Just days after the violent takeover of the Freedom Flotilla, another Free Gaza boat, the MV Rachel Corrie, has been captured by the Israeli military in international waters. This time, there appears to have been no fighting. Says a Free Gaza Cyprus press release:
Just before 9am GMT this morning, the Israeli military forcibly siezed the Irish-owned humanitarian relief ship, the MV Rachel Corrie, from delivering over 1000 tons of medical and construction supplies to besieged Gaza. For the second time in less then a week, Israeli naval commandos stormed an unarmed aid ship, brutally taking its passengers hostage and towing the ship toward Ashdod port in Southern Israel. It is not yet known whether any of the Rachel Corrie’s passengers were killed or injured during the attack, but they are believed to be unharmed.
The Corrie carried 11 passengers and 9 crew from 5 different countires, mostly Ireland and Malaysia. The passengers included Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire, Parit Member of the Malaysian Parliament Mohd Nizar Zakaria, and former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday. Nine international human rights workers were killed on Monday when Israeli commandos violently stormed the Turkish aid ship, Mavi Marmara and five other unarmed boats taking supplies to Gaza. Prior to being taken hostage by Israeli forces, Derek Graham, an Irish coordinator with the Free Gaza Movement, stated that: “Despite what happened on the Mavi Marmara earlier this week, we are not afraid.
One thing that strikes me about both this incident and that of the Freedom Flotilla is the evidence of direct involvement by certain governments. The press release continues to explain that, in addition to the individual officials who happened to be aboard, the Malaysian government itself was involved in helping the activists obtain the boat:
The 1200-ton cargo ship was purchased through a special fund set up by former Malaysian Prime Minister and Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO) chairman Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The ship was named after an American human rights worker, killed in 2003 when she was crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip. Its cargo included hundreds of tons of medical equipment and cement, as well as paper from the people of Norway, donated to UN-run schools in Gaza.
Something similar was the case with the Freedom Flotilla. The now-infamous Mavi Marmara, on which the fighting took place earlier this week, appears to have been obtained with the help of Turkish politicians. Reports The New York Times:
The group bought three boats, including the Mavi Marmara, the one that was raided, from a company owned by the Istanbul city government for $1.8 million. The boats carried aid that included building materials — cement, tiles and steel, which Israel bans because it says they could be put to military means — worth about $10 million, members said.
The Turkish government’s sympathy with the operation was immediately clear when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cut short a trip abroad and returned home immediately upon hearing about the disaster.
What should arouse some concern here, in the willingness of governments to aid these activists, is the extent to which their work might be co-opted by the interests of those governments, and to which they might, willingly or unwillingly, be acting as agents in diplomatic games. To the extent that this is the case, the Free Gaza activists become more than fighters for justice; they become political pawns.
Nonviolence means honesty as much as it means laying down arms; it’s no mistake that Gandhi called his strategy “truth-force.” If governments intend to become involved in the struggle against the Gaza blockade, they should do so openly and transparently, not by hiding behind the efforts of activists (the notorious Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba comes to mind). They should make their intentions and involvement clear. And if activists find that they have any reason to be wary of such governments’ involvement, they should take greater pains to distance themselves from it.
Nathan,
I am not clear on what you are saying. I don’t believe any government money has been used to purchase the ships. The IHH had plenty of money to purchase the Mavi Mamara on it’s own. And, sure, the Turkish government is using the Gaza Freedom Flotilla for it’s own aims. I don’t guess they really care about the Free Gaza Movement. Are you suggesting IHH is being directed by the Turkish government ?
Happy to see you writing on the Flotilla events this week.
Ellen
Ellen,
So great to hear from you!
I don’t intend to make accusations so much as to raise questions. It just struck me that the ships for both trips were purchased from government entities. Since I don’t know much about the boat-buying business, I can’t say exactly what this means. But it could very well mean that the activists got some kind of special deal with the governments in question to buy the boats at a bargain price. I only mention it because I haven’t yet seen a satisfying explanation of whether or not this is significant. And, in principle, I don’t oppose governments being involved; in fact, I think governments should be willing to use methods of nonviolent resistance much more than they do. I just would hope that they wouldn’t do so in covert fashion, and I wish it were clearer what these governments (and, more particularly, the politicians who may have engineered the deals) stand to lose or gain by the Gaza issue.
