The IDF has now released an official clarification regarding the audio released yesterday of a radio communication in which a flotillista tells the Israeli Navy to “Go Back to Auschwitz.” Bottom line: the exchange is genuine. Those who questioned its authenticity - like Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah - have yet again revealed to the world that their grasp of such trifling matters as truth and falsehood is shaky at best.
The accusation that the audio was fake rested on the following “A-ha!” moment: labeled on YouTube as originating from the Mavi Marmara, the audio contained the voice of a passenger (Huwaida Arraf of the ghastly International Solidarity Movement) who was traveling on another ship in the flotilla. The IDF subsequently explained that the audio was incorrectly labeled, because what was recorded came from an open channel which all the ships in the flotilla could access. In any other context, the mislabeling would be seen as an honest, and rather insignificant, mistake, but in the fevered imagination of Max Blumenthal, it becomes a conspiracy.
Now that the principal argument for the faking accusation has been decisively hobbled, what other evidence exists to support Blumenthal? He accepts that the exchange occurred, if only because his pal Huwaida makes an appearance. So is he saying that the IDF doctored the tape and inserted the voices? Read his blog and you’ll see that he is, because he doesn’t find the foreign accents he hears convincing (I’ll bet Blumenthal hasn’t met that many foreigners, so he doesn’t get that one person can speak with American, Arabic, Francophone and many other inflections in their voice.) Not quite the smoking gun, in any case.
Back in the real world, the Rachel Corrie docked in Ashdod without incident and Hamas is back to doing what it does best: making the lives of ordinary Gazans a hellish misery. Since Blumenthal is unlikely to write about any of these things, perhaps he might find a moment to pen a quick retraction/humble apology for making accusations that are, to use his favorite word, “idiotic.”
For occasional readers of this site like me, I find this back and forth about sub-atomic issues to be less than enlightening or informative. It has a familiar drip-drip of frankly juvenile personal criticism.
But buried in this post, finally, is the happy news about the Rachel Corrie and its peaceful docking at Ashdod.
Just a suggestion: taking the Rachel Corrie as a for instance, can the writers on this site start to offer some constructive solutions to the intractable issues the Israelis are facing, without just repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ad nauseum, that the opponents of Israel are really, really bad people?
Just sayin’…
“The IDF has now released an official clarification”
Well, that settles it then…
“Just a suggestion: taking the Rachel Corrie as a for instance, can the writers on this site start to offer some constructive solutions to the intractable issues the Israelis are facing, without just repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ad nauseum, that the opponents of Israel are really, really bad people?”
I agree that it’s good news that the RC docked without incident, Eric. On your other point why don’t start us off. What is your suggestion about “what Israel should do?”
In the meantime can you answer me this:
Why is it that “peace loving critics” of Israel believe that Hamas is more worthy of support than Israel? Why is their battle cry “liberate Gaza from Israel) and not liberate Gaza from Hamas?
jdyer:
I can’t imagine why “peace loving critics” of Israel believe that Hamas is more worthy of support than Israel. It is obviously absurd and certainly is worthy of discussion somewhere. Like I said, we all agree that many opponents of Israel are just bad people. We can all stipulate to that.
But why did you answer my question with a question? Was it something I said?
“But why did you answer my question with a question? Was it something I said?”
I thought the answer was obvious, but maybe not.
The only way to end the state of war between Israel and the Arabs (Palestine is just a stand in for the Arabs or even Muslims—and now Hamas’s Gaza has become the stand in for the Palestinians) is for each side the rights of the other to their own State. This is usually called the two State solution.
This ought to be negotiated between Israel and the PA in face to face negotiations.
Furthermore, I am critical of both the Palestinian leadership and of the Netanyahu government since I am not sure either side want negotiations to take place which would mean giving up settlements and perhaps sovereignty over some parts of Jerusalem.
On the other hand, I am certain that most Israelis would like to live in peace alongside a peaceful Palestinian State so that makes me optimistic.
Have you seen Efraim Karsh’ new book: “Palestine Betrayed”
http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Betrayed-Professor-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300127278/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275771486&sr=8-1
How the Palestinians would react to such an arrangement is hard to say. For them to agree to it the Arab League as well as most Arab countries would have to support it.
Now, here is the main difficulty. Israel can negotiate a final agreement for its citizens but I am not sure the PA can. (Arafat was afraid at Camp David to accept a peace offer because he though he would be killed by some Arab leader because he made a deal with the Jews.)
This means that in effect Israel is negotiating with the Arab world and not just the PA. This is why it’s a misnomer to call the conflict an Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is an Arab Israeli one no matter what is said in public in the West.
In any case, these is my answer to your question.
Just a personal observation: I find this kind of reply to be far more productive than some of the intense personal criticism that often permeates posts from time to time. At least jdyer is discussing substance beyond the level of personal invective. Refreshing.
I am no fan of Max Blumenthal, but I still have to say that my reaction was the same as his to this one. A hypothetical scenario: Seeing that world opinion is unfortunately favoring the flotilla of fools, and feeling a huge amount of justifiable frustration over that fact, someone decides to put together a recording that might help sway that opinion the other way. I’m not saying I’m convinced of this, but the voices making the inflammatory comments do have a staged sound to them. btw, I’ve been making a living for 20 years in a job that requires me to listen to people’s voices in a lying/truth-telling context, which doesn’t make me an expert but may contribute to my skepticism. To Eric, I don’t think this is trivial, because if the audio is faked, or many people believe it to be fake, then it casts doubt on the rest of the evidence presented by the IDF. Of course, the videos are very convincing and authentic, so I hope the audio in itself won’t outweigh the rest.
