Defense officials seek to forcefully block boats protesting Gaza seige

<snip>

"Defense officials favor forcefully blocking two boats which a group of U.S.-based activists plan to sail to Gaza to protest what they call "the Israeli siege on the Strip," Haaretz has learned.

According to the Foreign Ministry, Israel is within its rights to use force against the seafarers.

The subject of the Greek-flagged boats which the Free Gaza group said it would sail from Cyprus to Gaza this week prompted defense officials to hold a series of discussions; they said allowing the ships to reach the Gaza coastline could create a dangerous precedent. But the Israel Navy has not yet received any instructions on how to treat the vessels.

According to some officials, Hamas is keen to exploit the initiative by the activists - including Israeli Hebrew University professor and activist Jeff Halper - for its political needs, and could try to greet the seafarers with fishing boats.

The officials believe that Hamas views the drive as an opportunity to underscore the suffering of the civilian population because of Israel's policies. A position paper by the Foreign Ministry's legal department says Israel has the right to use force against the demonstrators as part of the Oslo Accords, which names Israel as responsible for Gaza's territorial waters.

An official in Jerusalem said the Foreign Ministry's paper means that security forces could detain the vessels upon entry to Gaza's territorial waters, arrest the passengers and haul the ship to Israel, where the detainees could be interrogated."

more

The Israeli government is endorsing its rights under Oslo as in

A position paper by the Foreign Ministry's legal department says Israel has the right to use force against the demonstrators as part of the Oslo Accords, which names Israel as responsible for Gaza's territorial waters.

To use force against a protest of their breaking Oslo?

The waters off the Gaza Strip are patrolled by Israeli naval vessels, and Israel enforces a "Fishing Limit" that is 6 nautical miles (11.1 km) from the Gaza shore. These restrictions on access and borders are enforced despite the 2005 Israeli "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.

The crew intends to travel into the Gaza strip, past the international waters boundary, the 1996 Oslo accords boundary (20 nautical miles from the Gaza coast), the 2002 Bertini agreement boundary (12 nautical miles and 22.2 km from the Gaza coast) and the current "Fishing Limit" imposed by the Israeli navy since October 2006.

http://maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=30657

That's the point. You can sense the frantic search for some justification in the language used. "seek to forcefully block" is already tortured, a combination of passive and active. If they said they "intend to forcefully block" then they would be saying something. Instead we are told they are searching for a justification to do something they have no real right to do, but if they did it, then if would be "forceful", no dicking around.

Or, of course, they could admit Gaza is still occupied and they are responsible for it's residents and their welfare.

It was part of a headline that has since been removed.

The only actual claim is that Israel has the right to use force according to its Foreign Ministry.

"The officials believe that Hamas views the drive as an opportunity to underscore the suffering of the civilian population because of Israel's policies."

Why is that presented as some sort of theory? Isn't that the stated purpose of the trip, to protest the "seige of the strip"? Why is this displaced onto what Hamas is thinking instead of what the participants are thinking? Why is it an "opportunity" and not an humanitarian protest? Why is it a bad thing to underscore the suffering of the residents of Gaza? Why suggest that these people are tools instead of plain old political protesters?

You are right, they have tightened up their language a bit, a good thing that.

I agree, that sentence you cited from the article is pretty weak. For what it's worth, I think the key to that sentence is "because of Israel's policies". It seems that the suggestion is that Hamas is going to use this incident as an opportunity to paint Israel as being to blame for the situation in Gaza as opposed to bearing the responsibility for the suffering of the civilian population themselves (which is how Israel would present it).

I would like to see the position paper that is referenced in the piece. The primary document would be a lot more instructive than this article in understanding exactly what Israel's position is on this.

As far as the rest, OF COURSE Hamas is going to use it to bash Israeli policies. And vice versa. And OF COURSE they are both to blame for the situation in Gaza. So the real situation is that the people are suffering and the governments continue to pursue their petty quarrels.

It would be interesting, I agree, to see how they justify keeping access to Gaza closed while claiming to have no responsibility for it.

Just agreeing that the author of the article was less than clear in his writing.

I think that the justification runs something like this:

They are not occupying Gaza, however, they are in the midst of a conflict with the Hamas-led territory, and that the waters around Gaza are therefore a "combat zone".

Again, seeing the actual position paper from the government would be helpful.

but found two "better heads" more interesting, especially seeing as how I agree with you.

