Orwell in Gaza: Politics and Media Manipulation Decide Morality Part I

 

by Carlos

1^st part of 2

June 4, 2010 - By now virtually the whole world has heard about the debacle of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla." And virtually the whole world has condemned Israel for it.
On May 31 Israeli naval forces stopped a group of six ships trying to break the blockade of Gaza. Unfortunately there was loss of life; several activists aboard the main ship, the Mavi Marmara, died, and several Israeli soldiers were wounded, some of them seriously. Around the world Israel has been demonized for its act of "piracy," attacking a ship delivering "humanitarian" aid to suffering people and whose mission was "freedom."

When the situation is defined in these terms, it's hard not to feel deep hatred for Israel. But we need to bear two things in mind:

1. The facts do not support this portrayal.

2. The facts hardly matter anymore.

Let's take each point in turn.

 

The Facts Do Not Support the Popular Portrayal

The "Freedom Flotilla" billed itself as a nonviolent, peaceful mission to help the starving people of Gaza. The truth is that the mission was not nonviolent, it was not peaceful, and the people of Gaza are not starving.


The "nonviolent" protesters were not nonviolent. Video exists showing that those on board had prepared metal rods and knives, slingshots, and broken bottles to attack the Israelis. Not generally reported but noteworthy are spent bullet cartridges found on the Mavi Marmara that were not of any caliber used by Israeli commandos, some of whom did suffer gunshot wounds. Also found were propaganda photos of protesters who were supposedly injured. Evidence that these photos were shot during daylight showed they were prepared hours before the operation, which took place at night. The "nonviolent" nature of the flotilla is a myth, though a well-staged one.


The Israelis did carry side arms, but were under orders not to use them unless their lives were in danger. At first they tried using nonlethal methods to break up the attack. They had paintball guns to disperse the crowds, but those were not sufficient to stave off the threat. Video exists showing Mavi Marmara protesters attacking Israeli soldiers, beating them with metal pipes and chairs, and throwing one Israeli soldier over the railing to a deck below. The soldier suffered a serious wound to the head.

 

A humanitarian "crisis"?

Now let's look at the assumption that these protesters were trying to relieve a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.

The reason for the blockade is simple. It is not to impose suffering on the Palestinian people. Hamas has been importing material to manufacture weapons and an infrastructure of bunkers it has used to attack Israeli citizens inside Israel. Israel's goal is to keep out those materials while allowing genuine humanitarian aid to enter.

Therefore Israel offered to dock the Mavi Marmara at Ashdod and offload the cargo there, then transfer all verified humanitarian supplies to Gaza - a reasonable compromise. The protesters refused. A peaceful move like that would have undermined the purpose of their mission and cost them their moment of drama.

 

The plain fact is that Israel is not starving Gaza and is not holding up humanitarian aid. Israel maintains an open corridor for the delivery of food and humanitarian supplies to Gaza by recognized groups such as the UN and Red Cross. Every week Israel arranges the delivery of 15,000 tons of supplies on hundreds of trucks - more than the 10,000 tons carried on the flotilla.

These goods include not only food but building supplies. Imports of cement and iron must be controlled because Hamas uses them to cast bunkers and rockets for attacking Israeli cities. Nevertheless, tons of iron and cement are regularly allowed into Gaza under carefully monitored safeguards ensuring they will not go to Hamas for military purposes.

Gazans are suffering not because Israel prohibits aid from getting through to them - it doesn't - but because Hamas steals a lot of that aid. Last year the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) had to suspend humanitarian aid to Gaza because Hamas was stealing it. Specifically, Hamas seized truckloads of rice and flour and confiscated by force of arms thousands of blankets and food parcels intended for the poor.

In spite of this theft by Hamas, ample goods are reaching the people of Gaza. This is true not only because Israel allows these goods to enter legally, but also because of a thriving economy in items smuggled through tunnels across the Egyptian border. According to a very recent report in the Financial Times of London, "Shops all over Gaza are bursting with goods" from this literally underground economy. In fact many of these goods have become so abundant that merchants are complaining about falling prices.

“Everything I demand, I can get,” says Abu Amar al-Kahlout, who sells household goods out of a warehouse big enough to accommodate a passenger jet. (Buck, 2010)

And now, irony of ironies: After so much concern about a humanitarian crisis, Hamas is refusing to allow into Gaza the 21 truckloads of goods from the flotilla, which were safely offloaded at Ashdod. Hamas says it wants all flotilla passengers released first.

Huh?

First, Israel is in process of releasing the detainees. Second, and more to the point, if Hamas has a gripe with Israel, why hold the Palestinian people hostage? If the humanitarian "crisis" is really so acute, how can Hamas possibly excuse withholding these vital supplies from the people simply because it wants to punish Israel?
If a humanitarian crisis really does exist in Gaza, many aren't feeling it. But if a humanitarian mission is truly needed, it should be targeted at Hamas.

