Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Yes, it was a deliberate provocation

Melanie Phillips often goes over the top but this article does not just give her opinion but provides links and quotations from various sources. Well worth reading for anyone who wants to get beyond the routine hysteria of the BBC and other Western reactions such as our own Foreign Secretary, who, as ever, manages to put his foot into his mouth the moment he opens the latter.

(I particularly like the idea of Turkey getting indignant about Israel's reaction. How does this compare with their own treatment of various Kurdish organizations and, indeed, of Kurdish civilians. The people on those boats were not "civilian" by any definition.)

The problem remains, though: why does Israel not manage its PR better. Well, there is nothing for it: we all need to get involved in this propaganda war.


  1. It would have been better to let the ships land & film the arms being unloaded (presuming that was why they stopped the ships).

  2. There might well not have been any weapons on this flotilla. The issue is that if Israel allows this once they will be obliged to allow it again in future, then a new conduit for weapons smuggling would then be open. At least, that's how it seems to me.

  3. AKM

    You're right but what is the alternative. Hamas set Israel a trap and the latter walked into it. I bet Hamas expected be making the most of Israeli blockading the country or some rough handling. They must be delighted that people died.

    If Gaza is no longer occupied then Israel must let teh Palestinians control their own borders. I know this means they will import weapons but Israel must wait for a Hamas to create the Casus Belli otherwise it can never win the media war. Firing rockets was a valid one for launching Cast Lead. This one isn't.

  4. Unfortunately, the media still took Hamas's side in operation Cast Lead, despite the obvious provocation. So, I am afraid, reasonable though your argument is, TDK, it does not work.

  5. 'Israeli convoy raid: What went wrong?'


    Something clearly went wrong with the Israeli response, but what about the Beeb's response? From the current version of that article:

    (Update: several readers have pointed out that the protesters, as well as the UN high commissioner for human rights, consider the whole blockade illegal and that therefore, in their view, the Israeli argument becomes irrelevant.)

  6. This article here that covers the justification for the blockade:

    I believe that the Paris declaration of 1856 is the treaty that covers the legality of blockades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
    I've been told that there have been some clarifications of some elements since then to cover distant blockades, though I wasn't able to find the reference.