It just seems like a lose-lose to me, all around. Hey, the Gaza Truce is working, there is less violence, let's make what we can of it. I don't really blame Israelis for wanting to be safe, but this does nothing in that regard, it's just knee-jerk "we can't look weak" kind of thinking. Let it go. Let them have their protest. Everybody looks good. Israel shows it can handle criticism, bucks up it's reputation for respecting free speech and human rights, the protesters get to be noble crusaders, nobody gets killed, what's not to like?

ATHENS (AFP) — Israel has warned a group of pro-Palestinian activists sailing for the Gaza Strip to break a year-long blockade to steer clear of the territory, the Israeli embassy in Athens said on Tuesday.

"The area to which you are planning to sail is the subject of an (Israeli Navy) advisory notice which warns all foreign vessels to remain clear of the designated maritime zone," the Israeli foreign ministry said in an open letter to the participants of the Free Gaza Boat Expedition.

"We assume that your intentions are good but, in fact, the result of your action is that you are supporting the regime of a terrorist organisation in Gaza," the ministry said.

Ruled since June 2007 by Hamas, an Islamist movement that is considered a terrorist organisation by the West, the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli blockade for the past year except for humanitarian aid.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmyN_YpjzKz-mBzDppnVZRad6-TA

"We assume that your intentions are good but, in fact, the result of your action is that you are supporting the regime of a terrorist organisation in Gaza," the ministry said.

I agree with this. Even if the intent is good, how does this help the average citizen of Gaza? Without question, this would help HAMAS, but how is that a good thing?

Anyone?

Bueller?

helped the good people of Gaza?

From the global perspective, the people of Gaza have suffered immeasurably under the iron boot of Hamas.

<snip>

"Cyprus will allow two boats carrying members of a U.S.-based activist group to sail for Gaza in defiance of Israel's blockade of the Palestinian territory, authorities here said Wednesday.

The two wooden sailboats have passed a safety inspection, Cyprus' Merchant Shipping Director Serghios Serghiou said.

He said the boats have also been given safety certificates from Greece, where the vessels are registered.

"We have not prohibited the departure of the boat," Serghiou told The Associated Press.

Protest organizer Paul Larudee said the boats — the 21-meter (70-foot) Free Gaza and 18-meter (60-foot) Liberty — will set sail Thursday around midnight from Cyprus' port of Larnaca for the estimated 30-hour trip."

more

<snip>

"Two boats carrying members of a U.S.-based activist group left Cyprus for Gaza early Friday to try and break Israel's blockade of the Palestinian territory.

The boats — the 70-foot Free Gaza and 60-foot Liberty — left the southern port of Larnaca about 10 a.m. for the estimated 30-hour trip.

Members of the Free Gaza protest group said some 40 activists from 14 countries — including an 81-year-old Catholic nun — will attempt to break the blockade Israel imposed on Gaza last year. They hope other rights groups will follow their example.

"I've been nervous, but today I'm excited," said activist Lauren Booth, 41, sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's not about our fear, it's about the people waiting in Gaza, you can't think about anything else."

more

That is the first piece I've seen about these boats that mentions the 81 year old Catholic nun but not the 83 year old Holocaust survivor.

...but that she grew up in England during that time and definitely lost family in the holocaust. She's not a survivor of any death camp, branded arm, etc.

And with this report omitting any mention of a Holocaust survivor, I am wondering if maybe she decided not to participate.

"However, 84-year-old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein was unable to make the trip due to medical reason but stood at Larnaca dock to bid her colleagues farewell."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyqX5ZWgZPPYVkBMfHhOC-FujZHw

What do you think will happen with these boats?

:thumbsup:

But I've been known to be wrong before!

Israel to let boats protesting Gaza siege to dock in Strip

Israel decided on Saturday to permit a U.S.-based activist group protesting the Israeli-imposed blockade on the Gaza Strip to sail two boats carrying humanitarian supplies into the Palestinian territory.

A senior Israeli official said Saturday that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak consulted at length on the issue on Friday and decided not to prevent the boats, carrying 46 activists, from docking in the Strip.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014462.html

its in reminder of the Liberty boat that israeli jets/boats attacked in 67......its only controversial for those who dont know the facts or for those who dont want to..either way it does show the more sinister side of the boat activists.

assuming that they had nothing but pure intentions..then they wouldnt want to piss off a good part of the israeli population that does have some feelings for the Palestinians in Gaza

but by throwing the liberty incident into their actions they show just how easy it is to confuse pro palestine with anti israel....and this puts them squarely into the anti israel crowd .....

break the seige...help the Palestinians.....even the exodus II (if they're going for irony)...but the Liberty?...tsk tsk tsk..i guess their emotions/true feelings got the better of them

I can't say I blame you... ;)

And I wouldn't call it Exodus II... the ship isn't about bringing outsiders in to live, but rather allowing the folks who were born there to live ;)

The Liberty incident has nothing to do with solidarity with the Palestinians, or helping to allow "folks who were born there to live", or anything of that nature. It has to do with something that took place between the Israeli and US military.

