Andrew Sullivan is not a huge fan of Israel; he is entitled to his opinion. However, his latest column about the incident in the waters outside of Gaza makes up the facts. Honestly, in the case of most of the posts Sullivan writes about Israel, Andrew is living in his own reality, where truth and facts do not matter.
The Atlantic columnist begins his latest example of creative writing begins with the first paragraph.
Maintaining the siege and blockade of Gaza (because its citizens elected a government Israeli abhors), and strafing it with military might over a year ago, is not exactly what one expects of a civilized Western state. To then go on the offensive against a flotilla of aid ships, trying to bypass the blockade, and killing at least ten people aboard is bordering on insanity…
There are at least three bald-faced lies in that paragraph. First, the blockade was established to stem terrorism from Gaza (perhaps Sullivan forgot the five thousand rockets sent from the strip into Israel from 2005-2009).
His comment “Strafing it with military might over a year ago is not what one expects of a civilized Western State.” is also wrong. That is exactly one should expect from a western state. If rockets landed in Andrew Sullivan’s backyard, I guarantee that he would expect Obama to start “strafing” the offending party.
As for the line, “To then go on the offensive against a flotilla of aid ships,” let’s give Andrew Sullivan the benefit of the doubt on this one. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the difference between offensive and defensive. The “Guerrilla Flotilla” stated their objective as breaking through the blockade, or becoming martyrs, in the video below they call it “two happy conclusions.” Breaking through a blockade is known as an offensive action. When Israel tries to protect its coastline, it is called defensive action.
Sullivan goes on to talk about the coverage he saw:
.. according to the eye-witness al Jazeera reporter on board, Israel’s military killed perhaps a dozen civilians on an unarmed ship after a white flag had been raised. If this were not Netanyahu’s government, I’d be more skeptical. But we know what his government is, what it believes, and what it is prepared to do.
Understand what Sullivan is telling you, he believes the Arab media, but not the Israeli media. And why doesn’t he believe the Israeli media? He doesn’t like Israeli Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu (maybe Bibi forgot to send him a birthday card). Sullivan forgets that Netanyahu does not control the media; it is the Arab media that is state-controlled.
Sullivan belittles the fact that Israeli soldiers only acted with force once they were attacked:
Protestors managed to grab two guns from Israeli soldiers? Really? And the result is possibly up to 16 dead, according to the LA Times?
There are videos showing Israeli soldiers being beaten, stabbed and thrown overboard even before they reached the deck, below is just one sample:
He follows up with the erroneous claim that Israel was not allowed to go near the boat because it was in international waters….Wrong! According to San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:
SECTION V: NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;…”
Note: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.
Israel’s boarding of the Gaza-bound Guerrilla Flotilla certainly met the conditions described in #67 Section A. The Captain of one of the boats told the IDF that they intended to “run the blockade,” and Israel did warn them to go to the nearest Israeli port.
That is the truth, but when it comes to the Middle East, Sullivan likes to throw out the truth and use his own facts.
For example, one of the many examples, is the column in which Sullivan bashed the Israeli settlements in Jerusalem and supported it with lies about the city’s history.
.. is that Jerusalem was 84 percent Arab in 1946 and well within Palestinian authority under the partition plan the Palestinian Arabs rejected.
Two lies in that one, Sullivan says Jerusalem was 84% Arab in 1946, the chart below details the population of Israel from 1844-1948. As you can see Jews were the majority religion from 1844 and (with the exception of 1948-1967 when Jordan ruled the city) it remains that way today.
Later in the same article he claims the UN Partition plan established Jerusalem as a Palestinian Arab city, another falsehood.
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (which divided Palestine into Jewish and Arab countries) declared Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum – a separate body, to be run under an international UN administration, neither Jewish or Muslim. The U.N. never made Jerusalem a Palestinian Arab city.
When it comes to the Middle East, Andrew Sullivan is wrong about both the past and the present. I won’t try to understand why Sullivan plays it fast and loose with the facts, whatever his problem is, it’s time for the Atlantic to take away his computer until the malady is diagnosed. He is embarrassing himself, and the proud tradition of the magazine.