‘Comment is Free’ contributor claims International Solidarity Movement is “non-violent”.

Radical Chic: ISM members pose with Palestinian terrorists

For much of the Guardian-style far-left media, commentaries – and indeed often straight news reports – serve largely to buttress preconceived ideologically determined conclusions, and often have only a tangential relationship with facts or journalistic context.  

In such a propagandistic paradigm, there is no objective truth as such, only a greater ‘narrative truth’. 

Ami Kaufman’s Aug. 29 ‘Comment is Free’ piece, “For many Israelis, Rachel Corrie was a nuisance“, represents an exquisite example of this phenomenon.

The polemical objective which the +972 founder wanted to achieve was quite predictable: contextualizing Corrie’s death, in 2003, as part of a larger pattern of Israeli intolerance towards political dissent.

Thus, the strap line:

“Since Rachel Corrie’s death, the Israeli establishment has been losing patience with activists of any kind”

In the essay, Kaufman writes:

“The Israeli establishment has less and less patience for activists of any kind of late. As part of the recent government offensive on human rights in Israel, freedom of expression has been hit hard.”

Kaufman, like Chris McGreal and the author(s) of the official Guardian editorial on Corrie’s death, doesn’t even attempt to rationally refute the Israeli court’s decision, question the judge’s reasoning or dispute the evidence or testimony presented at trial.

No, for Kaufman, Israel’s guilt was a foregone conclusion – and the judge’s decision thus represented a “slippery slope” towards the abrogation of civil rights in Israel.

But, Kaufman’s polemic becomes especially risible in his assertion about International Solidarity Movement.

“Corrie, bulldozed to death by a massive D9 Caterpillar on 16 March 2003, was part of an activist group called ISM – International Solidarity Movement. This is a group of international activists who advocate nonviolent demonstrations in the West Bank (and Gaza back then, before the disengagement in 2005) in solidarity with Palestinians opposing the occupation.

A nonviolent movement, you say?

Well, isn’t that what Israelis were always looking for? For their enemies to abandon terror, suicide bombings and rockets and to go down the route of Gandhi?” [Emphasis added]

Of course, the suggestion that ISM is non-violent is beyond parody.

The ISM’s website states that it recognizes “the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle.” [emphasis added]

As I wrote previously, ISM’s activities have included “serving as human shields for terrorist operatives wanted by the Israeli security forces”, and “provid[ing] Palestinian terrorist operatives…with financial, logistic and moral support”.

Paul Larudee, the Northern California head of the ISM, has said that his group “…recognize[s] that violence is necessary and it is permissible for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so.”

Similarly, in a 2002 article, ISM co-founders Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf wrote, “The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent,” adding that “[i]n actuality, nonviolence is not enough…Yes, people will get killed and injured.”

ISM activist Susan Barclay admitted that she worked with representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists originating from UK who had attacked the Mike’s Place bar in Tel Aviv, in 2003, murdering three people.  The Mike’s Place bombers had, according to an Israeli report, ”forg[ed] links with…members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)”.  

Also, senior Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested while he was hiding in ISM’s Jenin office and being assisted by two ISM activists.

Just because individual ISM members may not personally fire the weapons which kill and maim Israelis, an organization which aids and abets the Islamist terror groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, that intentionally murder innocent Jews is – by definition – a reactionary, anti-peace, pro-violence movement.

No amount of sophistry or doublespeak can obfuscate this painfully obvious fact.

Put International Solidarity Movement on Trial for Rachel Corrie’s Death

This essay was originally published at The Jewish Press


International Solidarity Movement’s activists in Ni’lin, Feb. 5, 2012.

Today, an Israeli court rejected a lawsuit filed by the family of Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American who was killed by a military bulldozer nine years ago, ruling that the death was an accident for which Corrie was responsible and, further, that there was no proof the soldiers acted with intent to harm or criminal neglect.

In reports on the trial over the past few days, the media mostly ignored the role played by International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in the young woman’s tragic death.

For instance, in three reports by the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent about the trial, Harriet Sherwood, (herehere, and here), all Sherwood wrote about ISM were that they were pro-Palestinian activists involved in “direct action”, and that they were “accused by [the IDF] of illegal, irresponsible and dangerous” behaviour.

Sherwood, like much of the media, didn’t think it was relevant to provide her readers with even a short description of ISM’s reckless and extremely dangerous behavior – dangerous for both Israelis involved in anti-terror operations, as well as for the ISM volunteers, like Corrie, cynically exploited for “the cause”.