It seems odd that this group would want to affiliate themselves with such right-wing individuals as the ones who requested the Liberty tribute be included in their mission.

Have you looked at the American Free Press website lately or seen where Phil Tourney has spoken and given interviews?

A lot of those folks are really coming at their criticism of Israel more from the David Duke place than out of any solidarity with Palestinian suffering.

the liberty incident was a war time incident between the US and Israel.......has little to do with the Palestinians in gaza and their situation. Its an emotional issue for sure for those americans who were attacked (and for israelis given the accusations).....and for those who find israel to be a "loathsome little country"...but thats really about it.

Bringing it in simply shows the true colors of the those on the boats or at least their leaders...you wrote a lot about why the lsraeli left doesnt advance the nonviolent peace cause as you define it...now you have an excellent answer.

for many of those involved on the intl level, its not about the Palestinians..its about bashing israel. Get rid of those "useful idiots" and you might have a chance of getting some additional israelis to join you....keep them, and you can count many of us out.


____

the actual incident was no worse than a dozen other incidents of the IDF/USA/UK/..... shooting on its own and its allies..... yes a shame

If the activists want to get the support of as many left-wing Jews (whether in Israel or internationally) as possible, then it is highly counterproductive to include, or allow influence from, people and groups who are at best only a couple of degrees of separation from right-libertarian/isolationist-xenophobic groups - which in turn are usually only a couple of degrees of separation from hard-Right anti-semitic groups.

That sort of thing is a dealbreaker for me. In this particular case, it is just as stark as: If these activists had refused links with the Liberty campaigners, I would be supporting them. Since they do have these links, I don't. I don't know how many of the moderate-Zionist, anti-Occupation, Jewish (or even non-Jewish) left would feel the same way as me, but I suspect quite a few. So here's an example of how pro-Palestinian/ anti-Occupation activists can lose crucial support by making links with the isolationist American Right.

Just the same way as even Arabs or Muslims who strongly support peace movements and an end to terrorism would be unlikely to march in demonstrations or sign petitions organized by groups that are linked with anti-Islam crusaders or British or American anti-immigrant bigots.

ETA: The Liberty episode was indeed a major tragedy. But many British soldiers have been killed by American 'friendly fire' (in the first months of the Iraq War, I believe such casualties outnumbered those killed by the enemy), and I would hardly use this as grounds for general anti-American sentiment.

It's dragging in things that really have nothing to do with I/P, and which come across as American-xenophobic rather than pro-Palestinian. Your other suggestions would be much more appropriate to the case.

Is that what it's called when your "friend" destroys your naval ship and you don't like it?

It is a small number of right-wing conspiracy theorists who promote the idea that it was anything other than a friendly fire accident.

Even if those theorists are correct and the Israelis did in fact attack that boat deliberately, what would that have to do with Gaza today?

It's not xenophobic to not like it when a group of people fly planes into towers and kill 3000 people. But it's xenophobic to drag it into everything that involves Arabs and Muslims in any way whatsoever.

It's not xenophobic for Brits to disapprove of Blair dragging us into the Iraq war that most of us opposed, and thus risking the lives of our soldiers and increasing the overall danger of terrorism to all of us. But it would be xenophobic to bring this into everything that involves America.

And both of the examples that I gave involve deliberate actions or policies; whereas in the case of the 'Liberty', the general view is that it was 'friendly fire', not a deliberate attack.

that could truly change the landscape of the conflict in Gaza and you guys focus on the names of the ships?

I think you've missed the boat.

Truly, Palestinians and their supporters are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What a disappointment.

Here's a newsflash: there will never be a perfect resistance. There damn sure isn't a perfect occupation, so don't you think your perfectionistic expectations are entirely misplaced???

But OK, I may have reacted impulsively (any possibility of links of ANYTHING to right-wing organizations does that to me!). I will do a bit more investigation as to the exact associations of this group before I make more pronouncements.

I do support the action in principle, and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions as fast as I did.

But I also think that any Palestinians or their supporters who welcome support from isolationists/ RW-libertarians are making the same mistake as any Jews who welcome support from Hagee and the Christian Zionists. In both cases, the support is for the wrong reasons and they will soon throw their 'friends' under the bus.

and found that almost all the endorsing organizations are either pro-Palestinian groups or peace/pacifist groups or individuals. There are a few that seem a bit peculiar, like Neturei Karta; but I found only one American right-winger, Michael Rivero. Even one is too many; but, as it appears to be just one out of dozens, I think I *do* owe the group an apology for suspecting a significant link to the American isolationist Right.

