Expose and undermine the domestic forces of extremism with a simple click:
 

Thursday, September 27, 2012

English Text from the Rachel Corrie sham lawsuit courtesy Judy Lash Balint:

Back in March 2003 when Rachel Corrie was killed while trying to prevent Israel from clearing ground to expose terrorist hiding places, I interviewed several International Solidarity Movement (ISM) people who were present in Rafiah that day.

Having lived for many years in Washington State where Corrie attended Evergreen College, I had an inherent interest in trying to bring to light the motivations and actions of the ISMers. I wrote several pieces about the case and was sued for libel (later thrown out of court) by an ISMer who didn't like hearing the truth.


Today, after years of testimony and months of deliberation, an Israeli judge handed down a decision that verified what many of us familiar with the facts of the case already knew: he rejected the lawsuit brought by the Corrie family whose only purpose was to vilify Israel, not to get to the bottom of the facts of the case; and he ruled the death an accident that resulted due to the stupid actions of Corrie and her fellow travelers in purposefully entering a war zone and ignoring repeated warnings to get out of the way.

For those interested in the facts, not the Corrie family hype, here's the translation of today's decision:

Summary of the Verdict (T.A. 371/05) Estate of the Late Rachel Corrie, etc.
v. The State of Israel – Ministry of Defense


1. The decedent, Rachel Corrie, was born on April 10, 1979. She was an American citizen, residing in Olympia, Washington. On March 16, 2003, the decedent was killed during an incident which is the focus of this lawsuit. She was 24 years old.



The decedent was an activist in the International Solidarity Movement (hereafter: "the Organization" or "the ISM").



2. In this lawsuit (T.A. 371/05) the plaintiffs, the estate of the late Rachel Corrie (hereafter: "the decedent"), the decedent's parents, brother and sister, are petitioning to direct the defendant, the State of Israel, to pay them compensation for special damages and general damages inflicted on them, they claim, as a result of the death of the decedent during the incident that is the focus of this trial. In addition to the aforementioned, the plaintiffs have petitioned to direct the defendant to pay "punitive damages".



3. The plaintiffs claimed in their lawsuit that on March 16, 2003, the decedent, together with other activists in the ISM, arrived at the "Philadelphi Corridor" in the Rafiah area of the Gaza Strip where two bulldozers and an IDF tank were observed conducting operational activities in the area. The plaintiffs claimed that the bulldozers were about to demolish a house in the area and that the decedent and her fellow members of the ISM stood in the path of the bulldozers in order to prevent them from implementing their plan.



In Article 8.5 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs claimed as follows:



"At 17:00 or thereabouts, the decedent stood near the house of Dr. Samir Nasrallah, which was designated for demolition, and one of the bulldozers was 10 to 15 meters from her. The bulldozers approached the decedent and pulled dirt from under her feet. The decedent fell and the blade of the bulldozer ran over her leg and later the bulldozer ran over her body. When the bulldozer backed up the decedent was gravely injured and was bleeding extensively, although she was still breathing.



The decedent was evacuated to the Al-Najer Hospital in Rafiah, where her death was declared after 20 minutes".



4. The plaintiffs claimed that the bulldozer intentionally caused the death of the decedent. The plaintiffs based their claim on the following three grounds: assault, negligence and legal grounds.



5. After hearing many witnesses from both sides, including expert witnesses, and studying the extensive summations from representatives of both sides, I hereby determine as follows:



a. During the relevant period of time, the "Philadelphi Corridor" was the site of daily warfare, i.e. daily gunfire by snipers, missile fire and IED explosions directed at the IDF forces. During this period, unceasing efforts were made to kidnap IDF soldiers. Only soldiers who were in combat units fought in the region.



According to the notes made in the IDF records, from September 2000 to the date of the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit (March 16, 2003), nearly 6,000 grenades had been thrown at IDF forces in the Corridor; there had been approximately 1,400 incidents of gunfire; and there were more than 40 occurrences of mortar fire. These aforementioned events led to the injury and death of many Israelis.



The United States government issued a travel warning on March 16, 2003 to warn American citizens against visiting the Gaza Strip area or the West Bank.



b. During the period pertinent to this case, there was a military directive in force declaring the "Philadelphi Corridor" a "closed military area" and forbidding the entry of civilians.



c. The ISM assigned itself the task of working alongside the Palestinians against the "Israeli occupation" by using what it called "non-violent protest activities". However, the evidence presented to me shows a significant gap between the Organization's statements and the true character of its activities and actions. The actions taken by the members of the organization, in practice, do not match its statements. In fact, the Organization exploits the dialogue regarding human rights and morality to blur the severity of its actions, which are, in fact, expressed through violence.



Inter alia, ISM activities included "defending" Palestinian families, even ones that were engaged in terror activities. The Organization's activists "specialized" in sabotaging the IDF's operational actions. ISM activities included, inter alia: stationing activists to serve as "human shields" for terrorists wanted by Israeli security forces; financial, logistical and moral assistance to Palestinians, including terrorists and their families; interrupting demolition activities or the sealing off of houses belonging to terrorists who conducted suicide attacks with multiple casualties.



d. The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground. This clearing and leveling included leveling the ground and clearing it of brush in order to expose hiding places used by terrorists, who would sneak out from these areas and place explosive devices with the intent of harming IDF soldiers. There was an urgency to carrying out this mission so that IDF look-outs could observe the area and locate terrorists thereby preventing explosive devices from being buried. The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes. The action conducted by the IDF forces was done at real risk to the lives of the soldiers. Less than one hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces.



e. I hereby determine that, on the day of the incident, the two bulldozers and the armored personnel carrier were occupied with the clear military operational task of clearing the land in a dangerous area which posed a significant risk. The force's action was designed to prevent acts of terror and hostility, i.e. to eliminate the danger of terrorists hiding between the creases of land and in the brush, and to expose explosive devices hidden therein, both of which were intended to kill IDF soldiers. During each act of exposure, the lives of the IDF fighters were at risk from Palestinians terrorists. As aforementioned, less than an hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF force.



For this reason, I hereby determine that the act of clearing the land with which the IDF force was occupied during the event was "a war-related action" as defined in The Civil Wrongs Ordinance.



f. On March 16, 2003, the decedent and her fellow ISM activists arrived at the location where the IDF force was working to clear the land. They did so, they claim, in order to prevent the IDF force from demolishing Palestinian houses. They did so illegally and in contradiction of the military directive declaring the area a "closed military area". They held signs, stood in front of the bulldozers and did not allow them to carry out their mission. The IDF soldiers informed the activists that they had to distance themselves from the area, threw stun grenades towards them, fired warning shots towards them and used methods to disperse demonstrations. All without avail.



The IDF force was very careful not to harm the Organization's activists. Because of the activists' interference, the force repeatedly relocated to continue carrying out their mission.



g. Based on the evidence presented to me, including the testimony of the expert for the prosecution, Mr. Osben, I hereby determine that at approximately 17:00, the decedent stood roughly 15 to 20 meters from the relevant bulldozer and knelt down. The bulldozer to which I refer was a large, clumsy and shielded vehicle of the DR9 model. The field of view the bulldozer's operator had inside the bulldozer was limited. At a certain point, the bulldozer turned and moved toward the decedent. The bulldozer pushed a tall pile of dirt. With regard to the field of view that the bulldozer's operator had, the decedent was in the "blind spot". The decedent was behind the bulldozer's blade and behind a pile of dirt and therefore the bulldozer's operator could not have seen her.



The bulldozer moved very slowly, at a speed of one kilometer per hour.



When the decedent saw the pile of dirt moving towards her, she did not move, as any reasonable person would have. She began to climb the pile of dirt. Therefore, both because the pile of dirt continued to move as a result of the pushing of the bulldozer, and because the dirt was loose, the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt and fell.



At this stage, the decedent's legs were buried in the pile of dirt, and when her colleagues saw from where they stood that the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt, they ran towards the bulldozer and gestured towards its operator and yelled at him to stop. By the time the bulldozer's operator and his commander noticed the decedent's colleagues and stopped the bulldozer, a significant portion of the decedent's body was already covered in dirt.