ISM was founded in 2001 by a group of young, extremist left Americans. According to the Terrorism Information Center, between 2001 and 2005, the years of the second intifada, ISM volunteers engaged in activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and “did not merely help the Palestinian population, but intentionally hindered IDF anti-terror activities.”

Their activities included “serving as human shields for terrorist operatives wanted by the Israeli security forces”, and “provid[ing] Palestinian terrorist operatives…with financial, logistic and moral support, hindering the razing and sealing of houses of suicide bombers.”

Since the end of the Intifada ISM activists were among the founders of the pro-Hamas umbrella ‘Free Gaza Movement’, and consistently send volunteers to protest demonstrations at focal points of Palestinian-Israeli friction, such as in Bil’in.

While ISM describes itself as “committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles”, Paul Larudee, the Northern California head of the ISM, has said that “We recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible for oppressed and occupied people to use armed resistance and we recognize their right to do so.”

Similarly, in a 2002 article, ISM co-founders Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf wrote, “The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent,” adding that “[i]n actuality, nonviolence is not enough…Yes, people will get killed and injured.”

Shapiro and Arraf lauded such deaths as “no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah.”

ISM activists and organizers have time and again justified terrorism and associated with terrorists.

In 2003 alone, for example, ISM activist Susan Barclay admitted in an interview that she worked with representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jidhad; terrorists originating from UK who had attacked the Mike’s Place bar in Tel Aviv, murdering three people, had, according to an Israeli report, ”forg[ed] links with foreign left-wing activists and members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)”; and senior Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested while he was hiding in ISM’s Jenin office and being assisted by two ISM activists.

(See NGO Monitor’s page documenting ISM’s terrorism associations).

IT SHOULD NOT be surprising that the 2003 incident involving Corrie took place in the “Military Installations Area,” along the Egyptian border, at the Philadelphi Route, which was considered a hostile battlefield because of the large number of attacks carried out by terrorists.

Between 2000 and March 2003, the area was also notorious for being the primary smuggling route for terrorists bringing weaponry into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt. Terrorist activities during this period included thousands of grenade attacks, 184 anti-tank missile attacks, 147 road-side explosives, and 41 mortar attacks.

Indeed, the IDF mission on the day in question, which ISM was trying to impede, was merely an effort to level terrain and clear debris near the border in order to remove cover for future terrorist attacks.

Several ISM protestors entered the closed military zone to intentionally interfere in this routine mission. The IDF attempted to remove them with shock grenades, tear gas and warning shots, but they refused to leave the site.

The dangerous conduct of ISM activists—who ignored IDF warnings, refused to leave the area, and purposely put themselves in harm’s way— were the main factors leading to the tragic result.

Corrie’s ISM colleague and handler, Joseph Smith eulogized Corrie, chillingly justifying the sacrifice of human life for the cause, stating:

“The spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance, this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”

Smith’s words and ISM’s activities make it clear that ISM callously views such “sacrifices” as “progressive” acts of resistance which are worth the human cost. It is shameful that ISM will never face serious critical scrutiny for their recklessness, despite of their well-documented record of terror-abetting extremism, which ultimately took the life of Rachel Corrie.

The continued exploitation of Rachel Corrie.

This coming week the verdict will be given in the civil law suit brought by the parents of ISM volunteer Rachel Corrie against the Israeli government. Already the Rachel Corrie Foundation (run by her parents and others) has scheduled a publicity event and is using the occasion to add leverage to its anti-Israel campaigning. 

“We ask our friends and allies to take the following actions as you are able:

1.  From Sunday, August 26th until Sunday, September 2nd, deliver a letter to TIAA-CREF offices, and remember Rachel  as you do. Combine this with a larger event, or designate a few people to deliver the letter.  Register your planned action here so we can post  it on our website.  Download a copy of our sample TIAA-CREF letter and we will e-mail you a poster of a Palestinian family impacted by demolitions using CAT equipment.  Our goal is to deliver letters to half of the 60 TIAA-CREF offices.  Can you help us exceed our goal?  With photos and videos from your actions we will launch a nationwide social media campaign with images that show the level of support for TIAA-CREF divestment.

2.  Print this image of Rachel.  Photograph yourself with it, and post it on our new Tumblr blogDeliver the photo to the nearest Israeli Consulate demanding accountability and an end to home demolitions. We will gather images worldwide and also send them to the U.S. Department of State.

