Who’s at fault in Gaza flotilla crisis? Finkelstein and Pollak debate
Published: 04 June, 2010, 04:04
Edited: 29 July, 2010, 15:56
Palestinians, Syrians, Turkish students and Muslim citizens protest in Sarajevo June 3, 2010, against the Israeli attack on the Turkish flotilla headed for Gaza on May 30
(39.9Mb) embed videoTAGS: Conflict, Middle East, Law
Israel blocked a flotilla of ships carrying 10,000 tons of aid and 800 activists and politicians on its way to Gaza by using military force and boarding ships in international waters.
Israel continues to maintain that they reacted only after being provoked and threatened by those onboard the flotilla. The individuals onboard said they were attacked without cause by the Israeli military. Reports indicate that at least nine activists were killed and many other injured by Israeli naval forces. There is still much unknown of what actually occurred.
The Free Gaza Movement organized the aid flotilla with the hope of sending a message to the world that Israel has no right to starve 1.5 million Palestinians through by blockading the Gaza Strip.
Norman Finkelstein, author of “A Farewell to Israel: The coming break-up of American Zionism” said “Israel is guilty of serious crimes” and that the blockade of Gaza is a “flagrant violation of international law”.
Daniel Pollak, the co-director of government relations at the Zionist Organization of America disagrees.
“The embargo and the inspection of goods that are destined for Gaza is perfectly legal,” said Pollak.
He stated that Israel has a given legal right to defend itself and that the Hamas government in Gaza has continued to attack Israel and has called for the killing of all Jews.
“Israel had no right to whatsoever to impede a humanitarian ship from trying to provide supplies to a population that’s facing, in the words of Amnesty International, a humanitarian crisis,” said Finkelstein.
Debating the actions taken by Israeli forces, Finkelstein questioned why the naval commandos opted for a violent raid in the dark of night as opposed to disabling the ships or simply surrounding them at sea.
“The ships were offered to unload their cargo at an Israeli port, Ashdod. If they had done so, there would have been no violence. Five out of the six ships did not offer resistance to the Israeli commandos who landed on them and there was no violence on those ships. We actually don’t actually have a need to investigate a great deal,” said Pollak.
He continued, stating that the video evidence from the ships show that the Israeli forces came down “with paint guns on their back” and were greeted by “terrorists, who were a welcoming committee, beating them [Israeli soldiers] with knives, sticks, and knocking one Israeli soldier 20 feet down from one deck to the other. It was only after their lives were in danger that the Israeli soldiers reacted with violence.” Pollak argued that other options, such as disabling the ship, had the potential to be more dangerous to those onboard.
“You say the video show clearly this and the video show clearly that. Whose videos? There were many people on that boat. Why were their camera equipment confiscated? Why were their videos confiscated? Why was their photographic evidence confiscated? What we have is the Israeli version of what happened. We don’t yet have the videos, but we might tomorrow. We don’t yet have the version or the video evidence from the passengers on the boat. If Israel has nothing to hide why did it seize all the photographic evidence of the passengers on the ship?” asked Finkelstein.
Pollak responded, arguing that the videos were taken in order to prevent activists on the boat from doctoring the footage.
One important and verifiable fact is that the event in question took place in international waters.
Pollak said that the use of international waters is standard when enforcing a blockade and that the flotilla ships “refused to follow the legitimate directions” of the Israeli navy.
“You don’t know that,” said Finkelstein. “What we do know is that there was an armed commando raid in the dead of night in international waters. After that I can’t tell you what happened, but I certainly wouldn’t believe a single word from the Israeli government.”
Putin in auto accidentPrime Vladimir Minister Putin was involved in a car accident on Thursday when his car ran over a metal object, puncturing his tire. Eyewitnesses say there was smoke seen after the premier’s Mercedes stopped. |
04.06.2010, 09:55
7 comments
Ukraine ditches NATO plans as president marks 100 days in officePresident Yanukovich said the country will not sign up to military alliances. It is part of a bigger plan to put a stronger Ukraine at the crossroads of East and West, as well as to rebuild relations with Russia. |
It seems that These blatant Bold Faced Hypocrites can't stand to hear the truth and respond sensibly to it. Mr. Finklestein is absolutely right with all that he has said and his questions are absolutely on point. You would have to be a moron or a real shrimp not to understand simple logic and see the truth staring you straight in the eye, or straight in the face so to speak. Don't try to dismiss Mr. Finklestein as some sought of fool. If anything, he sure makes this guy look like an idiot and a dishonest propagandist.
I find it interesting that Dr. Finkelstein could not stick to normal debate etiquette and not attack his opponent. By repeatedly calling Mr. Pollak, "Mr. Naval Officer" he cheapened his argument and came off as a child caught in a school yard disagreement. I felt that Mr. Pollak handled himself very well in a difficult situation. Many countries have spoken out again the action taken by Israel, and he was in the unpopular position of defending their actions. I felt that he did so with facts instead of personal attacks. His obvious depth of knowledge in this area has caused me to shift my thinking on this topic. Thank you RT for bringing us an interesting debate.












They are not bounded by any law except for their own. Why was their "official" video released after many other news agencies had shown excerpt of what happened. Clearly it were a case of armed commandos with state of the art weapons boarding illegally a ship in international waters. The United Nations is just a toothless body championing the cause of the perm members. You can criticize and condemn but does not take actions. Seems like what happen in 1930s when Hitler began his reign. The League condemns but no action taken. Same goes for what's happening now.