 

Who were the flotilla organizers?

So just who are these "Freedom Flotilla humanitarians"? Two principal groups are involved, the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), and the Free Gaza Movement (FGM).

The IHH is a Turkish Islamic NGO and owner-operator of three of the ships, including the Mavi Marmara. A report by the Danish Institute for International Studies identifies the IHH as a "charitable front group" supporting terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. An investigation by Turkish Authorities (before Turkey's current Islamist government took power) found even more: that the IHH had procured firearms, explosives, and bomb-making instructions and was sending jihadists to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya (Kohlmann, 2006).


A French intelligence report (citation in Kohlmann, 2006) found that the IHH was recruiting soldiers for a coming "holy war" and sending them to war zones in Muslim countries to get combat experience (see Isseroff, 2010 for further details).
The true intentions of this supposed mission of "peace" became evident as the participants shouted this chilling battle cry, on footage taken aboard the flotilla just before its departure:

 

"Remember Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"

Khaybar is the name of the last Jewish village destroyed by Muhammad in 628, marking the beginning of the end of any Jewish presence in Arabia. It has become a rallying cry for Islamic extremists, threatening death to Jews throughout history. You probably did not see this footage if you live in the West, but it was broadcast on Al-Jazeera.

(Watching it I couldn't help thinking of Stevenson's Treasure Island, in which once safely on board the "nice fellows" recruited for the treasure hunt raised the Jolly Roger and began singing their pirate songs. Only this time the targets of the deception were not those on board but the public at large.)

The clip ends with one woman passenger proudly proclaiming: "Right now we face one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

It looks like they got what they wanted.

The other group involved with the flotilla, the Free Gaza Movement, also has a distinguished membership. The FGM is a coalition of pro-Palestinian activists. They were the main coordinators of the flotilla, and its board of directors prominently includes Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, founding members of the International Solidarity Movement. Arraf is actually the board chair of the FGM and was herself aboard one of the ships.

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) practices to perfection the pretense of nonviolence and peace while actually supporting violence and terrorism. While ISM members do not engage directly in violence, they make no secret of supporting those who do. They even say the Palestinian "resistance" must be "both nonviolent and violent." The ISM in fact has ties to violent groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has supported terrorists and shielded them from Israeli authorities.

It is no coincidence that these people are behind the Free Gaza Movement. They are practicing the identical strategy: using the language of peace and humanitarianism to mask an act of war. And that is exactly what the flotilla action was. Its purpose was to break the Israeli blockade in order to enable the free flow of weapons to Hamas. It is the same purpose the ISM had when it tried to block Israeli bulldozers from demolishing tunnels used for smuggling weapons into Gaza. It works by prostituting the language of peace to support the Hamas war effort.

Here is another glimpse of the sincerity of the peace-loving humanitarians. The following exchange was captured from a radio transmission between the Israeli Navy and the Mavi Marmara. You can hear it yourself on YouTube (see the final video listed in the sources at the end of this article).

 

Israeli ship: This is the Israeli Navy. You are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

Mavi Marmara: Shut up! Go back to Auschwitz.

 

Carlos

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

./..

Orwell in Gaza: Politics and Media Manipulation Decide Morality Part II

by Carlos

2^nd part of 2

An illegal act of piracy?

So was the Israeli raid on the flotilla illegal, as many claim? Was it even an act of piracy?


That is the accusation of many of Israel's antagonists. They often bring up international law against Israel, hoping people won't check the details. But if we look at the statutes themselves, this is what we find:

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea states (Section V) that "merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states" may be attacked if "they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture." This is precisely what happened in this case. The flotilla's stated intent was to breach the blockade. And there is clear video evidence that the ships were warned and refused to stop. Section VI states further that such ships may even be captured if they are attempting to breach a blockade.

Hamas is openly at war with Israel. It has used the seas to bring in materials for its war effort. Thus the blockade is justified under international law. But what about the charge that Israel had no right to stop the ships in international waters? Posner (2010) points out that there is longstanding precedent in international law for enforcing "publicly announced blockades on the high seas." In word and in deed, the Hamas government in Gaza has declared itself in mortal conflict with Israel. Israel has the right to try to stop the buildup of Hamas's military capability.

 

The Facts Hardly Matter Anymore

Israel has a strong moral and legal case for the actions it took. Nevertheless, it hardly seems to matter. Israel has never been more isolated than it is right now. How can we explain this?