3.  Take part in a live conference call with the Corrie family, Wednesday, August 29th, 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time/ 9:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. To participate in the call, RSVP to rochelle@rachelcorriefoundation.org. Host a house party or community gathering for those who want to join the call.

4.  Sign the petition in support of the campaign to pressure TIAA-CREF to divest.”

When Rachel Corrie was accidentally killed nine and a half years ago, public awareness of the nature of the organization (also known as the Palestine Solidarity Movement – PSM – in the US) which sent her and many others to endanger their lives in a war zone (and still does) was perhaps limited. The International Solidarity Movement had, after all, only been in existence for a short while at the time, having been founded in 2001 – several months after the second Intifada commenced.

In 2002 its members had made some headlines by trying to act as ‘human shields’ for terrorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and for the Intifada’s instigator, organizer and financer Yasser Arafat in his muqata compound, but frankly, there was just too much going on at the time for much media attention to be paid to a group of foreigners deliberately placing themselves in the middle of a terror war. Hence, statements endorsing Palestinian terror by the ISM’s founders  – such as the one below – received limited attention in much of the mainstream media. 

“Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied.

The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement..” 

Over the years, however, the ISM’s name has kept cropping up in connection with various security-related issues, as part of the ‘Free Gaza’ campaign which organizes the flotillas aimed at breaching the naval blockade on Gaza and as one of the organisers of the recent ‘flytillas’ and the ‘Global March to Jerusalem’ . Hence both its methods and its goals have become more visible.

The ISM’s aim – as expressed below by its co-founder and leader Adam Shapiro – is to transform the Arab-Israeli conflict into a battle against Israel by the rest of the world. 

“What we’ve been doing over the last ten years with the Internatio­nal Solidarity Movement, Free Gaza, and all the other outgrowth organizati­ons and movements and groups is to …work with Palestinia­n society to ramp up the resistance­. This is all part of a Palestinia­n movement for Palestine.­.. This is truly an internatio­nal movement … It’s only Palestine, this cause that has been going on for over 60 years, that generates this kind of activism, this kind of resistance­… Free Gaza is but one tactic of a larger strategy, to transform this conflict from one between Israel and the Palestinia­ns, or Israel and the Arab world…to one between the rest of the world and Israel…”

Some of the ISM’s volunteers are undoubtedly naïve young people who arrive in the Middle East with little understanding either of the conflict itself or the manner in which they are cynically exploited by the organisation’s extremist leaders. The ISM, however, is rarely – if ever – held to account by the families (or countries) of those injured or killed as a result of its having encouraged and facilitated their unnecessary entry into a conflict zone and their collaboration – knowingly or not – with proscribed terrorist organisations, even despite statements from ISM leaders such as this one concerning Rachel Corrie’s death:

“It’s possible they [the protesters] were not as disciplined as we would have liked,” Thom Saffold, a founder and organizer of the International Solidarity Movement, said in a telephone interview from the group’s base in Ann Arbor, Mich. “But we’re like a peace army. Generals send young men and women off to operations, and some die.”

One can, of course, comprehend the perhaps subconscious defence mechanism which lies behind the need of some parents to make sense of their child’s unnecessary tragic death or injury by believing that it was for ‘a cause’ and the urge to blame parties other than the organization which put their loved one in such a position so as not to ‘betray’ their child’s ideals.  

But the inevitable and predictable utilization of the upcoming court verdict in order to leverage the continuing publicity and propaganda campaign in aid of a fringe cult, which collaborates with terrorist organisations to try to undermine a sovereign country and prevent a peaceful solution to a long and painful conflict, is somewhat more difficult to accept. It is, in fact, just as disturbing as the other, original, cynical exploitation of a young woman nearly a decade ago. 

Rachel Corrie’s parents being presented with a framed portrait of their
daughter by Yasser Arafat, at Arafat’s compound in Ramallah, Sept. 2003

Associated Press: Cindy and Craig Corrie, right, parents of late American peace activist Rachel Corrie display the Bethlehem 2000 medal awarded by the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at his office in the West Bank town of Ramallah Thursday Sept. 25, 2003.

