Videos
Videos
Dear Dr. Finkelstein,
I recently heard you quote a U.S. Government study on Hamas that you used to support the fact that Hamas is interested in resolving the conflict along the internationally recognized terms (67 borders, right of return for refugees). Could you tell me the name of that study and how to obtain it? Unrelated question: I’m nearly finished reading your book ‘Beyond Chutzpah’ which I find quite impressive. I’m going through appendix III in the part where you discuss the general public’s (in Israel) support for the terms of a two-state solution and for the harsh tactics employed by Israel against the Palestinians. You quote a study (Arian 2003) which reports that 88% of Israelis supported home demolitions in 2003 an 92% supported “political liquidations”. Considering that ~20% of Israel’s population is Arab isn’t that a bit surprising in your view?…especially since Israel employs many racist policies concerning housing even within Israel? That figure would imply that a significant fraction (~40%) of Arab-Israeli’s support demolitions – even if you assume that fully 100% of Jewish Israelis support house demolitions (which can’t be the case making the paradox worse). What, in your opinion, accounts for that apparent paradox? Maybe I missed that only Jewish Israelis were polled (I admit I haven’t tried to find the study myself) but that possibility didn’t seem to be the case from studying the table you present in Beyond Chutzpah. Could it really be that a significant fraction of Palestinian-Israelis support such horrible things?! Finally, my mom sent me a cool Ska song on Youtube by a Latin American band that I thought you might enjoy! Cheers.In the immediate aftermath of the massacre aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31st, 2010, while journalists and activists were detained and isolated from the world, the Israeli government was quick to unleash their own version of events. Like the physical assault on the boat, the Israeli media assault was also reckless, clumsy, malicious, and dangerous. They were cynical enough to understand that first impressions in the mainstream American media are what count, and with this in mind they began to frantically hurl the word "terrorist" in reference to both the victims of their attack, as well as one of the main organizers of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the Turkish NGO IHH. It is a curious thing that few people asked the Israeli government why they would release "terrorists" that they had in their custody, and even fewer asked for (or received) solid evidence to support this claim. Despite the fact that several courageous journalists both in the US and abroad thoroughly debunked the Israeli account of what happened (this includes deliberately doctored footage along with the libelous accusations of links to terrorism), the damage was done.
Before speakers from the Mavi Marmara were scheduled to speak in New York about what happened on May 31st, local politicians began to put forth the rhetoric of their Israeli handlers, using slanderous language to demonize the victims of Israel’s illegal act of war. And most recently, 87 US senators have urged President Obama to launch an investigation of whether or not IHH should be added to the US list of foreign terrorist organizations.
I am a firm believer that actions speak louder than words, and in this spirit I thought it might help to take a closer look at IHH, and judge this group based on their actions, rather than empty words.
IHH began in 1992 as a humanitarian mission to offer relief to victims injured and displaced during the Bosnian war. They have held Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council since 2004, and since becoming a fully-registered NGO in 1995, IHH — The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief — has accumulated more than 60,000 volunteers for their grassroots humanitarian efforts in 120 countries all over the world. Since May 31st, the number of volunteers has skyrocketed.
After the attack on the Mavi Marmara, I had an opportunity to ask the vice president of IHH, Huseyin Oruc, about accusations of IHH terror links. While he was not interested in dignifying such claims, he was very emphatic about the transparency of IHH’s work over the years, and hoped people would look at their large-scale sanitation and medical missions around the African continent — including 40,000 cataract surgeries in Sudan alone, clean water projects in Ethiopia- and IHH’s extensive work dealing with orphans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Gaza. While they are an Islamic organization, Oruc told me that IHH refuses to differentiate who receives attention based on religion, race, or political affiliation, and has noted their various projects in South America where Muslim populations are slight.
Their modus operandi is simple and direct. Given the neutrality of their humanitarian mission, IHH has been able to access some of the most inaccessible and dangerous regions of the world to help those most in need. Like most NGOs, this means they must coordinate with local governments in order to reach these populations. So while they must communicate with the Hamas government of Gaza to help civilians there, they must likewise do so with Fatah in the West Bank, Al Shabab in Somalia, the military junta in Myanmar and so on. Oruc was adamant that this did not mean IHH endorses any of those governments, and said that anyone who cared to investigate their work would find nothing other than great successes in helping ordinary people in situations of war, poverty, and natural disasters in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and even the US in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He also told me people were free to investigate their funding, most of which comes from lower and middle class donors, while the rest is raised through food fairs, auctions for Turkish artifacts, and other cultural events. By its own mandate, IHH is not beholden to any government or business interests.
We must remember that an attack on IHH is an attack on all humanitarian groups around the world. Given that IHH is among the most courageous humanitarian NGOs in the world — risking their lives to work in places like Somalia, cleaning up American messes in Iraq and Afghanistan — our politicians should perhaps be thanking them, rather than trying to tarnish their stellar reputation. Thankfully, IHH’s track record speaks for itself, as do the actions of their accusers — a comparison which does not calculate favorably for the Israeli government when asking just who, exactly, the terrorists are.
