The New York Times got the UN report, due out tomorrow, and has already determined the real villain. Note the headline and lead.
Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid
A United Nations review has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal and appropriate but that the way its forces boarded a Turkish-based flotilla trying to break that blockade 15 months ago, killing nine passengers, was excessive and unreasonable.The report, expected to be released on Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying the loss of life was unacceptable and the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.
“Excessive and unreasonable” is used twice in two paragraphs. The angle the Times chooses to focus the article is that the IDF soldiers, who were surrounded, captured, and fired upon by dozens of IHH would-be “martyrs,” used excessive force to protect themselves. This is in spite of the fact that Israel was cleared in four out of five charges.
The Times also doesn’t like the fact that the UN investigators found the blockade of Gaza to be legal.
The United Nations investigation into the events on the Turkish-flagged ship known as the Mavi Marmara, the largest of six vessels that were commandeered by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, was headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand, aided by Álvaro Uribe, former president of Colombia, along with a representative each from Israel and Turkey.
It takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza.
“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”
Look at the difference in the way the Times treats reports that take the stand that Israel has the right to act in self-defense. Note how the writer uses the phrasing of Israel’s enemies and critics in the first paragraph, and makes sure that the defense of Israel is the very last thing in the article.
Those critical of Israeli actions toward Gaza have viewed the naval blockade that began officially in January 2009 as part and parcel of a siege imposed by Israel on the coastal strip shortly after Hamas took full control there in 2007. That siege, which has eased considerably in the past year, prevented the movement of most goods and people.
But the Palmer committee said while it had concerns about that policy and urged that it be loosened further, it saw the naval blockade as a purely security-oriented tool that had been imposed to stop weapons arriving to Gaza by sea. It also expressed strong concern for the thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israel from Gaza in recent years. It said that because Gaza’s port cannot handle large ships, a naval blockade has little impact on the supply of civilian goods.
Did I expect the Times to be fair to Israel? Of course not. Let’s see how the AP does on this.