Gaza Latest: Israel Prepares Confrontation with "Freedom Flotilla"

On Saturday, seven ships from a "Freedom Flotilla", bringing aid, will try and reach Gaza. It will be met by at least 12 Israeli naval boats, helicopters, and a "counter-flotilla".

On Friday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman denounced the flotilla:

The aid convoy is violent propaganda against Israel, and Israel will not allow its sovereignty to be threatened in any way, in any place - land, air or sea.

There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Despite Hamas' war crimes against Israeli citizens and the thousands of rockets fired at Israeli towns, Israel continues to respond in the most humane way possible.

Israel: “The Ideal State: A Dream-Country Without Criticism” (Levy)

Israeli gunships were ordered to take position to stop the convoy, and West Jerusalem made clear that it would overtake the ships as soon as they enter a 20-mile Israeli-controlled zone off Gaza. If the ships do not stop, Israel will attempt to connect the flotilla to naval boats and tow them to the Israeli port of Ashdod where the Israelis have prepared a detention centre. Those who do not want to take a flight back home will be taken to jail.


On Friday, Greta Berlin, one of the organizers of the effort, said a total of seven ships were headed to Gaza after an eighth vessel suffered a malfunction and had to turn back. Halting during darkness, they are expected to reach Israeli waters on Saturday.

The Israel Defense Forces responded that they will not hesitate to use limited force. The Turkish daily Hurriyet reports that the IDF will use a special technology to blackout media coverage in case of an operation.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Ministry Director General Yossi Gal held a round of explanatory calls with foreign ministers from countries whose citizens are participating in the flotilla. The Israeli message is that the activists are welcome to bring the humanitarian aid to the port of Ashdod, where it will be examined and, if found suitable, will be permitted to enter the Gaza Strip through land crossings. If the activists try to break the siege, they will be arrested.

The spokesman of the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, Umit Sonmez, said that the organisation does not trust Israeli officials who took the members of an earlier convoy into custody for 21 days for no reason. The HRF had written to Israeli officials regarding the planned journey to Gaza but had not received any reply.

Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, writing in Haaretz, assess:

The flotilla is not expected to alter in any substantial way the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. It is mostly a battle of public relations that is meant to strike a blow at Israel. Perhaps if Israel was less eager to confront the activists, some of the media attention would have dissipated. Had the flotilla been allowed in, Hamas would have its day, and the entire affair would evaporate quickly.

Haaretz's editors urged the Israeli Government to resume indirect talks with Hamas, to be more flexible about releasing prisoners and to lift the siege on Gaza. They argue  that blockade, siege, and military operations, with the hope that Gazans would topple Hamas, has failed: "The suffering that Israel is causing 1.5 million people for this purpose is not only inhuman, but extremely detrimental to Israel's status around the world".

The editors warn, "Even if Israel manages to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza, it will still have to contend with other demonstrations of support."

Matlin's America: So What is This "Special Relationship" with Britain?

Every time there is a change of leader in the United Kingdom or the US, the British media jump to the question of when the new man (or woman) will meet his or her counterpart and the extent to which the so-called “special relationship” between the countries will benefit or suffer.

Hence when Bill Clinton, with whom Tony Blair seemed to enjoy the best of relationships, was succeeded by George W. Bush, the media expected the “SR” to be damaged. Blair, by then everybody’s friend (at least in the West), did his “May I call you George?” bit, and all seemed to be well.


This special relationship between Britain and the US is much misunderstood and misinterpreted. The term attempts to encapsulate close political, cultural, and historical tie, yet it did not exist, even as media commentary, at the end of the First World War. Let us not forget that part of America’s price of entering the war was the sharing of British bunkering ports throughout the Pacific and elsewhere, a privilege previously denied to the US. The aim was to break the trading power of the British Empire.

America repeated its assault at the end of World War II. Certainly, Britain was the largest recipient of aid under the Marshall Plan but much of that was passed on to other European countries. And, boy, did we pay for the support in higher interest rates and stricter terms than other recipients. Indeed, we only repaid the final installment of Marshall aid a few years ago.

Let me be clear. I don’t object to what the US did in exacting a price from its allies. Business is business. What needs to be said is that in the days of world conflict and its aftermath, America’s overriding policy was free trade; the British Empire’s policy was preferential trade. The economic difference between the two nations mitigated against any so-called special relationship.