I never made any comment about right-wing groups, that was LB and she has apologized, something not often seen on this board. So why the "attack" on me?

In any case, you don't specifically need his support - or for that matter mine - or anyone else on the forum.

It's more a matter of how to reach out in general to 'moderates'.

At least from one 'moderate''s perspective:

For pro-Palestinians, the best way to alienate a moderate is most of all to support terrorism, but secondly to accept or even imply acceptance of support from RW isolationist groups.

For strong pro-Israelis, the best way to alienate a moderate is most of all to support war, but secondly to accept or even imply acceptance of support from groups that campaign against Muslim immigrants.

What I think as one individual is fairly trivial. But I assume that campaigners and activists want to get as much support as possible from as many people as possible - so there's one perspective on it.

The Free Gaza site was endorsed by the 'American Free Press'. This is a right-libertarian site, which endorses Ron Paul (including his anti-abortion stance), and among much else includes an article, 'Liberal Foundations Undermine America, Subvert Democracy', which explicitly attacks the Nelson Mandela Foundation and refers to him as a 'terrorist' and 'communist'.

As they are not listed on the FreeGaza site itself, I would like to believe that the Free Gaza group are unaware of, and did not seek, the endorsement from that group. I don't care for 'guilt by association', unless the association is explicitly sought. In particular, I find it hard to believe that Desmond Tutu would support Free Gaza, if it were openly endorsed by such a group.

Therefore I am still reserving judgement, and would like to continue regarding the Free Gaza group as a non-violent pro-Palestinian human-rights group without known links to right-wingers. However, I'd certainly be happier if they explicitly denounced 'American Free Press'.

Lots of so-called liberals would have no problem putting Palestinians on a reservation.

So what?

And to this day opposes the Voting Rights Act, arguing that such issues should be left up to the states.

And would deny all women the right to choose.

As far as I am concerned, ALL right-wing politicians are demons.

the Palestinians (and many jews too) go with the "enemy of my enemy is my friend...which is akin to the "ends justifies the means"....both are the wrong means to an end. I would like to think that the Palestinians might realize that they "salvation" lies through the israeli left and not via the nice lefties out in "la la" land.

your right there will be no perfect resistance...so they will just have to suffer the criticisms of the imperfect resistance and take it as well and perhaps try to improve upon it.....whats wrong with that?

feel free to criticism them as well.....not just what you would "prefer"...but spell it out when they doing a stupid thing..i promise no one will come after you...and its for their own good-100% solidarity is for cults not for free thinking societies

I think your attack is designed to divert attention from the mission of the ship.

You'd prefer readers to question the motives of the brave souls on those ships, rather than to spend a few minutes pondering the inhumanity of the siege.

Bravo to all who sailed on both the Liberty and Free Gaza!!

we've had Ava "Cinderella" Berlin whining to Horowitz about her step mommy, all links led back to Horowitz or her Facebook page, the name of one of the ships, but Free Gaza is not mentioned, and more recently the Holocaust survivor that is now claimed not to be, perhaps someone should ask the women herself, that the Palestinians were angry because they "thought" the ships were bringing food and medicine although these items were not ever mentioned in any of the articles published by the actual people in the mission, can only wonder how that rumor got started.

Oh finally oh the "outrage" the people manning did not deboard in Gaza and immediately start denouncing Hamas, and in fact "gasp" can you "imagine" actually talked to Haniyeh, maybe they should have invited Barak too.:sarcasm:

All in all it is "sour grapes" and perhaps fear of similar missions to come.

I drew parallels between Ava Berlin's links to the Dan Pipes site, and the bringing of the 'Liberty' incident into the current political situation, and pointed out that BOTH were biased and right-wing.

I am an equal-opportunity hater of the Right in all its forms!

however in this case the RW connections of a few of the FreeGaza mission are being used to trash the entire mission or by implication/guilt by association paint it as antiSemetic

in fact my wish to support what seems on paper like a very interesting humanitarian mission has probably made me give more charitable interpretations to the organization's possible associations than I otherwise would.

However, it seems reasonable to check, with regard to any organization, that supporting it will not give direct aid to any right-wing or anti-semitic or Islamophobic or otherwise racist or undesirable organization. There is lots of criticism here of people who supposedly give more importance to Israeli security than to other aspects of their country's or the world's welfare, and who are prepared to associate with hawks, neo-cons or fundies if these support Israel. If it is wrong or unwise to do this, then surely it is also wrong and unwise to allow support for Palestine, or even for Middle Eastern peace-seeking, to blind one to other aspects of one's country's or the world's welfare, and to promote right-wing groups if they support the cause.