The Guardian finds fresh new talent to whitewash terror connections of flotilla movement, and demonize Israel

When Ruqaya Izzidien is not minimizing the threats posed by radical Islam, or decrying European Islamophobia, blogging for the extreme anti-Israel site Mondoweiss, or contributing to Al Jazeera, she serves as the UK correspondent for Bikyamasr, an online magazine which focuses on “Egypt and the region” – a site which has, on the sidebar of their home page , a “resistance to occupation” video which contains scenes like these:

Among her more notable contributions, in the course of covering the UK for Bikyamasr, was an op-ed about the terrorist attacks on 7/7 and British Muslim terrorism more broadly, where, despite describing herself as a “justice-seeking”, “anti-violent” “hippy”, says, employing the Ben White formula of not explicitly endorsing hateful ideologies and actions, but expressing, nonetheless, an “understanding” or “empathy” towards it:

“I can…provide a valuable insight which will begin to help us understand [terrorist attacks by UK Muslims]. It is awful to feel uncontrollably out-of-place. Add to that a feeling of injustice about British involvement in the Middle East and the implementation of an apparently racist state policy of arresting anyone who has a Muslim look about them, as if it were possible to define religion according to skin color, and we have a real recipe for creating the type of alienated person who will seek control through other mediums”

 She is also, naturally, given such an impressive resume of anti-Zionism and “contextualizing” Islamist terror, a contributor to the Guardian, and penned a piece, Gaza flotilla: ‘Solidarity more important than aid’, July 6 (on the Guardian’s ‘Global Development Page, a partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

The piece is notable in its frank admission that the flotilla movement was never about providing Palestinians with humanitarian aid (which, we’ve noted, is not in short supply) – and represents the reason why, according to Izzidien, “Gazans are quick to dismiss the Israeli-Greek offer to offload and transport to Gaza the humanitarian aid aboard the flotilla.”

She further explains that the desires of those involved in the flotilla campaign are to seek “peace” and “justice”, yet, characteristically, never once , in a 800 word essay, mentions the word Hamas in the context of Palestinians desire for rights, and further cites an “activist” as alleging Israel’s blockade is “illegal” – despite the paucity of any such designation by any official institution, and a body of international law and historical precedents attesting to the legal legitimacy of Israel’s blockade of arms flowing to the hostile Hamas regime.

Izzidien’s exercise in polemical obfuscation is perhaps most evident when she quotes a member of the International Solidarity Movement – whose unambiguous malicious intent, regarding the flotilla movement, was revealed in a video by member Adam Shapiro –  saying the following:

“The dirty campaign against this flotilla has informed much of the world about Israeli subversion, from coercing foreign governments to act against the express wishes of their citizens to sabotaging civilian ships in international ports under the cover of darkness” [emphasis mine]

Indeed, such a narrative, imputing in Israel’s efforts to defend themselves from an increasingly well-armed terrorist group committed to its destruction – conjuring a “dirty campaign” of “subversion” and “coercion”, by the Zionist entity – could have been written by the sponsors and organizers of the latest flotilla campaign who, it was revealed, just so happen to be Hamas operatives.

I now understand Izzidien’s curious omission of the word Hamas anywhere in her diatribe.  I mean, after all, who needs the painful cognitive dissonance which would naturally arise from the understanding that no matter how much she hates the Zionist regime, the flotilla movement’s “grass roots” effort by “peaceful activists” to show solidarity with Gaza is actually an orchestrated propaganda event by a reactionary terrorist movement.  

Vilifying Israel is just so much more satisfying – and much more likely to give you a platform at the Guardian.

Guardian quotes flotilla activist: Palestinians have been resisting occupation for “60 years”

A Guardian report, by Conal Urquhart and Jack Shenker (Activists plan to break Gaza with aid flotilla is sunk, July 6) on the continuing failure of pro-Hamas flotillas to launch their publicity stunt quoted Alejandro Fierro, an activist on the Spanish ship ever so subtly named Guernica, which is docked in Crete, telling al-Jazeera:

“We’ve learned patience from the Palestinian people who have been resisting Israeli occupation for 60 years, so we can wait.”

That such activists see all of Israel (even within 1949 borders) as Israeli “occupied” Palestinian territory, and not merely the land captured during the Six Day War (from Jordan and Egypt), is not surprising.

But, as with the video of Adam Shapiro, in Israelinurse’s last post, acknowledging the true malicious intent of the flotilla farce, it’s always refreshing when their absurd facade of “peaceful activism” – which the Guardian continues to prop up – is exposed. 

Comment is Free, Sam Bahour, Adam Shapiro and the malice of anti-Israel “activists”

It appears that the latest flytilla‘ provocation has been granted the Guardian seal of approval. On July 5th CiF published an article by Sam Bahour  extolling its virtues and attempting to place it in the category of people standing up for their ‘rights’.  