The decedent's entire body was not covered in dirt. In fact, when the bulldozer backed up, the decedent's body was seen to free itself from the pile of dirt and the decedent was still alive.



The decedent was evacuated to the hospital and after 20 minutes, her death was declared.



I hereby determine unequivocally that there is no foundation to the plaintiffs' claim that the bulldozer struck the decedent intentionally. This was a very unfortunate accident and was not intentional. No one wished to harm the decedent. I was convinced that the bulldozer's operator would not have continued to work if he had seen the decedent standing in front of the bulldozer, as he and his colleagues acted in similar circumstances earlier that day, when they moved from location to location because of the disturbances caused by the members of the Organization.



h. Because I find, as aforementioned, that the decedent was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity" as defined in The Civil Wrongs Ordinance, and in light of the instructions laid out in Article 5 of the aforementioned ordinance, the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action.



This makes superfluous the need to discuss the cause of action made by the plaintiffs because legally their demand should be rejected.



Nevertheless, above and beyond what is necessary, I have also decided to discuss the cause of action filed by the plaintiffs as well as their other claims.



i. The plaintiffs claimed that evidentiary damage was done in two areas: first, they claim that the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) investigation carried out after the event was sloppy and unprofessional and led to evidentiary damage for the plaintiffs; the second area, which refers to the responsibility of the Institute for Forensic Medicine for evidentiary damage caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the violation of the judicial order and the destruction of the recording documenting the decedent's autopsy.



It could be expected that, in light of the claim made above, the plaintiffs' representative would submit to the court the file of the investigation conducted by the CID so that I could form my own opinion regarding the investigatory actions carried out and the manner in which the investigation was carried out, and to learn if the actions taken by the CID were sufficient or not. However, it was the plaintiffs that objected to submitting the full file of the investigation as evidence, even though the defendant agreed to do so. Thus did the plaintiffs, by their own actions, introduce circumstances in which an extremely important tool to examine their claims was denied to the court.



After examining the evidentiary material and studying the claims made by representatives of both sides, I reached the conclusion that the CID investigation was conducted appropriately and without fault.



j. With regard to the claims made regarding evidentiary damages relating to the Institute of Forensic Medicine:



Investigators from the CID concluded that in order to advance the investigation, an autopsy would have to be performed on the decedent. As a result, they approached the District Court in Rishon LeZion and asked for a court order that would allow for such an autopsy. The court order "…that the body be autopsied at the Abu Kabir Institute for Forensic Medicine by a doctor who is not in the military and in the presence of a representative of the American State Department" (Exhibit 6/T).



Professor Hiss testified that since the American Consulate saw no need to send a representative to be present at the autopsy, the autopsy was conducted, with the family's agreement, without a consular representative. He also testified that the Consulate sent a fax confirming that the autopsy could be conducted without a representative from the family (Exhibit 11/T).



After examining the evidentiary material and studying the claims made by representatives of both sides, I reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim of evidentiary damage by the Institute for Forensic Medicine seems strange. This is because the decedent's father himself testified that, from the outset, the family had no intention of conducting an autopsy and that their intention was to pursue the matter diplomatically in order to clarify what happened to the decedent. Moreover: it appears that the decedent's family had no interest regarding the identity of the Consular representative that was to be present during the autopsy, nor in the type of professional training they had had. The family wanted a Consular representative to be present even if a secretary or typist had been sent!



Professor Hiss explained in his testimony that the aforementioned fax was sent to him after he telephoned the United States Embassy and asked that they send an American doctor to be present at the autopsy. He claims that the embassy did not find a need to do so. Professor Hiss asked to receive approval from the decedent's family and he then received the fax 11/T in which it is specifically stated that the decedent's family agreed to the autopsy and that no other faxes would be sent.



I believe that under these circumstances, Professor Hiss was well within his rights to conclude that, ultimately, the decedent's family conceded its demand for a representative to be present during the autopsy. The family's desire was to receive the decedent's body as soon as possible. Indeed, the family did not conduct any additional examinations after receiving the decedent's body and it was cremated: see Mr. Craig Corrie's testimony.



I am aware of the fact that, according to the language of the District Court's decision regarding the autopsy of the decedent's body, there should have been a representative of the US Embassy present during the autopsy. However, under the circumstances, when it was explained that the embassy saw no reason to send a representative, as Professor Hiss testified, and because the fax sent to Professor Hiss (11/T) stated that the family agreed to the autopsy, we can understand why Professor Hiss believed that there was nothing preventing him from conducting the autopsy without an embassy representative being present. There is no doubt that the proper course of action would have been to return to the District Court so that, in light of the change in circumstances, the court could amend its decision and remove the condition regarding the presence of an embassy representative. However, given the circumstances and in light of the aforementioned, it is not clear what evidentiary damage was made to the plaintiffs' case because of the conduct of the Institute of Forensic Medicine.



With regard to the plaintiffs' claim regarding the recording documenting the autopsy, I found no grounds to accept it. It is an audio recording (as opposed to a video recording) which served as a draft for Professor Hiss when preparing his report. Recordings like this are made because, during an autopsy, the doctor's hands are holding scalpels and covered in blood, and therefore notes cannot be taken. Apparently, the aforementioned audio recording simply does not exist anymore because, due to budgetary problems, the Institute of Forensic Medicine recycles tapes (see the testimony given by Professor Hiss). Under these circumstances, it is not clear what evidentiary damage was caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the aforementioned draft having been erased due to recycling.



In summation, with regard to evidentiary damages, I hereby determine that the two cumulative conditions necessary as laid out in the precedent determined by the Supreme Court were not upheld. They did not prove that evidentiary damage was caused which harmed their ability to prove their claims, nor did they prove that the defendant, through negligence, caused the claimed evidentiary damage.



k. With regard to grounds for assault I hereby determine that there is no foundation for such claims because there is no component of "malice". As I have determined that the decedent was killed accidentally and not intentionally, legally the claim regarding grounds for assault must be rejected.



l. With regard to grounds for negligence: I am convinced that, given the circumstances created at the location of the incident, the actions taken by the force were without fault. Indeed, the field of vision of the bulldozer's operator was limited. However, the decedent's field of vision while she stood in front of the bulldozer and knelt down was open and without any limitation. The decedent could have distanced herself from any danger without any difficulty. However, she chose to take the risk described above, and that eventually led to her death.



Given these circumstances, I have reached the conclusion that it was not negligence on the part of the defendant or any of its representatives that caused the decedent's death. Therefore it can be understood that I reject the claim that there is any foundation for the grounds of negligence in this case.



m. The defendant claims a "willing endangerment" defense, in accordance with Article 5(A) of the Civil Wrongs ordinance. I reached the conclusion that the foundation for this defense, as determined by the Supreme Court, has not been proven in this case, and therefore I hereby determine that the aforementioned defense does not exist with regard to this lawsuit.



However, even though I have determined that it was not negligence on the part of the defendant or its representatives that led to the death of the decedent, and although the aforementioned defense does not exist with regard to this lawsuit, it is not enough to change the result of rejecting this claim.



n. With regard to legal grounds: It is true that the decedent was killed during the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit. However, in this case the defendant did not violate the decedent's right to life. The decedent put herself in a dangerous situation. She stood in front of a large bulldozer in a location where the bulldozer's operator could not see her. Even when she saw the pile of dirt moving towards her and endangering her, she did not remove herself from the situation, as any reasonable person would have. The decedent began to climb the pile of dirt, got tangled up in it, fell and eventually died.



The decedent's death was the result of an accident that the decedent caused. This occurred despite the efforts of the IDF force to distance her and her colleagues from the area.



I believe that, under these circumstances, there is no justification to obligate the State to pay compensation for damages that the decedent could have prevented, but preferred not to, thereby choosing to risk her life as she did.



Therefore, I reject the request to obligate the State to pay compensation on legal grounds.