I think the mission is great *in principle* and would like to support it; but, until and unless I am sure that support for it will not bolster Phil Tourney's group or other RW groups, my support can only be passive. I could not actively sign up to or donate to an organization if there's any possibility that this will give aid and comfort to groups like American Free Press.

sorry if you took it that way and I forgot to thank for the nice reminder that it was Pipes not Horowitz. I tend to confuse them.

What is the connection between the Liberty incident and the current situation in Gaza or any of the hardships facing Palestinians today or ever in their history?

is part of the problem......part of the "demonization" that you claim is impossible...

discussion was about the credentials and leanings of the civilian crew.

What siege??

Job well done!

this is a classic example showing the underlying intentions of those on the boats...or at least the leaders. All they had to do is concentrate on their mission and its goal....and they just couldnt resist attempt at bashing israel....they're mission seems to have had a bit more than just helping the Palestinians....they also appears to have wanted to distance any israeli sympathy to their cause....another dumb idea by the "useful idiots". (or maybe its that confusion of anti zionism/pro Palestinian/anti semitism-its always so confusing to me)

my suggestion?..get rid to them, work with the locals, you'll have a better change of accomplishing something long term.

you asked before where are the israeli leftists?.... disgusted by the Palestinian allies for one

years.

Isn't your criticism petty to say the least?

I'm focused on what the Liberty & Free Gaza have accomplished!

so are the protocols of zion, the genocide, massacre, targeting children, targeting americans accusations.....all petty in your eyes......

just not in ours.

because in reading through this thread the intent of the posters who are piecemeal picking apart a few of the people involved becomes quite transparent, they can not "kill" the message and "worse" yet it was a success, so kill the messenger{s} instead, the only surprise is that Jeff Halper has been left alone.

i think the Palestinians should import all they want from the sea and from egypt....be it food, medicine or bombs.....and i think that their society should understand the consequences of their own doings as well....and i think israel should cut them off entirely....from food to electricity and wish them good luck.......

that said, one doesnt have to turn a blind eye to what they are doing....let them give names to their buildings to represent lost villages, people etc...if it makes them feel good,....they should not come complaining to israel when israel decides to cut the electricity, medicine, food that gets delivered via israeli border control points. If they want to play nice and take into account israeli sensitivities then as in all relationships there should be a "quid pro quid"....and if not....so be it. Seems to me to be a reasonably thing to do.....

(and when they do shoot katushas as they've done yesterday and the day before...israel shouldnt have to pretend that there is a truce and that the katushas didnt land in israel and didnt explode....)

______

fact is the boat was named to make a point....why ignore it?

No food, fuel, electricity, medicine, through Israel, provided by Israel.

Let the Palestinians fend for themselves completely, and any rockets that fall on Israel are then considered a true act of war.

There is no reason that anyone should be feeding, clothing and caring for the Paletsinians, whose goal is to annihilate Israel and take it over again.

Up the wall.

was to some degree a diversion from the mission.

but they didnt name the ship.....the organizers did.

And that at least some of the organizers *let* themselves be diverted. (A worse possibility is that one or two of the organizers are themselves in the mission for other than humanitarian or pro-Palestinian reasons;though I would prefer not to think that.)

i find it hard to believe that they were so easily diverted.....

along the same lines in principle i guess you have no problem with jews and (in the past )sharon walking and praying on the temple mount.......it is after all a historic jewish holy place..... (where the Dome of the Rock mosque presently is)....doesnt mean its smart

The boat should be named the S.S. Irony.

your comment says about those who need to trash anything "Pro-Palestinian" as being automatically anti er something.........

...claiming anything "pro-Israeli" is automatically propaganda and done off the backs of its apartheid policies.

couldn't be that the organizers are American and here lots of things are called "liberty" and guess what 99.9999% have nada to do with the ship that got blown up 41 years ago, or was it just a means to spin these people as "Israel-haters"?

But it might be better to choose a name less vulnerable to misinterpretation in such a context.

that is why they names it that, if so that is disappointing, dredging up past wrongs on both sides is IMO part of what makes progress is so difficult.

This report was posted from the deck of the S.S. Liberty (named after the U.S.S. Liberty which was fired upon by Israel during the 1967 war killing scores of American crewman)

http://www.palcast.org/2008/08/483

been reported elswhere as well...some of the crew of the original liberty wanted to join up (i forgot why they didnt)

certainly wasn't my first or second thought,just thought the name was "hokey". Maybe I think too present tense.

far outweights the crime of the fucking siege.