One cannot ignore the personal. I am positive that Franklin D. Roosevelt liked Winston Churchill, whilst resisting the latter’s overtures to join in the fight against Germany before December 1941. I have no doubt that Harry Truman liked Winnie, too. Indeed, it was during Churchill’s famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri that the expression, “special relationship” was allegedly coined. But can anyone point me to US policy decisions, in those first years after World War II, that demonstrate the existence of this special relationship?

In the early 1960s, Harold Macmillan thought John F. Kennedy was wet behind the ears and a man who could be led by them. Even after Kennedy showed Macmillan the error of this judgment, the two men remained on good terms. However, Lyndon Johnson's relationship with Harold Wilson was strained. LBJ tried to get Wilson to send a small, token force to Vietnam, in exchange for which he would help bail the Brits out of yet another economic crisis, but for once Johnson’s charm offensive failed. Wilson would not play ball in Southeast Asia.

And now? President Obama demonstrated his disdain for Prime Minister Gordon Brown by refusing one-to-one meetings or even a photo call.

At the highest levels, the special relationship doesn’t really exist, except as a personal link, and even then, nothing is certain.

Take an occasion two weeks ago. A U.S. Senate committee called in the Chief Executive Office of BP America to explain the company’s role in the explosion and leak of the Gulf of Mexico oil wellhead. The CEO found himself facing a firing squad, with one senator after another seeking absolute confirmation that BP accepted full liability for the leak and would pay all claims, regardless of actual fault.

The senators did not like the CEO’s response that BP would pay all claims for which it was legally responsible. The US legislators were out for blood and I’m sure they were even keener than usual to get a foreign company spiked. (I have not seen American corporations, even US commercial bankers, treated this way by the Senate.)

I do not seek to excuse BP in any way from their acts or omissions. But let's be clear --- as many of the senators involved knew full well that an admission of liability would negate insurance policies, enabling BP’s insurers to walk away, as the company tried to protect its shareholders --- during the hearings, no one referred to any special relationship between the US Government and a British company.

I believe in the existence of the special relationship. It is at grassroots level. The British and Americans share a common language, or at least a resemblance of a common language. of sorts. Generally, the people of each nation are pro-famil and centre of the road politically, have a keen enjoyment of sports and arts, and are charitably and socially minded.

I have relatives in New York and Miami. I have an American wife and enjoy seeing her extended family, be they in Minnesota, Oregon, Arizona, California, or New York.We have close American friends from Vermont to Colorado. I visited the on business for more than 40 years, probably more than 150 times. Since retirement, I have had extended stays for academic research. On all such visits, and I do mean all, I was treated as a friend should be.

US ideology is often quite different to ours. The British, by and large, are not hung up on issues such as abortion or creationism, nor are we troubled by same-sex unions. And we don’t want to carry guns. In return, some Americans might say we Brits have no concept of advanced citizenship.

But these differences are outweighed easily by what I like. In their locality, Americans tend to be socially-minded. They care about their neighbours and friends. They are amazingly charitable. Their restaurants (excluding the fast-food empires) usually serve great food at reasonable prices. I have a list of places to recommend from Miami to Seattle. And there’s so much space in America, as opposed to the little island where I live.

Freedom is a reality. And because our two peoples have so much in common, the special relationship is alive and well, even if our governments are at each others' throats.

The Latest from Iran (28 May): A Pause in Discussion?

1410 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Omid Sharifi-Dana, arrested just after the Ashura protests of 27 December, has been sentenced to six years in prison.

1400 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Summary (Nukes! Nukes! Nukes!...and Some Poor People). Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani taking the podium today, and he has decided that the international dispute over Iran's uranium deserves religious priority. He wags a clerical finger at the "5+1" powers (US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China): "The P5+1, instead of welcoming the [Iran-Brazil-Turkey] declaration [on a swap of uranium] goes to the [United Nations] Security Council and threatens sanctions against Iran."

And from there, Emami Kashani makes his big leap: "This is a world of barbarity and rapaciousness."

It wasn't all nuclear gloom, however. Emami Kashani expressed hope that the country under the guidance of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, would see greater success and progress.

That's when the Ayatollah looked beyond uranium and noticed Iran's poor people: "The well-to-do and all who have [financial] prowess should think of providing shelters for those who cannot afford one."