The explanation cannot be legal: there is a basis in international law for what Israel did, and in any case most anti-Israel demonstrators are not familiar with the subtleties of the law. The explanation cannot be moral, for the clear double standard by which Israel is judged cannot be justified morally. Because it too has fears of being destabilized Egypt enforces a strict blockade of its own border with Gaza, yet there is hardly any reaction and nobody accuses Egypt of occupying Gaza. Gaza fires rockets on Israeli cities, which is the whole reason for the blockade, and no one seems to think it's important. North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, and it hardly gets an eye blink. Saudi Arabia uses its oil wealth to bankroll terrorists around the world, and nobody notices. In Afghanistan girls' schools are attacked with poisoned gas and female students get acid splashed into their faces, and nobody protests, demonstrates, or sends freedom flotillas. The examples are endless - just tour the globe and you will find them. China and Tibet, Iran and its homosexuals and Bahais - situations far more serious than what happened on this flotilla, yet hardly eliciting a squeak of protest in comparison to the international uproar against Israel for trying to take measures to protect its cities.
What is going on here?


There is an obvious explanation, but I won't mention it because Jews aren't allowed to talk about it anymore. So I'll mention the not-so-obvious explanation, which can be captured in one word: politics. Political conditions have shifted to isolate Israel more than ever. The Muslim world, which has hated Israel since its inception, has become stronger and more assertive, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Arabs have oil, Israel does not, and the world is more dependent on oil, not less. Islam has experienced a revival, and with that also the conflicts with Jews enshrined in its scriptures - the chants of "Khaybar! Khaybar!" heard aboard the flotilla were no unique occurence; similar language is common in the Arab world and especially among Palestinians. Turkey now has an Islamist government, interested in proving its Islamic credentials and willing to approach Iran by provoking an incident with Israel.

The Palestinians have also become experts at manipulating the media. In this electronic age they are way ahead of Israel in harnessing the potential of the latest media channels such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, though Israel is beginning to catch up. The medium has indeed become the message.

This brings us to the Palestinians' greatest success: turning the language of morality into political cant.

George Orwell did a beautiful job of showing how this works in his political novel 1984. The Ministry of Truth, whose job of course was to disseminate lies, had on the walls of its edifice three slogans:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

It seems incredible, yet with proper massaging words can be made to convey precisely the opposite of what they were intended to mean. Just keep selling the idea hard enough and often enough, and if it jibes with something people already wish to believe, then it will stick. Here is a great example: When Hamas took over Gaza by force in 2007 and threw out Fatah, it proclaimed in radio messages that it had "liberated" Gaza (Tran, 2007).

And so again the Palestinians have skewered the language of morality to enable people to believe what they want to believe for political reasons, with the comfortable delusion that they are rising above politics. If the mission of the flotilla were truly humanitarian, there would have been a way to deliver those supplies wihout a confrontation. Israel offered to have them unloaded at Ashdod, inspected for weapons materials, and then sent to Gaza. But that would have ruined the protesters' plans to create an incident even at the expense of jeopardizing their mission to get those "vitally needed" supplies to the people of Gaza.


What the flotilla people don't want you to know is that every week Israel allows the transfer into Gaza of 50% more supplies than were carried on those ships. What they don't want you to know is that Israel is not starving the people of Gaza, and that Gaza markets have been overflowing. What they don't want you to know is the true purpose of their mission: to leverage international opinion to break the blockade so that bombs and missiles can once again flow freely to Hamas.

Seen in this light, the flotilla must be considered an act of aggression, whose mission would result in putting Israeli towns and cities in danger. Yet it was billed as "humanitarian," a mission of "freedom," so that those who support aggression against Israel can do so with a clear conscience, perhaps sincerely believing they are doing what's morally right. And this is the most devastating and cynical victory of all: the transformation of language to make people truly believe that wrong is right.
When Hamas began shooting rockets at Sderot and other towns in southern Israel, people dismissed them as kids firing home-made firecrackers. Yet people were wounded and killed. And since then Hamas has steadily increased the range and payload of its rockets. With no Israeli blockade in place, Iran-backed Hamas could start importing long-range Iranian missiles capable of striking Haifa and Tel Aviv. Understandably Israel does not want to wait until this happens.

Clearly Hamas is not entitled to the language of morality it is exploiting for political purposes. We may not be able to change the political situation, but we must take back the language. We must expose the lie behind the "humanitarian" effort to support a regime with a murderous agenda. We need to unravel the deceptions, reminding ourselves that war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, and sometimes even "humanitarianism" can be aggression by another name.

Carlos

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

Sources:

Abu Toameh, Khaled, Ron Friedman, and Abe Selig. "Flotilla Aid Refused by Hamas." Jerusalem Post, June 3, 2010.

"Behind the Headlines: The Israeli Humanitarian Lifeline to Gaza." Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 25, 2010.

Buck, Tobias. "Gaza Looks Beyond Tunnel Economy." Financial Times, May 23, 2010.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA). "Hamas Blocking Entry of Flotilla Aid into Gaza." Haaretz, June 3, 2010.

