Gaza.

Lies and the Liars that tell them - or how the IDF like to use Mash Ups.

The trouble with lies is that you have to remember what lies you have told in order to keep up the momentum of a consistent story. Unfortunately, the IDF spokespeople and ‘experts’ appear to have lost track of their lies.

On 30 May 2010 the IDF Spokesperson released a video showing the Israeli navy attempting to contact the Mavi Marmara as it was heading towards Gaza as part of the Freedom Flotilla. The sailor on the radio ask the Mavi Marmara to dock at Ashdod Port, and the reply is clearly heard:

Negative, Negative. Our destination is Gaza

On 04 June 2010 a further video was released with a still picture apparently taken from the 30 May video but this time the radio operator is attempting to contact the Defne Y, another ship in the Freedom Flotilla.

Two different and unidentified male voices can be heard returning radio contact with the Israeli Navy. ONe says:

Go back to Auschwitz

and (in an almost comic thick American accent), the other says:

We’re helping Arabs go against the US. Remember 9/11 guys

Additionally a female voice can be heard saying:

We have permission from the Gaza Port Authorities to enter…

Questions as to the authenticity of this second video were raised - it did not contain actual video footage, and the radio operator is clearly heard to address the Defne Y, not the Mavi Marmara.

The comments about Auschwitz and 9/11 were originally attributed by the IDF to the Mavi Marmara, a citation which was quickly “clarified” by the IDF with the admission that the comments (if they had come from the Freedom Flotilla at all) could not be attributable to any particular ship.

In fact, due to the questions asked about the authenticity, the IDF released an “unedited” version of the second video which contained an extended version of the conversation. Whilst this action alone is an indication of the extent to which the IDF is editing the footage they took (the edited video is 27 seconds long whilst the unedited version is 5m58 seconds long).

The female voice on the unedited version of the radio exchange can now be heard to say:

This is the Freedom Flotilla. We are comprised of six motor vessels carrying only passengers and humanitarian aid that is destined for the Gaza Strip. We do not carry anything that constitutes a threat to your armed forces therefore you are not justified in using any force against us. The blockade of Gaza is illegal under international law. We have permission from the Gaza Port Authorities to enter…

The IDF explanation that the second video was edited down so much so as to 

…cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange…

does not make sense given that the female voice was very clear and measured and not at all incomprehensible.

The 30 May video shows at least one verifiable radio exchange was captured on video between the Israeli Navy and the Mavi Marmara.  Are we supposed to believe that all subsequent radio exchanges could not be recorded in the same way?

Clearly. There are 3 separate videos here.  The first shows a visual and audio recording of the Israeli Navy contacting the Mavi Marmara.  The second is a heavily edited audio recording only of alleged radio contact from the Freedom Flotilla, and the third is the unedited version of the second video.

It would be impossible for a dedicated team of “expert” officers trying to piece together what happened when Israel attacked the Freedom Flotilla to get these muddled up.

But that is what has happened.

On 15 July 2010 the IDF released what is at best what Hollywood would call a “dramatisation based on real-life events” using video footage from Freedom Flotilla activists, IDF footage and 3D rendering of the events.  The dramatisation is based on the analysis of the events by 8 IDF officers, dubbed the ‘Eiland Team of Experts’.

There appear to be a number of inconsistencies between what we can only assume is the final and complete story that the IDF have to tell us about those events and the various eyewitness accounts from onboard the ships, but you would in any case expect this final story to be at least consistent with the previous analysis which the IDF has released.

But this is not the case.

Given that a ‘team’ of ‘experts’ has spent a number of weeks putting this dramatisation together, you would have expected them to get the only verifiable radio contact between the Israeli Navy and the Mavi Marmara correct.

At around 4m 01s into the ‘expert’ video we see the original - but slightly edited footage - of 30 May, with the IDF addressing the Mavi Marmara asking them to divert to Ashdod Port. But in this edit we never hear the original response - “Negative, Negative. Our destination is Gaza” - because the scene then cuts to a shot outside the Mavi Marmara and the audio of 3 seperate unidentified male voices apparently taking turns abusing the Israeli radio operator from the Mavi Marmara.  

The first voice says:

Shut the fuck up

This is apparently the first time this particular radio communication has been publicly revealed and appears to not be in any of the previous IDF videos detailing radio communication with the Freedom Flotilla, so must come from a separate conversation that was neither the one highlighted with the Mavi Marmara on 30 May, or the heavily edited or unedited versions of the radio contact with Defne Y from 04 June.