NEW Friends or Obstacles?: Iran, Human Rights, & US “Concern”
NEW Iran Analysis: When Allies Co-ordinate (Mousavi & Karroubi)
NEW Iran Analysis: When Allies Fight (Tehran and Moscow
The Latest from Iran (27 May): Cooperation and Feuds

1330 GMT: Today's Propaganda Highlight (with a Cameo Appearance by EA). We noticed this morning that hundreds of readers were linking from a Rah-e-Sabz story to an EA video of reformist activist Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, in debate with Government supporter Seyed Mohammad Marandi.


I ran this past an EA correspondent, who uncovered a tale of Iranian state propaganda:

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting have produced a "report" on Haghighatjoo, which is a masterpiece of distortion (Fars News will go green with envy). Marandi is not mentioned at all, only Haghighatjoo, allegedly soon to receive a prize from an American institution soon (a lie). She is presented as a traitor to Iran, by editing her speto demonstrators in Boston where she allegedly said "Do not accept Iran!". Haghighatjoo's reference to "the government/ president of [Iran]" is cut out from her "(rayis jomhure) Iran ra be rasmiyat nashenasid".

IRIB proceeds to explain that all other reformists are traitors and human rights organisations are foreign operatives. Iranian commentator Alireza Nourizadeh is a British Intelligence officer, and Amnesty International is a Zionist organisation.

1325 GMT: Concern over Tavakoli. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard have made phone calls to the mother of Majid Tavakoli, the imprisoned student activist, to express deep concerns about Tavakoli’s condition and to ask her and her son to end their hunger strike.

Reports claim Tavakoli has been transferred to hospital because of health issues during the hunger strike.

0855 GMT: Economy Watch. Deutsche Welle, via Peyke Iran, reports on Turkish companies who are leaving Iran and/or refusing to invest in the country.

0850 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Peyke Iran claims two more teachers have been arrested in Yazd Province, bringing the total detained to 10.

0845 GMT: Assessing the Movement. Taghi Rahmani --- writer, journalist, activist, and member of National Religious Front --- offers extensive thoughts about the state of the Green Movement. He says a powerful Iran is not possible without civil society and civil society is not possible without instruction and discussion.

0830 GMT: Fashion and Politics. Looks like "bad hijab" is going to persist as a front-line theme in Iran during current tensions. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has declared the source of improper veiling by women is "ignorance".

0820 GMT: Finger-Pointing. Well, it might be quieter today but that hasn't put a stop to the fighting within the Iranian establishment.

President Ahmadinejad's attack on local and provincial officials, which we noted in Thursday's updates, still resonates. Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi has another target: he has asserted that the "anti-revolutionary current" started during the era of President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997).

0815 GMT: Rights-First? We have published an analysis, "Friends or Obstacles?: Iran, Human Rights, & US 'Concern'".

0810 GMT: A Political Fast. Khaje Nasir University students have asked all university candidates 2 join them in a day without food to protest the current political situation and detentions of students.

0530 GMT: A quiet start to the Iranian weekend. Not even the pretext of the uranium dispute offers headlines today, with President Ahmadinejad apparently maintaining silence after his clash with the West/US/Israel/Russia earlier this week. Press TV tried to stir the pot 12 hours ago with the "Breaking News" that "Iran Navy Detects US Nuke Sub in PG [Persian Gulf]", but nobody seemed to take much interest.

On the domestic front, there was also  a pause in opposition statements after the interview of Mehdi Karroubi in Rah-e-Sabz, now translated in full into English, and the reach-out of Mir Hossein Mousavi to political parties (including Karroubi's Etemade Melli).

We started yesterday, in the aftermath of those statements, looking for the ripples of organisation and challenge amongst groups and individuals. We'll maintain watch but, so far, it looks like today will be one to gather breath.

Afghanistan Correction: US Military "Marjah NOT a Bleeding Ulcer"

Yesterday we featured Gregg Carlstrom's incisive comment that, months after the loudly-trumpeted US "offensive" in Helmand Province, the Taliban might be re-establishing influence in Marjah. Part of Carlstrom's analysis was based on an article by Dion Nissenbaum of McClatchy News Service, including this comment from the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal (pictured), as he toured Marjah, "This is a bleeding ulcer right now."

Afghanistan Analysis: The Taliban Return to Marjah (Carlstrom)

Well, there has been an illuminating sequel, with the US military taking McClatchy to task for misleading reporting:

Dear Mr. [Mark] Seibel [McClatchy managing editor],

I am writing to you today so that we might come to some agreement about what this command views as a mischaracterization in Dion Nissenbaum's article entitled "McChrystal calls Marjah a 'bleeding ulcer' in Afghan campaign" and other variations on that theme.