I see. I misread what you had written. I thought you were suggesting the ships were bought by government entities, which had me confused, but you are saying from government entities. It does sound like IHH got a special deal from the government.
When activists are preempted or helped by governments it becomes convoluted and less credible. Smaller is always better.
I agree that this is a question worth investigating, but by the same token that activists should follow Gandhi’s example of openness, they should be commended for following his example of persistence. Unfortunately, since there was no violence this time, this incident isn’t getting as much play in the mainstream media. But Israel is quickly making utility of it, saying:
The situation is clearly not reducible to “Israel right, activists wrong,” but we shouldn’t be surprised if that’s how people in power end up seeing it. Israel has used the small acts of violence committed by its opponents (which are usually a response to some political injustice committed by Israel) to justify employing large scale acts of violence and a further expansion of its power.
Again, this is not to mitigate the beating of Israeli soldiers by a small number of activists (just as it isn’t to mitigate the violence of rocket attacks and suicide bombings), it’s to point out that Israel’s response to these actions is always more deadly.
If Israel is merely trying to portray itself as a rational actor, then we must question whether a rational actor does things like “shoot people in the head at close range”–as autopsy results of killed flotilla activists reveal.
So while persistence of the kind exhibited by the Rachel Corrie is needed, perhaps, given the weak media response, it isn’t the right or only act of persistence needed at the moment. It seems what we need is something that does a better job of exposing Israel as an irrational actor with an agenda far greater than merely looking out for the safety of its people.
The point about persistence: absolutely! That is definitely what makes the Rachel Corrie mission so inspiring. And I did see a picture of it on the front page of NYTimes.com today, so it isn’t being totally ignored.
I saw that Guardian article about the autopsy reports yesterday too and didn’t quite understand how it was being used as evidence against Israel’s narrative. After all, if Israeli troops had mainly been firing from helicopters and ships before landing, there wouldn’t have been so many close-range wounds, with multiple bullets in a single body. Don’t such wounds seem consistent with soldiers defending themselves in close combat? Close range wounds would be consistent with execution-style killing, but not necessarily multiple bullets—that suggests the need to stop an assailant in his tracks. I’m definitely not a forensics expert, but I didn’t see any major challenge to the Israeli narrative of self-defense in that article, other than the author’s insistence that it did.
I look forward to further revelations that will help clear these questions up. The fact that the US appears to be backing an Israeli-only investigation is absolutely appalling. Its results will have no credibility in the international community. Nobody—not the nonviolent activist community, nor the families of the dead, nor the Palestinians, nor the Israeli people—can afford to hide the truth any more.
Further, I’d suggest, now that the world’s attention has been drawn to this issue, activists should explore new tactics. Right now, too much, the attention is focused on the activists themselves. It’s a start, but it’s ultimately a distraction.The risk is that we’ll all focus more on what the activists did or didn’t do rather than the structural injustice that they sought to reveal. And with the Rachel Corrie, Israel seems to have found a way to deal with the cargo ships.
What about airdrops, for instance? Would Israel shoot down civilian cargo planes? What if the contents were first inspected by authorities of a country that Israel would have to deem legitimate? The U.S.? Perhaps, meanwhile, there could also be some gesture to show that the world is concerned about the safety of Israeli civilians as much as Palestinians. The U.S. has already done more than enough in this regard—way too much; maybe Iran could toss in an ante here. (Wishful thinking, obviously… but what else do we have?)
Nathan is correct in that the autopsy results are consistent with close quarters battle and further support the Israeli account of events. “Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, ”
– The commandos were armed with sidearms. The commandos did not bring in their heavier arms, 5.56mm assault rifles. The activists were not fired upon from the helicopters or the gunboats. Helicopter born weapons consist of 7.62mm light machine guns; the same for the gunboats in addition to .50 caliber heavy machine guns.
– In a highly fluid CQB situation the commandos are trained to shot their target until it is not a threat. If you ever watch one of these units clear a room using sidearms they almost always fire two rounds into a target. Once the situation on the boat became kinetic, training and survival instincts kick in and as the Israeli unit is very highly trained, the high number of head shots is not surprising. Yes, Bryan, the actions are consistent with a rational actor.
