And, as Mousavian also noted, these talks also offer a chance for the US and Iran “to begin a serious dialogue to resolve more than three decades of hostilities, mistrust, and tension”.

But, many are voicing pessimism.

The U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K. — the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, who also happen to be, by the terms of the NPT Treaty, the world’s only legitimate nuclear powers — plus Germany, are all to meet this weekend with Iranian negotiators to discuss their high level of concern about Iranian nuclear intentions. The last P5+1 meeting with Iran was also in Istanbul, in January 2011.

Since then, there has been a constant stream of speculation about whether or not Israel will launch a military strike on Iran to stop any possible progress towards a nuclear weapon.

But, in the past week, a high ranking Israeli military official and a noted Iranian member of Parliament have both said that Iran already does have the capability, or the ability, to put together a nuclear warhead.

Cyrus Safdari has written a post on April 9 entitled “Why Iran nuclear talks will fail…again” on his Iran Affairs blog, here, that “There is a pattern here that just can’t be ignored, of the US deliberately raising the bar, moving goalposts, and imposing demandst that it knows will be rejected by Iran. The point, you see, is not to actually engage Iran in any sort of substantive dialog, but to give the US an opportunity to say ‘Hey we tried diplomacy and the Iranians ruined it’. So, as usuall, we have the US imposing demands on Iran even before any negotiations start, with no prospect that the US can ever provide anything in return as a quid-pro-quo. In fact, as I had explained before, the Obama administration is simply not ABLE to give anything back to Iran since US sanctions are imposed mainly by Congress, and Congress isn’t about to lift any sanctions in return for Iranian agreements to give up any part of their nuclear program. So, there will be some dickering in the media as usual but eventually the negotiations will fail and the US/Israeli will naturally blame Iran…So don’t hold your breath, these talks will also ‘fail’. The entire nuclear issue is, after all, just a pretext”.

In his previous post, here, Safdari wrote even if Iran were to agree to, say, a suspension or freeze [or even to a complete capitulation], “any move by Iran which actually reaches a compromise deal with the US as being merely a ‘tactical and temporary’ delay in Iran’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons. This is what the hawks will call any deal that is reached with Iran, if one is ever reached: a plot by the Iranians to ‘sow dissension’ in those opposed to them, so as to ‘buy time’ to make bombs”.

Trita Parsi, in a piece in the Huffington Post that Cyrus Safdari has criticized in his latest [April 9] post, wrote that “there are some indications that the next round of talks may differ little from previous failed discussions. Driven by limited political maneuverability at home, domestic pressure not to compromise, and a perception of strength that lures the parties to believe they can force on the other a fait accompli, the talks have often been about imposing terms of capitulation on the other. It has never succeeded”.

Parsi, who serves as President of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, noted that “What remains unclear, however, is what Obama is willing to put on the table. Thus far, White House officials have only indicated that Iran would be given fuel pads to produce medical isotopes and a promise not to impose new UN sanctions on Tehran … There is a risk that Obama’s silence on the incentives side is motivated by the logic of the phased approach, that is, demands will be made throughout the talks but real incentives will only be offered in the final phase. But there is also a chance that the silence is a calculated move. While demands can be leaked to the US media, incentives will only be presented at the negotiating table once a diplomatic process has been put in place.  So far, both sides have shown a greater willingness to take a risk for escalation than a risk for peacemaking”.

The “phased approach”, as Parsi described it, is only about sanctions — international and bilateral.

There is currently no horizon for rolling back the sanctions already imposed on Iran — though Mousavian certainly advocates that possibility, for talks to succeed.  Instead, now, there is only the perspective of more and more “deeply-biting” sanctions coming into play, as soon as June if not earlier.

What is apparently at issue, in these upcoming talks, is  the matter of Iran’s project to enrich uranium up to a level of 20% — which is the quality of enrichment necessary for the Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes for uses such as cancer treatment.

The U.S. wants Iran to stop, immediately, and to close the Ferdow plant built deep underground near the city of Qom where this enrichment is taking place [which Obama brought to world public attention in his speech at the UNGA in September 2010], and then to send out of the country its entire stock of 20% enriched uranium — to be replaced by imported 20% enriched uranium.

Mousavian is one of those who have also advocated that Iran stop its 20% uranium enrichment: “it should stop producing 20 percent enriched uranium, which can be processed into weapons-grade fuel relatively easily. Simultaneously, the P5+1 should provide fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, and the United States and EU should suspend sanctions on Iran’s oil and central bank”. Mousavian made this recommendation in his 31 March opinion piece published in the Boston Globe, here.

Indeed, Iran has just signalled that it will consider stopping this 20% enrichment — but only when it has domestically produced the quantity “needed” [for what, is not clear, but the implication is for the medical purposes Iran has described].

The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization has ruled out, however, shipping abroad any stockpile of Iran’s domestically-produced 20% enriched uranium.

Iran, which has been under bilateral and then broader Western sanctions since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, has said it simply cannot trust in any external source to provide on a continuous and long-term basis the enriched uranium it needs — because of the sanctions and more sanctions to which it has been subjected.

What is so important about stopping Iran’s 20% uranium enrichment effort?

As Parsi wrote, “This package is a non-starter to most observers – including to other P5+1 diplomats. The problem is not necessarily the demands, but the imbalance between what is demanded and what is offered. If Iran would agree to this, the US’s current conviction that Iran cannot dash for a bomb without getting caught would persist. Iran would need about a year to build a bomb, but would get caught within 30-60 days if it tried to build one, thanks to the current level of inspections. Iran’s activities at Fordo [Ferdow] and its growing stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, however, reduces Iran’s dash-out time and it could make it more difficult for the inspectors to catch any Iranian foul play”…

Iran has not yet moved to the 90%+ level of enrichment necessary to build a nuclear weapon — but once Iran has mastered 20% uranium enrichment, it is only a matter of months to advance further.

Iran has a large stockpile of Low-Enriched Uranium, or LEU, needed to operate nuclear reactors used to generate power for civilian use [5,5 tons, as Israeli Maj-Gen (res) Amos Gilad said at a briefing in Jerusalem last week].  What is new about the upcoming talks is that this stockpile of LEU is not being treated as a very big deal — for the moment.

There is also relatively little talk, in advance of this weekend’s talks, about “regime change”, as both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and U.S. President Barack Obama face voters in the coming months.

But, the UN Security Council has already called for a total freeze in Iran’s enrichment program, and has voted for three-plus rounds of sanctions until Iran halts all its enrichment.

And, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has just said that “We, naturally, insist on Iran’s full compliance with the UN Security Council, aimed at ruling out any possibility of Tehran’s program being used for military activity”.  This statment is reported here.

The UN Report states that all nine appeared to have been unarmed.

The UN report, which the NYTimes posted on its website today here, says that “The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did”.

It also says that “The incident and its outcomes were not intended by either Turkey or Israel … But more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions”.

Gaza was allocated a maritime space for fishing and economic activities by agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], and a map defining this space as extending 20 nautical miles straight out into the Mediterranean is attached to 1994 and 1995 agreements signed under the Oslo process. The map is signed by Israel’s late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and by the PLO’s late leader Yasser Arafat — and it is also signed by the U.S. Secretary of State and by the Russian Foreign Minister, as well as a high-ranking member of the Egyptian military. And, plans for the construction of a deep sea port in Gaza were pointedly endorsed in a November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access brokered by U.S. then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

But, despite the Israeli “disengagement” of its settlers and the military forces protecting them in September 2005, Israel has not loosened its military control over Gaza’s external boundaries, particularly Gazan air and sea space.