6. Because of this and in light of the aforementioned, I reject the lawsuit.

Because of the circumstance surrounding the decedent's death, I will not make the plaintiffs' pay the legal expenses and each side will bear its own costs.
More info on my invovlement with the Corrie case here:
 
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20-%20BGU%20-%20Rebuts%20Neve%20Gordon.htm and
to read about the woman who sent the little idiot Rachel Corrie off to her death
here:
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20-%20SUNY%20-%20Simona%20Sharoni%20-%20sent%20Rachel%20Corrie%20to%20her%20Death.htm and
 

 
Corrie Street in Ramallah. Photo: ISM Palestine@Flickr

Sunday, September 16, 2012


Evergreen College, Washington State and now SUNY Plattsburg: Compassionate Dingbat Simona Sharoni sent Rachel Corrie to her Death

Few people know that it was a radical leftist anti-Israel ex-pat Israeli professor in "Women’s Studies" at Corrie’s alma mater, Evergreen College, who recruited Rachel Corrie to go commit suicide for the Hamas.  She inculcated in Corrie the idea that one creates “peace” and “conflict resolution” by supporting and being a human shield for Arab terrorists, while interfering with anti-terror operations. That "professor" is Simona Sharoni, currently in the Women’s Studies Department at State University of occupied New York.

Sharoni is one of the founders of the violently anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement (ISM)-linked group Women In Black, an organization that supports the Hamas.  These "Women" are never disturbed by the mass murders of Israeli women by Hamas terrorists.  "Women in Black" frequently attacks Israel as a male-dominated warrior society that supposedly subjugates both women and Arabs.  As far as we know, they have never had a single word to say about the oppression of women in Arab culture and society.

The recent Haifa court verdict in favor of the Israeli Defense Forces and against the Corrie parents did little to change  the propaganda perception of Corrie's death, this following a two-and-a-half-year meticulous trial and investigation.  The usual gang of anti-Semites, communists, Hitlerjugend, and anarchists, as well as the jihadists and Islamists, predictably denounced the trial as a “whitewash,” insisting that only a proclamation that Israel was guilty of "murdering" Corrie would have been acceptable.  An Israeli tank in exercises accidently ran over and killed a sleeping Israeli soldier two weeks ago, but the Corrie Lobby had nothing to say about that.  Even some pro-Israel pundits accept at face value the lie that this stupid girl was protecting an Arab civilian’s house when she died  (testimony in the trial proved she was not, but was simply attempting stop the IDF from clearing out a weapons smuggling tunnel).  The main goal of Corrie and her ISM buddies has always been to assist Hamas terrorists in murdering Jews.

A new book has been put out by the ISM titled “I Stand Alone,” which is supposed to be made up of St. Rachel’s scribbling in her “journal.”   Let us recall that she sought to help mankind by retrieving dead bodies of armed terrorists who had been killed in firefights with Israeli troops, serving as a human shield.  In the "book" Rachel describes how three Evergeen College professors influenced her decision to go to Gaza and serve as an accomplice for the Hamas.  She specifically recounts that Simona Sharoni was one of those who molded her mindset to join the ISM and become a human shield.  We use the word mind loosely.

One thing apparent in reading Simona Sharoni’s lectures and writings is her own self-absorption and sense of living in never-never land.  Facts are far less of interest to her than strident opining in her "critical thinking."  We found a great example of her analytic skills:  In a message board one of her students complained that Sharoni made her students dote over her then five- year-old daughter, even lecturing her students on her daughter's genius, because the girl could talk to pussycats in their own language of meowing.  We can see how young Rachel could not resist!

ISM manuals hold terrorism and murder of Israelis to be “legitimate resistance according to international law.” One reviewer of "I Stand Alone" points out the hypocrisy of a Rachel Corrie, who admires terrorists as martyrs and had nothing to say about missiles fired upon Sderot which killed Israeli children.  

Eccentricities in the classroom aside, Sharoni’s own bio tells how she underwent psychological  counseling and mentions how her anti-Israel activism even in her youth was looked down upon by her own therapists.  She then proclaims that the problem was not because of her skewed thought processes (or even mental illness), but because all the therapists were crazy!  Rachel’s own book reveals similar mental anguish.

Sharoni coined the term "Compassionate Resistance" in writing about collaboration with mass murdering terrorists, and cites it when discussing young Corrie’s death, taking credit for sending her off as cannon fodder for the ISM.  Sharoni writes:

"The term compassionate resistance was born a few years ago, in March 2003, after my beloved student and friend Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli-operated bulldozer in Rafah, a Palestinian town in the Gaza Strip. Rachel, who went to Rafah with the International Solidarity Movement, was trying to prevent the demolition of the house of her host family. The term emerged as I struggled to reconcile my grief, frustration and anger with the empathy, love and compassion I felt for people who put their bodies on the line to resist oppression."

 

The Haifa court case testimonies confirmed that Rachel Corrie was not protecting any house when she was killed.  Meanwhile, the Rachel Industry thrives.  The ISM-linked foundations set up to profit from her death (including her parents) at first did not claim she was protecting a house of a host family, but that of a “doctor.”  The “doctor” later became a “pharmacist.”  He must have been hard of hearing never to hear any of the weapons being moved in the tunnel under his building.  The IDF was not demolishing houses the day Corrie was killed in Rafah, but was clearing weapons smuggling tunnels, tunnels about which Corrie herself wrote emails home to her mother that she had been in retrieving bodies of dead Hamas terrorists.

 

Sharoni continues:

 

“…compassionate resistance seeks to humanize the conflict without overlooking its history, root causes and the unjust systems that have made it seem intractable. It involves the analysis and targeting of oppressive systems and policies. In the current context of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, one cannot speak about compassion between Palestinian and Israelis without explicit reference to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and to such oppressive practices as the Apartheid Wall, checkpoints and home demolitions.”

 

“Oppressive practices”?  Like setting up a Security Fence that cut down suicide bombings inside Israel by more than  95%?  What about the compassionate Israeli soldiers shooting terrorists who are trying to murder Jewish children?

 

Sharoni discusses how her own family, originally Romanian Jews, moved to the “Arab village” of Nazareth in1953.  Sharoni then tells us of her epiphany as a Jewish child when she discovered that her own her parents, who had survived the Holocaust, were nothing but racists who said mean things about Arabs.  I guess she never heard any Nazareth Arabs saying anything bigoted about any Jews. 

 

After doing her compulsory military service she claims she returned to Nazareth, where her child played happily with Arab children.  We wept with bliss.  Sharoni considers Arab institutional anti-Semitism to be “resistance” to “oppression.”  Arabs cannot be racists or fascists because her daughter Nadia was able to play with some Arab kids.  Did they play "Kill the Jews" like in Borat's Kazakhstan??

 

According to her own autobiographical account in "I Stand Alone," Rachel Corrie was a rebellious teen whose college years produced mental depression, arguments with her mother, all-night drug and alcohol parties, all of which culminated in a job on the graveyard shift of a mental health service.  There she spent her breaks in cigarette smoking in the early morning hours with the town’s derelicts.  Rachel mentions she suffered panic attacks from agoraphobia, a mental condition where the sufferer perceives the environment to be all-threatening.  Perhaps young Corrie sought to heal herself with recreational Islamofascism.  She wrote home to her mother about how she had done the bidding of terrorist “handlers” like Mohammed Qishta, who ordered her to retrieve dead bodies of terrorists killed in combat areas in front of the IDF.  Even her ISM leader admitted that maybe she was in a place she shouldn’t have been that day she was killed.

 

So here we have an unstable young woman who was indoctrinated by a college professor into believing that she could change the world for the better by aiding terrorist movements, engaging in “legitimate resistance.”   Her then boyfriend, another ISM activist whom she discussed in her book, admitted to a Seattle reporter after her death that Rachel did not consider herself a peace activist, but an anarchist.

 

Rachel Corrie sought to aid the Jew-killers of Hamas in their “resistance” against “oppression”, reciting clearly slogans and ideas garnered from her professor Simona Sharoni.  New information has emerged that Simona Sharoni may have offered college credit to Rachel Corrie for her volunteer activities in Gaza on behalf of the ISM and the Hamas.