The key part of that dialogue that Dion witnessed was "You don't feel it here, but I'll tell you, it's a bleeding ulcer outside." That would have been further clarified by the quote Dion asked to use (which did not appear in the final edited copy) about Gen. McChrystal being asked in Europe and the U.S. whether we are failing. The essence of the comment is not that Marjah itself is going badly: as he said to Dion in a follow on interview on the plane ride back to Kabul — it's largely on track. It's that it's misperceived to be going badly. It's a distinction, but one I'm sure you grasp and one that could have been better conveyed, even accounting for the motive of wanting to generate interest in the story using the sensational quote: "McChrystal calls for action against perceptions of 'bleeding ulcer' in Marjah," etc....

Based on the exchange between Dion and Gen. McChrystal's personal PAO, Lt Col Tadd Sholtis, we had every reason to expect a story about mixed progress throughout Central Helmand and an effort to keep operations moving at as rapid a pace as possible against the various challenges. Instead, post-editing, one must read some 14 paragraphs into the story in order to get anything that suggests the picture is mixed, and you need to go 40 paragraphs into the story in order to get anything that explains Gen. McChrystal's actual intent in the dialogues quoted. The elements of a balanced story are there, but with the way it's organized we didn't get one....

Respectfully,

Gregory J. Smith, Rear Admiral, USN
DCOS Communication
NATO International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan

Note the rather strained effort by the military's PR staff to put up even a "mixed" situation --- a sharp contrast to the declarations of victory last autumn. Roy Gutman, McClatchy's foreign editor, strips away the rhetoric in his reply to Smith:

In the context of the [article's] opening anecdote, which suggested that outside pressures are intense and political leaders have limited patience, the further exchange Gen. McChrystal had about force levels and the facts on the ground, Marjah is a very problematic place in the short term. It adds up to being a "bleeding ulcer."

Friends or Obstacles?: Iran, Human Rights, & US "Concern"

There was a time --- say, six months ago --- when I wrote often about US "experts" who offered analysis and advice on Iran. But, taking the advice of readers, I walked away from those pieces: I found myself getting frustrated and involved in diversionary battles which were more about pundits striking public postures than about the complexity of the issues in Iran.

What matters, not just in the end but from the beginning, is not the pronouncements and priorities of broadcasters and columnists but the hopes, concerns, and fears of Iranians.

Forgive me, but I am going to break the pledge of silence over US commentary for a moment today.

I am prompted to do so not by another one-dimensional portrayal of Iran or by the deceitful words of those invoking sensitivity for the Iranian people to justifying bombing the Iranian people. I do so because of two pieces, by two intelligent and thoughtful writers, which start from the premise that we need to review the approach to Iran.



Writing in Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt criticises "Sleepwalking with Iran":

I can't figure out who is actually directing U.S. policy toward Iran, but what's striking (and depressing) about it is how utterly unimaginative it seems to be....We continue to ramp up sanctions that most people know won't work, and we take steps that are likely to reinforce Iranian suspicions and strengthen the clerical regime's hold on power.

I think Walt is an excellent analyst and, even if you disagree with his position on sanctions and the nuclear issue, his critique of the US Government's tactics is incisively realistic:

The Obama administration's approach to Iran is neither feasible nor consistent. To begin with, our objective --- to persuade Iran to end all nuclear enrichment -- simply isn't achievable. Both the current government and the leaders of the opposition Green Movement are strongly committed to controlling the full nuclear fuel cycle, and the United States will never get the other major powers to impose the sort of "crippling sanctions" it has been seeking for years now. It's not gonna happen folks, or at least not anytime soon.

What got my attention, however --- especially given Walt's normally sure-handed evaluation --- was not the clarity in that paragraph but the resignation and confusiion in one later in the piece:

The first [problem] is the mindset that seems to have taken hold in the Obama administration. As near as I can tell, they believe Iran is dead set on acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will lie and cheat and prevaricate long enough to get across the nuclear threshold. Given that assumption, there isn't much point in trying to negotiate any sort of "grand bargain" between Iran and the West, and especially not one that left them with an enrichment capability (even one under strict IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards). This view may be correct, but if it is, then our effort to ratchet up sanctions is futile and just makes it more likely that other Iranians will blame us for their sufferings....Maybe our focus ought to shift from our current obsession with Iran's nuclear program and focus on human rights issues instead (though it is harder for Washington to do that without looking pretty darn hypocritical).