Israel tightened its imposition of sanctions after the surprise Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, and the capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit from Kerem Shalom in late June 2006. then the Hamas rout of Fatah-led Palestinian Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007. In September 2007, the Israeli Government declared Gaza an enemy entity, or hostile territory, and the Israeli military was given the task of devising a regime that would allow into Gaza only the bare minimum of humanitarian necessities –and it went into effect in late October 2007.

Throughout, there has been sporadic but indiscriminate firing by various militant groups from Gaza of mortars, rockets, and other projectiles onto surrounding Israeli territory. Over the years, there have been thousands of these projectile attacks on Israel, which Palestinians have explained as natural responses to Israeli strikes on Gaza, but which the UN as well as human rights bodies have denounced as war crimes. Though Hamas has not claimed responsibility for several years, and has many times acted to try to control these attacks, Israel maintains that Hamas is now running Gaza, and is the ultimate “address”.

The Free Gaza movement launched its first expedition by sea to Gaza in August 2008, with the aim of “breaking the siege”.

Israel explained that it decided to allow the ship to pass, in order to deny the activists on board a “propaganda victory”. But, several expeditions later, by December 2008, Israel threatened and indeed did use force, once badly damaging a vessel by ramming, in order to block passage.

Then, on the night of 3-4 January 2009, halfway through the Israeli military’s Operation Cast Lead — a massive three-week assault of overwhelming force on targets said to be related to Hamas — Israel declared its formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The UN report states that “The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability…In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States”.

Specifically, the UN panel said it reviewed “statements from 93 individuals that were appended to the Turkish report, and excerpts of statements by IDF personnel engaged in the incident that were included in the Israeli report. In this regard, we stress again that the Panel is not a court. We have not personally heard the witnesses whose statements we have read. Nor are we able to make definite findings on each statement’s reliability and credibility. They are more plausible on some aspects than others. But in certain areas, when viewed as a whole, we regard them as useful material for the purposes of the Inquiry”.

The Panel said that it could not “make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view”.

On Israel’s formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million people are virtually sealed inside a small strip of land from which Israel unilaterally “disengaged” in September 2005, and on which Israel maintains a tight military control, the UN report says:

“The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…[However]…Bearing in mind its consequences and the fundamental importance of the freedom of navigation on the high seas, Israel should keep the naval blockade under regular review, in order to assess whether it continues to be necessary…”
“All States should act with prudence and caution in relation to the imposition and enforcement of a naval blockade. The established norms of customary international law must be respected and complied with by all relevant parties…”
“The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter…”
“States maintaining a naval blockade must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance…”
“States enforcing a naval blockade against non-military vessels, especially where large numbers of civilian passengers are involved, should be cautious in the use of force. Efforts should first be made to stop the vessels by non-violent means. In particular, they should not use force except when absolutely necessary and then should only use the minimum level of force necessary to achieve the lawful objective of maintaining the blockade. They must provide clear and express warnings so that the vessels are aware if force is to be used against them…”

But, Sari Bashi, the Director of the Israeli human rights organization GISHA, which led a group of ten Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations in an unsuccessful effort to get Israel’s Supreme Court to stop the collective punishment involved in the Israeli military-imposed sanctions against the Gaza Strip, issued a statement this evening saying: “In a failed attempt to achieve political compromise, the Palmer Report squandered an opportunity to evaluate the overall Gaza closure policy, still in place today. Stopping ships to Gaza for reasons of security is legal – the civilian closure of Gaza is not”.

Bashi said that “Gisha shares the position of the Palmer Commission that international law allows Israel to stop ships on their way to Gaza for the purposes of security. Nonetheless, Gisha recalls that, in parallel, the law requires Israel to allow freedom of movement for people and civilian goods to and from the Strip, subject only to individual security inspections. The Palmer Commission did not review Israel’s overall closure of the Gaza Strip, still in place today. For it to conform to the principles of international law, Israel must remove the sweeping restrictions on export of goods, movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank and entrance of construction materials”.

In a separate fact sheet on the UN Report, posted here, GISHA argues that in its view the formal Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is not lawful: “In our opinion, the legality of the maritime closure must be considered in the context of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip, which is also enforced by air and land. In this context, Israel has failed to meet its legal obligations. It is a fundamental principle of international law that with control comes responsibility; this in order to avoid a situation where no side takes responsibility for the protection of civilians during wartime or in situations of occupation. Accordingly, the substantial control Israel exercises over the crossings into the Gaza Strip imposes an equally substantial responsibility to permit the movement of people and goods at the level required in order to maintain the proper functioning of the economy, the health and education systems, and other aspects of civilian life. Israel is permitted to prevent the passage of merchandise or people only if there is a concrete security reason for doing so, and even then it must strike a balance between its security needs and its obligation to maintain normal life in the occupied territory. By preventing the passage of civilians and goods of a civilian nature to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel has paralyzed the economy of the area and caused substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, it has violated its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful”.

The UN report makes several points of specific and pointed criticism about the use of force, and resistance, during the Israeli naval interception — which, the report notes, took place 72 nautical miles off the coast, well outside of Israeli territorial waters [or Gaza's maritime space]:

“Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable … Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance…[and]…The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent…”
“Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded…”
“The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel…”
“There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance…”

Paul Woodward wrote, on his War in Context blog, a post entitled “How Israel got away with Murder on the Mavi Marmara”, in which he noted: “But just a minute. The panel — even if it’s conclusion amounted to saying, can’t you all just learn to get along — did actually note that Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which nine men were killed. And had those deaths not occurred, there would have been no inquiry. Let’s repeat that … Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which each of these deaths occurred”.

Woodward cites the UN report itself which says that “No evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons. Video footage shows one passenger holding only an open fire hose being killed by a single shot to the head or throat fired from a speedboat”.  This is posted here.

Back to the UN report — on the Freedom Flotilla, which was organized by a loose alliance of European and American advocates of Palestinian rights joined, for the first time by the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH [which Israelis have called "terrorist"] and a Malaysian NGO/charity, the report states:

“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation”.
“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority…”
“Humanitarian missions must act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity and respect any security measures in place. Humanitarian vessels should allow inspection and stop or change course when requested…”

Then, the UN report says that “An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences” and “Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them”.

According to an article published in the New York times this afternoon, here, “The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman”.

But, at a briefing for journalists today at the Mishkenot Shaananim center in Jerusalem, organized at rather short notice. former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Haloutz said: “Yes, we are sorry people were killed during the operation, very sorry”. Haloutz added: “I believe there were some innocent ones among those nine, but…that mission was not so innocent”.

Is that an official apology?

Haloutz was IDF Chief of Staff from 2005-2007, and was previously commander of the Israeli Air Force, and he said today that he made many trips to Turkey in his professional capacity. But, Haloutz is now retired from active military service, having been severely criticized for Israel’s military performance during the Second Lebanon War — and dabbled in business before joining, just eight months ago, the opposition Kadima party led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni [who ran a hard-fought campaign against the current Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in the last Israeli general elections in February 2009, and she continues to be very critical of Netanyahu's conduct of office].

Haloutz’s profile is perfect for making an unofficial [yet somehow official] apology.

The timing and purpose of the press briefing would otherwise seem…vague. And, he appeared at the press briefing in the company of a professional Public Relations man.