Gordis, Daniel. "A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo." New York Times, June 2, 2010.

Haaretz Service and Associated Press. "UN, Hamas Meet to Discuss Stolen Gaza Aid." Haaretz, February 6, 2009.

Isseroff, Ami. "Who Is Behind the Gaza 'Freedom Flotilla'?." Zionism & Israel Information Center, May 30, 2010.

Kohlmann, Evan F. "The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing." DAnish Institute for International Studies, 2006.

Levitt, Matthew, David Makovsky, and Jeffrey White. "Fallout from the Gaza Flotilla Tragedy." Washington Institute, June 1, 2010.

Oren, Michael B. "An Assault, Cloaked in Peace." New York Times, June 2, 2010.

Phillips, Melanie. "'Peace Convoy'? This Was an Islamist Terror Ambush

." Spectator (UK), May 31, 2010.

Posner, Eric. "The Gaza Blockade and International Law." Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2010.

Ravid, Barak and Yuval Azoulay. "Israel: Gaza Aid Convoy Can Unload Cargo in Ashdod for Inspection." Haaretz, May 27, 2010.

"San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea." International Committee of the Red Cross, June 12, 1994.

"Three Dozen Girl Students Were Poisoned in Afghanistan." Rawa News, April 26, 2009. "97 Girl Students, Teachers Poisoned in Afghanistan." Rawa News, May 12, 2009.

Tran, Mark. "Hamas on Brink of Gaza Takeover." Guardian, June 14, 2007.

Videos:

"Flotilla Rioters Prepare Metal Rods, Slingshots, Broken Bottles, and Metal Objects to Attack IDF Soldiers." IDF Spokesperson's Unit, June 2, 2010.

"Gaza Flotilla Participants Invoked Killing of Jews." Palestinian Media Watch, May 31, 2010. (Also Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI] Video Clip #2489, Al-Jazeera TV Report from 'Freedom Flotilla' Before Its Departure for Gaza: Activists on Board Chant Intifada Songs and Praise Martyrdom. Al-Jazeera TV [Qatar], May 28, 2010.)

"IDF Navy Soldiers Who Were Attacked Aboard the Marmara Ship." IDF Spokesperson's Unit, May 31, 2010.

"IDF Navy Warns Flotilla." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 30, 2010.

"Mavi Marmara to Israeli Navy: 'We're Helping Arabs Go Against the US, Don't Forget 9/11 Guys'." IDF Spokesperson's Unit, June 4, 2010.

../..

An Open Letter to Turkey

 

 

by Daniel Greenfield

 

Dear Former Friends,

Ever since you decided to trade in the Secularism of Ataturk for the Islamism of Erdogan, you also seem to have dispensed with the ability to coexist with non-Muslims on a peaceful basis. These days all we ever seem to get from you, is video clips of your leader, Prime Minister Erdogan, barking at us like a dog that its owner carelessly let off the leash. And if you don't know that Erdogan's owner lives in Riyadh, then you don't know very much of what goes on in your own country.

 

But your affairs are your own affairs. And our affairs are our affairs. If you want to let a fanatic in a cheap suit destroy Turkish nationalism in the name of Islam, that's your business. But when he gets into business with terrorist organizations who attack and murder our soldiers, then it's our business. And when a country that persecutes its Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian citizens, and sends their elected representatives to jail-- presumes to self-righteously lecture us on how to manage our affairs, it had better remember that holding a stone throwing contest in a glass house will just lead to piles of broken glass.

You say you want an international investigation into the flotilla raid? Sure. Right after we have an international investigation into that minor matter of Armenian genocide that you've been ducking for quite a while. As the new "standard bearer" in fighting for human rights, I'm sure you will agree that it's only fair that Turkey should undergo the same scrutiny it demands for other countries.

And then we can move on to the more than 10,000 political prisoners in your jails. A number that at times has topped 100,000. An independent investigation could also begin by looking into the torture and murder of political activists such as Engin Ceber. They could meet with representatives of TAYAD, the organization representing the families of prisoners. And they would no doubt be fascinated by the more than 1500 children in your prisoners who are there on "terrorism" charges. Like that 12 year old you arrested in 2008 for singing a Kurdish folk song. So by all means wrap yourselves in the banner of "Human Rights" and we'll turn it into a noose and strangle you with it.

In Israel, Arabs are a legally recognized minority. Arabic is taught in schools and used as a legally recognized language. Meanwhile Kurdish identity is all but banned in Turkey. Kurdish names, folk songs and even the Kurdish language itself has been repressed. Your regime has actually prosecuted and removed officials for simply incorporating a Kurdish phrase into a greeting. You screech self-righteously about the "Palestinian children"-- perhaps we should talk about the hundreds of Kurdish children arrested for throwing stones at protests. Arrested and charged with terrorism. Just more of the thousands of political prisoners of oppressed minorities in your prisons.

