Israel and the PR War
With respect to the recent confrontation between a Turkish flotilla of six ships alleged to be carrying "humanitarian aid" to Gaza in violation of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza established to prevent importation of rockets and other armaments, Israel has neatly fallen into a superbly engineered trap.
The flotilla was organized by a Turkish organization called Insani Yadim Vakfi (IHH) that has two faces. One is as a legitimate humanitarian-aid NGO (non-governmental organization) and the other as a radical anti-Western Islamic organization supporting Hamas and other global jihad elements, with ties to al Qaeda, according to French Intelligence. The following link is to a report with more details on IHH.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e105.pdf
The ship boarded by Israeli Navy commandos rappelling down from a helicopter was the Mavi Marmara, sailing under a Turkish flag. The first commandos to reach the deck were immediately surrounded and attacked by Turkish activists armed with iron bars and knives (The iron bars can be seen on video of the attack; the knives cannot.) The commandos were armed with non-lethal paintball rifles and were under orders to not use their sidearms. As a result, several were injured before permission was given to use sidearms to defend themselves. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, according to Israeli sources, at least ten and as many as 19 activists were killed and as many as 12 Israeli Navy commandos were injured, some seriously.
The ship was towed by the Israelis to an Israeli port, and unconfirmed reports say that there were no humanitarian supplies on board. The other five ships in the flotilla were peacefully redirected to the Israeli port of Ashdod 40 km north of Gaza, where whatever humanitarian supplies that were on board will be transported overland to Gaza via established channels.
Israel established the blockade when Hamas gained control in Gaza and proceeded to rain rockets, mostly shipped from Iran, into Israeli territory. The purpose was to block the shipment of arms and missile components into Gaza. Egypt cooperated by blocking overland--and under it via tunnels--routes into Gaza. The blockade has worked to a great extent. The established procedure for humanitarian aid was to divert to Ashdod where the shipments would be examined and legitimate humanitarian supplies transported overland into Gaza. No humanitarian supplies were prevented from reaching Gaza.
IHH organized this particular flotilla not to break the blockade but to induce Israel into exactly the type of confrontation that occurred. Israel was neatly boxed in by being confronted with the Hobson's Choice of either allowing the ships through, which would render the blockade meaningless and indicate weakness, or intercepting them chancing a bloody confrontation for which Israel would be vilified by the press and by nations not sympathetic to the Jews, which is most of them, as being brutal and unreasonable.
Israel chose to use force to maintain the blockade, creating a stage for the bloody confrontation with armed Turkish activists that ensued. Predictably, many nations, Arab and other, immediately jumped to condemn Israel literally before the smoke cleared, abetted by most of the mainstream media. Wisely, the Obama administration has adopted a more reasonable stance so far, counseling calm until the facts become clear. However, the IHH strategy was a resounding success as a public relations ploy. Whether they expected the loss of life is debatable, but given the jihadist martyr complex, it probably wasn't an issue for them.
An objective investigation would unmask this whole thing as a brilliant exercise in the manipulation of public opinion against Israel. Whether said investigation will actually take place, or be objectively reported, remains to be seen. Israel has vowed to continue to enforce the blockade regardless of consequences. I cannot fault them for this approach, as the jihadists only understand force. For Israel to display weakness would simply encourage more of the same.
The Obama administration desperately wants to achieve progress in resolving the Palestinian problem. I hope realistic pragmatism will result in a fair and honest reaction from Washington instead of the knee-jerk anti-Semitic response we have seen so far from other nations.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






9 Comments
frustrated1 - Jun 03, 2010 10:09 AM
What part of his blog can you legitimately disagree with. This whole thing was absolutely a set-up and Israel was stuck in the middle. While I definitely don't agree with everything Israel has done or probably will do they are simply trying to prevent their own citizens from being killed by radicals. Inspecting these so called humanitarian ships for weapons is only prudent the only reason this got violent is because of the "peace activists" with steel pipe and knives.
sirlaughsalittle - Jun 03, 2010 12:56 PM
The Palestine Authority
The Arab-Muslim World
Anti Semitism
Britain And The West
It appears that one of their goals is to characterize negatively anyone who dares to speak critically of Israel: “George Galloway is a pro-Hamas member of the British Parliament”, “ Ken Livingstone is an anti-Israel member of the radical left who until 2008 was mayor of London”
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T100&pid=120&sid=15&preview=
Judging by your last sentence you are not adverse to characterizing those who speak critically of Israel as anti-Semitic … which takes me back to the good old days when “real Americans” were characterizing those who spoke critically of the invasion of Iraq as anti-American. I wonder, if a Jew speaks critically of Israel does that make him anti-Semitic?
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-flotilla-failure-1.293884
It's all very confusing … and very Orwellian.
Carl Hicks - Jun 03, 2010 1:44 PM
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2250/in-international-waters-are-you-beyond-the-reach-of-the-law
The next territorial boundary marks the State's potential contiguous zone, which extends 24 miles offshore. Within this zone, a coastal state can stop and inspect vessels and act to punish (or prevent) violations of its laws within its territory or territorial waters.
referee33 - Jun 03, 2010 4:23 PM
aneuhauser - Jun 03, 2010 5:00 PM
It seems to be generally accepted that IHH has a dual role as legitimately humanitarian and pro-Hamas activist. The nature of the trap the Israelis fell into also implies an activist role. The connection to al Qaeda comes from multiple sources all referencing French Intelligence.
Regardless of the exact nature of IHH, the main point of my blog was the public opinion value of the confrontation to anti-Israeli interests and the PR trap into which Israel was maneuvered. I was also struck by the immediate storm of criticism after the incident. It's almost as though the critics had press releases already printed. It does seem like everything that this tiny democracy of 7 million does to defend itself is wrong, which suggests to me an anti-Semitic bias.
aneuhauser - Jun 03, 2010 5:08 PM
The fact that Iran (and others?) were shipping rockets to Hamas in Gaza to be fired into Israel would seem to justify drastic action to cut off the supply. Whether 50 miles is excessive seems to me to be somewhat technical. I do not know Israel's justification for this distance, if any.
aneuhauser - Jun 03, 2010 5:20 PM
There would seem to be no significant benefit to Israel to cut off legitimate humanitarian shipments. If they are doing so, that's really counter-productive. Hamas is in place and cutting off humanitarian aid would actually benefit Hamas and hurt Israel in the court of world opinion. I can't believe they're that stupid.
Carl Hicks - Jun 03, 2010 5:51 PM
aneuhauser - Jun 07, 2010 12:59 AM