Don't you guys get tired from all the mental and moral gymnastics that are required to maintain your POV?

As I said upthread, in this case this impression seems to be largely misleading. And I apologized, after reading the list of endorsers, for making the assumption from the name that there was a strong link to the isolationist RW.

However, given that public relations are important, and that in the real world people tend (regrettably perhaps) to respond at least initially to first impressions rather than always doing careful research, it might be wise to avoid the risk of creating such impressions. JMO - as someone who now supports the action, having done some research; but *was* influenced negatively by that first impression.

protest?

Even if!!

LB, I don't know where you got the notion that only extreme RW groups are critical of the liberty incident. I don't think that's the case at all.

I do think for Israeli-supporters to glom on to the name is the miss the larger point. You may have seen the light, but I don't think your co-posters here have.

It is the leaders of the Free Gaza movement accepting a request from a right-wing group to perform a dual ceremony for Palestinians and Liberty crew members.

This is not some RW group saying "we support you", it is the Free Gaza group saying "we support you" to a far right organization.

When asked by this group to tie their ceremony commemorating Palestinian lives lost with Liberty crew members, they could have very easily said - we don't think that is appropriate or relevant to our mission.

They could have taken a look at the American Free Press website where they were told they would be featured prominently and said - we really don't want to be associated with that site.

It might have been nice if they had had a ceremony memorializing Palestinian and Israeli civilians who have died since the Gaza blockade began, but that did not seem to be something that interested this group.

It might have been nice if they had refused to meet with Haniyeh upon their arrival in Gaza to protest the violence and terrorist attacks against civilians that he has condoned, but they did not see fit to take that step either.

I don't think this is much of a bugaboo for pro-Palestinian folks.

Questions for you: Would you permit the American Free Press to publish something you wrote? Would you accept a request from them to write a feature article promoting a protest action that you organized?

As if to suggest that disputing the theory that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty is akin to denying that the Holocaust took place.

If you were indeed making that analogy, I find that to be more than slightly offensive.

If I am misunderstanding, then please elucidate (and accept my apologies).

After reading multiple threads where you don't make similar criticism of AIPAC for cosying up with far right groups and bigots, I'm wondering why now you have a problem with it when it comes to a pro-Palestinian group.

Oberliner has on quite a number of occasions criticized AIPAC's invitation to Hagee to speak; and has expressed a desire for more left-wing groups such as Ameinu to get more power within AIPAC. You and I must have been reading different posts.

As far as my own views are concerned: all collaborations with right-wingers are undesirable at best, evil at worst, and will end up harming one's own group or cause.

The influence of the far right within AIPAC is something that I've always criticised. I've attempted to promote the voices of AIPAC member organizations such as Ameinu, and other groups within AIPAC who have been frustrated with the rightward direction that group has continued to take.

That said, AIPAC is not a human rights organization or a group of peace activists, nor is it a left-wing or progressive organization. It is a group that includes Republicans and Democrats, right-wingers and left-wingers, and everything in between.

One of the frustrations that I think many in the progressive community have observed, is the way in which protests and actions can sometimes become muddled when folks with a questionable ideology are included by organizers. You will note recall of the disagreements that arose, for instance, involving the group, International ANSWER. Sometimes there have been hateful images and messages included at such protests that no peace activist would want anything to do with. While organizers of a major protest cannot control every single individual and what sorts of signs they hold up and agenda they bring, they can choose who they partner with, where they interview, and whose requests they decline.

With that in mind, I think that the Free Gaza Movement, which claims to be made up of human rights observers and aid workers, would choose such associations carefully as they would no doubt reflect on the ethos of the organization.

If you want to suggest that the Free Gaza Movement, like AIPAC, is made up of a group with wide ranging political opinions from far right to far left, then I would think you want be critical of those in the former group and hope that the organization embraces more progressive values.

It's a question of my reserving judgement. I consider that the activities of grassroots organizations are often the most important in achieving peace - but am also aware that grassroots organizations are not always blessed with research departments and public relations organizations, and can make major errors as regards accepting support from undesirable people/organizations without checking. I will accept a certain number of such errors from a group that I think are working for a good cause - perhaps more than some others will. I would really like to believe that this is an inspiring grassroots group working for a good cause, and just being 'glommed onto' by a few right-wingers without fully checking. However, my change of heart for the moment would *not* survive any evidence of continued and deliberate active collaboration with right-wingers; and in particular, with such organizations as American Free Press.

