too risk becoming widely regarded as enemies of humanity by an informed and outraged population.
Let’s Follow the Brits’ Lead in Restoring Civil Liberties
By Michael Tennant | 28 May 2010
Here in the United States, liberal Democrats claim to be defenders of civil liberties, yet since taking power in January 2009 they have done little to restore lost liberties and much to encroach further upon them.
In just the past couple of weeks, for example, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has voted to pay state governments to collect the DNA of Americans arrested for, but not necessarily guilty of, crimes and to store that information in a centralized FBI database; and the Democrat-controlled Senate has voted to allow the federal government to collect detailed data on Americans’ every financial transaction.
Over in Great Britain, however, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Nick Clegg, not only campaigned on restoring Britons’ civil liberties but is actually making good on those promises just two weeks after assuming the office of Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government with the Conservative Party. The government’s first initiative under Clegg and Prime Minister David Cameron is a bill to repeal a national ID card and database, reports the U.K. Guardian. (This was not a hard sell to Cameron, who is also opposed to national ID cards.)
Just as 9/11 was used as an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties here in the former British colonies, so it was in the mother country. The Guardian writes that “compulsory identity cards … were first floated by the then-home secretary David Blunkett in the aftermath of 9/11.” After numerous attempts to pass legislation enacting a national ID card, it finally passed in 2006. Then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised in 2009 that the cards would not be compulsory, though that was only true, as the Guardian reported, if one did not “want to leave the country or legally drive a car” since obtaining a passport or driver’s license would automatically register a person in the national database.
Approximately 15,000 people have obtained national ID cards in the past four years; under the new legislation those cards will also be invalidated. “The role of the identity commissioner, created in an effort to prevent data blunders and leaks, will be abolished,” says the Guardian. The government expects to save one billion pounds between this legislation and other legislation “to cancel the next generation of biometric fingerprint passports,” the Guardian reports.
According to the Guardian, Clegg’s comment on the upcoming legislation was: “The wasteful, bureaucratic and intrusive ID card system represents everything that has been wrong with government in recent years.” This is in keeping with his campaign rhetoric, as in this Associated Press report: “‘This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens,’ Clegg said during a speech in north London. ‘It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop.’” Among the civil-liberties violations Clegg promised to end or restrict were, in addition to the national ID card and database, the use of closed-circuit TV cameras to monitor citizens’ activities and a national DNA database. The AP points out that British police “currently have the power to take DNA or fingerprints from anyone at the point of arrest, and can hold the information of those found innocent for years.” Sound familiar?
The British government, having heard from its fed-up citizens that it was intruding on their privacy, is actually taking steps to rein in the worst of its abuses. Meanwhile, in the alleged land of the free, our government is headed in the opposite direction. The House wants to expand the national DNA database to include innocent people’s biometric data. U.S. cities are installing TV cameras at an ever-increasing pace; the AP noted, for instance, that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg visited London in an effort to learn how the British government spies on its citizens with cameras so that he could do likewise in the Big Apple. The REAL ID Act, which would create a de facto national ID card, although officially opposed by at least half the states, is still scheduled to go into effect next year despite then-Senator Barack Obama’s “flatly opposing” it in his response to a CNET questionnaire of 2008 presidential candidates. It’s time our government heard from its fed-up citizens and started cutting back on its violations of our privacy, too. Let’s not keep our opinions on the subject private.