The second 2 male voices are clearly the voices from the 04 June videos making references to Auschwitz and 9/11.  In total, then, the IDF appear to have edited together 3 distinct and individual radio contacts, making sure that the original reply from Mavi Marmara (“Negative, Negative. Our destination is Gaza”) was erased from the record of events and highlighting only unverifiable radio contacts from unknown sources.

Compounding this duplicitous editing neither there is no trace of the audio from the female who addressed the Israeli Navy about the illegality of the blockade who is clearly heard on the unedited footage of the attempt to contact the Defne Y.

If the IDF is being dishonest about splicing together three quite separate radio communications, what else is dishonest in the dramatisation presented as fact by the “team of experts”?

In fact, the video dramatisation leaves many important questions unanswered.

Firstly. And most importantly. Why is there no direct reference at all to the context in which and reasons why 9 civilians were killed on board the Mavi Marmara?

There is mention of the activists “absorbing casualties”. Is that the extent to which the investigation went to identify which IDF soldiers shot civilians? Is that all the explanation that is required by the IDF from their soldiers, or that the families of these dead civilians deserve?

There is mention of “accurate and precise targeting” of activists using live fire from rubber boats, but no mention of who was shot dead, or where.

The “End of Battle State of Affairs” part of the ‘expert’ video concludes that at 05:17hrs:

The team on the roof tends to the injured. The team at the bridge controls the ship. A team in the stern and the deck control the entrances.

The findings indicate that there were a number of shooting incidents by activists at Israeli soldiers. In addition, soldiers on the rubber boats identified activists shooting at them from the ship.  

The second soldier who came down from the helicopter was shot in the stomach by activists shortly after he reached the roof.  This was probably the first shot fired on the ship.

During the search a gun was found in the ship’s hull. The gun was taken from one of the wounded soldiers that was moved by the activists to the ship’s hull. The gun had no bullets, despite the fact that none of the three wounded soldiers used it.

The “experts” now claim that the second soldier to board the Mavi Marmara was shot in the stomach. To our knowledge - and we’re willing to be proven wrong - this is the first public revelation that the second soldier down was shot.

Certainly, there is no public footage where we can identify this occurring despite the multiple angles - both from the air and sea - and neither is there any video footage showing this from the multiple on-board ship cameras and activists cameras.

Israel has illegally confiscated all the video footage and photographic evidence from activists that could support their story without the need for 3D dramatisation with B movie music playing in the background.

Why does Israel not release the unedited footage in it’s entirety?

We are being asked to believe that somewhere between the start of the attack on Mavi Marmara at 04:28 and the complete control of the ship by the IDF at 05:17, 9 civilians were shot in self-defence by the IDF but that no footage exists of any of these 9 shootings exists and no explanation is required as to which soldiers shot which civilians and where, or how, or why they had to shoot dead rather than shoot to injure.

We are also being asked to believe that despite having in custody the very people that shot their soldiers, Israel saw fit to release them without a trial even though some allegedly have connections to “terrorism”.

As one would expect, the IDF version of events leaves out some details furnished by activists, and fails to directly confirm or deny the accuracy of footage pertaining to be Israeli soldiers shooting an activist in cold blood on board the Mavi Marmara or the testimony of ex-US Marine Ken O’Keefe that he helped to subdue an Israeli soldier and took his gun and separated the bullets from the gun so it could not be used and also that 3 Israeli soldiers were captured and held by the activists but that none were shot.

Only the full release of all unedited footage that the IDF has in their control will reveal the truth because as we have seen, the IDF lacks the skill to splice together convincing lies based on selected elements of audio and visual footage. They are good at mash ups though.

Israel complains about expired medicine

Having unloaded the aid from the Freedom Flotilla, the IDF spokesperson decided to make public that some (not all, some!) of the aid medicine had expired.  This is a clear attempt to frame the humanitarian effort as either stupid or - worse - an attempt to use expired medicines as a cover for supporting terrorism.  

Israel appears to be assuming that the provision of expired medicine was a mistake on behalf of the charities involved, but this is not necessarily the case. There are a number of issues here which place the donation of expired medicines into their proper context.

Firstly, this was a charity effort, and charities rely not upon plumbing the unfathomable depths of government coffers, but on the conscience of a collective of individuals who have limited resources.  Purchasing vast quantities of band new medicines is not cheap and so the old saying “beggers can’t be choosers” seems to apply here.  It is clear that the aid was well meaning. 

Secondly, a quick search on the net reveals that opinion is split about the safety and efficacy of expired medicines.  Whilst World Health Organization guidelines advise that donated medicines should have a year left before expiry, it is clear that WHO guidelines permit expired drugs to be donated if the receiving health facility is aware of the expiry date and chooses to receive the drugs anyway.