It all sounds so innocent and pastoral according to Sam Bahour, but just as his own Guardian profile has been sanitised into something approaching the anaemic, carefully editing out his connections to and affiliations with a plethora of anti-Israel organisations, so the ‘flytilla’ has been given a similar cosmetic make-over in this piece. 

Every sovereign country has the prerogative to deny entry to whomsoever it sees fit: there is no automatic ‘human right’ to travel to a country of which one is not a citizen, as Israelis – perhaps more than many others – well know. The fact that the holder of a specific type of passport may not be required to apply in advance for a visa to the country to which he wishes to travel does not guarantee automatic right of entry; it just means that the application process is carried out upon arrival and an entry stamp, which doubles as a visa for a limited period of time, is given (or not) at passport control. In this respect, Israel’s border authorities behave no differently than any other nation, but apparently Sam Bahour believes that what is accepted common practice in all other nations of the world should not apply to Israel. Some might call that a case of double standards. 

Bahour’s unsubstantiated claim that Israel denies the Palestinians ‘the right to receive visitors’ is of course absurd. Were that the case, we would not for one thing see the endless stream of B list celebs and intellectuals, activists known as Internationals‘ and misguided Christian ‘peace-makers’ wandering around the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. One of the ‘flytilla’ organisers, Mick Napier, claims to have visited the Palestinian-controlled territories numerous times; clearly disproving Bahour’s empty claims.

It is also of course possible to reach the Palestinian controlled areas either via Egypt (in the case of the Gaza Strip) or by means of a flight to Amman and a road journey to any of the three border crossings.  Had the Palestinian Authority continued with the Oslo process rather than choosing to initiate the second Intifada, it would by now not only have had its own border crossing with Jordan, but the level of security necessary today would not have come about. There were days – not very long ago – when one could travel unhindered, but terrorism brought that to an end.  Sam Bahour obviously subscribes to the much touted belief that Palestinians should never be required to take responsibility for the outcomes of their actions and decisions.

But beyond the practical, the most ridiculous aspect of Bahour’s article is the attempt to paint those scheduled to arrive en masse at Ben Gurion airport this coming Friday as ‘visitors’ – as though they were coming to see his new sofa. They are nothing of the sort; this is a pre-coordinated political provocation hatched by a group of anti-Israel organisations and activists and aided and abetted by radical far-Left elements inside Israel.  One of the organising bodies is the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) which is notorious for advising its foreign activists to deceive airport security when trying to enter Israel. Here is some travel advice from their website:

“Visitors coming in solidarity with the Palestinian people and/or to support Palestinian non-violent resistance therefore face a difficult situation. If they admit the goals of their visit to Israeli border staff, and admit any association with ISM, they will most likely be denied entry. If they state other reasons for their visit, they can also be accused of lying to Israeli authorities and denied entry for this reason.”

“Faced with this dilemma, some activists choose not to talk about their activist goals and instead explain other reasons for their visit, such as visiting the Holy Land, visiting an Israeli friend, tourism, etc. These activists generally articulate a clear plan for their visit, including places they will stay within Israel and the names, addresses and phone numbers of people they will be visiting (not mentioning visits to Palestinians).”

Here is the ISM co-founder and leader, Adam Shapiro, explaining exactly what the aim of the various ‘tactics’ employed by his organization is.

The ‘flytilla’ is indeed just another of the tactics in the arsenal of people such as Adam Shapiro, Mick Napier and Paul Larudee ; people who talk about “60 years of occupation”, people who openly admit to wanting to “undermine Israel” and spark conflict between “Israel and the rest of the world”.  As for those who have signed up for the campaign (donating their time and buying their own plane tickets), they have the responsibility to inform themselves of the objectives and affiliations of the organizers before they consent to becoming foot-soldiers for terrorist sympathizers and enablers. If they decide to go ahead regardless, they certainly should not feign surprise if they are turned back. No country on earth is required to respect the ‘rights’ of those collaborating with elements which seek its destruction.

But whilst we’re on the subject of rights, what about those of the other people – the real tourists and travellers – who will be flying to Tel Aviv on Friday from London, Paris, Zurich, Frankfurt or Rome? Are they entitled to expect the airport authorities and the airline with which they fly not to expose them unnecessarily to the possibility of harassment or danger by taking on board passengers willingly acting as pawns for people with links to Hamas?

One suspects that the editor who commissioned this article from Bahour might be a little less forthcoming with the Guardian stamp of approval for the ‘flytilla’ if his own children happened to be aboard one of those planes.  Yet another example of the Guardian’s double standards on Israel.  