 

Simona Sharoni is the real person who have been sued by the Corrie family for recruiting Rachel into the ISM.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

CRAIG CORRIE SLIME BALL FATHER OF THE YEAR AWARD

Cindy Corrie's father, Craig Corrie, has decided to emulate his money grubbing wife in jumping on the Arab propaganda machine about his anarchist daughter, Rachel Corrie.

Craig Corrie is complaining after the two and a half year long investigation by Israel of the accidental death of the idiot Rachel Corrie who wasn't even protecting a house
(that was ISM spin created around his daughter's death) and has been telling the world that as a Vietnam vet he used to drive tractors for the US Army. One thing Craig Corrie has made clear in his comments was that as a tractor driver he was taught you must always be careful nobody is in front of the blade.

Well, duh! I'd like to ask Craig Corrie if, when he moved earth or did other work with tractors in Vietnam, if he had stupid little self-avowed anarchist girls purposely trying to get in front of the blade to hamper his work? He more than likely did his tractor work outside of hot fire zones in 'Nam also. Since he knows how dangerous being in front of the blade can be, why would this slime ball fault the driver rather than his daughter who lacked common sense not to sit down in front of the blade? Ah, but the Arabs don't pay him to say that.

The truth is the driver of the D9 was also trying to do his work in a live combat zone and was being fired on by Arab snipers. That's enough to distract anyone who might not suspect some little ignorant twerp was purposely putting herself in front of the D-9's blade while playing revolutionary. What's more, Rachel wasn't protecting a house. She was there that day to help Arab snipers draw fire down on IDF soldiers. This is why she sat in front of the D9. She figured the drivers would never emerge to move her for fear of being shot. She was being a true "human shield." What a rush!!!

What is particularly annoying is Craig Corrie's defense of his idiot daughter's actions precisely because he is a Vietnam vet. He certainly has nothing to say about his daughter burning American flags at Hamas rallies before her death or getting extra credit from Evergreen college by assisting a terrorist group whose Charter calls for the annihilation of all the world's Jews, not just those in Israel.

Rachel wrote home to momma about her admiration of the "martyrs" who only have
"their bodies" and maybe a single weapon to counter the IDF war machine.  She was a true revolutionary wannabe putting her stupid short life on the line promoting the goal of the totalitarian fascists in the Palestinian leadership against the Israeli democracy. But then again she avowed herself to be an anarchist-pro-communist revolutionary and ran around spouting ISM slogans she learned in training, like "legitimate resistance."
It was great fun and even got her some college credit. More fun than her bout with drugs back in Olympia, Washington, the spoiled daughter of two idiot parents.

It may come as no surprise that Rachel was such a moron. Obviously, her daddy was a veteran who didn't write his daughter he objected to her burning US flags at rallies given by US enemies nor did he mind her risking her life for a terrorist entity. It wouldn't surprise me that he didn't know about this because that wonderful mother Cindy Corrie probably never told hubby. If she did, then he's twice the bastard.

Craig Corrie is the perfect husband for Cindy, Rachel's mother, who  knew Rachel was in the weapons smuggling tunnels aiding Hamas. After the trial these two clowns appeared in a conference call at the Al Awda international conference in San Diego this month where they praised the martyrs for "Palestine" and encouragd Al Awda's struggle to destroy Israel and disposess the Jews. But, hey, it's a living, right?They also praised the terrorists aboard the Mavi Mamara as "martyrs" in Turkey. Reciting Arab rhetoric about martyrdom doesn't come naturally to people from Olympia. Cindy tells everyone Rachel "was protecting Palestinian water wells" and "Palestinian municipal water workers." Water wells are holes in ground like, er, guess what? TUNNELS. The IDF has no reason to shoot water workers but they did shoot at HAMAS TERRORISTS.  That is what Rachel was doing human shield work for once you remove the code talk of the ISM that Rachel was trained to do by the ISM.

God forbid these two clowns should show some spine and tell the parents of other children to not tolerate their offspring going off to Hamastan to be human shields for Arab irredentists.  Cindy Corrie, before she made lucre promoting the myth of her idiot child, was an unemployed flautist. Now she travels the world and gets paid to be a celebrity. Craig Corrie at least had a job, but as a veteran one would expect him to love and support the US, not encourage his offspring to burn the US flag. But once a whore, always a whore. Nothing can bring Rachel back, might as well make hay while the sun still shines as long as the Arab terrorists and their radical allies will pay you.

It's hard to figure which of these two slime balls stinks the worst, but Craig Corrie certainly deserves equal exposure with his disgusting wife who really has nerve to keep telling everyone she was a loving mother whose noble daughter was "murdered" by the IDF; a loving mother who raised a daughter to call herself a "peace activist" as she helped Arab terrorists murder other mothers' daughters inside Israel with rockets and bombs smuggled in through those tunnels, er, "water wells".

We didn't have time to photograph Craig Corrie's award, but we decided it should be an image of him on all four limbs kissing Arafat on the ass as Abu Amar wipes his butt with dollar bills from US foreign aid.

Monday, September 10, 2012

EVIDENCE FOUND ON GAZA FLOTILLA SHIP ISM LEADERSHIP KNEW THEY WERE BREAKING US LAW WITH FLOTILLA TO AID TERRORISTS

BREAKING!!!! NEW EVIDENCE SEIZED ON

FREE GAZA SHIPS PROVE ISM INVOLVED

IN AIDING TERRORIST GROUP HAMAS AND

PROVIDES AMPLE EVIDENCE OF

VIOLATIONS OF US TAX AND ANTI-

TERRORISM LAWS! SEE BELOW


Inside documents of the Free Gaza movement seized

in the recent flotilla expose considerable

discrepancies between its strategy and tactics and its

public stance. The documents prove, among other

things, the attempts to conceal the aid to the Hamas

administration since Hamas is designated as a

terrorist organization in the US.

Training document by Huwaida Arraf below:

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
June 27, 2010


Inside documents of the Free Gaza movement seized in the recent flotilla expose considerable discrepancies between its strategy and tactics and its public stance. The documents prove, among other things, the attempts to conceal the aid to the Hamas administration since Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization in the US.

The logo of the Free Gaza movement


1. Established in 2006, the Free Gaza movement (hereinafter: Free Gaza) is a pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas group whose stated purpose is to “break the siege” imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas takeover. Free Gaza is registered in Cyprus as a human rights project and is headquartered in Nicosia. Its website says that Free Gaza has branches in 28 countries, including 11 in Europe, 5 in North America (4 in the US and one in Canada), and a branch in Israel (referred to on the movement's website as “Palestine 1948 territories”). The organizational framework of Free Gaza also includes the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which also took part in the latest flotilla.

2. Free Gaza played an important role in the coalition of organizations which orchestrated the latest flotilla, even though the dominant force was the Turkish IHH. Free Gaza started sending aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip in 2008. Prior to the latest flotilla, Free Gaza was able to send four other aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip:

a. August 2008: two ships departed from Cyprus and arrived at the port of Gaza on August 23 (BBC, August 23, 2008).

b. October 2008: a yacht named Dignity with 26 activists and medical supplies on board arrived in Gaza on October 29 (JTA, October 29, 2008).

c. December 2008: the same yacht, Dignity, with about 3 tons of medical supplies, attempted to penetrate the waters of Gaza but was stopped by the Israeli navy (ynet, December 30, 2008).

d. June 2009: a ship called Spirit of Humanity, which attempted to reach Gaza on June 30, was stopped by the Israeli navy near the Gaza port (Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2009).

3. The movement's mission, as appears on its website, is to break the siege of Gaza. It also states that it will not ask for Israel’s permission for its actions, since the movement's intent is “to overcome this brutal siege through civil resistance and non-violent direct action, and establish a permanent sea lane between Gaza and the rest of the world” (Free Gaza website).

4. Free Gaza is now organizing yet another flotilla to the Gaza Strip. Nidal Hejazi, a Free Gaza senior official in Norway, said that the movement is now planning to acquire yet another boat from Norway to depart for the Gaza Strip as soon as possible. He said he was hoping to organize a flotilla consisting of more than ten additional boats from European countries. According to Hejazi, upon returning from Turkey on June 3, the movement started working on a list of passengers from Norway to join the flotilla, and the list will be finalized in the coming days (Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, June 5, 2010).