—
It would not surprise me if certain elements of the Turkish government did not lend a hand to the IHH. No one disputes Iran’s guiding hands in the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah. A friend of mine is an officer with the Turkish Army and he was and coy (but understandably) about the issue. Turkey’s appearance to shift from a secular state is troubling…something I read between the lines from him as well.
—
I’m glad the US will back the Israeli investigation. The word and motives of the activists involved in this issue are suspect bordering on deceitful. Frankly, the international community has little credibility in this matter. No sooner as the Israelis put boots on the deck, the world media and the vaunted “international community” had already declared this a “massacre” and “piracy.” The UN didn’t wait for facts to come out before condemning the action.
—
Bryan, if by small actions you mean blowing up dance clubs, buses of civilians, a sbarro restaurant, firing rockets at indiscriminate civilian targets… God forbid, Israel takes steps to deter and prevent violence against its citizens…if Israel takes up non violence, lets all hold hands and hold up signs, posture, it will cease to exist…LITERALLY. I’m sure quite a few in the region and in the “international community” would like that. Fortunately the US will not require Israel to commit national suicide.
—
Nathan, air drops? Let’s break that down. Is the point to get aid to the Palestinians or to make some political statement? If the goal was to get aid to the average Palestinian citizen, using an air drop is not cost effective nor does the Palestinian government have an effective way to recover and distribute air delivered aid. Ships carry much more and ports are more efficient in inspecting and distributing the aid. I suppose if you want to make a political point that Israel will defend itself and have a pilot willing to commit suicide by F-15, airdrop away. There is no guarantee that the pilot won’t try and turn the plane into a cruise missile…. Tel Aviv is what 80 miles from Gaza? That equates to about 8 minutes of flying time….
—
Again, the bottom line is that parties need to understand the casus belli. Only then can progress be made to put an end to the conflict that has marred the region. Challenging the Israeli resolve to defend itself will not help the people of Gaza.
Another insightful comment, thank you.
As for air drops: yes, it would be in many respects a statement, intended to make the blockade less and less tenable politically, toward some hope of getting genuine relief through to the Gazans.
I think many people have come to realize, regarding your last comment, the way Israel is trying to defend itself will not ultimately help Israel defend itself.
Thank you Nathan for your insightful article. I agree that all aspects need to be studied and questioned. No one is sure what the single right way to address this problem is, there are probably many options.
At least these activists tried- by showing up unarmed they created the clarity and/or demonstrated their opponent as violent. That is a good tactic, though it can cause victims.It is what Gandhi’s followers did to the Brits in India. The Brits lost their image of justice, as the Israeli are losing their image now.MLK did the same in the South. There comes a point when injustice and oppression is no longer acceptable, even to the offenders.It took India and the Civil Rights movement several decades….
I’ve noticed that the Israeli press seems to be pushing a Turkey-Iran-Hamas connection (J Post, Haaretz), which of course fits neatly into Israel’s attempt to label the Free Gaza activists as terrorists.
The rest of the world has yet to pick up on and evaluate this story, so I’m reluctant to give it much credence. Still, it is important to point out that in recent years Turkey has been moving gradually away from its Kemalist secular identity, from its close ties with Israel, and from its hopes of being welcomed into the European Union. They’ve turned their eyes eastward with the hope of becoming a leading power in the Muslim world, with even a little nostalgia for the Ottoman days. And, of course, there is no cause with more symbolic value in the Muslim world than that of the Palestinians. To stand with them is perceived as standing for Islamic identity writ large. So, whatever the particulars of the Turkish government’s involvement in the Freedom Flotilla (and these are very important to clear up), it is clear that Turkey has something considerable to gain by becoming involved, and something that isn’t necessarily with the interests of either lasting peace or the Palestinian people themselves.
Malaysia is another matter altogether.
Nathan, I don’t think you should dismiss possibilities raised by the autopsy report so quickly. As much as the close range head shots can be attributed to the soldiers’ claims of self defense, they could also be attributed to the activists’ claims of a premeditated attack. Consider that five people were shot in the back of the head or in the back, as well as one between the eyes. On the one hand we’re talking about skilled commandos, but on the other, could such precision indicate there was time to set up? We may never know the answer, which is all the more reason we shouldn’t dismiss or cede any possibilities to one side over the other.