CiF contributor Ali Abunimah’s crusade against the existence of Israel (a love story)


Banner quoting Abunimah at anti-Israel and 9/11 Truther rally in San Francisco in 2010


(Link to above photo)

Ali Abunimah’s hatred for Israel is legion.  Abunimah is the co-founder of the anti-Israel propaganda site, Electronic Intifada (EI) – a site which doesn’t simply criticize Israel for its policies.  Rather, it is a propaganda offensive aimed at portraying Israel as a monstrous state.  Abunimah strongly supports the dissolution, and radical reconstitution, of Israel into the 51st majority Muslim state – a position, let’s remember, which squarely falls within the European Union working definition of ant-Semitism.  He also has flirted with, and seemingly justified, comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany – also anti-Semitic within the EU definition.

Heres’s the text from the EU document:

“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include”:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming the the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

He’s also a contributor – along with Noam Chomsky, Philip Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, Sara Roy, Omar Barghouti, Kevin Ovenden, Ilan Pappé, Ken O’Keefe, and Adam Shapiroto the pro-IHH book about the flotilla incident, called “Midnight on the Mavi Marmara”.  An excerpt from the book, notes:

Midnight on the Mavi Marmara reveals why the attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla may just turn out to be Israel’s Selma, Alabama: the beginning of the end for an apartheid Palestine.

Here are some of Abunimah’s greatest hits:

Abunimah writing for Electronic Intifada

Israel-Nazi Comparison

“Gaza will likely be seen as the turning point when Israeli propaganda lost its power to mystify, silence and intimidate as it has for so long. Even the Nazi Holocaust, long deployed by Zionists to silence Israel’s critics, is becoming a liability; once unimaginable comparisons are now routinely heard. Jewish and Palestinian academics likened Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Nazi massacre in the Warsaw Ghetto. A Vatican cardinal referred to Gaza as a “giant concentration camp.” UK Member of Parliament Gerald Kaufman, once a staunch Zionist, told the House of Commons, “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow, [Poland]. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.” Kaufman continued, “my grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.” He denounced the Israeli military spokesperson’s justifications as the words “of a Nazi.” – Why Israel wont’ survive, Jan. 19, 2009

Continue reading

Source for a Goose

Just Journalism’ has an interesting post which engages in comparative analysis of Harriet Sherwood’s CiF article of October 11th on the subject of accusations against Israel regarding the shooting of Palestinian children in the Gaza buffer zone and an article on the same subject, published the next day, by the Independent .  Despite the fact that even the Indy’s best friends could hardly describe it as a pro-Israel newspaper, as ‘Just Journalism’ rightly points out, their journalist – in sharp contrast to Sherwood – managed to provide some context and background for the story.

Not merely content with presenting a story devoid of context, Sherwood’s article relies heavily upon one prime source – the NGO ‘Defence for Children International’ , specifically its ‘Palestine Section’.  A less ideologically motivated reporter than Sherwood might have considered it worth taking the time to investigate that NGO a little before relying so heavily upon its reports for her information. Had she done so, one of the first things she would have noticed is that ‘Defence for Children International’ appears to have little or no interest in Israeli children affected by the conflict. She may also have noticed that incidents involving Palestinian  children  and Israelis appear to interest this organization far more than the fact that some of these children do not appear to be able to exercise their right to education, the fact that they are subject to horrific incitement from a very early age, or the issue of the employment of ‘child soldiers’ or ‘child activists’ by various terrorist groups, which as anyone who knows the region well is aware, is a very serious problem which often endangers children’s lives and wellbeing.

Israeli soldiers who served in Judea & Samaria during the second Intifada tell of Palestinian snipers who would fire from street corners and then send small children to collect their bullet casings for future melting down and recycling. In such a situation, a soldier seeing a head appear round a corner from which he was fired upon moments earlier can easily mistake a child for a legitimate target. A former commander of an Israeli guard post on the Gaza border shortly after the disengagement once told me of an incident in which a youth of around 14 years of age approached their position despite his repeated calls in Arabic for the boy to go back and warning shots in the air. The commander had to decide whether to shoot at the boy or risk the lives of his soldiers in a possible suicide bombing. He chose the latter course of action, and discovered that the boy was unarmed and suffered from Down’s Syndrome. He had been deliberately sent by terrorists to approach the Israeli position in order to test the reactions of the Israeli soldiers and learn their procedures.

Continue reading