Haloutz told the journalists at the press briefing that the “The word apology is too strong…because Israel was doing a legal action to prevent [a violation] of the siege we imposed”.  And,  Haloutz added: “Our soldiers were under a live threat”.

Yes, it looks like Haloutz had already been briefed about what was in the UN report, and yes, it sure looks like a finessed Israeli apology.

After his meeting with journalists, Haloutz smoked a quick cigarette in the sunshine outside, then turned and quickly bounded up three flights of stone stairs, taking the whole rise two steps at a time. The PR man, also in as good [military-grade] shape, followed one step behind.

UNSC resolution 1970 was adopted unanimously. It also freezes assets of Colonel Muammar Qaddhafi and his children, and imposes a travel ban on approximately 22 Libyans connected to Qaddhafi.

The full implications of this decision will only become clear through time…

Agence France Press reported Sunday that “Libyan protest leaders established a transitional ‘national council’ on Sunday in cities seized from Moamer Kadhafi, as world leaders called on him to quit and protesters closed in on Tripoli. ‘The creation of a national council has been announced in all freed cities of Libya’, Abdel Hafiz Ghoqa told a Benghazi news conference … The council is the ‘face of Libya in the transitional period’, he said, adding that consultations were under way on the new body’s composition and duties”.

Nick Cohen wrote in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian newspaper here, that — until now — almost nothing in the Middle East was news if it didn’t involve Israel: “For both sides, the lives of hundreds of millions of Arabs, Berbers and Kurds who were not involved in the conflict could be forgotten … Far from being a cause of the revolution, antagonism to Israel everywhere served the interests of oppressors … Europe’s amnesia about how tyranny operated in our continent explains why the Libyan revolution is embarrassing a rich collection of dupes and scoundrels who were willing to laugh along with Gaddafi … It was not only BP and other oil companies, but British academics who were happy to accept his largesse. The London School of Economics took £1.5m from Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, money which by definition had to have been stolen from the Libyan people, despite being warned to back away by Professor Fred Halliday, the LSE’s late and much-missed authority on the Middle East, who never flinched from looking dictators in the eye … The thinking behind so many who flattered him was that the only issue in the Middle East worth taking a stand on was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the oppression of Arabs by Arabs was a minor concern. The longevity of the regimes presided over by the Gaddafi, Assad and Mubarak families and the House of Saud ought to be a reason for denouncing them more vigorously, but their apparent permanence added to the feeling that somehow Libyans, Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis want to live under dictatorships. The European Union, which did so much to export democracy and the rule of law to former communist dictatorships of eastern Europe, has played a miserable role in the Middle East. It pours in aid but never demands democratisation or restrictions on police powers in return”…

U.S. President Obama said on Saturday that Qaddhafi must leave power. On Sunday, as she boarded a plane for Geneva to address a regular session of the UN Human Rights Council, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists: “Let me start by saying as strongly as I can that the United States and the American people support the aspirations and rights of the Libyan people. They are clearly sending as strong a message as they are capable of doing that it is time for Qadhafi to go. We think he must go as soon as possible without further bloodshed and violence. We are also very conscious of the actions that have been taken against the Libyan people by the Qadhafi regime … We want him to leave and we want him to end his regime and call off the mercenaries and those troops that remain loyal to him. How he manages that is obviously up to him and to his family. But we have consistently in many conversations over the last week sent messages, and along with partners in the region and beyond have made it clear we expect him to leave. But we’re not involved in any kind of negotiation with him over that”.

Clinted noted that “the Security Council resolution passed unanimously yesterday makes clear there will be accountability for crimes against humanity and war crimes and other atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Libyan people, including a referral to the International Criminal Court. And I want to underscore this unanimous message from the Security Council to those who are around Qadhafi that you will be held accountable for the actions that are being taken and have been taken against your own people. The Security Council resolution yesterday was part of a concerted effort that the United States has been lining up and implementing over the last days, both for unilateral and multilateral action. And we will continue to pursue steps aggressively that we believe will make a difference. Obviously, the Security Council resolution, which was passed in record time and included countries that are often reluctant to empower the international community to take such actions, sends a strong, unmistakable signal. The specifics that go to targeted sanctions and arms embargo and other measures are exactly what we have been looking toward and wanting to achieve in this period. It also opens the door for humanitarian relief, which is going to be essential – the numbers of people fleeing across the borders, particularly into Tunisia and Egypt, where those two countries are facing huge humanitarian demands, plus internally displaced people. There’s also a strong message in the Security Council resolution to countries in the region: You must stop mercenaries, you must stop those who may be going to Libya either at the behest or opportunistically to engage in violence or other criminal acts. And we will be working closely with those neighboring countries to ensure that they do so”…

On her upcoming meetings in Geneva, Ciinton said: “Well, there are a number of reasons why this is turning into a significant meeting. I will be meeting with many of my counterparts from Europe and beyond to discuss ways that we can better coordinate and organize in meeting the expectations laid down by the Security Council, and thinking through how we can respond to the needs of the Libyan people not only in a humanitarian way but in a political and civil response as they try to sort through how they’re going to organize themselves post-Qadhafi”…

Pollak’s jail term is to start on 11 January.

An earlier three-month prison sentence was imposed on Pollak for protesting the construction of The Wall (or “separation barrier”) in the West Bank, was suspended.

Pollak second conviction was for his part in riding a bicycle in a “Critical Mass” protest in Tel Aviv on 31 January 2008 — just two days after the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that it would allow a series of tightening Israeli military-administered sanctions against Gaza, imposed after the Israeli Government issued a declaration on 19 September 2007 [three months after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security in the Gaza Strip] that Gaza was “hostile territory” or an “enemy entity”. A coalition of Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups led by GISHA petitioned the Supreme Court against the imposition of the tightening sanctions. But, the Supreme Court ruled on 28 January 2008 that the military could go ahead with its plan, as long as it did not allow a “humanitarian crisis” to develop. [The concept of "humanitarian crisis" was not defined...]

Today, the Tel Aviv judge imposed a second three-month term and activated the first one, but ruled that Pollak would serve them simultaneously.

Pollak was the only one of thirty activists riding bicycles in the protest that day who was arrested — though his conviction was apparently on the grounds of “illegal assembly”.

A report sent by email said that “During the protest, Pollak was arrested by plain-clothes police who recognized him from previous protests and because, as claimed in court, they assumed he was the organizer and figurehead of the event. The protest was allowed to continue undisturbed after Pollak’s arrest and ended with no further incidents or detentions. The arrest and consequent indictment appears to be the result of police vindictiveness, rather than of Pollak’s behavior at the time of the event; Pollak was but one in a group of protesters who behaved exactly like him, yet he was the only one to be singled out. Moreover, environmental Critical Mass events take place in Tel Aviv on a regular basis, but have never been met with such a response. Other protests, which have caused far more sever obstruction of traffic (e.g. the motorcade protest of thousands of motorcycles) did not result in arrests, and surely did not lead to the filing of criminal charges and imprisonment”.

The email also reported that Attorney Gaby Lasky, Pollak’s lawyer, noted: “The police not only singled out Pollak from a crowd of people who all did exactly as he did, but also singled out the entire protest for no reason other than its political alignment. Similar events regularly take place in Tel Aviv without police intervention, let alone arrests and indictments.”