D. Killion, once again, I appreciate your thoughtful and challenging comments, although I get the feeling I could never be critical of the activists or Palestinians enough for your taste. I notice you took issue with my “small acts of violence” statement. Perhaps my wording could have been better. But I don’t think it’s worth trying to explain what I was getting at now. In looking back on what I wrote I think was clear enough on the point that I reject Palestinian violence (or violence waged on their behalf) as much as Israeli violence. That being said, I wonder if you have ever taken issue with Israeli violence. Could you offer any specific criticisms of the way Israel handled this situation? If you have already, I apologize. But I haven’t gotten that sense from the last few comments of yours that I’ve read.
Bryan, all I look for is a fair reading of facts when making a opinion. Do I agree with all Israeli actions in defending itself? Of course I do not; however, I know enough about combat in a densely populated urban environment against terrorists to know that lines are easily blurred and mistakes can and do happen. For instance the wide spread use of house demolition during the 2nd Intifada is problematic to me.
Concerning the current situation, I do not have any criticisms with the way Israel handled the situation. The facts do not lead me to conclude otherwise. 1. The boats were all warned not to attempt to run the blockade. 2. The flotilla was given perfectly acceptable alternatives for inspection and delivery of their aid to Gaza at both Egyptian and Israeli ports. 3. The capture of the other boats in the flotilla went down without incident. 4. The IDF has performed similar missions in the past without incident. 5. The commandos were equipped for a law enforcement mission (having only sidearms for personal defense) 6. The violence was instigated by the activists, and the IDF actions are consistent with acting in self defense. 7. Video evidence overwhelmingly supports the Israeli depiction of events.
I cannot offer specific criticism on this specific issue because I am not at all critical with the action. Shooting out the rudder of the non compliant ship and towing into port where a more controlled seizure could take place is an alternative, but it is also dangerous. Not enforcing the blockade is another, but Israel runs the risk of continued weapons shipments and violence against it’s population and renewed conflict which would cause more death.
Cheers
I appreciate your response. And I agree for the most part with points one through five. Points six and seven, however, are where I think you diverge from your objective of being objective. We simply don’t have enough evidence to determine who acted with force first. Several eye-witness accounts by longtime committed peace activists support the notion that Israel came in firing first. These are not the sort of people who lie, even when they have a vested interest in the outcome. So I don’t really see how their word carries any less credence than that of the Israeli military, which, like any military, has been involved in shady operations. So, in light of the facts, or lack thereof, you can’t be certain about points six or seven. Without an impartial investigation (conducted by a third party) it will be hard to believe anything that comes out of this. I know you’ve defended Israel’s position to conduct its own investigation. But if they truly have nothing to hide then they should be open to a third party investigation. We should know why Israel released doctored photos and edited video, while at the same time not releasing any of the video footage shot by the activists. Again, I’m not saying this puts the activists in the clear. I’m just saying you are ceding too much of the conjecture over to the Israelis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXI973V53iI&feature=related
**** Bulent Yildrim is head of (IHH): “Yes, we took their guns. It would be self-defence even if we fired their guns. We told our friends on board: ‘We will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown… as the ones who used guns’. By this decision, our friends accepted death, and we threw all the guns we took from them into the sea.”
**** Norman Paech, a former member of Germany’s Left Party: “Moments later, we heard detonations and then soldiers from helicopters above us dropped down on board.
“The soldiers were all masked, carrying big guns and were extremely brutal.”
Mr Paech said he only saw three activists resisting.
“They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves” But he said he could “not rule out” that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.
**** Turkish activist Nilufer Cetin told reporters she hid with her baby in the bathroom of her cabin aboard the Mavi Marmara.
“When the Mavi Marmara continued on its course, the harassment [from Israeli ships] turned into an attack,” she said.
“They used smoke bombs followed by gas canisters. They started to descend on to the ship with helicopters.
“It [the violence] was extremely bad and brutal. The ship turned into a lake of blood.
_________________________________________
So, first the video shot BY the combatants, i mean activists, showing a mob of armed folks on the deck. I just so happens that the video from the activist shows the different angle of a film the IDF released right after the incident. The evidence is quite damning.
I have no doubt that some of the “eyewitnesses” are bold faced liars, but at the very least they were not true eyewitnesses but instead simply repeated hearsay that fit their narrative .
– Mr Yildrim admits that they took the some of the Israeli commandos weapons. The missing sidearms were recovered after the ships seizure, magazines expended. The mermaids in the Med must have threw them back on this ship….