And let us note: a few months ago, the roles were reversed. Many of us here expressed support for the One Voice Movement, and a few people, including yourself, were negative about it, citing involvement of Fatah officials whom you distrusted, and what you considered as the bad taste of holding a concert when there were people going hungry. Those of us who supported the One Voice Movement could not understand why these things could make someone oppose an inspiring grassroots peace movement. I don't really wish to re-ignite the debate on One Voice (which I still strongly support) - but am bringing it up to show that you, too, can regard certain issues as 'dealbreakers' even with regard to a well-intentioned cause. We all can and do.

'where you got the notion that only extreme RW groups are critical of the liberty incident. I don't think that's the case at all.'

In my experience, those groups who bring the Liberty incident up *with regard to current relations with Israel* tend to be right-wingers of a certain sort: isolationist RW-libertarians. They may or may not be 'extreme right' but are usually at only a few degrees of separation from those who are.

sound more like they are aligned with David Duke supporters than people who support progressive causes.

and yes the proIsraeli crowd supports the most progressive and in vogue of all principles continued oppression. But seeing as how you so disdain progressives who advocate equality for all not just some perhaps some could be referred to in the future as "regressives" it seems fitting to say the least

that there are some people who do oppose Israel, not on pro-Palestinian grounds, but on xenophobic isolationist grounds. Most of them are RW-libertarian; and some of them do have links with far-right groups. Phil Tourney of the Liberty campaign is quoted on David Duke's site.

Sometimes pro-Palestinian groups are prepared to associate with, or accept support from, the RW isolationists. Sometimes without checking, and because they are disposed to welcome any support. Sometimes because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. And sometimes unfortunately because they contain people whose willingness to support the Palestinian cause is secondary to opposition to Israel for other reasons.

I think it is a big mistake, even just in a tactical sense, for pro-Palestinians to accept the support of the RW isolationists. Not only will doing so alienate left-wingers who may otherwise support their cause, but the RW isolationists are no true friends, and will easily turn against Muslims, or against a Palestinian state that may require American financial support.


Equivalent things happen with pro-Israelis. There are some people who are prepared to support the pro-Israel cause for entirely the wrong reasons. These include right-wing hawks, who see Israel as a useful tool to advance American expansionist interests; fundie Christian Zionists who see Israel in terms of its role in advancing Biblical prophecy and Armageddon; and sometimes Islamophobes or anti-immigrant bigots who see Israel as the enemy of their enemies. IMO, Israelis and pro-Israelis who accept the support of right-wing hawks, Christian Zionists, or Islamophobes are also making a big mistake.

Can we all agree that collaboration with right-wingers is a big tactical and moral mistake for both Israel *and* Palestine, and their supporters?

the link between David Duke and a few on the "left", but I am also aware of how that link is/was used to smear an entire movement. That useed to be a favorite on right wing blogs, I used to read them regularly when Salon still had it's "Blogging from the Left and Right" feature, in fact that is how I discovered DU, haven't read any RW blogs since they discontinued however.

You seem to think that regressive regimes that stone women, hang gays, have no freedom of the press, advocate murder of another country;s citizens DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED.

I don't see much equality in Gaza under Hamas, or in Lebanon, with Hezbollah.

I don't see much equality in Iran or Saudi Arabia either, but you are quick to protect those regressive regimes.

The far right and far left meet at Israel.

ANSWER and David Duke see eye to eye, and both prefer the regression and repression of Gaza or any Arab country to the equality of Israel, because both hate Jews.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it annoying that you insist on implying that Az supports the hanging of gays and the stoning of women. This isn't the first time you've accused Az of this, and somehow I doubt it'll be the last....

rather than choosing the lowest "common" denominator to villianize a billion people or pretending to care about the human rights of the women who belong to that group as a means of demonizing the whole group.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One of the chief campaigners over the Liberty incident is Phil Tourney. I'd been aware he was right-wing, but was still shocked on checking further. He has spoken at a conference called 'No More Wars for Israel', and has written an article full of accusations about Israel's bad effects on America, including the truly vile statement that the war in Iraq is being 'fought for Israel'. His article/statements are quoted on David Duke's site, Stormfront, WakeUpFromYourSlumber and Crescent and Cross (you can imagine I wasn't too delighted at seeing all *that* in my Google search results!)

I am sure there are people among the Liberty survivors and others who are campaigning for further investigation of the incident for reasons unconnected with RW politics; but it's my experience that those who bring it up in connection with current relations with Israel almost always have very right-wing agendas. (Indeed, people who bring up *any* country's real or imagined misdeeds of 40 years ago as relevant to current relations with that country usually don't have a liberal agenda.)