Love Boat or Hate Boat? An Interview with IHH from Cultures of Resistance on Vimeo.
Dozens suffer from tear gas inhalation in Bil’in Friday 2 July 2010
Today the people of Bil’in were joined by internationals and Israelis in the weekly demonstration against the illegal apartheid wall that has stolen more than half of Bil’ins land. About 150 protestors carried out the message to the Palestinian leaders, expressing the need for unification, bringing a large banner showing a picture of Arafat and Yaseen together. The popular committee in Bil’in, represented by Iyad Burnat said there is a need for the Palestinians to unite to resist Israel’s illegal occupation. He welcomes internationals, this time a group from the “Palestine Summer Encounter” and others who want to show solidarity with the people of Bil’in and Palestine. Burnat stressed the fact that many people are coming from abroad to show support, and urged the Palestinian leaders to focus on solidarity instead of causing more suffering for their people.The protesters went together singing, some dancing and saying slogans up to the wall. There the soldiers were waiting on the other side, and the protest went on for about ten minutes before soldiers started shooting tear gas and sound grenades into the crowd, and into the farm land. As people were moving towards the village, tear gas continued to be shot, and dozens of people suffered from inhalation. Soldiers crossed the gate, chasing the protesters towards the village; still they did not manage to arrest anyone.
Heat from tear gas canisters and sound grenades set fire to the dry ground several places. The smoke and the gas forced people further back, and in spite of the non violence and retreat the soldiers continued shooting. Ammunition causing fire is a serious problem this time of the year, when the ground is dry. Many olive trees have seen severe damage, with the result of dead trees and less olives to harvest.Kenneth O’Keefe talks about the attack on the MV Mavi Marmara that was trying to run the blockade on Gaza.
Video Interview Posted June 25, 2010By Mya Guarnieri
Tel Aviv – Ma’an – The Israeli army released video footage Monday of the navy radioing the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara prior to the raid that took place in international waters and left at least nine activists dead.
But on Friday, it released a new version of the same footage — one that it says proves its claims that many aboard were religious extremists — but that some say has been very obviously tampered with.
In the first video released in the immediate aftermath of the violent raid, a soldier says, "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostility which is under a naval blockade." There is no recorded response.
The soldier continues, "The Gaza area, coastal region, and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic." Again, no response.
The soldier radios once more, saying, "The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and invites you to enter the Ashdod port …"
But an updated version, released five days later, includes three alleged responses from passengers who, according to the video, were supposedly on board the Mavi Marmara. This new clip shows only a still of the soldier who appears in the first footage.
The soldier, who is not named, does not address the Mavi Marmara as he did in the video released Monday. Instead, he says, "This is the Israeli navy; you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade."
A man with an odd, indistinct accent responds, "Shut up. Go back to Aushwitz."
Then the voice of a woman follows. She states, "We have permission from the Gaza Port Authority to enter."
The third response, which seems entirely disconnected from the events, comes from a man with a heavy Southern accent. "We’re helping Arabs go against the US. Don’t forget 9/11 guys."
Ali Abuminah, founder of the website Electronic Intifada, reported on his blog that the woman’s voice is that of Huwaida Arraf.
Arraf, a Palestinian-American who chairs the Free Gaza Movement, confirmed that it was her voice. But she emphasized that she was on the Challenger 1 boat, not the Mavi Marmara.
"I was by the radio the whole time there was any communication," Arraf told Ma’an. "Mine was the only boat in which I answered and not the captain and they all answered in a very professional manner."
Arraf told Ma’an that while she might have spoken of having permission from the Gaza Port Authority on a previous attempt to break the blockade, she is certain that she did not say it on Monday morning.
"When they radioed us, we were still 100 miles away," she said. "There’s no doubt that this whole thing they put out is fabricated."
Asked about claims that army video had been faked, an Israeli army spokesperson remarked, "There is no basis for the allegations."
But to many, the recordings are just the latest move in the Israeli army’s aggressive campaign to sway public opinion.
Israel seized all recording devices from journalists and activists who were on the flotilla. The army has released its own footage for use in its still-raging war of information being fought on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and media outlets.
Among several heavily edited clips, the army has released a short video that shows soldiers dropping down onto the Mavi Marmara from helicopters after which a few of them are violently assaulted.
Eyewitnesses, Arraf included, say the army shot at the Marmara and fired stun grenades before boarding. But the clip released by the army includes no footage of the moments prior to the soldiers’ boarding.
Nevertheless, as hundreds of deportees begin to reach their home countries, some in possession of footage smuggled off the boats are filling in the gaps.
A journalist with Al-Jazeera managed to broadcast footage indicating that the Israeli army began shooting at the passengers of the Mavi Marmara before the soldiers boarded, suggesting that passengers who were armed with sticks and chairs were acting in self-defense.
Many journalists are concerned that other footage is being held by Israeli authorities. The Foreign Press Association alleges that the army has used some of this footage as its own.
The association is demanding that the military identify the sources of videos it has released and to stop selectively editing content to back up the army’s version of events.