In a statement made to the court just prior to sentencing passed, Pollak said:

“Your Honor, once found guilty, it is then customary for the accused to ask the court for leniency, and express remorse for having committed the offence. However, I find myself unable to do so. From its very beginning, this trial contained practically no disagreements over the facts. As the indictment states, I indeed rode my bicycle, alongside others, through the streets of Tel Aviv, to protest the siege on Gaza. And indeed, while riding our bicycles, which are legally vehicles belonging on the road, we may have slightly slowed down traffic. The sole and trivial disagreement in this entire case revolves around testimonies heard from police detectives, who claimed I played a leading role throughout the protest bicycle ride, something I, as well as the rest of the Defense witnesses, deny.

As said earlier, it is customary at this point of the proceedings to sound remorseful, and I would indeed like to voice my regrets regarding one particular aspect of that day’s events: if there is remorse in my heart, it is that, just as I argued during the trial, I did not play a prominent role in the protest that day, and thus did not fulfill my duty to do everything within my power to change the unbearable situation of Gaza’s inhabitants, and bring to an end Israel’s control over the Palestinians.

His Honor has stated during the court case, and will most likely state again in the future, that a trial is not a matter of politics, but of law. To this I reply that there is hardly anything to this trial except political disagreement. This Court may have impeded the mounting of an appropriate defense when it refused to hear arguments regarding political selectiveness in the Police’s conduct, but even from the testimonies which were admitted, it became clear such a selectiveness exists.

The subject of my alleged offense, as well as the motivation behind it were political. This is something that cannot be sidestepped. The State of Israel maintains an illegitimate, inhuman and illegal siege on the Gaza Strip, which still is occupied territory according to international law. This siege, carried out in my name and in yours as well, sir, in fact in all of our names, is a cruel collective punishment inflicted on ordinary citizens, residents of the Gaza strip, subjects-without-rights under Israeli occupation.

In the face of this reality, and as a stance against it, we chose on January 31st, 2008, to exercise the freedom of speech afforded to Jewish citizens of Israel. However, it appears that here in our one-of-many-faux-democracies in the Middle East, even this freedom is no longer freely granted, even to society’s privileged sons.

I am not surprised by the Court’s decision to convict me despite having no doubt in my mind that our actions on that day correspond to the most basic, elementary definitions of a person’s right to protest.

Indeed, as the Prosecution pointed out, a suspended prison sentence hung over my head at the time of the bicycle protest, having been convicted before under an identical article of law. And, although I still maintain I did not commit any offense whatsoever, I was aware of the possibility that under Israeli justice, my suspended sentence would be imposed.

I must add that, if His Honor decides to go ahead and impose my suspended prison sentence, I will go to prison wholeheartedly and with my head held high. It will be the justice system itself, I believe, that ought to lower its eyes in the face of the suffering inflicted on Gaza’s inhabitants, just like it lowers its eyes and averts its vision each and every day when faced with the realities of the occupation”.

Pollak, who has been active with Anarchists Against the Wall, is also a member of the Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee. Information about the sentencing, and Pollak’s statement, was sent via email by fellow activist Joseph Dana (Ibn Ezra).

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/israel/israeli-activist-jonathan-pollak-sentenced-to-two-concurrent-three-month-prison-terms-for-protesting-gaza-sanctions-palestinian-occupation/feed 0 http://un-truth.com/israel/eid-mubarak http://un-truth.com/israel/eid-mubarak#comments Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:23:54 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=7106 “Eid Mubarak” (Happy Eid – the three-day post-Ramadan Eid al-Fitr starts today for the world’s Muslims) is trending now on Twitter.

Ricky Martin and Paula Coelo have made multiple Eid Mubarak tweets.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas held Eid prayers early this morning in his headquarters in the Muqata’a in Ramallah.

Hamas has released Fatah prisoners in Gaza, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority has released Hamas-affiliated prisoners in the West Bank. However, Ma’an has just reported that “Hamas leader Nader Sawafta from Tubas was transferred to from a Palestinain Authority prison to Nablus’ Rafidia hospital in Nablus … [And] a Hamas party statement accused PA prison authorities of torturing a senior leader after [emphasis added] he was moved from a government prison to hospital on Thursday”. The Hamas statement added that “Sawafta’s health was deteriorating and [Hamas] held the PA responsible for his life”. This is posted here

Gaza was bombed last night for all those projectiles fired by various groups from the Strip during the month of Ramadan.

And the IDF has said that unspecified special arrangements are in place to assist Muslims to celebrate this important religious and social event, despite a total closure of the West Bank for four-days (until midnight Saturday) for the Jewish New Year holiday.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/israel/eid-mubarak/feed 0 http://un-truth.com/israel/idf-chief-of-staff-ashkenazai-also-takes-responsibility-for-flotilla-fiasco http://un-truth.com/israel/idf-chief-of-staff-ashkenazai-also-takes-responsibility-for-flotilla-fiasco#comments Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:54:57 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=6784 According to a report in Haaretz, the IDF Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi testified Wednesday, at the Turkel Commission investigating the “maritime incident” which occurred when Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and five other ships sailing toward Gaza in a “Freedom Flotilla” on 31 May, that “the raid quickly became ‘chaotic’, and the soldiers had no choice but to ‘continue with the plan’ … From the moment the operation began, it was clear that the circumstances were unprecedented’, he said, adding that as commander he took full responsibility for the troops’ actions”.

Ashkenazi is the third high-ranking Israeli official to take responsibility for the Flotilla fiasco.  Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak also said the responsibility was theirs.

Haaretz also reported that “despite initial reports that military personnel would not testify before the Turkel committee, Ashkenazi has authorized Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit to testify before the panel.  Ashkenazi also approved the questioning of General (Res.) Giora Eiland, who headed the IDF’s internal inquiry into the deadly raid”.  This is reported in Haaretz here.

A Reuters account of Ashkenazi’s testimony reported that “The commission offers a closely-managed forum where Israeli leaders can argue their case. Its summary and that of a military probe are due to be sent to an independent investigation which opened at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday. The operation to stop the ship from reaching the Gaza Strip, under blockade by Israel and Egypt, depended for its success on getting as many commandos on deck as possible in the shortest time, Ashkenazi said. But that did not happen. Accurate, suppressing fire from alongside the ship would have cleared the deck of anyone ready to violently resist the boarding, the general said. This was ‘a lesson we have learned’. The first commandos were armed with paintball guns and holstered sidearms in anticipation of only light resistance. The second soldier down the rope was shot in the stomach, he said. Asked about Turkey’s claim that activists were shot dead from close range, Ashkenazi said much of the fighting happened in close quarters. He told how a soldier shot one Turkish man about to swing an axe at him. Ashkenazi also showed previously unpublished video of the raid which included images of three wounded Israeli commandos dragged to a lower deck and held by activists. Israeli leaders insist Israel was legally within its rights to stop a deliberately provocative bid to break its naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The investigating panel has so far heard mostly pre-scripted statements. Cameras are turned off and reporters excluded for a closed-door question session that follows an initial open session … Israeli media have treated the inquiry with scepticism, focussing predominantly on what they see as buck-passing and finger-pointing in the top ranks of the leadership”. This Reuters report, vla the Jordan Times, can be read in full here.

There is also a report on [Lt. General] Ashkenazi’s testimony on the IDF spokespersons website, which says that “According to the Chief of the General Staff, the military investigations clarified that ‘our main mistake was that we were unable to create the conditions in order to have a maximum of force in a minimum of time. I believed that the 15 persons who were on the upper deck would move aside once we arrived in a helicopter at night and threw stun grenades. We should have used more precise weapons in order to neutralize the danger and create sterile conditions on the ship. We should have put soldiers on the sides of the boat with weapons appropriate for neutralizing those who prevented the soldiers on the helicopter from descending. It would have reduced the danger for our soldiers but it wouldn’t have avoided the confrontation, because they came looking for a confrontation with us’, he added”.  The IDF spokespersons’ summary is posted here.