It is hard for me to believe that she was unaware of his past comments and perspectives.

why Tourney and the Liberty group (and American Free Press) have been involved in these communications, but are not listed on the Free Gaza site as endorsers.

There are three possibilities that I can see:

(1) The group were prepared to interact with anyone who offered to give them publicity, and did not check their credentials, but did not intend to get further involved.

(2) There are one or two individuals among the organizers who are prepared to make right-wing links, but their colleagues do not support this.

(3) The group are concealing their right-wing links, because they are aware that this would alienate all left-wing 'peacenik' supporters, and in particular left-wing Jews.

I would prefer to believe that it's (1); but the others are indeed possibilities.

And let us note: a few months ago, the roles were reversed. Many of us here expressed support for the One Voice Movement, and a few people, including yourself, were negative about it, citing involvement of Fatah officials whom you distrusted, and what you considered as the bad taste of holding a concert when there were people going hungry. Those of us who supported the One Voice Movement could not understand why these things could make someone oppose an inspiring grassroots peace movement.

I support One Voice, and I support the Free Gaza group. But I'm seeing people who scoffed at the concerns some raised over RWers being members of One Voice now doing a complete about turn and saying that we should be concerned when RWers associate themselves with a peace group. So if that reasoning applies now, I don't understand why it didn't apply to One Voice.

however good the cause it supports.

One Voice is not affiliated with any right-wing group. Since they are seeking as many signatures from both sides as possible, it is reasonably likely that some of the people who sign up are RW in some ways, or otherwise dodgy. As with those who sign up to any cause. But they are not actively endorsing, or endorsed by, any RW group.

To give an example of a seeming peace-group whose RW associations rule out my seriously supporting them: the organization Arabs for Israel looks at first sight like an admirable group of people rejecting traditional enmities and reaching out to the 'other'; a potentially excellent partner for Israeli or Jewish peace-seekers. However, the fact that it is organized and sponsored by Nonie Darwish brings it into question. I am sure that some members of the group are people with nothing more than an ardent desire for peace; but actively supporting it would likely mean supporting Darwish and her RW causes. Therefore, I don't.

With regard to Free Gaza: I support them in the sense of approving of the basic mission and hoping that it works well. But, until the issue of collaboration with right-wingers is resolved, I could not support them in any more active sense: by signing my name to the cause, by donating, or by actively publicizing the mission. I regret this, as I would very much like to feel able to do so; but I cannot take the risk of giving active support to Phil Tourney's group or similar right-libertarian (and worse) groups. I hope that it would not mean this - but until I know for sure, I cannot risk it.

even when its totally irrelevant....so no its not mental gymnastics its simply being aware for all that subtle anti semitism, anti zionism anti israel bs which seems to constantly float to the surface....


get rid of all that bashing and you might get some help.....instead you belittle anything israeli as if means nothing....i get that to you it means nothing, as do most things israeli, but that is hardly conducive to two groups living together

As I said, looking at the list of endorsers has made me think that this link is not as strong, at least for the group as a whole, as I thought. But the involvement of *any commnunications at all* with the Liberty group and Phil Tourney is worrying.

I am still prepared to think that much of this is due to a failure to check people's records, rather than a deliberate collaboaration with the right. (I am sure that many people here think that I am thereby a hopelessly naive dreamer - and maybe I am!)

However, if they want to continue to get support from left-wing peace types, they should for the future avoid all such associations. I doubt for example that Desmond Tutu would continue to endorse them if they maintain links with an organization, the 'American Free Press', that attacks Nelson Mandela as a 'communist' and 'terrorist' and opposes his Foundation.

The two, Free Gaza Movement boats, SS Liberty and SS Free Gaza, are now sailing with damaged navigation systems. As such, they are in jeopardy of drifting off course and out of international waters.

In addition they have encountering rough seas, with waves over 3 metre's high. Many of the older passengers on board are suffering from serious sea sickness. For some of them these conditions could pose life-threatening health risks.

Their navigation systems have been damaged and as such they are in jeopardy of drifting unknowingly out of international waters.

We request that all individuals and organisations make representation to the government of Israel and the Israeli navy to protect the lives of the civilians aboard the two ships, SS Liberty and SS Free Gaza which are sailing under the Greek flag.

http://www.freegaza.org/index.php?module=latest_news&id=f7d4ee5a4601e6b3b0f1f0f1d38da0ba&offset=

Edit to add: This link no longer works and this entry is no longer on their site.

Newest update: Free Gaza and Liberty Approach Gazan Waters