Thousands of words have already been written about the Freedom Flotilla, Israel is out with its talking heads trying to justify murdering nine human rights workers, brutally hijacking our boats and hauling us all into Israel, a country none of us wanted to visit.
But we have to remember why we care and why we go and why we are so outraged at governments' inaction. This piece by Roger Waters says it all.
Emily Henochowicz, 21, lost her left eye and is now recovering with her father by her bedside.By Natasha Lennard
A student at New York’s Cooper Union School of Art is recovering in an Israeli hospital after being shot in the face with a tear gas canister on Monday during a demonstration at a check point between Israel and the West Bank. Emily Henochowicz, 21, lost her left eye and surgeons at Hadassah Hospital inserted three metal plates into her face Tuesday. She is now recovering with her father by her bedside.
Henochowicz, a junior at Cooper Union who is currently studying at Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem, was protesting Israel’s raid of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. According to the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a Palestinian-led activist group with which Henochowicz volunteers, an Israeli soldier fired the tear gas projectile directly at Henochowicz.
"They fired many canisters at us in rapid succession. One landed on either side of Emily, then the third one hit her in the face," said Soren Johanssen, a Swedish ISM volunteer who was standing with Henochowicz at the protest.
During the two months Henochowicz had been working with ISM prior to Monday's demonstration, she attended numerous pro-Palestinian non-violent protests and spent time with Palestinian families who had been evicted from their East Jerusalem homes.
Henochowicz is the second American in so many years to be critically injured while protesting in Israel. California-born Tristan Anderson, 38, sustained permanent brain injury after he was shot in the head by a high velocity teargas canister fired by Israeli forces on March 13, 2009.
Despite Anderson sustaining severe injury at a civilian demonstration, the Israeli Ministry of Defense declared the incident "an act of war" and denied liability for damages -- including over seven months of hospitalization and intensive reconstructive surgery to Anderson's skull.
Jolene Travis, a spokesperson for Henochowicz's art school, Cooper Union, relayed messages of sympathy for their student. "Our thoughts and prayers are with Emily and her family as she recovers from this devastating injury," she said.
Who in Congress will join Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)?June 2, 2010The Honorable Barack ObamaPresident of the United StatesThe White HouseWashington, DC 20500Dear Mr. President,Israeli commandos, acting at the direction of the State of Israel, attacked and seized a Turkish ship in international waters, in the Mediterranean Sea.At least nine were killed in the incident aboard the Mavi Marmara. Hundreds of civilians were taken into custody and goods were confiscated. Since the United States considers Israel our most important ally in the region, whose survival is a of primary concern, it is incumbent upon the Commander in Chief to call Israel to an accounting for its conduct in planning and executing the deadly military attack in international waters upon a peaceful flotilla carrying citizens from over 50 countries.The State of Israel's conduct, attacking a Turkish ship in international waters, constitutes an act of belligerence against Turkey, which at one time Israel considered an important ally. It also undermines United States’ troops efforts in Iraq, since your administration's efforts to achieve stability in the region and to withdraw troops from Iraq has depended upon Turkey's cooperation through use of its air bases.In its violent commando raid on the Mavi Marmara, the government of Israel showed no concern as to how its conduct may affect the lives of defenseless, innocent people, its friends and allies, and in particular the United States. The United States must remind Israel as well as all of our other friends and allies:It is not acceptable to repeatedly violate international law.It is not acceptable to shoot and kill innocent civilians.It is not acceptable to commit an act of aggression against another U.S. ally.It is not acceptable to continue a blockade which denies humanitarian relief.It is not acceptable to heighten tensions in a region while the United States continues to put so much blood and treasure on the line.The State of Israel's action necessitates that the United States, which is Israel's partner in the region, begin to redefine its relationship and to establish such boundaries and conditions which are sufficient for mutual respect and cooperation.It is incumbent upon Israeli officials to bring forth the truth about the planning for and the attack upon the Mavi Marmara.No one questions the right of Israel to defend its border, but that defense does not extend to shooting innocent civilians anywhere in the world, anytime it pleases.Israel must account for our support, for the lives of our soldiers, for the investment of billions from our taxpayers. Israel owes the United States more than reckless, pre-meditated violence waged against innocent people.The attack on the Mavi Marmara requires consequences for the Netanyahu Administration and for the State of Israel. Those consequences must be dealt by the United States. They must be diplomatic and they must be financial. The U.S. can begin by calling for an independent international inquiry of the Mavi Marmara incident. The integrity of such inquiry necessitates that it not be led by the nation whose conduct is under scrutiny. If our nation fails to act in any substantive way, the United States licenses the violence and we are complicit in it and our own citizens will be forced to pay the consequences.We the undersigned deeply regret the loss of life. We are also fully aware of the dangers to world security which exist in the region, which is why the United States has been unstinting it its defense of Israel. We have a right to expect that Israel not add to those dangers with military conduct which all people of good will know is neither defensible nor moral. There must be consequences for such conduct. We await your response.Sincerely,
What Now? Tammy Baldwin? Herb Kohl? Russ Feingold?Israeli Ambassador to the United States admits that ships were "too large to stop with nonviolent means."
