Guardian

What the Guardian won’t report: UN concludes that Israel’s blockade is LEGAL


Type the words “Israel”, “blockade”, and “illegal” in the Guardian’s search engine and you get 194 hits.

As recently as yesterday Guardian contributor  quoted a flotilla “activist” describing Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza as “illegal”.

On Tuesday, a report by Jack Shenker, in a Guardian straight news story, casually characterized the blockade as “an act deemed illegal under international law.”

Yet, the UN (which, it is a profound understatement to say, is no friend to Israel) reportedly will issue a report on last year’s Gaza flotilla clash concluding that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal and that Jerusalem owes no apology to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara raid.

According to AFP:

“United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will release a statement supporting the legality of the Israeli intervention against the 2010 ‘Gaza Freedom Flotilla.”

The UN report also will reportedly say that the Turkel Committee, which led Israel’s official flotilla probe, conducted a professional and independent investigation.

I’m willing to bet that the Guardian simply will not report this story, as it goes against volumes of Guardian stories, and CiF commentaries, since the May 31, 2010 incident, attesting to Israel’s guilt, but I’m even more confident that the countless number of contributors who were so quick to pass judgement on Israel’s blockade of weapons to Hamas will not apologize for their morally irresponsible rush to judgement.  

As with Richard Goldstone’s recent mea culpa – acknowledging that, contradicting his initial conclusions, there was absolutely no evidence that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during Operation Cast Lead – this UN report exonerating Israel comes a year too late.  

The damage to Israel has already been done.  

Paraphrasing the immortal words of Ray Donovan, President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Labor, who, after a long ideologically driven campaign in the mainstream media which assumed his guilt, was (in the end) acquitted of corruption charges in a court of law after a prolonged trial:

Where does Israel go to get their reputation back?

20 replies »

  1. I’m willing to bet that the Guardian simply will not report this story, as it goes against volumes of Guardian stories, and CiF commentaries, since the May 31, 2010 incident, attesting to Israel’s guilt, but I’m even more confident that the countless number of contributors who were so quick to pass judgement on Israel’s blockade of weapons to Hamas will not apologize for their morally irresponsible rush to judgement.

    Not only to I think you are correct, but I would bet the Guardian and its fanatics like Berchmans et al will continue to claim the siege is illegal and that stopping the Mavi Marmara was illegal.

    They are blinded to the truth by their hatred.

    • They probably will report it, along with a furious editorial accusing the UN of pro-Israel bias and attempting to explain why the blockade is illegal, because the Guardian says so.

      • Bizarrely – or perhaps not, considering the source – there is now an article in Ha’aretz proposing that despite the UN decision, Israel should still apologize to Turkey!!

        I would not be surprised to see a reprint in the Guardian.

    • AKUS they are rather more than blinded. The extent of their delusion is much more serious and would be nonsensical if it did not have dangerous consequences.

  2. It’s like you say… The damage has already been done and this is an all too familiar occurrence as far as Israel is concerned. Jenin, Al-Dura, Cast Lead & the Mavi Marmara…

    These false accusations do tremendous damage not only to the state of Israel but to Israelis and Jews as well, including those living outside of Israel and by the time the truth comes out nobody cares. Nobody bothers asking “if they lied about this, what else have they lied about?”, they just move on to the next accusation.

    • I visited a store recently that sold all manner of hip and unusual items, including toilet paper embossed with one’s favorite nemesis. Those pictured on the rolls ran the gamut from Obama to Osama to Bush to Bill & Hillary Clinton to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, etc., so people of every political persuasion had someone to choose for their restroom visits.

      I’d like to suggest to that store that they add the Guardian to the rolls. I can’t think of a better use of the Guardian, even better than fish wrap.

      • Please may I have the address of the store, I’d ilke to order at least a gross dozen of Hillary Clinton’s.

  3. They may spin it as the Spanish national TV and radio has today, as a footnote to another story and quoting somebody who doesn’t agree:
    http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20110707/israel-prohibira-300-activistas-propalestinos-viajar-pais-este-fin-semana/446224.shtml

    De Schutter opposes the legality of the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla

    Moreover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, has objected Thursday to the findings of an investigation made by experts chosen by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon recognize the “legality” of the intervention of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla.

    The boat carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza in May 2010. The Rapporteur has stressed its “firm opposition” to the findings of the report commissioned by Ban Ki-Moon, as it recognizes the right of the Israeli authorities to attack the fleet that tried to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza, as reported by his spokesman in a statement.

    Meanwhile, the Belgian rapporteur calls thereby blocking the intervention of Israeli troops from the fleet represent “a clear violation of international law and human right to food.”

    • So you’re saying it was legal?
      Or are you suggesting we stop obaying the law when we feel it is not serving our agenda?

    • To most normal people, it would be considerably more morally reprehensible to see children in Sderot killed, maimed and terrorised by Iranian rockets and mortars.

      You need to rethink your priorities, Mostly.

    • To defend anti-Zionists is morally reprehensible.
      To defend the Guardian is morally reprehensible.
      To defend Hamas is morally reprehensible.
      To defend ant-Semites is morally reprehensible.

      Just like the Nazis, you and your fellow travellers will in due course be hated and shunned by virtually everyone. It is only a matter of time.

      • It could be after our time, it could be after israel is no more but your place moistly has already been reserved in the darkest pages…

    • mostly soulless,

      Hijacking 4 planes on 9/11/01 and flying them into buildings is illegal and morally reprehensible.

      The uk and scotland releasing the “dead within 3 months – soon to be alive for 3 YEARS” convicted bomber of Pan Am 103 is morally reprehensible.

    • Speech balloon needed clearly showing Mostly to be addressing his fellow Progressives.

  4. “History is littered with acts that were legal but morally reprehensible. Keep defending the indefensible chaps, you’re doing a great job.”

    Another day in the life of Mostly Harmless – apologist for eliminationist anti-Semitic scum – because they are exotic, chic and a shade darker than those reprehensible blond-haired, blue-eyed boys – so last century – so regressive yah!