5. Inside documents of Free Gaza seized in the latest flotilla (see appendices for the unedited, complete text) deal with the movement's strategy and with briefings given to its activists prior to the flotilla’s departure. Analysis and comparison of the inside documents to the movement's public stance shows significant discrepancies and even contradictions between them. For example:

a. Legal aspect: a legal briefing ("legal information") given by Free Gaza to its activists shows that the movement is well aware of the legal problem of delivering assistance to the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, particularly considering that the US designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Reading between the lines also shows that while Free Gaza publicly states that the aid is for the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, Free Gaza is aware that, in fact, it assists the Hamas de-facto administration. Therefore, at a legal briefing for activists who took part in the flotilla, they were warned against making any statement or taking any action that could be construed as providing material assistance to Hamas to avoid being incriminated in the US and in other countries (the movement has activists in the US whose participation in the flotilla seems to contradict US law; also, Free Gaza raises funds in the US, where it has a contact man for allegedly humanitarian purposes, yet those purposes are in fact clearly political).

b. Political aspect: during the legal briefing, as a way of solving the problem of Hamas’ designation as a terrorist organization, the activists were told that Free Gaza had publicly announced that it had no political agenda, and that it was committed to “non-violent humanitarian assistance” to the Palestinian people (Free Gaza is registered as a Human Rights Project, a definition which appears on its website). However, according to an inside document found on the Mavi Marmara, the goals of the flotilla were clearly political rather than humanitarian (the minimum goals defined in the document are generating media [impact] about the blockade on the Gaza Strip and pushing foreign governments to take punitive action against Israel; delivering humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip was not listed as a goal).

c. Response to possible scenarios during the voyage: Free Gaza drew up “defensive” scenarios for the flotilla based on the premise that the IDF would be unable to stop the boats without using force. Several tactics are listed to prevent the IDF from taking over the boat. One of the things mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck and barricading in the wheelhouse and the engine room.

d. Although those tactics pale in comparison to the organized violence used by IHH, they are still


6. What follows is an analysis of Free Gaza inside documents seized in the latest flotilla.

Appendix A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal briefing given by Free Gaza to passengers on the ship Challenger (it can be assumed that a similar briefing was given to Free Gaza activists on other ships)

1. A document titled “Legal Information” was seized aboard the Challenger, a Free Gaza ship. The document notes that Hamas is designated as a "global terrorist" organization by the US Treasury Department. In addition, it states that the UN has also blacklisted Hamas as a terrorist organization. Consequently, a US citizen providing “material support” to Hamas may face criminal charges in US courts. This may also pose a problem to citizens of other countries, which is why Free Gaza advises them to check the laws and regulations on dealing with Hamas in their countries.

2. Reading between the lines, it appears that Free Gaza is well aware that transporting aid to the Hamas de-facto administration, considered to be an inseparable part of Hamas by the US administration, is a violation of US law.

3. The document illustrates that Free Gaza is aware that it is legally problematic to deliver aid to the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, particularly in the US, where Hamas is banned. 1 Therefore, the document contains a legal briefing of sorts ("legal information") to activists taking part in the flotilla, the main points of which are:

a. The activists from the various countries, particularly US residents, must avoid even the appearance of providing "material support" to Hamas, including its leadership.

b. Free Gaza has said publicly and repeatedly that it serves no political agenda whatsoever and that it is engaged solely in non-violent humanitarian support for the Palestinian people, not the Palestinian leadership. Under no circumstances should any participant make a public statement of affinity or admiration of any political group in Palestine (note: the public portrayal of providing humanitarian support for the Palestinian people as the movement's goal is incorrect, since an inside document found aboard the Mavi Marmara defined the goals of the flotilla to be political, not humanitarian—see Appendix B for details).

The original document:



Appendix B


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inside document detailing the strategy and tactics of
Free Gaza in preparation for the flotilla

Overview

1. Found on one of the computers seized aboard the Mavi Marmara was the draft of an inside document ("not for distribution") dated March 7, 2010. The document describes the goals of and preparations for the flotilla, lists problems and offers solutions.

2. Following are the main issues that appear in the document:

a. The goals of the flotilla: the goals of the flotilla as defined in the document are clearly political,
contradicting the public image of “humanitarian support” which appears in the legal briefing. The “minimum goal” is to “generate a lot of media about the blockade on Gaza” and the “situation of Palestinians in Gaza”. A secondary goal is “taking legal/political action, including jail stays, to push foreign governments to do more than make statements, but to take punitive action towards Israel.” Elsewhere in the document, the goal is said to be generating media coverage and putting pressure on Israel.

b. Importance of flotilla’s success in view of Free Gaza’s financial difficulties: the document states that the movement is “in a bad financial position” for the current flotilla and for other flotillas to follow: “There is virtually no likelihood of us [i.e., the movement] being able to get more funds for a mission that does not result in tangible results for Gaza.”

c. "The Galloway Factor": George Galloway is a former British pro-Hamas parliament member who played a key role in organizing Lifeline-3, the previous aid convoy to the Gaza Strip. The participants of the previous convoy confronted Egyptian authorities, subsequent to which George Galloway was declared a persona non grata in Egypt. According to the Free Gaza document, George Galloway no longer assists Free Gaza as much as he did in the past (for his own reasons). The document notes that Galloway may not be able to get much support for a flotilla if the ships do not reach Gaza’s shores. In the view of Free Gaza, this factor makes it all the more important for the flotilla to reach Gaza.

d. Flotilla passengers: the passengers on behalf of Free Gaza were divided into three categories: celebrities and VIPs, parliament members (from national parliaments and ideally not backbenchers), and union leaders. Free Gaza considered increasing the number of passengers since it had permission to bring its passengers on the IHH passenger ship (i.e., the Mavi Marmara). That combination of passengers was designed to increase the media impact of the flotilla.

e. Potential scenarios for the voyage: the document analyzes several “defensive” scenarios, based on a premise that is the fundamental guideline of the flotilla: “We will not turn back. The only way for Israel to stop us is to use force” (from a sub-chapter titled “Mission Strategy”). The scenarios raised in the document can be summarized as follows:

1. Aerial boarding (of soldiers): the document examines how boarding can be prevented. One of the methods mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck, making it too dangerous for the soldiers to board (note: the behavior agreement distributed by Free Gaza to its activists prior to the launch of the flotilla says that the activists shall not use verbal or physical violence and that the mission was designed to support the “non-violent resistance of the Palestinians”. The inside document makes it clear that the term “non-violent resistance” is open to interpretation that may change the non-violent and “defensive” resistance into a violent and offensive one, which was what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara).

2. If IDF soldiers do manage to board the ship, the Free Gaza activists were to focus on two areas: the wheelhouse and the engine room. The document says that the wheelhouse had to be made “impenetrable”, which would require replacing glass with bullet-proof glass, replacing doors with steel doors, and adding locks.

3. Using a tugboat to prevent the ship from coming to Gaza. In that case, the ship would try to outmaneuver the tugboat and reach the Gaza Strip, even though its chances of success were unclear.

4. Opening fire (by IDF) or using explosives to neutralize the ship. Free Gaza’s “defensive option” for that scenario was putting VIPs on the cargo ship's deck (hoping their presence would deter the IDF soldiers).

5. Blocking the cargo ships while giving the passenger ship permission to proceed. In that case, the question was whether the mission was worth continuing with only the passenger ship. The decision was to be made only after the launch of the flotilla.

f. Behavior on the passenger ship: the author of the document believes that there would be a way to deter the kind of boarding Free Gaza had with the Spirit of Humanity (a ship sent by the movement on June 30, 2009, which was stopped by the Israeli navy near the Gaza port). This required putting 1.5-meter steel poles over the sides of the ship. A more likely option was that the Israelis would try to ram the ship, as they had done before.

g. Support from various bodies and organizations: letters from unions and letters from parliaments and governments calling on Israel not to interfere must be prepared; ambassadors in Tel-Aviv must be called on to request no interference from Israel (the countries mentioned are Venezuela, Chile, India, South Africa, Ireland, Belgium, Britain, and Norway); UNIFIL and NATO must be asked for inspection and escort; live broadcasts from the ship must be arranged (the document details a media plan to be implemented in the various stages of the flotilla’s journey).