On May 31st, 2010, elite Israeli military commandos stormed six humanitarian aid ships taking part in the 'Freedom Flotilla' to Gaza, killing between 9-20 civilian passengers and injuring dozens more. As the facts of the attack come out it is clear that these killings cannot in any way be justified.
PRIOR TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK - The Freedom Flotilla
The Freedom Flotilla was an effort by a coalition of human rights and humanitarian organizations to nonviolently break through Israel's illegal blockade, and deliver much needed humanitarian and developmental aid to the Palestinians of Gaza. Almost 700 passengers from 40 different countries joined the flotilla, including: human rights workers, humanitarian aid workers, Members of Parliament, doctors, nurses, teachers, community leaders, and international journalists.
The lead coalition partners included:
* Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), the largest coalition partner, contributing 2 Turkish-flagged cargo ships, the Turkish-flagged passenger ship "Mavi Marmara," and 380 Turkish nationals to the effort. This was IHH's first attempt to break the Gaza blockade.
* The European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza, contributing the Greek-flagged passenger ship "Sfendoni." This was the European Campaign's second mission to Gaza.
* The Free Gaza Movement, contributing the U.S.-flagged passenger ship "Challenger I." This was Free Gaza's ninth mission to Gaza.
* A Ship to Gaza, Sweden, and A Ship to Gaza, Greece, contributing the Greek-flagged cargo ship "Eleftheri Mesogeios." This was the first voyage of A Ship to Gaza, Sweden, and the fourth of a Ship to Gaza, Greece.
All ships were thoroughly searched by local port authorities in Greece and Turkey prior to their departure. Additionally, the coalition hired an independent security firm to search the ships and certify that no weapons were on board. All passengers went through nonviolence training and were likewise searched for weapons prior to boarding. The Turkish government, a member-state of the NATO alliance, vetted all the Turkish passengers to insure there was no one with ties to extremist groups. These precautionary steps were deliberately taken to prevent Israeli propaganda officials from ever being able to claim that the Freedom Flotilla posed any 'security risk' to Israel.
There was a live satellite feed broadcasting the voyage from the Mavi Marmara, as well as GPS transponders showing the exact location of the flotilla at all times to anyone viewing the coalition website. The intention of the Freedom Flotilla was never to 'provoke a confrontation,' but simply to deliver much-needed humanitarian aid to besieged Gaza, and in so doing to draw attention to the brutal Israeli policies that are forcing the Palestinian people into a state of impoverished dependency.
PRIOR TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK - The Israeli Government
On 27 May, Bloomberg News reported that Israel was threatening to use its military forces and “use all available means to stop the ships” ('Israel Threatens Naval Action to Stop Aid Ships Bound for Gaza').
On 28 May the Associated Press reported that the Israeli government was prepared to stop the flotilla "at any cost," including being "prepared to use force." ('Israeli gunships head to sea to block flotilla'). It was further reported that masked naval commandos were being "trained" to stop the flotilla.
On 1 June the Guardian reported that Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy Defense Minister, suggested that the Israeli military had sabotaged several of the Freedom Flotilla ships. The flotilla was in fact delayed by two days due to unexpected mechanical problems, and 3 of the original 9 ships intending to join the flotilla were forced to drop off. ('Gaza aid flotilla: Israeli sabotage suspected,' Guardian, 1 June 2010)
THE MASSACRE ABOARD THE MARI MARMARA
On 31 May, under cover of darkness, Israeli military forces surrounded the Freedom Flotilla in international waters. Armed and masked commandos stormed all 6 ships from sea and from air, killing between 9 and 20 civilians. After more than 2 days, Israel still refuses to release the names and identities of the dead, nor even confirm the number of passengers killed by their forces.
An Israeli military spokesperson, Avital Leibovich, confirmed the attack took place in international waters, stating: "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves."
Did the passengers aboard the Mari Marmara possess a similar right to defend themselves?
Israel released highly-edited videos of the confrontation, claiming that civilian passengers aboard the Mari Marmara attempted to "lynch" the well-armed military commandos when they first stormed the ship. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the commandos, stating: "You carried out the mission and prevented the flotilla from reaching Gaza. We need to always remember that we aren't North America or Western Europe, we live in the Middle East, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren't second chances for those who don't defend themselves." ('Barak: In the Middle East, there is no mercy for the weak,' Haaretz, 2 June 2010.)