And perhaps next time your dog Erdogan gets up to bark up at us about human rights, we can stuff this in his mouth. Jenin, the Second Lebanon War and every armed encounter between Israel and Islamic terrorists over the last 20 years combined together killed fewer people, than your country did in 1997 alone. After you get through lecturing us on the use of force against Islamic terrorists, shall we discuss how many times you used jets to bomb Kurdish rebels who were lightly armed at best. Including in 2008 when you invaded sovereign Iraqi soil in order to continue your genocide of the Kurdish people.

You talk about stolen land, when your entire country is stolen land, from Cyprus to Istanbul. Your regime is a racist illegitimate entity based on the oppression of the Kurds, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Circassians and numerous others. You went directly from being Imperialists to Fascists to Islamists, a truly dubious achievement for any nation. Your history is filled with slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide and invasion. And that's just in the last century alone. If you had any sanity or shame, you would dig a hole, crawl into it, and hope that no one mentions words like "Minority Rights" or "Territorial Legitimacy" in your presence, instead of trying to use them as a club against a nation whose national history predates yours by thousands of years. We had kingdoms and a civilization that changed the world, back when your ancestors were still trying to decide whether to eat the sheep or rape it.

But let us get back to your precious Islamist flotilla, decorated with Turkish flags that used to be more than just red versions of the Saudi flag. That ship you filled up with Muslim Brotherhood members and Islamist radicals bound for our shores. Over in your wonderful nation of boundless freedom, reporters have been put on trial for even interviewing leaders of terrorist groups. You sentenced the head of a Kurdish party to six months in prison for calling the head of the PKK, Mr. Ocalan, instead of just Ocalan. He joins the more than 800 Kurdish politicians you imprisoned in the last year alone. And after all that you actually have the nerve to pretend to be "outraged" when Israel intercepts your flotilla full of political terrorists?

But of course we know how strongly you feel about blockades. Like the time you blockaded Armenia for Sixteen Years. Very well then. If you insist on sending vessels flying the Turkish flag to aid Hamas, perhaps we'll begin sending vessels flying the Israeli flag to aid the PKK. We're not big fans of the PKK, but since you've decided to friend Hamas, then what's good for the turkey, just might be good for the gander. We can also fill a flotilla full of senile troublemakers, phony survivors and leftist radicals-- along with a few hundred well armed "activists" who know how to use a knife. Or perhaps we won't bother with any of that. Instead for every boat flying the Turkish flag that invades our territory, we'll donate a million to the PKK. I wonder how many rocket launchers that would buy. Perhaps the next time, your air force sweeps in to bomb Kurds out of their homes, they might get a surprise or two.

And then there's the Republic of Cyprus, which has actually been helping us stop weapons smuggling. They might benefit from significantly upgraded air defenses. While the US insists on equalizing weapons sales to Turkey and Greece, we just might have something tastier to offer to one side. And the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus might actually be able to sleep soundly in their beds, instead of being intimidated by savages showing off their F-16's over their heads. The Cyprus National Guard likes our drones, just like you do. But what if they had a much better equalizer at their disposal? Being a small non-Muslim nation surrounded by much larger Muslim countries, we do have a certain fondness for the infidel underdog.

Oh I know, what you're going to say. This means war. But you might want to consider that we've fought and beaten enemies many times our size. And what exactly was the last war you won single-handedly?  And no, bombing starving Kurdish rebels from the air, or occupying Cyprus doesn't count. And how long could you fight that war, before a domestic Kurdish insurgency overthrows your little empire. If that doesn't happen, you might want to think about the big Russian bear at your back. The bear has been eyeing you for a long time now. And with your military engaged in a disastrous war for the Great Caliphate, your borders would be temptingly open. And who exactly would bail you out then?

Oh I know you've made many great news friends, such as Ahmadinejad and that nice burnoosed king in the Arabian Desert, who tells your Erdogan when to jump and how high, but if you think Iran is about to pass up Russian nukes in order to bail you out, you've got another thing coming. Meanwhile old Abdullah in the desert can't even protect himself without the US Marines. And if you think Obama would send them in to save your asses, you've got another thing coming. I'm sure if there were Russian tanks headed to Ankara, he'd make a vocal statement about it. And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would pretend not to laugh while hanging up the phone.

There is of course the European Union. Last time Russia pulled that trick, it was Britain that bailed you out in the Crimean War. But these days Her Majesty's Empire isn't quite in the same shape it used to be. Sure Cameron, Clegg and Harman will lick Erdogan's feet. But none of them want to be the next Tony Blair either. Germany doesn't like you very much anymore. Perhaps that time when it got enmeshed in WW1 to protect your Ottoman Empire may have put them off. Or your internal campaign of subversion exploiting Germany's horde of Turkish laborers. What are you left with then? France, Italy or perhaps Austria will forget that whole pesky Gates of Vienna thing and this time ride to your rescue.