The original document

DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION – UPDATED 3/07/2010

Free Gaza Strategy

There are now two parts to the strategy – one for the overall FG situation and one for the mission. The two are not inseparable, as it is prudent to think not only of how we conduct this mission, but also what happens the day after.

CURRENT STATUS

Boats

2 new passenger ships for high profilers

1 FG boat for activists

1 Cargo ship from IHH

1 passenger ship from IHH (500 pax)

1 passenger ship from ECESG

pending –

cargo ship (FG)

cargo ship (Greece)

passenger ship (Turkey)

passenger ship (Greece)

cargo ship (Sweden)

ship (Indonesia)

Finances

The FG accounts (including what is being held aside and what is held elsewhere,

seems to have approximately 50,000 . From that, at least X will be needed up front for the FG cargo ship and other costs related to holding onto the passenger ships that FG possesses.

There is currently no money available for the mission itself for FG, though efforts are being made to secure those funds.

Ports

It is clear that Cyprus will not be a point of departure. Turkish ships can leave from Turkey. FG and Greek ships (if any) can leave from Greece, though the situation in Greece will have to be monitored in the event that the economy dives again and more strikes and unrest follow. The FG cargo ship can leave from its position now (if we get the ship).

Timing

The earliest we will know about cargo ship is March 20, and maybe not until March 31. We still do not know what, if any, kind of repairs will be needed and how long it will take. For this ship to be in position to join rest of flotilla, at least 2 weeks are needed. Therefore, if we are using this cargo ship, it is unlikely we can be ready to go with passengers from port before April 25.

Given the above factors, it seems that at as FG, we should next consider the overall FG situation, in order to make decisions that will affect the mission itself.

OVERALL FG SITUATION

As stated above, we are in a bad financial position for the mission and for afterwards, if we go ahead with the purchase of the cargo ship. We are also in a limited position in terms of trying to raise more funds if this mission is not successful, in that there is virtually no likelihood of us being able to get more funds for a mission that does not result in tangible results for Gaza. Getting media, creating pressure on Israel, etc. are all good, but unlikely to yield greater funding opportunities. This is particularly true if we end up not in possession of one or more of our ships, or with ships damaged, regardless of what legal strategy we pursue.

Additionally, we cannot ignore the Galloway factor, which practically means that while he may not find as much support as he has in the past, for various reasons mostly of his own doing, and while he may not be able to get as much support for a flotilla if ours does not reach Gaza’s shores, the fact is that he has far greater outreach ability by virtue of his name and the willingness of key people to support him because of his political position as an MP and what he has said/done vis-à -vis Arab governments. Thus, whatever effort we make in the wake of our mission, unless we arrive in Gaza, will undoubtedly be in competition with Galloway, and so far, we have not been able to meet that challenge in terms of funds raised, having a network operating to get funds at that level and to do so in a timely manner.

Now, moving on to other considerations that factor in the financial picture.

Given the responses to the email that was sent out asking for each of us to identify our minimum goal for this
mission and the minimum ship requirement for launching this mission, the responses lined up pretty much in accordance with this position:

MINIMUM GOAL:

The goal of this mission is to generate a lot of media about the blockade on Gaza and the illegal/criminal nature of it, as well as the situation of Palestinians in Gaza. Secondly, but connected is the goal of taking legal/political action, including jail stays, pushing foreign governments to do more than make statements, but to take punitive action towards Israel.

Our position, then, is that reaching Gaza, while our intention is not our minimum strategic goal.

CARGO SHIP:

This point is seemingly this point is moot now. The IHH has a cargo ship, so we have a minimum of 1, which was the majority opinion of those who responded.

The question now is, does it make sense for FG to get a cargo ship – see below for explanation and for where we need to make a strategic decision.

HOLD 2 BOATS FOR IMMEDIATE FOLLOW UP:

There is basically a split among those who responded to this, so no decision here.

See below for further explanation why this might make sense, though given the minimum goal for the mission.

For strategic consideration for next mission and FG overall

Given the consensus mission goal, there needs to be decisions derived based on that position, regarding the other points listed above.

Since we have confirmation that we have 1 cargo ship, the pressing question becomes does FG need to get this other cargo ship that is in auction, now that there is competition and that it is potentially going to set us back in terms of timing for mission? I list here some Pros/Cons, but I think we need a decision on this ASAP. (I have tried not to factor in hypothetical situations, as this becomes a never-ending exercise, and should not be how we base this decision – for every ‘if’ on one side, we can add an ‘if’ on the other).

PROS/CONS of having a FG Cargo Ship

Pros
Cons

1. Allows more cargo to be brought
1. Cost involved is quite high (management) and a drain on resources that we are not secured of

2. Allows for more groups to participate in providing cargo for mission
2. Owning the ship post-mission will be costly and require full-time attention

3. One more ship that is part of flotilla
3. Given the minimum goal for the mission, there does not seem to be a strategic reason to have more than 1 cargo ship

4. Having 2 cargo ships will necessitate a bigger effort by Israel to stop the flotilla
4. Will require additional expense to secure more cargo, which will require more fundraising


5. While we can bring some material, this is still largely a symbolic measure that until proven that we can deliver, will not be seen as a viable undertaking – having the one cargo ship from IHH allows for the symbolic value already and for testing the viability of this tactic


OPTION 1 – GET FG CARGO SHIP

If we decide on getting this cargo ship, then we proceed accordingly and must stay in this position of being unable to take more concrete action with regard to date, cargo, etc. until we know for sure that this is our ship. Given that the idea of pursuing a back-up cargo ship was pretty much shot down, then we might yet end up in a position of not having a FG cargo ship.

OPTION 2 – NO FG CARGO SHIP

If we decide to not get this ship, then we have to first make sure it is OK with Malaysia, explaining why it is not strategic, and why we are still achieving what we/they want by having the IHH cargo ship. We can use those funds in part then, to procure cargo, which would allow Malaysia to still ‘take credit’ (if that is a concern) for providing building materials to Gaza. If we decide on not getting this ship, then we should be able to move more quickly towards setting time, procuring and getting cargo in place (from departure point of IHH ship), etc. Not getting the ship also frees up funds for FG work in the mission – not just the cost of the cargo ship, but also the cost of the management company and the cost of cargo.

When considering which option, I think we really need to consider financial/logistic aspects of this, notably:

- if we are planning to take legal action, political work and do media work for an extended period after a mission that is stopped, then we need to have funds to do so;

- for those of you who think that regardless of what happens on this mission that FG will continue to send missions to Gaza in some way, then FG must have financial resources to be able to do so;

- having a cargo ship in possession will require ongoing costs and management of the ship, and someone from FG will have to be involved in this.

In terms of the prospect of holding 2 passenger boats back and have them ready for an immediate launch in the event that Israel stops the flotilla, the question to consider is does this fit into the minimum strategic goal for the mission. If the flotilla is not stopped, then these boats will be ready to head to Gaza with a follow up flotilla when the initial flotilla returns from Gaza. Again, some Pros/Cons are (these are only applicable for consideration in planning for if the flotilla is stopped):

Pros
Cons

1. Having an immediate follow up mission will generate more media and keep the drama of the situation in the forefront
1. Requires additional land crew and passengers willing to be in a wait and see position; including some key FG personnel to not join initial flotilla

2. More media likely to participate in follow up
2. Likely will not have VIPs on board, but perhaps is not necessary

3. Will keep media focus overall on mission, including on those in flotilla who are taken to jail
3. Requires keeping funds in reserve for this part of the overall mission, and thus potentially the need for having more money in hand to start with

4. Will give tangible action for politicians and governments to support and could result in enabling the kind of political work we need without having us have to go back to capitals to seek action



OPTION 1 KEEP 2 BOATS BACK

If we decide to do this, then we need to identify from now which 2 ships, and start identifying passengers for this part of the mission, so they are clear from start. We should also prepare land crew and PR material for the backup teams, all of which should be in place and ready to go within hours of word of what happens with the flotilla when it is confronted by Israeli military.

