The Next Flotilla leaves Sept. 18

Karen Nakamura

A second “Viva Palestina” Flotilla is scheduled to set forth for Gaza on September 18.

Pro-Palestinian activist and former British MP George Galloway announced August 13 in the English “Morning Star” newspaper that at least 3 ships are planning Gaza Flotilla 2.

The convoy of ships are said to be leaving from such ports as London, Casablanca and Doha in Qatar. Other reports include Turkey, whose relationship with Israel has been tense since Israel killed a number of Turkish citizens in the last Flotilla of May 31.

The Flotilla will include supplies of medical instruments and other humanitarian supplies and will attempt to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Members of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition include IHH, which together with the Free Gaza movement led the first flotilla. The Swedish Ship to Gaza, European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza, International Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza and the Greek Ship to Gaza are also included. Other than George Galloway, coalition members include the highly respected Huwaida Arraaf and Greta Berlin.

The Turkish aid group, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation or IHH has been outlawed by Israel and accused of having ties to Hamas. This group sponsored the lead boat, the Mavi Marmara, in the Free Gaza Flotilla in May. Nine members of the coalition were killed. Aboard the various ships were 718 people aboard the various ships from 37 nations.

Another flotilla, the Saint Mariam (Virgin Mary) from Lebanon and a multi-faith, international, all-women group was prepared to leave Tripoli the 8th of August but refrained after Israeli diplomatic pressure on Lebanon stopped the departure. This flotilla had a group of nuns from the US and included Lebanese singer May Hariri. They were composed of nuns, doctors, lawyers, journalists, Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Whether the Saint Mariam and its sister ship, Naji Alali, will join the September sailing remains to be seen. But international interest and activity is growing. There are rumors that activists from a number of countries may join. Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates activists have been rumored to want to send ships. Canadians have sent feelers. Scandinavian countries have sponsored Gaza aide projects and conferences.

To gauge the interest, when the Saint Mariam and Naji Alali crew announced their plans they were inundated with requests to join. There were 400 from the US alone.

THE PRECONDITION TO NO PRECONDITIONS

Karen Nakamura

  

If it weren’t so deadly serious, you’d have to laugh at the sheer chutzpa.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a clever man. For decades he and his political soul mate Ariel Sharon have deflected all attempts to withdraw from Palestine. Israel’s refusal to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is the main bone of contention in the Middle East conflict.

This cleverness has never been clearer than a Netanyahu declaration released to the media August 24: “Israel does not place any preconditions to starting the direct talks” with Palestine.

Referring to the Washington talks scheduled for September, Netanyahu stressed “the importance of security arrangements and disarmament as part of a future agreement, to prevent terrorism and the firing of rockets from territories in Palestinian hands.”

That sounds so reasonable, so comforting. But an exploration of other statements from the Prime Minister shows the terrible truth behind the comforting illusion.

For Netanyahu, withdrawing from what he calls Judah and Samaria is a violation of his and his party’s core beliefs. While he blows smoke screens and sweet-talks the United States, his Likud dominated government has no intention of withdrawing from the West Bank. Highlighting this belief is an excerpt from the Likud party platform of which PM Netanyahu is the head. Under a subsection titled Settlements it states:

“The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria [the West Bank] and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

Some will point to its withdrawal from Gaza as a demonstration of Israel’s determination to find an equitable solution. However, one needs to remember a few facts. The first is the 25-foot wall the Israelis built around Gaza. It effectively locks Gazans into what is referred to as “the world’s largest open air prison.” The second is the horrific pounding Israel inflicted on Gaza when it tried to break Israeli’s stranglehold.

The third is rarely acknowledged. Just before Israel pulled out, international pressure was building to get Israel to ease up in Gaza. One tactic was to cite Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states:

“To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate…”

If that was applied to Gaza and the West Bank, the occupation could be very expensive for Israel. This is especially true in Gaza where even before Israel’s 2008-09 invasion childhood hunger was deeply entrenched. On August 6, 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reported 30% of Gaza’s children were suffering from chronic malnutrition.

Some observers feel this pressure was a turning point. Sharon wasn’t necessarily being a humanitarian by pulling out. It made more sense to build a 25-foot wall around the territories and control traffic going in and out. The Siege of Gaza has been in effect since July 2007 when Israel closed the few opened gates after Hamas’ election. That policy continues to this day despite some easing following the Free Gaza Flotilla.

Which takes us back to Netanyahu’s statement he has no pre-conditions for the upcoming talks in Washington.

On July 2, 2009, The Israel Project released a script of a press conference with Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s media advisor. Here he answers a question from the BBC, which asked:

“Most of the world is wondering when Israel will recognize the State of Palestine and abide by its UN designated borders?”

Regev’s answer concluded: “…The second issue is security and here we've got to be clear. The Palestinian state …will be demilitarized.” Regev rationalized this by stating: “[Netanyahu] …doesn't see how demilitarization in any way negatively impacts upon Palestinian national self-determination. …And we're sure …there is international support for this demand…”

Palestinian demilitarization means one thing and one thing only. Israel is the proven aggressor and refuses to lay down its arsenal in kind. What little defense Palestine does have will be taken away giving Israel full rein to cleanse “The Land of Israel” of all Arabs, its treasured goal. Needless to say this will be brought about by the forcible removal and genocide of the Palestinians.