The IDF spokesperson’s website also reports that “Speaking at a graduation ceremony for the Naval Captain’s Course which was held Wednesday evening (Aug. 11) in the Haifa Naval base … [Ashkenazi] stressed that the Israel Naval Corps will serve as a maritime shield stopping flotillas intending to travel to the Gaza Strip in the coming months. ‘We find ourselves in times where the Mediterranean Sea and its shores are more agitated than usual and we are experiencing de-legitimization attempts by our enemies’, he said … ['Thanks to the Naval Corps] we know that the next flotillas which will attempt to break our borders and the weapons ships which seek to arm terrorist organizations will be stopped by the maritime defensive shield of the State of Israel and its Navy’, Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi said”. This can be viewed in full here.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s testimony earlier in the week [but not the Q+A in closed session] is posted on the Israeli MFA website here.

A critique of Netanyahu’s testimony was published today by the blog of the Israeli human rights organization GISHA, which has led efforts to stop Israel’s military-administered sanctions against the Gaza Strip since they went into effect in October 2007.

GISHA wrote that “Even seasoned pundits could not help but express dismay this week at the televised testimony by senior Israeli officials, beginning with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, before the Turkel Commission charged with investigating the Israeli military’s May 31 interception of ships bound for Gaza. As the Israeli daily Haaretz pointed out in a scathing editorial, Netanyahu readily acknowledged that Israel’s decisions on what to allow or prohibit into Gaza were based not on concern for the welfare of the population in Gaza but rather about Israel’s image in the international media … If the limitations really were, as Netanyahu claimed, necessary ‘to prevent the entry of weapons and war materiel into Gaza’, easing them just in order to improve Israel’s public relations would seem grossly irresponsible. If they weren’t necessary for security – why were they imposed in the first place?”

The GISHA post added that “We also found puzzling Netanyahu’s claim that ‘Israel increased the number of trucks entering Gaza by approximately 30 percent over the five months preceding the flotilla incident’. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the first five months of 2010, Israel actually decreased the volume of trucks permitted into Gaza by 9 percent, relative to 2009 (see the first and last pages of the MFA report, which show that the monthly average of trucks allowed into Gaza in 2009 was 2,576, compared with just 2,329 in the first five months of 2010).   The real change in the volume of trucks permitted into Gaza came only after [emphasis added] the flotilla incident, when Israel was pressed to justify its policy blocking the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza: Last week, Israel allowed Gaza residents to receive 1,126 truckloads of goods, approximately 45 percent of need, as compared to about 25 percent of need prior to the flotilla incident. Export and the movement of people, critical for economic recovery and normal life in Gaza, are still blocked.  Perhaps these restrictions do not constitute a sufficiently heavy ‘diplomatic and public relations burden’?”  This GISHA comment is posted here.

Meanwhile, Turkey has reportedly announced that it will conduct its own inquiry into the Flotilla fiasco, which will “investigate the attack and the treatment the activists faced”. Eight Turkish men and one American high school student of Turkish origin were killed in the Israeli Naval raid on the Mavi Marmara, a large passenger ship leased by the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH and carrying over 600 people on board when it was intercepted by Israeli Navy missile boats at sea in the eastern Mediterranean on 31 May.  Haaretz reported that “Turkey’s commission will include officials from the foreign, justice, interior and transport ministries as well as from the country’s maritime agency … Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday that Israel should admit sole responsibility for the deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara. ‘No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters’, Davutoglu told journalists.  ‘Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so’.” This is reported here.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Turkish Foreign Minister told AFP that “The panel is expected to operate under the prime minister’s office and publicize a written report on the investigation, the foreign ministry said in a statement. The international panel established by the United Nations earlier in August, which is also leading its own investigation into the raid, will be presented with the results of the Turkish commission … The statement did not include a planned date as to when the commission will present its findings. According to press reports, Turkish prosecutors initiated an investigation against top Israeli officials in June, which will potentially lead to the pressing of various charges, such as murder, injury, attacking Turkish citizens while in international waters and piracy”. The JPost report is posted here.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/israel/idf-chief-of-staff-ashkenazai-also-takes-responsibility-for-flotilla-fiasco/feed 0 http://un-truth.com/lebanon/on-withholding-u-s-aid-to-the-lebanese-army-now http://un-truth.com/lebanon/on-withholding-u-s-aid-to-the-lebanese-army-now#comments Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:25:45 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=6768 There is a silly and irritating — and also dangerous — debate going on about cutting off American military aid to the Lebanese Army in the wake of its firefight with IDF forces who insisted on going ahead with “routine maintenance” along the Blue Line separating the two country’s armies, despite advice and strong requests to the contrary.

This “routine maintenance” operation consisted of trimming a tree and/or shrubs in one of the enclaves along the Blue Line — an enclave that Lebanon, at least, says is contested [while Israel claims, bluntly and forcefully, "It's ours", and carries out patrolling and other "routine maintenance" operations to "show the flag" and assert its vision of sovereignty.

One could certainly question whether this "routine maintenance" was absolutely essential, on that day, for security reasons [to give the Israeli military a few more seconds advance notice of any potentially-hostile movement there], when Israel maintains a number of satellites in orbit carrying very high-resolution cameras that monitor all activities in the region in what is said to be very impressive detail. [Not to mention Israel's surveillance of Lebanon -- and other parts of the region -- by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), see below]

On the very day of the firefight (3 August) a journalist asked the U.S. State Department spokesperson whether or not the Lebanese Army had used any of its U.S-provided material to attack the IDF “tree-trimmers”. [The IDF local commander on the spot was identified and killed by a Lebanese Army sniper, becoming the only Israeli casualty, though he was standing more than half a mile or some 80 meters away. Three Lebanese Army soldiers and one Lebanese journalist were killed in the firefight...]

Nobody [at least, not to my knowledge] has asked if the Israeli soliders were using U.S.-provided equipment.

Since then, momentum has gathered in the U.S. Congress to stop aid to the Lebanese Army.

I was struck by an email I received on Monday (9 August), containing a press release, which informed me that the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee put a hold on future assistance to the Lebanese Army on 2 August — the day before the firefight. The email said that “Congressman Howard L. Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released the following statement regarding the hold he placed on future U.S. military assistance to Lebanon on August 2nd, 2010: ‘I have been concerned for sometime about reported Hizballah influence on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and its implications for our military assistance program for Lebanon. For that reason, on August 2, I placed a hold on a $100 million dollar security assistance package to the LAF. The incident on the Israel-Lebanon border only one day after my hold was placed simply reinforces the critical need for the United States to conduct an in-depth policy review of its relationship with the Lebanese military. I strongly condemn the unprovoked attacked by the Lebanese Army that resulted in the death of an Israeli officer. Until we know more about this incident and the nature of Hizballah influence on the LAF — and can assure that the LAF is a responsible actor — I cannot in good conscience allow the United States to continue sending weapons to Lebanon”.

I have seen statements by other congressmen boasting of their actions — on 3 August, after the firefight — to support such a hold.