Thirdly, some medical professionals argue that some drugs retain efficacy long past their expiration date:-

The Medical Letter, a respected source of independent information about drugs, stated in a 2002 article that certain medicines, stored in high humidity and other bad conditions, stayed good to use for 1 1/2 to nine years after their expiration dates.”For instance, Symmetrel (amantadine) and Flumadine (rimantidine), anti-viral drugs used to prevent and treat influenza, withstood 160-degree temperatures and were good after the equivalent of 25 years of ordinary storage,” the reports states. “Many drugs stored under reasonable conditions retain 90 percent of their potency for at least five years after the expiration date on the label, and sometimes much longer.” No one knows for sure if expired medications are safe.

and..

In 2000, Laurie P. Cohen in an article for the Wall Street Journal reported that between 1993 and 1998, the military had the FDA test more than 100 drugs –- both prescription and over-the-counter –- finding that 90% of these medications were safe and effective far past their original expiration date. In some cases, eight to fifteen years beyond their expiration dates. By 2008, the number of tested medications was up to 312.

From the pictures lovingly provided by the IDF (link above), we see that the drugs they appear to be talking about are still boxed and have not been opened, so appear to be primes candidates for drugs that will still be effective after the passing of the expiry date.

Fourthly, we see that:-

Many companies see donating expired drugs as a great way to help out, generate some positive publicity, and take a tax write-off by donating goods they would not be able to sell.

Whilst in some situations and in some countries it would not be legal to use expired drugs in a government health facility, we suspect that - after suffering years of blockade which denies citizens of Gaza vital medicines - the medical professionals in Gaza will be prepared to take the calculated risk that paracetamol which is technically expired will have more good effects than bad on its population.

So sending expired drugs in itself is not stupid or immoral or even an cloak or support for terrorist activities.  However, the duplicitous double standards being applied by Israel on this issue though is quite staggering.  There are any number of cases where residents of Gaza have died because Israeli forces have refused to allow medical treatment. And most recently this is alleged to have happened on board the Mavi Marmara whilst Israeli forces deliberately withheld medical treatment from the casualties of their assault.

If not Pirates, then what?

We have a lot of time for Yvonne Ridley at this blog. She is a consistently intelligent and a vocal defender of Palestinian rights in particular. However, we think her article on the Freedom Flotilla over at counterpunch.org, whilst well reasoned, cites an international law which does not apply in these circumstances. Having said that, we have found a law which does apply, but which details crimes which Israel will probably never be charged with. But more on that later.

Ridley cites Article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation:-

1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

(a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

(b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(c) destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

(e) destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or

(f) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or

(g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).

Seems pretty clear cut.  However, Israel has indicated that it is in “armed conflict” (war) with Gaza, in which case, Article 2 of the same Rome Convention appears to apply:

1. This Convention does not apply to:

(a) a warship; or

(b) a ship owned or operated by a State when being used as a naval auxiliary or for customs or police purposes; or

(c) a ship which has been withdrawn from navigation or laid up.

2. Nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

Israel’s defence would surely be that it is at war with Gaza and it’s warships are immune under the Rome Convention.  Israel did not break the Rome Convention as it was using warships, not private ships, against the Freedom Flotilla, and warships are immune from the Rome Convention.

Ridley’s article did however remind us of something else we had seen earlier regarding calling what Israel did “piracy”. Julian Ku at Opinion Juris informs us that Israel did not commit piracy according to Article 101 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (my bold):

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

We hate it when pedantry gets in the way of a good blog post, but Ku is correct, we should “drop the stupid piracy meme”. Israel used warships against private ships and the attack was not for personal gain, so cannot technically be considered “piracy”.

But having cited that law, Ku does not explain if there is anything which for which Israel could be charged using UNCLOS.  Well, I think there is, and I’d love Julian Ku to give his opinion on it.

Article 110 (‘Right of Visit’) of UNCLOS states

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship’s right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.

This seems absolutely clear to me.  

I doubt that Israel is party to any treaty which allowed it to storm a foreign ship in international waters, and there is no suggestion that the Mavi Marmara was committing piracy, was engaged in the slave trade, was engaged in unauthorized broadcasting, or was in actual fact an Israeli ship.

If Israel had waited until the Freedom Flotilla had actually approached or breached its blockade of Gaza, its case would be on stringer grounds, but the very fact that the flotilla was still on the high seas (international water) and not at all near the blockade, the actions of Israel do not appear to be justified under international law.  Indeed, international law now requires that Israel compensates for “any loss or damage that may have been sustained”.