Again, one wonders whether this sentiment extends to the civilians killed by those commandos as well.
In contrast to the Israeli account of events, which is self-evidently absurd, Jamal Elshayyal, an Al-Jazeera correspondent aboard the Mari Marmara was able to issue a brief report before Israeli forces cut all communications with the ships. Elshayyal's report contradict the Israeli version of events, stating that Israel fired live ammunition on the civilians after they had raised a white flag. View the live report yourself at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html
Eyewitness testimony from the handful of passengers who have been released directly contradicts Israel's version as well. According to Nilufer Cetin, who sailed on the Mari Marmara with her one-year-old baby, "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said."There were sound and smoke bombs and later they used gas bombs. Following the bombings they started to come on board from helicopters."('Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists,' Guardian, 1 June 2010)
Cetin's account is just one of several contradicting the Israeli narrative. Haneen Zoubi, a Member of the Israeli Knesset, and just one of several parliamentarians aboard the flotilla, stated that Israeli warships surrounded the Mavi Marmara, firing on the ship before the commandos stormed aboard.
At a press conference in Nazareth, shortly after her release, MK Zoubi also stated that: "“Israel had days to plan this military operation. They wanted many deaths to terrorize us and to send a message that no future aid convoys should try to break the siege of Gaza.” ('Israeli Knesset member rejects navy account of attack,' Irish Sun, 2 June 2010)
Yonatan Shapira, former pilot in the IDF for the very squadron that conducted the assault on the Mavi Marmara stated: "No Israeli pilot would drop commandos on a ship in the middle of the sea, in the middle of the night, during such an operation without the soldiers carrying live ammunition. Paint ball canisters may have been attached to the automatic weapons that they had, but there is no doubt that the soldiers had and were prepared to use live ammunition"
In an interview on the Diane Rehm Show on 2 June, a nationally-broadcast radio program in the United States, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, stated that in planning their assault the Marmara, the Israeli government had concluded that the ship was "too large to stop with nonviolent means."
There is clear evidence present that the State of Israeli may have deliberately and with forethought intended to provoke a conflict in order to assassinate civilians sailing aboard the Freedom Flotilla, and therefore violently discourage any further attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinians of besieged Gaza.
The Free Gaza Movement calls upon the international community to enforce international standards and laws, fully investigate these crimes, and hold Israeli officials accountable for the willful murder of international human rights and humanitarian aid workers aboard the Freedom Flotilla.
Statist reactionaries on the U.S. Supreme Court have again chipped away at the liberty of American citizens.Mere Silence Doesn’t Invoke Miranda, Justices Say
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — Criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, refining the court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”
Monday’s decision followed two in February that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.
The latest case concerned Van Chester Thompkins, a Michigan man accused of shooting another man to death in 2000 outside a mall. Arrested a year later, Mr. Thompkins was read his Miranda rights but refused to sign a form acknowledging that he understood them.
Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.
After two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, Mr. Thompkins said yes in response to each of three questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God?” And, crucially, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
His affirmative response to the last question was used against him at trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled in 2008 that his statement should have been excluded because prosecutors could not prove that Mr. Thompkins had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.
Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “some language in Miranda could be read to indicate that waivers are difficult to establish absent an explicit written waiver or a formal, express oral statement.”
Indeed, the Miranda decision said that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” It added that the government faced “a heavy burden” in trying to prove that a suspect’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.
Justice Kennedy said that decisions since Miranda had undercut its language and that a more sensible rule put the burden on suspects to invoke their rights.
“A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the majority had created a kind of paradox. “A suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent,” she wrote, “must, counterintuitively, speak.”
Justice Kennedy said that people who knew their rights and acted “in a manner inconsistent with their exercise” might be presumed to have waived their rights, meaning that responding to police questioning is itself an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, said “these principles flatly contradict” earlier decisions from the court.
“At best, the court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions,” she wrote. “At worst, it overrules sub silentio an essential aspect of the protections Miranda has long provided.”
The better practice in the face of ambiguous responses from a suspect, Justice Sotomayor wrote, would be for the police to ask follow-up questions like, “Do you want to talk to us?”
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.
This is a video of Israeli citizens celebrating the Israeli attack on the Turkish ship in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. There is no sense of remorse at all for those who died -- no matter what the reasons.Israelis actually cheers the Mediterranean massacre, a common sentiment in Israel as the state moves sharply to the right, amid its militaristic and expansionist policies in an increasingly chauvinistic and repressive culture.
By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat
[/
