Israel: Flotillas aim to get weapons to Gaza

Dear Editor,

What a pleasure to see the Israeli Prime Minister quoted at length, for a change.

A bit a pity that there were some other sentences thrown in, little to do with the subject at hand. We take issue with most things stated there (four points).

1. This time you rightly write that “of [the] six ships […] violence erupted on only one of them.” Pleasure to read. However, you then continue that “Israel says its commandos were attacked” while “Flotilla organizers say the Israeli gunfire was unprovoked.” And then you leave it at that. And THAT it too bad. Because that doesn’t solve the confusion while there is plenty of PROOF all over the Internet that shows the violence that these Turkish “activists” employed. Not to take sides here is to collude with the liars! And failing to do your uninformed readers the service they may expect.
The expression “Israel’s military[…]’s bloody attack on the Turkish flotilla” is such a chutzpah (who launched a bloody attack here?) that we dare and choose to believe that Mark Lavie has not written this.

2. You write that Lebanon granted one ship permission to sail via Cyprus, sent a letter to the U.N. holding Israel responsible for any attack, and noted that it cannot stop ships from leaving. However, we missed a reference to a report of a few days ago that UN naval forces will not allow any violation of resolution 1701 by Hezbollah,7340,L-3907369,00.html .

3. Again you fail to acknowledge that not all construction materials were barred, as I showed you before.

4. Again you fail to acknowledge that the Gaza population health-wise are in good shape under the blockade. Your contention that “only limited” amounts of “basic foods and medicine” were allowed in, is clearly ridiculous – who would want unlimited amounts?

Why muddle a report as written by Mr. Lavie with all kinds of other sentences? To appease readers who would be annoyed to read Mr. Netanyahu say the truth? You should be above that!


This entry was posted in 0. Chronological, 3. Negative. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s