Additionally, under UNCLOS Israel was apparently already breaking international law before they even set foot on any of the ships as they started to pursue the Flotilla in international waters (where Israeli law does not apply) and then forced the ships into Israeli waters. Article 111 (‘Right of hot pursuit’) indicates (my bold):

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted.

So, Israel appears to be guilty of breaking several articles of international law before we take into account the killing of 9 civilians.

It is interesting to note that Israel, marketed as “the only democracy in the Middle East” has not yet ratified UNCLOS, which presumably means that it does not wish to be burdened with this apparently cumbersome international law as this would mean it would be held responsible for its actions on the high seas.

It is interesting to note that Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Jordan have all ratified UNCLOS, so they have agreed to be bound by it, whilst “democratic” Israel is still refusing to do so.

Can you say “double standards and hypocrisy”?

Where is the missing footage?

By now the available video footage of the attack by Israeli naval and army forces has been played over and over again, and we are familiar with the claim and counter-claim of each side.

The activists - including a member of the Israeli Parliament, Haneen Zuabi -  say that the Israelis were the first to attack and that they defended themselves against live ammunition, tear gas and stun grenades from the start of the assault on the Mavi Marmara, and that this culminated in what one activist called a “lake of blood”. On the other side of the divide, the Israelis claim that there was a pre-meditated attack upon them which forced them to use live ammunition resulting in the death of 9 activists.

How to decide which side is telling the truth? Well. In theory, this should be very easy.

What is clear is that the IDF were using sophisticated night cameras which were tracking the every movement of their soldiers.  Some of the footage - roughly 2 minutes worth - has been released and is being used to frame the Israeli defence.

But where is the rest of the footage?

Israel has released footage apparently taken from the ships own cameras of activists preparing to repel the IDF attack.  In fairness to Israel, and as hard as it is to watch, it does show activists preparing to defend themselves with slingshots, metal rods and broken bottles.  Co-incidently, the activists in the video number about 10 or 11. Did these people make up a large amount of those who were shot dead?

And what of the start of the mission? The IDF can prove that it did not attack the ship with live ammunition before storming the ship - as the activists claim - if it shows us the beginning of its own footage.  What happened before the IDF soldiers slid down the ropes, and why will Israel not show this us?

9 people were shot dead. 2 IDF soldiers lost their pistols and these pistols were apparently turned on the IDF and the clips emptied of live ammunition as the activists fired them at the attacking IDF. But none of this has been seen on the available footage to date.

Was none of it caught on film?

The IDF has released some film which purports to prove that the IDF were receiving live fire, but which does nothing of the sort.  It details a radio exchange between two soldiers who think they are taking live fire “from below”.  It is unclear if the vantage point of the camera is on the helicopter or on the ship, either way,  This proves that the IDF had more active cameras at the time of the attack than the one or two night vision cameras from which we have already seen footage.

Israel has also released high quality edited video footage which could really only have come from activists videoing from on board the Mavi Marmara. This footage backs up activist claims that hoses were used against the attacking forces, but also proves that the attacking forces were themselves attacked with some form of grenade*, a box of plates, metal rods and chains.

Presumably the pistols with live ammunition were taken from the soldiers who initially dropped onto the top deck of the ship and who were quickly disarmed and admittedly beaten by activists, but this version of events reveals some inconsistencies in the current Israeli narrative:

• The available Israeli footage does not show anybody taking a gun from an IDF soldier in the initial attack, so when were the guns taken?
• The available footage does not show anybody firing a gun at the IDF, so when were the guns fired?
• The available footage does not show the IDF shooting any of the activists with live ammunition so when where they shot?
• 2 guns were taken, if, just for a moment, we assume that it is OK to shoot at civilians armed with guns with deliberately lethal force, is it that 9 civilians shared 2 guns, or were 7 other civilians shot dead for other reasons?

In fact, the only available footage from Israel shows the IDF struggling to take control of the ship, but not how they actually succeeded in doing so. Although the live activist feed relays the sound of somebody addressing the passengers informing them that they have lost control of the ship to the Israelis and that everybody should go below deck and sit down.

It is unconscionable that days after the events, we are still no clearer on who exactly died and in what circumstances - though we are told that they are mostly Turkish activists. Were they male? Female? Old? Young? Armed with guns or with iron rods or knives or bare hands or simply cowering in a corner?

Israel has the power to answer all its critics by simply releasing un-edited footage of the operation they conducted from beginning to end in its entirety. This would include all its own footage, all footage confiscated from the activists, and all the footage taken from the ships cameras.

Don’t expect to see it anytime soon.

* UPDATE 3 June 2010: Having looked at the footage again, it is possible that the activists were actually tossing back a grenade that the attacking soldiers had themselves thrown on board. Israel can clear this up by releasing the entire footage.