Eric, if you want an honest discussion about a political settlement - and who wouldn’t? - then you have to expose the lies of people like Blumenthal. Accusing the IDF of fabricating this audio is not a minor irrelevance - it directly feeds the antisemitic conspiracy theories which prevail in the Arab and Muslim worlds (”look, an AMERICAN JEW is saying it, it must be true!”)
Lorri, your caution is understandable. But this was a recording from an open shipping radio channel, which accounts for its rather odd sound, and Blumenthal and co. have yet to provide any actual evidence that Israeli impersonators recorded these lines and then inserted them into the final edit.
I think we are facing a harsh truth which many people will find difficult to stomach: that there were people on this flotilla who hold Nazi views about Jews. And as Helen Thomas proved this week - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899361,00.html - all too often there is something more sinister underlying visceral hatred of Israel.
Eric,
Lies and defamation and bizarre conspiracy theories have to be exposed. Your complaints are misplaced. Having read a great deal of the coverage of the incident, this is the pattern that emerges:
1. Incident happens. Nine unfortunate deaths - arguably stemming from tactical miscalculations and clumsiness on the IDF’s part.
2. The anti-Israel movement springs to action and accuses Israel of “murder,” “massacre,” “international piracy,” etc. etc. committed against peaceful humanitarians.
3. Footage and other evidence comes out that seriously undermines this anti-Israel narrative. The flotillistas and their supporters are caught in their own lies.
4. They respond by making even more irrational and outrageous claims, such as Blumenthal’s suggestion that the footage and recordings were doctored by Israel.
5. When these further lies are discredited, the anti-Israel crowd — rather than confront its own mendacity — throws its hands in the air, and asks: “Oh whatever happened, isn’t this really about the blockade of Gaza? Isn’t that the real issue?”
Not that the substantive debate doesn’t matter. But if that debate is to be a fruitful one, the parties have to speak and act in good faith. The Max Blumenthals of this world hinder productive debate because they distort the factual record. That’s why it’s important to point out their lies first.
By the way, where is Blumenthal? He seems to have disappeared into thin air since the full recording was released!
Hi, Ganselmi,
I don’t quarrel with your assertion that lies and conspiracy theories have to be exposed, and this site does a good job of that.
I just feel that an enormous number of keystrokes are dedicated to that project, which, while useful and important, is sort of like “fiddling while Rome burns.”
Today’s NY Times (yes, I know some find the Times to be loathsome), contains three columns which, in my humble opinion, are at least as important as exposing a falsehood by Blumenthal: “What to Do About Israel?” by Helene Cooper, “The Ballgame and the Sideshow” by Tom Friedman, and “Chosen but Not Special” by Michael Chabon.
Our culture, for better or worse, has moved on beyond the specific events of last week. Yes, Israel is left with the detritus of the botched attempt, but it has tools in its toolbox (such as the deft handling of the Rachel Corrie), which can help alleviate the public relations disaster.
But those cultural issues remain, and they are far more serious to the State of Israel than Max Blumenthal.
@ericg: fyi, this is a blog written by two people, both of whom have lots of other stuff to do. It is not a newspaper - still less the NYT - with the obligations that status entails.
They are not “bad” people. They are angry and want very different things from you. They want Israel gone. That desire certainly is not a sin. Telling you to go back to Aushwitz is one way of saying “go away”. Do they need to monitor their words so as to be politically correct from your point of view. Really!!
They are doing nothing Jabotinsky would disagree with philosophically. I have heard many, many Israelis express little remorse or guilt for Arab deaths. And, yes, Israel has committed atrocities. So what? All nations do when they have their backs to the wall. You scream anti-semitism but you confuse politics with race hatred. Anti-semitism was rooted in old Church dogma and the misguided desire of Germans and others to achieve racial purity. Anti-semitism does not mean that someone does not like Jews or Israel. Many people say they don’t like the Irish or Italians–yes, or the Arabs. But wanting what others have, or being jealous of others, or wanting them to go away, is not racial hatred. When you call anyone who says a bad word about Israel an anti-semite, you display ignorance and you embarrass us all. And you actually prevent the public from being able to understand and appreciate the unique aspects of the persecution against the Jewish people for many hundreds of years.
Our synagogues, many of them, are filled with hateful, venomous sermonizing–much like what your organizations spews forth on a daily basis. Who cares that the medicine is out of date? What’s the point? Is it necessary to nickel and dime every issue, thus at once disclosing that you are an enemy of the arabs–that you want them to go away no less than they want you to go. In this way, you undermine your credibility and divorce yourself from the moral authority which defines what is good in Judaism and which represented, as Ben Gurion emphasized over and over again, the reason for and promise of the State of Israel?
I did not intend for my comment to be published. It was directed to the organization. Pls do not publish.
“Telling you to go back to Aushwitz is one way of saying “go away”. Do they need to monitor their words so as to be politically correct from your point of view. Really!!”
Oh. My. God.