Today, Juan Cole has argued, on his Informed Comment blog, that “Withholding or blocking US military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces, however, is a short-sighted policy that will harm US interests in the Middle East and will also have negative implications in the medium to long term for Israel. The allegation, which originates in propaganda offices in Israel, that the Lebanese armed forces have somehow been taken over by or infiltrated by Hizbullah is frankly ridiculous. The most powerful officers are Maronite Christians, and President Michel Sulaiman had been chief of staff before becoming president. Hint: Michel is not a Muslim name. Sulaiman proposed building up the armed forces in response to the border misunderstanding, and all the political factions in Lebanon– Christian, Sunni, Shiite and Druze, praised him for it. Again, this initiative is coming from the Christian leadership. Whether Hizbullah really wants the army of the central government strengthened is not clear, but they could hardly protest the shoring up of a national institution (despite being Shiite fundamentalists, Hizbullah has consistently supported a strong, united Lebanon and is among the foremost purely Lebanese nationalist forces in the country). The silly allegation about Hizbullah and the LAF is a smear, and derives from Tel Aviv’s unease with not being able to have its way with Lebanon at will. In particular, Israeli hawks have long coveted the water resources of south Lebanon, and don’t want a strong Lebanese army and state that would put an end to that expansionist dream … In contrast, if the US helps quietly build up the Lebanese armed forces, at some point they will naturally overshadow Hizbullah. It is not desirable that the army be positioned as anti-Hizbullah nor that it take on the militia militarily. But in the medium term, a strong army would just be able better to assert its prerogatives. And it is better if that army is close to NATO powers, not to Iran … Lebanon’s army collapsed in the mid-1970s in the face of the Civil War. In the 1990s after that war was ended by a new national pact brokered at the Saudi resort city of Taef, the army began being rebuilt. It had a rival in the south of the country in the form of the Hizbullah fundamentalist Shiite militia. The LAF was stunted by the Syrian occupation, which ended in 2005. It was a bystander in the 2006 war, though the Israelis killed some officers and struck at a barracks in Beirut and at facilities as far north as Tripoli (none of these Israeli strikes on the LAF had anything to do with Tel Aviv’s war on Hizbullah. There are no Shiites in Tripoli). Since the Likudniks are saying that the Israeli officer who unfortunately died in last week’s border incident was ‘executed’, one would like to know if the 49 Lebanese officers Israel killed in 2006 were also executed … The main role of the LAF is likely to remain internal. If you want al-Qaeda-type organizations like Fath al-Islam proliferating and Hizbullah becoming unchallenged and a general power vacuum that favors forces of disorder and terrorism, then cut off your nose to spite your face and deprive little Lebanon of its $100 million this year for its military”. This is posted here.

UPDATE: Lebanon’s Defense Minister Elias Murr told journalists today that “Whoever sets as a condition that the aid should not be used to protect Lebanon’s land, people and borders from the (Israeli) enemy can keep their money”, according to a report by Agence France Presse, here. The AFP story also reported that “An advisor to Lebanese President Michel Sleiman has also criticised the US decision” — and said that “support for the army was central to upholding Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

See our earlier posts — before this firefight — reporting on the U.S. State Department’s well-publicized but little-analyzed vaunting of America’s determination to maintain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge [QME] in the region. This year, Israel is getting nearly $3 billion dollars in military assistance [but no civilian aid, according to Bank of Israel head Stanley Fischer], plus a contribution to Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense, and a few other odds and ends here and there…

Meanwhile, Haaretz correspondents Avi Issacharoff and Jack Khoury have published an analysis today of some of the more interesting statements made by Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah in a televised speech on Monday night that riveted much of the region. The Haaretz article says that “In his fifth speech in less than three weeks, Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah tried to blame the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri on Israel. Nasrallah said at a Beirut news conference on Monday evening that Israel had masterminded the murder in order to get Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. He said he was prepared to hand over the proof to an independent inquiry … He also showed a picture of an Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle that was ostensibly documenting the surroundings of Hariri’s home in a Beirut suburb and a number of central government institutions in the city. Nasrallah also displayed video clips which he claimed had been filmed by Israeli UAVs that kept an eye on the road leading to Hariri’s brother’s house in Sidon, as well as documentation of Israeli air movements near the Lebanese coast on the day of Hariri’s assassination … Turning to the Israeli naval commando disaster [in 1997], he said that Hezbollah had several times intercepted in real-time pictures broadcast by an UAV to Israel that showed the area of the action. This indicated to the organization that Israel planned to take action there, and therefore Hezbollah set up ambushes there that attacked the commandos. Hezbollah waited for the commandos for several weeks there, he added. This information is not new since it was published in Maariv in 2007 by Amir Rapaport. During the news conference, Nasrallah showed two video clips which he said were connected with the incident. The first was from before the incident – this was supposedly the one from which Hezbollah understood that Israel was planning action there – and the second purportedly showed Israeli fighters boarding a plane on the day of the 1977 naval commando raid. However, there was no documentation of the bombing or the raid itself. Nasrallah added that since then Israel has learned to encrypt UAV broadcasts”… This Haaretz follow-up report can be read in full here.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/lebanon/on-withholding-u-s-aid-to-the-lebanese-army-now/feed 1 http://un-truth.com/israel/more-on-flotilla-fiasco-from-netanyahu-and-from-ehud-barak http://un-truth.com/israel/more-on-flotilla-fiasco-from-netanyahu-and-from-ehud-barak#comments Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:41:55 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=6734 Barak Ravid wrote in Haaretz about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s testimony before Israel’s non-IDF commission of inquiry into the Flotilla fiasco that Netanyahu yesterday called a “maritime incident” that: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed visibly unprepared for his public testimony before the Turkel Committee yesterday – hesitating over key details, evading questions and finally [later] publishing three statements clarifying and even denying what he had said just hours earlier … [The committee is headed by former Supreme Court justice Jacob Turkel.] But while his [Netanyahu's] opening address, in which he enumerated Hamas’ crimes and Israel’s attempts to persuade the Turkish government to stop the flotilla, went smoothly, the subsequent questions – on issues such as the government’s decision-making process, Israel’s intelligence on the flotilla and Netanyahu’s personal responsibility for the incident – showed no evidence of these preparations. He refused to answer six questions entirely, saying he would do so only at a closed hearing.  And he said he didn’t know the answers to many other questions – such as how much humanitarian aid was entering Gaza before the raid.   But the Turkel Committee’s spokesman, Ofer Leffler, said Netanyahu did answer all six questions in his subsequent closed-door testimony, and had promised to respond in writing to those to which he did not know the answers yesterday”.

Ravid wrote that when asked who decided on the raid, “Netanyahu replied that it was the Israel Defense Forces’ decision”…

Ravid’s report on Netanyahu’s testimony continued: “The only orders the government gave the army, he [Netanyahu] said, were ‘to carry out the operation with minimal friction, and as far as possible without harm to life or limb’ … But he admitted that the septet [the seven-minister Security Cabinet] never thoroughly discussed all the ramifications of a military operation; it focused mainly on the diplomatic and public-relations angles … Asked by Turkel whether the government considered nonmilitary options for enforcing the Gaza blockade, Netanyahu said no. “I said the IDF should examine the various options for carrying out the order,” he said … Panel member Miguel Deutsch, a jurist, asked whether the septet heard any assessments on the likelihood of resistance by the Mavi Marmara’s passengers. ‘It arose incidentally, as part of a discussion on the problem of friction, the public-relations problem that could arise’, Netanyahu answered. ‘I left explicit orders that the person responsible for dealing with the flotilla, in all its aspects, was the defense minister [Ehud Barak]‘, Netanyahu [who was in Canada at the time of the Israeli naval raid on the Flotilla] replied … Netanyahu told the panel that information about the flotilla and its organizers, the Turkish group IHH, first reached Israel in April. ‘ The goal of the flotilla’s organizers was to foment a well-publicized clash on the high seas with the IDF and generate international pressure to remove the naval blockade’, he said. ‘ That’s the material we had in our hands.  It was in my hands as prime minister, it was in the hands of the defense minister, the foreign minister and the ministers of the septet, and of course it was in the hands of all the professional agencies involved in enforcing the blockade – the IDF and the other security agencies’.  He added that ‘all the ministers of the septet, without exception, expressed the view that despite the expected public-relations damage, the blockade policy must be enforced, because of the matter’s importance to Israel’s security’.”   This account of Netanyahu’s testimony can be read in full here.