No, when Russian commandos are ripping off your wife's Burqa-- there will be no one left to save you. Not your newfound allies, or Erdogan who will take the first plane to Riyadh, with as many Lira as his sweaty hands can shove into the pockets of his cheap suit. And just think of it, as the Hagia Sophia church that you turned into a mosque, will become a church again. Istanbul will once again be Constantinople, which means a certain catchy 20's song will require a rewrite. Of course it may not happen exactly that way. But it will happen. Erdogan's plan to suppress and integrate Kurds into a Muslim Turkey will not succeed. And his antagonizing of former allies means that Turkey is exchanging friends, for enemies. Meanwhile your new friends happen to share borders with you and have territorial claims on your land. 

 

So when that day of reckoning comes, you will find that you have made enemies of former allies such as Israel and the US-- and that the new allies Erdogan has found for you in Iran and Syria would prefer a Russian controlled Turkey, that has no chance of ever reverting to a Kemalist government. And Erdogan's godfather in Saudi Arabia commands oil money, not troops. And while he might be willing to sink Turkey for the sake of Islam, perhaps there are Turks who value their nation, more than Islamism. If not, you can look forward to Erdogan "reforming" your country, until it has the military might of Pakistan, the literacy level of Saudi Arabia and the poverty rate of Egypt. It is of course your choice.

A people have the right to choose their destiny, for good or ill. And if you find that this letter is filled with contempt, it is a contempt fully merited by a regime that seeks to cloak its shameful betrayal of a former ally in the guise of human rights, when it brutally suppresses the rights of its own minorities. You may wish to go on dancing to the tune being played by Erdogan, to sheet music composed in Riyadh. It is a very good tune. Filled with hate, violence and religious fanaticism. That also is your choice. But know that whatever you have was bought and paid by your ancestors who understood that Turkey would either modernize out of the gutter of Islam, or it would be washed away by the colonial tide. Your power does not come from Islam, it comes from the bread crusts of civilization that fall from the table of Europe. Abandon them for the red hued madness of the Jihad, and you will not rule over an empire, but over a wasteland. If you doubt that, look to the south and to the east. Look to the desert. You came from there once. And if you throw away civilization for the fanatical madness of Islam-- you will return there again.

Sincerely Yours

A Descendant of a Subject of the Ottoman Empire

 

 

 

Daniel Greenfield

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

Don’t Chicken Out with Turkey

 

by Emmanuel Navon

 

At the height of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in July 2006, George W. Bush was caught telling Tony Blair in what was thought to be an off-the-record conversation during the G8 Summit in Saint Petersburg that the war would not have escalated had Syria put pressure on Hezbollah "to stop doing this shit." Bush and Blair didn't know they were being taped but they certainly knew that Hezbollah, acting as Iran's proxy and with Syria's support, was responsible for the war.

 

By contrast, Turkey has so far been off the hook despite its attempts to turn Gaza into another Southern Lebanon. Erdogan is personally responsible for the death of his co-citizens aboard the "Mavi Marmara." He is the one who sent out his jihadist organization Insani Yardim Vakfi (or IHH) to militarize Gaza under Turkey's aegis. Far from scolding him and from asking him to "stop doing this shit," Western leaders have fallen in the trap of his "humanitarian" propaganda. Worse, they still treat Turkey as if it hadn't become an Iranian surrogate.

 

For the past eight years, Erdogan has been provoking Israel. His strategy has consistently been the same: encouraging jihadist attacks against Israel, reacting hysterically to Israel's responses, and "warning" the West that letting Israel get away with its "crimes" would have the effect of pushing Turkey into Iran's arms.

 

In 2004, Erdogan called Israel a "terrorist state" after we eliminated Sheikh Yassin. In February 2006, he hosted Hamas leader Haled Mashal in Ankara. In January 2009, he staged a temper tantrum at the Davos Conference calling Shimon Peres an expert killer. In October 2009, the Turkish state television started airing fiction series showing Israeli soldiers intentionally murdering Palestinian children. In November 2009, Erdogan declared that he'd rather meet with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (accused of war crimes and genocide by the International Criminal Court) than with Benjamin Netanyahu. In March 2010, Erdogan claimed that the Temple Mount, Hebron and Rachel's tomb were never Jewish sites. The list goes on.

 

With the "Mavi Marmara" affair, Erdogan has crossed a new threshold. His is now setting Turkey on a military collision course with Israel while blaming Israel for the consequences of Turkey's provocations and while convincing the West that it will lose Turkey if dares to blame it for its troublemaking. This deceiving stratagem has been working superbly thanks to the cowardice or blindness (or both) of the free world's current leaders.