– Mr Peach’s observation about flash/stun/gas grenade use. Those devices are used to try disperse crowds…like the one gathered on the deck. Big guns? Yeah, big, non lethal guns. Extremely brutal? The first troopers were pulled off the ropes before they hit the deck and mobbed. In fact, in one part of the clip, the Israeli still had his large fast rope gloves still on. No knives? Proved false…not the least of which by the wounds to the Israeli soldiers and as illustrated on the video. Sticks? Try baseball bats. He admittedly had a limited view…if i had to guess he was in the back of the ship where he could see nothing of the initial violence that started it all.
– Ms. Cetin: What mother in God’s name brings their BABY on something like this? Despite that insane decision, she had the good sense to sit in a bathroom during the raid…not exactly a good place to be an “eyewitness”
I would say that the long time activists you are referring to are flat out liars saying the Israelis initiated the violence. If the Israelis wanted to, they could have cleared the deck of anything living rather quickly. They could not fast rope use a weapon at the same time (remember the GLOVES). Weapons that equipped the helos/ships were not used. It is disingenuous to say that the use of crowd control grenades (flash/stun/gas) is instigating violence.
On it’s face, the word of the activists hold the same weight as the Israelis. Once the activists word is contradicted by video and even plausibility, the credibility of their word is destroyed.
Impartial investigation? By whom? The UN? The international community that condemned Israel from the start?
What doctored photos do you refer to? What edited video? There has been video shot by the activists released.
Lastly, I’m expressly trying to avoid conjecture. My opinion is based on I think a fair reading of the evidence, motivations of the parties involved, history of similar actions and rationale of the decision making.
I appreciate the interchange.
Cheers
Yes, I’m aware of the Israeli video. We posted it on our site because we found the violence quite objectionable. BUT there has not been a video shown with a complete narrative. Again, the point that is not clear is who started the violence. The one side says the other. But based on what we do know, which is that Israel fired rubber coated steel bullets from above onto the deck of the ship, it is not hard to imagine some people getting upset and going after the commandos when they came down. As much as I don’t like that some people acted this way, I can understand it in this context. Furthermore, let’s not forget that Israel came after this boat in international waters. Not only is that illegal, but in any other case that would be considered an act of aggression. So I just don’t think it’s as clear cut as you. There’s a lot of important nuance that hasn’t been revealed and because Israel has been in control of the release of information we are all subject to state propaganda. For more on that you should read Glenn Greenwald at Salon and this blog from FAIR. Finally, if you are trying to portray a reasoned approach to this whole incident, you may want to refrain from calling the activists and journalists on board “flat out liars” or even “combatants” as a joke. Although I am critical of Israel, I do not use accusatory words to describe them. I don’t think that helps anyone’s argument.
Bryan, it’s pretty clear who started it. Unless you expand the definition of violence to include flash bangs, rubber bullets, high velocity paint ball guns and harsh language then omit wooden bludgeons, metal rods and knives.
You can understand people getting upset and going after the soldiers? Could the Israelis be similarly upset that this ship was refusing to stand down while trying to run a blockade and sink the ship out of hand? What would happen at a protest in the US if activists assault police with knives and clubs after tear gas and less than lethal munitions were fired to disperse an unruly crowd? I think you and I both know that the police are perfectly justified escalate the situation to the use of lethal force in self defense.
Yes, let go into the whole “it’s illegal because it was in international water” fallacy. This: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 takes on that argument. It can be argued that it was the flotilla that was violating international conventions trying to run the blockade. Admittedly, there is debate whether these articles apply to Gaza because Gaza is not a “state” and Hamas while a terrorist organization, is the ruling party. To patently state that the blockade is illegal without any analysis or support is problematic and strictly conjecture.
A combatant is someone who is fighting. A number of the protesters were fighting; therefore, those protesters who were fighting are combatants.
Someone who does not tell the truth is a liar. I pointed out before examples of those activists or people representing activists not telling the truth. At first, the protesters said they never attacked the soldiers, then they threw the weapons they took from soldiers overboard, then the IDF was firing live ammunition from the boats and helicopters. All of these were proven not to be true. So yes, I find the Israeli consistent narrative and the evidence brought to the table as much more credible than the various inconsistent stories from the IHH and the Free Gaza folks.
Cheers