After the public testimony, Netanyahu reportedly stayed for another hour of discussion behind closed doors yesterday.

Ravid then wrote in Haaretz about Israeli Defense Minister [and former Prime Minister] Ehud Barak’s testimony today before the Turkel commission, saying that “Unlike Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu, who in his testimony the day before dodged tricky questions by skimping on detail, Barak bombarded the panel with names, dates and facts before launching an evasive maneuver in the form of a pompous oration on the dangers of global terror and a nuclear Iran, helpfully informing the committee that Israel was not North America, or indeed Western Europe. Barak’s testimony showed him far better prepared than Netanyahu. While the prime minister came poorly equipped with the information he need to answer the panel, Barak was armed top the teeth with minute details on every question raised during every cabinet discussion before the raid, and every similar operation preceding it. The defense minister presented Turkel with a briefing so comprehensive that for an hour and a half – an hour longer than Netanyahu’s testimony – the panel could only grimace their frustration as they failed to get a word in edgeways. Eventually, one panel member, Reuven Merhav, managed to force a halt to the tirade. ‘We only got the defense ministry materials yesterday’, he said. ‘You’re talking fast and swamping us with details. I’d like to move on to questions’. Barak responded with a request for another 20 minutes to complete his overview before being cross-examined”.  Ravid’s account of Barak’s testimony can be read in full here.

Ravid reported that he detected signs that Netanyahu had tried to soothe friction with his Defense Minister that arose as a result of the testimony.

The Jerusalem Post reported today that “Barak said as he entered the panel session to testify that he ‘bears all responsibility for what happens in the IDF and full responsibility for military instructions that were given during the flotilla raid’. ‘The decision to stop the flotilla was made after a thorough examination of the options available by the prime minister and the Septet’, Barak stressed. The defense minister said ‘concrete intelligence information was presented during a military briefing’. ‘During the military briefing [IDF Chief of General Staff] Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi reiterated his concerns over the conduct of the world media if force was used to stop the flotilla, however, he said that it wont be easy but we will do it’, Barak commented. Barak said that the orders for the flotilla raid were formulated in accordance with all the relevant government offices”. This JPost account is published here.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu commented today that “Israel should take full responsibility for the deaths of the nine Turkish citizens who were killed on the Mavi Marmara, Israel Radio reported. ‘No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters’, Davutoglu was quoted in a Reuters report. ‘Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so’. Davutoglu’s comments came as a response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s testimony before the Turkel Committee, in which he said that Turkey did not make any efforts to stop the Mavi Marmara and should be investigated … ‘Turkey has no responsibility in the attack on the Mavi Marmara flotilla’, Davutoglu told Reuters”. This was published in the JPost here .

A UN investigation launched by UNSG BAN Ki-Moon after a UN Security Council resolution is getting organized.   BAN said that there is no private agreement not to call Israeli soldiers to testify, but he said that there would be no finding of “individual responsibility” either.

A separate inquiry authorized by the UN Human Rights Council held its inaugural meeting in Geneva today.  A UN press release indicated that “The Mission of high-level experts is chaired by Judge K. Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and its members are Sir Desmond de Silva, Queen’s Counsel, who was Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal and Ms. Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, a human rights expert and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women …  The Chairman of the Mission noted that the Mission’s principal task is to conduct an inquiry into legal issues and possible violations of international humanitarian and human rights law … It is its intention to travel to the region in order to interview persons and gather first-hand information as far as possible.  As requested by the Human Rights Council’s resolution, the Mission will present its report at the next session of the Council in September”.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/israel/more-on-flotilla-fiasco-from-netanyahu-and-from-ehud-barak/feed 0 http://un-truth.com/israel/netanyahu-tells-israeli-commission-that-naval-blockade-of-gaza-will-continue http://un-truth.com/israel/netanyahu-tells-israeli-commission-that-naval-blockade-of-gaza-will-continue#comments Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:08:48 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=6723 Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said Monday to Turkel Commission investigating what Netanyahu called the “maritime incident” that occurred when Israeli naval forces boarded the Freedom Flotilla at sea on 31 May that “As part of the effort to prevent the entry of weapons into the Gaza Strip, my government has continued the naval blockade that was imposed by the previous government during ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in January of 2009 as well as continuing the limitations and oversight on the movement of goods at land crossings that was put in place in September 2007 … Our policy, therefore, is intended to maintain the naval blockade which supports the security blockade”.

Netanyahu, who was the first person to testify at the first official session of the Turkel Commission, promised that “During the closed forum [a future event with restricted or no media coverage], I will expand on my statement and explain why none of our diplomatic efforts would have prevented the Marmara’s desire to try to break the blockade”.

The Israeli Prime Minister did note, in today’s statement, that “Given the lack of effective pressure by the Turkish government and the lack of any desire on the part of the flotilla organizers to redirect their ships to alternative ports, none of the diplomatic efforts were effective:
•We tried to prevent the launch of the flotilla at the diplomatic and security levels. We did not succeed.
•We suggested transferring the goods through the Ashdod and El-Arish ports. We did not succeed.
•We held continuous contacts vis-à-vis and with the most senior levels of the Turkish government. We did not succeed” …

Netanyahu pinned this list of Israeli failures on Turkey’s unsuccessful effort [with Brazil] to help work out a deal concerning Iran’s nuclear program: “I must point out that on the 17th of that month [May], the Turkish prime minister met with Iranian president Ahmadinejad and with the Brazilian president to make a joint statement regarding an Iranian nuclear that was opposed by the United States and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. Turkey thereby strengthened its identification and cooperation with Iran just days before the flotilla”.

Netayahu continued, in his statement to the Turkel Commission: “Forces hostile to Israel used the baseless allegation of a humanitarian crisis to try and break the naval blockade. This was and remains the primary motivation of Hamas in its efforts to encourage the various flotillas. From time to time, these things are even said explicitly, as a spokeswoman for the flotilla said on May 27, 2010: ‘Our mission is not to provide humanitarian aid, but rather to break the blockade’ … ”

He justified the January 2009 naval blockade of the Gaza Strip by two highly-publicized interceptions of arms shipments that took place years earlier — both of which were said to have originated in Iran, but one of which was destined for Lebanon: “I would like to explain how dangerous an open sea lane to Gaza is for the security of the State of Israel. On one ship, the Karin A, Iran tried to send dozens of tons of weapons to Gaza. On another ship, the Francop, Iran tried to send Hezbollah hundreds of tons of weapons, approximately two-thirds of the total ammunition fired at Israel during the Second Lebanon War. Due to all these security considerations, my government continued to enforce the naval blockade imposed by the previous government. We did so for the flotilla in question, as well as with the two ships that followed – the Irish ship and the Libyan ship. Before this flotilla, the IDF prepared to enforce the blockade, as it had during previous flotillas. Given the number of ships, their size, the number of passengers on board and their stated intentions, we saw the need to make a special diplomatic effort to try and prevent the flotilla’s arrival to the shores of Gaza – or at the very least to convince its organizers to dock at Ashdod or El-Arish and from there to direct the goods through land crossings after the appropriate security checks”.