 

President Obama called Erdogan to express "his deep condolences for the loss of life and injuries resulting from the Israeli military operation." Obama didn't have anything to say about the fact that Turkey was trying to help Hamas import missiles and that the IHH terrorists tried to kill Israeli soldiers. As for President Sarkozy, he denounced what he called Israel's "disproportionate" use of force despite the fact that the Israeli soldiers started using their weapons only to save their lives from the armed mob that tried to lynch them.

 

Jimmy Carter and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing propped-up Khomeini thinking he would appease the "anger" of the Iranian people towards the West. How brilliant indeed. Obama and Sarkozy are making the same mistake with Erdogan. Talk about killing two birds with one stone: Turkey can count both on American chickens and on French pigeons. Turkey is making a disproportionate use of hypocrisy, and it works. Until the West has leaders worthy of that name, Israel has no choice but to fight alone and win.

 

 

Emmanuel Navon

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Arab Israeli Representatives: Representing WHO?

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Some representatives of the Arab citizens of Israel have obviously forgotten that they were elected to the Knesset to serve the interests of their voters in the Galilee, Triangle and the Negev and not those of Hamas, Hizbullah Iran and Libya.

One often gets the impression that some of the Arab Knesset members are too busy dealing with the problems of Hamas and the Fatah than with those facing their constituents. By doing so, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot and harming the interests of their people.

Of course the Arab Knesset members have every right to express their opinions on any regional and international issue they wish. They have the right, for instance, to call for lifting the blockade on the Gaza Strip or for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

They even have the right to voice their views on the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat and the growing tensions between Hizbullah and Syria on the one hand, and Israel on the other.

But these elected parliamentarians need to know when they should not be crossing red lines.

Earlier this year, a large delegation of Israeli Arabs was invited to Libya for talks with Col. Muammar Qaddafi. It was the first visit of its kind to Libya by Israeli citizens.

Not surprisingly, Qaddafi sought to exploit the high-profile visit to improve his reputation and image in international public opinion. The Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, had nothing to gain from the trip to Tripoli.

It would have been better had the same delegation members traveled to Jerusalem for talks with government officials about ways the problems and needs of the Arab minority.

Qaddafi is certainly not the address for solving these problems. Qaddafi is not going to build infrastructure in the Arab sector inside Israel. Nor is he going to solve the problem of unemployment among the Arab community.

Qaddafi cares only about the welfare of Qaddafi and his autocratic regime.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with an Arab Knesset members who wants to campaign against the blockade on the Gaza Strip.

However, it is hard to understand how joining the Gaza-bound aid convoy of ships advances the cause of Israel's Arab citizens.

If the Israeli Arabs on board the ships were campaigning for their constituents' rights with the same determination and force, the Arab citizens would be in a better situation.

Israeli Arabs who are aligning themselves with anti-Israel organizations and individuals are in fact causing huge damage to the cause of the Arab minority. They are first and foremost playing into the hands of those Israeli Jews who have long been shouting that the 1.4 million Arab citizens are nothing but a "fifth column" and a "cancer" inside the Jewish state.

The leaders of the Arab community in Israel need to be watch their actions and words to avoid causing further damage to their constituents. It would be more useful if they devoted their energies to improving the living conditions of the their citizens instead of working toward widening the gap between Arabs and Jews.

 

Khaled Abu Toameh

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Those troublesome Jews

 

by Charles Krauthammer

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

 

Charles Krauthammer

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Nice Countries Finish Last

 

 

by Daniel Greenfield

If Israeli soldiers had boarded the Mavi Marmara armed with assault rifles instead of paintball guns, would the Turkish Islamists on board have been just as eager to attack them? The odds are against it. In order to attack soldiers, you have to believe that they won't be able to turn you into a smear on the deck. And it's not hard to see why they would have believed that.

 

Not only did Israeli soldiers come on board armed with paintball guns, but the Islamists and their left wing allies had every reason to believe that Israel would retreat again. Because two weeks earlier, Israel had backed off and allowed Noam Chomsky in after a storm of left wing protest. That fateful decision made Israel look weak and easily maneuvered, which helped set the stage for what followed. The Islamists could reasonably believe that if Israel retreated before one elderly left wing academic, their accompanying elderly left wingers would be just as effective.

But the flotilla encounter is a useful model, not only of Israel's own weak response toward terrorism, but that of the Western world toward Islam as a whole.

Going in with paintball guns to stop people who genuinely want you dead, does not deescalate the situation-- it escalates it. There are after all two kinds of violence. Violence that occurs as a misunderstanding and can be talked out. And violence that is the result of people who want to kill thinking they've got a shot at accomplishing their goal. And there's no better way to insure violence than to give those kinds of people the idea that this is their moment.