I think --- although I have to admit that I am trying to put this on paper after reading the above paragraph for the 20th time --- that Walt is saying: well, if we have to put pressure on Iran's nuclear programme and aspirations in the region, let's use rhetoric on human rights rather than sanctions as our weapon of choice.

Wrong. So wrong. I'm all for putting human rights up-front but it should not be picked up as an instrument simply because you don't like other tools in your foreign-policy box. Human rights should be acknowledged as an end, not a means. To do otherwise does not sweep away the hypocrisy that Walt notes, it reinforces the reality as well as the impression of deceit.

Which brings me to the latest intervention of Roger Cohen in The New York Times.

Cohen has been an important US voice on Iran for some time and, to his credit, he has tried to bring the internal situation to the attention of readers, having spent time before and after the 2009 election in the country.

And, to his credit, the starting point of Cohen's latest column is well-intentioned. He highlights and draws from the recent publication of Death to the Dictator!, the account of a protestor detained, abused, and raped by security forces.

Human rights, not just in this story but in thousands of others, not as a rhetorical device but as an important objective. Right?

Not quite. For Cohen uses his story for a personal goal: to set himself up as arbitrator between two viewpoints that he dislikes:

Since June 12, U.S. realists and idealists have had an Iranian field day. The realists have dismissed the Green Movement, proclaimed a stolen election fair, and urged President Obama to toss aside human rights concerns and repair relations with Tehran in the American interest.

The idealists have rained renewed fury on Ahmadinejad, called for his overthrow and urged Obama to bury outreach and back Moussavi.

Leave aside, for the moment, that Cohen's portrayal of "idealists" (not one of whom he names) is a caricature. My experience is that those who have criticised the Iranian Govenrment on "idealistic" grounds, i.e., human rights, have not called for a burial of outreach. To the contrary, if one wants to acknowledge the Iranian people, one has to reach out and establish connections: to learn, to understand, to disseminate information, and to discuss. Some, indeed many, may wish to see the back of President, but they do not necessarily advocate "overthrow" (which Cohen is using to imply military action or US-supported regime change).

Here's my problem, which goes far beyond Cohen's ploy of setting himself up as the centrist voice of reason.

When Cohen declares that we should "pursue engagement because isolation only serves the horror merchants", his "engagement" is --- ironically --- not on human rights concerns. It is a call for a resolution of the nuclear issue: "[Iran's] renewed interest in Brazilian-Turkish mediated talks is worth skeptical consideration".

I respect the position that, whatever our perspective, on the political and legal issues inside Iran, the priority must be on a resolution with the current Iranian Government. I understand the geopolitical reasons: not only taking the destabilising dispute over Iran's nuclear programme off the table but also furthering an accommodation over Afghanistan, Iraq, and regional issues in the Middle East.

What I find objectionable is the justification of that approach through distortion and mis-representation of the situation inside Iran. Now that the authors of Race for Iran, pushing for a "grand settlement" with Tehran, have finally publicly declared that human rights plays no part in their calculations, then let them stick to that position by offering no deceptive comment on developments over those rights.

And I'm just as opposed to using human rights as a sleight-of-hand to push a nuclear-first approach. Just because Roger Cohen, who has raised awareness of the situation in Iran and has a concern for those rights, is the perpetrator in this case does not affect that opposition.

Here is Cohen's concluding sentence in full: "[Iran's] renewed interest in Brazilian-Turkish mediated talks is worth skeptical consideration....if you believe Mohsen [the abused detainee in Death to the Dictator!]--- in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate --- deserves a future."

I have no idea of Mohsen's position on the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on uranium enrichment. I doubt Cohen knows. However, I think I have a good idea of what Mohsen, and many others who have suffered in the post-election period, think of the Ahmaidinejad Government. A President and a Government who are using the nuclear game as a distraction from internal issues. A President and a Government which, it must be appreciated, will present any agreement on uranium enrichment as a "victory" for their policy and, thus, as evidence of their legitimacy.

So it is a bit presumptuous for Mr Cohen to use (I would say "manipulate" had this come from a less benevolent commentator like Charles Krauthammer) Mohsen's story not for Moshen's interests but for Roger Cohen's agenda.

It is still deceitful --- irrespective of whoever carries out the act --- to use human rights as his/her instrument of the moment to seek a settlement which is far removed from human rights.