OPTION 2 DO NOT HOLD BACK BOATS

Continue our work as is.

Overall FG position

In considering the above, we need to consider not just for this mission but for the position of FG overall. Thus making the strategic choices above will impact not just the mission but the ‘day after’. To continue this work in a strategic manner, which requires keeping pressure on Israel, leveraging that by winning allies (organization and political) and generating tangible results (beyond statements of support), will mean that we have to be in position to do so. Choosing from the above choices should therefore be done with an eye to the mission and an eye to beyond the mission.

Mission Strategy

Passengers

We have decided that for passengers, there would a prioritization of:

1. Celebrities, VIPs

2. MPs (from national parliaments and ideally not those on fringe)

3. Union Leaders

Given the capacity of the IHH passenger ship, we can now accommodate many more passengers, so we do not have pressure to limit spots, but we should still maintain a kind of minimum number of passengers that we want to get per the three categories above.

The sheer number of passengers that we can bring on the IHH ship may result in a different tactic by Israel in terms of detention. To remove that many passengers to shore and to process them would be both a logistic challenge and also a costly maneuver by Israel, require long man-hours, processing time/cost and a challenge to their detention capacity in detention centers that are already crowded with refugees and asylum seekers.

It is thus possible, and potentially likely, that Israel will use a different tactic if it brings the ship to port, which would be to hold the passengers on the ship itself. This is something Israel has developed plans for in terms of housing the detainees it has, but has to implement. We need to strongly consider this possibility and what we could to in terms of this kind of maneuver. However, it should not necessarily change the strategy of the mission prior to capture, though we can take steps to prepare the ship with material/items that could be useful for such a situation.

MISSION STRATEGY

Basic Principle – We will not turn back. The only way for Israel to stop us is to use force.

Resistance?

On this next mission, we will be traveling with VIPs. Is there a likelihood that they will be willing to take action to resist interference from Israel? Not likely, though we can ask. At this point, we can assume no, and move forward in planning. Once we invite, we can check again.

If the minimum goal for the mission is media attention, etc. then is there a point of having any kind of resistance, including pre-emptive measures to prevent them from taking the ships?

We need a concrete decision here in order to make plans, and in order to work with our partners to develop clear understandings of what we are doing. We also would need to have time to make ships ready for such action.

If we do agree to pre-emptive action, then we can consider that there are basically 2 ways the Israelis have boarded ships – with speedboats the way they boarded the Spirit, and with a helicopter the way they boarded the Lebanese cargo ship.

Since we will have both kinds of ships, we must anticipate both types of boardings.

There is a fundamental question to answer before choosing any strategy – do we want to do all we can to keep the ships in our hands, given that if the Israelis take the boats the chances of us launching another mission become near impossible.

Assuming that we want to keep the boats, then these are possible strategies:

SCENARIOS AT SEA

In the event of an aerial boarding, one option is to try to prevent the boarding itself. If the soldiers are coming from the air, then there might be steps to take that can dissuade them from making such a boarding. Put obstructions on the deck of various heights and with sharp points might make such a landing too risky.

If the soldiers do land on the ship, then our choices would need to focus on two areas – the wheelhouse and the engine room. For the wheelhouse, we would have to try to make it impenetrable. This would require switching any glass to bullet-proof glass, replacing doors with steel doors (if not already steel) and adding locks that cannot be broken by conventional tools. For the engine room, we will have to check with the crew about what can be done in terms of safety. And we will have to investigate what possible options would be available.

In any event, even if we prevent a boarding or a take-over of the controls of the ship, Israel can still bring a tugboat out to force our ship. I do not know at this point how that would work if we still maintain ability to maneuver the ship if the tugboat can still force us.

If it can, then the only question left in terms of trying to prevent a takeover of the ship is how long it would take them to bring a tugboat out and if we would have enough time to get to Gaza. If they stop us at the 20-mile limit, that means we need 3 hours at the speed of the cargo ship to get to shore. Assuming the tugboat would come from Ashdod at 15 knots per hour, it does seem that we could conceivably have enough time to get to Gaza.

The Israelis might then open fire on the ship, though would not do so if their soldiers were on board. Another mechanism using some kind of explosive might be used to dismantle the ship, but that would be a serious escalation from the kind of force they have been using to date. Even hitting the Dignity is different than firing or using explosives. That said, we have to take this into consideration.

If we are putting VIPs on board the cargo ship, then they and the crew must be willing to go along with this strategy. If the VIPs are not, then we have to decide if we want to not put VIPs on the cargo ship and thereby have this defensive option open to us.

Another scenario might be that the Israelis try to block the cargo ship while letting the passenger ship go. Assuming we are not successful in preventing the cargo ship from being taken but the passenger ships are not interfered with, then the question to us is whether our mission is worth continuing with only passengers. This is something we have to decide as a board. If we decide to forego going to Gaza, then it seems the only option at that point would be to take the passengers and follow the cargo ship and force the Israelis to deal with us trying to enter Israel. The likelihood is that they would simply detain everyone and move for deportation. We can then put into motion whatever strategy we choose for a DETENTION SCENARIO.

For the passenger ship, it does seem that there would be a way to deter the kind of boarding we had with the Spirit. This would require putting steel poles pointing out from all directions on the boat out over sides of the ship, thus creating a kind of ring of steel poles jutting out 5 feet or so from the ship. I do not know how this would affect the handling of the ship, but assuming it is do-able, then the question is what would be the Israeli response. One option they would have – given they would not get close enough with the speedboats to get onboard – would be to come up alongside and ram the steel poles to break them off. But I think that would not necessarily work for them as they may break but not completely and would leave what remains as a continued deterrent to their boarding. A more likely option is that they would simply ram the ship, like they did with Dignity. Dennis will have to speak to how this new ship would respond to such a ramming. The decision then rests with us in terms of do we want to cause them to escalate. We can also take similar action as with the cargo ship in terms of barricading the wheelhouse and sealing the engine room, per safety issues. But we are not immune on this ship from ramming.

Other Mission Needs

SUPPORT

Letters from Unions

Letters from Governments and Parliaments calling on Israel to not

Interfere

Get Ambassadors in Tel Aviv to Meet with Israeli Ministers to Request no

Interference (Venezuela, Chile, India, S. Africa, Ireland, Belgium, UK, Norway)

Ask UNIFL for inspections and escort

Ask NATO for inspections and escort

Live Broadcast from Ship – use Sailor 500 & have trained people to use

MEDIA

3-prong strategy

- pre-mission media, including launch events

- during mission

- entry or interference

Pre-Mission

- Press Conference in Ireland for Cargo Launch

- Press Conference with Passengers from Port

- Op-Eds by Passengers in their Home Countries

- Op-Eds by Board of Advisors

- Media Briefing Papers on Humanitarian Situation in Gaza, International Law, Goldstone Report & Blockade, One-Year Later, etc.

- prep work for stories that we want to push with media

- website and YouTube materials

During Mission

- set up Press Center in Jerusalem/Ramallah or Athens or London

- Broadcast from Boat

- Media Interviews with VIPs from Boat – try to schedule in advance on SAT phones

- Media Helicopter from Cyprus

- Symbolic Launches from around the world

Entry

- prepare for stories we want told from Gaza – assuming limited time, what is critical to tell; also stories connected to our mission like Green Gaza, etc.