Netanyahu outlined a number of diplomatic contacts made to try to prevent the Freedom Flotilla from sailing: “During the month of May, a continual diplomatic effort to this end was made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs vis-a-vis many countries, including countries whose citizens were onboard or whose harbors could be used by the flotilla at any stage of its voyage – including Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Britain, the United Nations, and above all with Turkey. The Minister of Defense even participated in these efforts. Given the importance I attributed to Turkey’s central role in this flotilla, my office worked directly to assist in the diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis Turkey. Beginning on May 14, my office was in contact with the highest echelons of the Turkish government. These contacts, and later on the contacts of our Minister of Defense with the Turkish Foreign Minister whom he has known for many years, were intended to prevent any conflict with the Marmara flotilla. They continued up until the eve of the flotilla’s arrival off the coast of Gaza. I too personally appealed to a senior official in the Egyptian government on May 27 so that he would intervene with the Turkish government. However, as the date of the flotilla’s arrival neared, it became clear that diplomatic efforts would not stop it. In contrast, diplomatic efforts did assist in preventing violent confrontations with the two ships that came after this flotilla – because the Irish government and parties in Libya acted responsibly and helped prevent a confrontation and also because the organizers of those flotillas did not have any intention of confronting our forces – unlike the organizers of the flotilla in question, or more precisely, unlike the IHH activists on the flagship, the Mavi Marmara … Despite our ongoing diplomatic efforts, ultimately the Turkish government did not prevent the Marmara’s attempt to break the naval blockade. All our suggestions to re-route the ship’s cargo to undergo a security inspection in Ashdod and then be transferred to Gaza through the land crossings were in vain. We also did not hear a public message from the Turkish government to cool the heated tempers of the activists onboard. Apparently the Turkish government did not see that a possible incident between Turkish activists and Israel was against their interests, and certainly not something that justified exerting effective pressure of the IHH activists … Regarding the IHH activists, not only did they not prevent a confrontation, they announced their intention to seek one — they announced that they wanted to break the blockade and that ‘the Jews need to go back Auschwitz’. [n.b., Netanyahu seems to have taken this quote from recorded remarks made on a totally open transmission channel -- on which remarks over the radio from any ship at sea in that vicinity could have and apparently were recorded -- during the Israeli naval communication with the Freedom Flotilla in the early morning hours of 31 May. There is absolutely no proof that this remark was made by any crew member or participant in the Freedom Flotilla, and this is also, in any case, not an exact quote]

Netanyahu concluded by saying that videos taken by the Israeli navy [possibly augmented by footage confiscated by the Flotilla participants, though Netanyahu did not say that] helped many people to understand that “our soldiers faced a very real danger to their lives from brutal attacks with clubs, metal rods and knives and – as you have no doubt learned – from live weapons. IDF soldiers acted in self-defense. We made tremendous efforts to prevent injuries, but the IDF soldiers have the right to defend themselves”.

The soldiers who were beaten on board the Mavi Marmara were not, however, in danger — until their commanders ordered them to rappel down, one by one, from helicopters hovering over the deck of the ship carrying more than 600 angry and frightened passengers.

In his statement, Netanahu said that as the Flotilla sailed toward Gaza, he had “asked that the confrontation be minimized as much as possible and ‘that a supreme effort be made to avoid harming anyone’. I know that the Minister of Defense and Chief of General Staff gave the same order”.

He said he had “authorized directives” that included “embedding foreign reporters with IDF forces so that they could record and film the unfolding events in order to prevent the dissemination of false reports”. He ” said hewanted to ensure that there would be complete coverage of what would happen when our soldiers boarded the ships because I was afraid that, once again, there would be an attempt to try to slander IDF soldiers as part of the ongoing propaganda war against Israel. Unfortunately, slandering the IDF and the State of Israel happens time after time”.

To my recollection, none of the videos shown after the event were identified as having been taken by the “foreign reporters” who had been “embedded” with the Israeli Naval party that intercepted and eventually boarded the Freedom Flotilla.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/israel/netanyahu-tells-israeli-commission-that-naval-blockade-of-gaza-will-continue/feed 0 http://un-truth.com/blogging/the-libyan-chartered-ship-has-engine-problems-off-egyptian-coast http://un-truth.com/blogging/the-libyan-chartered-ship-has-engine-problems-off-egyptian-coast#comments Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:30:40 +0000 Marian Houk http://un-truth.com/?p=6443 A Libyan-chartered Greek ship flying the Moldovan flag and carrying 2,000 tons of food and medical supplies destined for Gaza has reportedly developed mechanical problems [in the engine? with communications devices?] overnight as it approached its declared destination of the Egyptian port of El-Arish.

Israeli warships are reportedly tracking the Amalthea. The Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak earlier called this expedition “provocative”. Israeli military officials say that the cargo this ship is carrying is redundant, because these materials are now entering Gaza relatively freely via Israeli-controlled crossings. However, there are still logistical limitations.

Although Israeli officials continue to be suspicious about the ship — and there have been contradictory claims about the intended destination coming from various people involved with the Libyan aid group that hired the ship and from some of their supporters — they say that as things appear at the moment there does not appear to be any security threat involved. However, they say, they are watching, and will be taking no chances.

The Amalthea appears to have turned off its transponder in recent hours… Or, according to some reports, the ship’s communications are being jammed, and the ship is surrounded by 8 Israeli warships.

Interesting — on the Live Ships map at the Marine Traffic website here, there are now NO ships at all shown from the Suez canal up to Beirut — how is that possible?

UPDATE: At about 10:30 this morning Jerusalem time, SMS reports from Israeli sources indicate that the Amalthea has begun to move toward Egypt…

UPDATE TWO: By about noon in Jerusalem, the Amalthea was back on the Live Ships map, and moving in the direction of El-Arish. It is now 32 nautical miles away from the Egyptian port in the northern Sinai, not far from the Rafah crossing in and out of Gaza — about 4 hours away, at the ship’s present speed of 7.5 knots…

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA] website has a post citing “A report published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [that] claims that the sole mission of the Libyan foundation responsible for sending out this ship to Gaza is to ‘break the siege’. According to the published findings, the Libyans intend to pressure Israel to agree to allow the entrance of goods into the Gaza Strip according to the ‘rules of the game’ determined by Hamas. In addition, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report shows that there are political considerations behind the Libya-sponsored flotilla, as Libya is interested in strengthening its position within the Arab League” … This MFA post is published here.

The Israeli MFA post also cites the U.S. State Department briefing in Washington on Tuesday 13 July [which can be consulted in full here] in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley tells journalists: “We are conscious of the fact that there is a Libyan aid ship en route to Gaza as we speak, and that we, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected by the Government of Israel and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. We have urged the Libyan Government to avoid unnecessary confrontations. We call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza.”

The Jerusalem Post’s Defense Correspondent Yaakov Katz reports today that Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has claimed, in an interview on Israel Radio’s “This Morning” program, that “calls by the US and the European Union to the ship’s captain to accept Israel’s diversion requests legitimizes Israel’s policy”…

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
]]> http://un-truth.com/blogging/the-libyan-chartered-ship-has-engine-problems-off-egyptian-coast/feed 0