But Israel has been responding with metaphorical paintball guns to terrorism for too long now. How many times has Israel bombed empty buildings or sent tanks on pointless raids with no strategic objective except to show the flag. How many times has Israel arrested terrorists, only to let them go as a "confidence building" measure. For that matter the entire Gaza blockade, in which Israel reacted to the Hamas takeover of Gaza with a partial blockade (accompanied by large doses of aid) in order to isolate Hamas. Instead Hamas has used the blockade to isolate Israel even further. That you see is the problem with paintball guns. Not only aren't they of much use, but they actually invite further conflict, and when you finally have to use real guns, more people will die as a result.

Only consistently leveraging force provides a deterrent. That is something Israel once understood, but has long ago forgotten. Instead Israel has inconsistently employed force, which has naturally led to charges of "disproportionate use of force", because the government has set a bottom basement value for the use of force, which means that both its friends and enemies have learned to expect minimal responses. This means that when we do go to war, we get less support from our friends who are suddenly shocked by what we're doing, and when we don't go to war, we give our enemies the idea that they can get away with anything.

Remember Osama bin Laden's shock as the scale of the US attack in Afghanistan. Or Hassan Narsallah's at the Second Lebanon War. Bin Laden had gotten used to being able to carry out attacks like that on the USS Cole, without expecting anything besides a few poorly aimed missiles in return. Nasrallah had assumed that Israel's tolerance of terrorism from Hamas and Fatah meant that it was a soft target. America and Israel's response to one particular attack, shocked the Islamic terrorist groups responsible. But that shock also demonstrates the problem. Terrorists should naturally expect a ruthless response. When we tolerate terrorism, we create the expectation that they can get away with anything. Then they cross a red line, we strike back hard, and buy ourselves some peace. The terrorists begin scaling up their attacks again, certain this time that we're incapable of fighting back. Until they hit another red line.

If we consistently deployed force against terrorism, we wouldn't have this seesaw cycle that the left wing media routinely dubs the "Cycle of Violence". Instead we react inconsistently, which fails to function as a deterrent. Our inaction lulls terrorists into thinking that they have a free pass, which only demonstrates that we don't have a deterrent. Next to outright inaction, the inconsistent use of force is destructive to maintaining a stalemate. Because if given two possibilities with equal amounts of evidence for both, one that you will strike back with full force and one that you will remain apathetic-- most motivated enemies will find ways to argue themselves into believing the latter. And they will attack.

Carrying paintball guns will not win you love. During the Munich Olympics in 1972, the German police handed out flowers. The flowers did not stop PLO terrorists from invading the Olympic Village and murdering Israeli athletes. On the other hand Israel's response of hunting down and killing those responsible, sent a decisive message that even murdering its people on foreign soil, among police who hand our flowers, would not save them from retribution. A year after the Munich Massacre, the Black September branch of the PLO was shut down.

But we still keep using paintball guns. For 17 years Israel has tried to show goodwill toward the PLO formed Palestinian Authority and even toward Hamas. And the PLO and Hamas unsurprisingly responded with massacres and atrocities. If you run from a rabid dog, the dog will chase after you. If you stand and confront the dog, you might have a chance to beat it off, or shoot it. But if you always run from the dog, the dog will feel entitled to chase you and try to bite you. And so every time Israel responded, there was an outcry. But it was Israel that had taught its enemies that it would not respond to terrorism, only to then sometimes respond. That sort of inconsistent behavior is extremely confusing to rabid dogs.

 

Meanwhile in New York, 9 years after 9/11, we're still going to allow a mosque to be raised near Ground Zero. Naturally we think this will convince Muslims to like us. In reality it all but insures more terrorist attacks. Just as the Taliban didn't make their resurgence, until it was clear that we wouldn't be willing to hunt them down wherever they are. Just as Iraq didn't go to hell until we put more priority on reconstruction, over armed force. That's the problem with trading in assault rifles for paintball guns. It tempts the people with assault rifles to try to use them on you.

When dealing with enemies who want to kill you, one thing is certain-- nice countries finish last. Totalitarian regimes and homicidal ideologies view "niceness" as an admission of weakness or guilt. And here's the dirty little secret, often we tend to view it that way too. Backing down before enemies becomes learned behavior. The human mind rationalizes it by embracing pacifism and then finally the enemy's point of view. Inaction in the face of terrorism becomes Stockholm Syndrome. The more you teach soldiers to carry paintball guns, the less psychologically able they are to wield real guns in an actual battle. Because you can't win by giving up. And giving up convinces your own people that the battle isn't worth fighting anyway.

It's all well and good to be nice, but when confronting enemies who seek to destroy you-- remember, nice countries finish last.

 

 

Daniel Greenfield

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.