Interference

- Publish prepared statements by government officials, celebrities, VIPs, etc. condemning Israel’s actions and in support of Free Gaza Movement

- publish prepared Op-Eds for newspapers from passengers

- Press conference in Jerusalem (at a consulate?) and/or Tel Aviv airport or at embassy (if immediate deportation)

- Immediate filing for return of ship in Israeli court and foreign court where ship is registered

- file lawsuit against navy for aggression

- Malaysia to introduce General Assembly debate on issuing a UN Resolution for ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution 377, calling for international action to open Gaza

JAIL

If this mission is stopped and we are taken to jail, then it is extremely unlikely (and we should plan on it not happening) that VIPs and media will agree to a potential long-term jail strategy. We can put it out in the media that our plan is to stay in jail until we are allowed to go to Gaza, but unless we are serious about it, then it is very harmful to credibility to not follow through. We CAN file for immediate release based on the lack of charges (which is how we were held last time) and petition the court for visas to Israel for all of the passengers. This would allow us to use the court for more PR work and would potentially put Israel in the position of having to charge the passengers, which would also require taking a legal position on Gaza.

If passengers are detained on the 500-person passenger ship, then the likelihood is that any deportation hearings will be done at the port in a makeshift hearing room, although we also need to look at what the legal situation would be if the passengers were not turned over to civilian jurisdiction. That is, if we are kept at a naval base, and in military custody, what legal avenues are available. This should be sorted out prior to mission in the formulation of a legal strategy.

For passengers on the Free Gaza ship, then the question is are they ready for jail stay and to what end? Is Free Gaza in a position to strategically support those staying in jail, particularly if we are going to try to launch another mission/take advantage of the PR opportunities that will abound by virtue of this action. What is minimum number of volunteers needed for jail-solidarity team for media/legal work? Who is going to be available post-mission for touring/public speaking?

Appendix C


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A document titled “Free Gaza Movement” found in the
possession of one of the movement's activists

1. Attached is a list of Free Gaza liaisons and their contact information based on a document found in the possession of one of the activists (with ITIC comments added). One of them, Ramzi Kysia, is located in the US.

Name
Position
Phone
E-mail

Greta Berlin
On-board coordinator
33607374512 (French number)
iristulip@gmail.com

Niamh Moloughney (Ireland)
(Included on the list of Free Gaza board members, coordinators etc.)
353857747257 (Irish number)
freegazaireland@gmail.com

Ramzi Kysia
Washington coordinator
17039945422 (US number)
ramzi@freegaza.org

Alex Harrison
On-board coordinator
35796489805 (Irish number)
duvdaa@gmail.com

Angie Pal
Ship passenger
35796399715 (Irish number)


Derrick
Free Gaza coordinator in Cyprus

delgraham@gmail.com

Therese McDermott
Logistics administrator on Crete
306989943191 (Greek number)


Giorgos Klontzas
One of the captains
306944505400 (Greek number)


Caoimhe Butterly (Ireland)
ISM contact
353876114553 (Greek number)
Sahara78@hotmail.co.uk

Ism Gaza


ismgaza@yahoo.com

Eva Bartlett (Canada)
ISM contact in Gaza

Evabartlett@hotmail.com

Bianca Zammit
ISM volunteer in Gaza who was injured

biancazammit@gmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The Israeli organization Shurat Hadin (Israel Law Center, ILC) sent a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder, asking him to investigate whether US law was violated by the organizations which funded the American flotilla. The authors of the letter ask to investigate whether Free Gaza was involved in money laundering and violation of US law (for details, see Shurat Hadin’s website: israellawcenter.org).


Back to Top


1. Established in 2006, the Free Gaza movement (hereinafter: Free Gaza) is a pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas group whose stated purpose is to “break the siege” imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas takeover. Free Gaza is registered in Cyprus as a human rights project and is headquartered in Nicosia. Its website says that Free Gaza has branches in 28 countries, including 11 in Europe, 5 in North America (4 in the US and one in Canada), and a branch in Israel (referred to on the movement's website as “Palestine 1948 territories”). The organizational framework of Free Gaza also includes the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which also took part in the latest flotilla.

2. Free Gaza played an important role in the coalition of organizations which orchestrated the latest flotilla, even though the dominant force was the Turkish IHH. Free Gaza started sending aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip in 2008. Prior to the latest flotilla, Free Gaza was able to send four other aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip:

a. August 2008: two ships departed from Cyprus and arrived at the port of Gaza on August 23 (BBC, August 23, 2008).

b. October 2008: a yacht named Dignity with 26 activists and medical supplies on board arrived in Gaza on October 29 (JTA, October 29, 2008).

c. December 2008: the same yacht, Dignity, with about 3 tons of medical supplies, attempted to penetrate the waters of Gaza but was stopped by the Israeli navy (ynet, December 30, 2008).

d. June 2009: a ship called Spirit of Humanity, which attempted to reach Gaza on June 30, was stopped by the Israeli navy near the Gaza port (Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2009).

3. The movement's mission, as appears on its website, is to break the siege of Gaza. It also states that it will not ask for Israel’s permission for its actions, since the movement's intent is “to overcome this brutal siege through civil resistance and non-violent direct action, and establish a permanent sea lane between Gaza and the rest of the world” (Free Gaza website).

4. Free Gaza is now organizing yet another flotilla to the Gaza Strip. Nidal Hejazi, a Free Gaza senior official in Norway, said that the movement is now planning to acquire yet another boat from Norway to depart for the Gaza Strip as soon as possible. He said he was hoping to organize a flotilla consisting of more than ten additional boats from European countries. According to Hejazi, upon returning from Turkey on June 3, the movement started working on a list of passengers from Norway to join the flotilla, and the list will be finalized in the coming days (Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, June 5, 2010).

5. Inside documents of Free Gaza seized in the latest flotilla (see appendices for the unedited, complete text) deal with the movement's strategy and with briefings given to its activists prior to the flotilla’s departure. Analysis and comparison of the inside documents to the movement's public stance shows significant discrepancies and even contradictions between them. For example:

a. Legal aspect: a legal briefing ("legal information") given by Free Gaza to its activists shows that the movement is well aware of the legal problem of delivering assistance to the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, particularly considering that the US designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Reading between the lines also shows that while Free Gaza publicly states that the aid is for the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, Free Gaza is aware that, in fact, it assists the Hamas de-facto administration. Therefore, at a legal briefing for activists who took part in the flotilla, they were warned against making any statement or taking any action that could be construed as providing material assistance to Hamas to avoid being incriminated in the US and in other countries (the movement has activists in the US whose participation in the flotilla seems to contradict US law; also, Free Gaza raises funds in the US, where it has a contact man for allegedly humanitarian purposes, yet those purposes are in fact clearly political).

b. Political aspect: during the legal briefing, as a way of solving the problem of Hamas’ designation as a terrorist organization, the activists were told that Free Gaza had publicly announced that it had no political agenda, and that it was committed to “non-violent humanitarian assistance” to the Palestinian people (Free Gaza is registered as a Human Rights Project, a definition which appears on its website). However, according to an inside document found on the Mavi Marmara, the goals of the flotilla were clearly political rather than humanitarian (the minimum goals defined in the document are generating media [impact] about the blockade on the Gaza Strip and pushing foreign governments to take punitive action against Israel; delivering humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip was not listed as a goal).

c. Response to possible scenarios during the voyage: Free Gaza drew up “defensive” scenarios for the flotilla based on the premise that the IDF would be unable to stop the boats without using force. Several tactics are listed to prevent the IDF from taking over the boat. One of the things mentioned is putting obstructions with sharp points on the deck and barricading in the wheelhouse and the engine room.

d. Although those tactics pale in comparison to the organized violence used by IHH, they are still incompatible with instructions given by Free Gaza to its activists, which categorically prohibited the use of verbal of physical violence. It therefore appears that the term “non-violent resistance”, which appears in the instructions of human rights organizations which took part in the flotilla, was open to interpretation by the various organizations and the various activists, who were eager to confront the IDF soldiers (as demonstrated by the preparations made by IHH, which also defines itself as a humanitarian organization, for a violent confrontation with the IDF).

6. What follows is an analysis of Free Gaza inside documents seized in the latest flotilla.

Appendix A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal briefing given by Free Gaza to passengers on the ship Challenger (it can be assumed that a similar briefing was given to Free Gaza activists on other ships)

1. A document titled "Legal Information"was seized aboard the Challenger, a Free Gaza ship. The document notes that Hamas is designated as a "global terrorist" organization by the US




Website design & development by Quantum Media Inc. I Copyright 2009 StopTheIsm