Frank Gaffney‘s Center for Security Policy honored Rep. Allen West (R-FL) in New York this week, where West “made a presentation delineating some of our more pressing national security concerns.”

During the speech, West turned to the issue of the Gaza flotilla that has been making headlines in recent weeks. A group of pro-Palestinian activists, led by several Turkish groups, have said they plan to sail to Gaza on a humanitarian mission to break the Israeli blockade. Last year, Israeli commandos killed a number of activists on a similar mission, including one American citizen.

But West seems to think that because Turks are involved in the flotilla, it’s actually the Turkish government that is leading the charge. Thus, West said to Gaffney’s group, because Turkey is a NATO ally, the United States would have to attack Israel if Israeli defense forces again storm the flotilla:

WEST: And be very nervous about one simple thing. I know that we were talking about this flotilla. If Turkey establishes a flotilla, and supports a flotilla going down, and all of the sudden Israel attacks this flotilla, Turkey is a member of the EU and also a member of the NATO, can wave and say, “As a member of NATO, we have been attacked and therefore, part of the charter is all NATO countries must come to the aid of a NATO member that’s been attacked.”

And see, this is the kind of stuff that I sit down in my lonely little apartment in Washington, DC and I think about.

During the same speech, West also called Fatah, the political block ruling the Palestinian Authority, “a terrorist group,” adding that if the Palestinians go to the U.N. this summer to declare statehood, it will be “nothing more than a new terrorist state.” Watch it:

First, “Fatah is not currently regarded as a terrorist organization by any government.” But second, West’s understanding of NATO and the situation with the flotilla is way off. Turkish rights groups, not the Turkish government, are sponsoring the flotilla, thereby making NATO, and Article V of the Washington Treaty, completely irrelevant. Moreover, Haaretz reported this week that Turkish representation in the flotilla will be limited because the main flotilla sponsor, the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation, announced that it will not participate in the mission.

But also, even if West’s imaginary scenario had some sort of basis in reality, he’d know that the United States never attacked Israel last year when Israeli commandos raided the flotilla. In fact, the U.S. government barely said anything about the Israelis killing an American during the operation.

It’s sort of ironic then, that West said in the same speech that the GOP’s presidential candidates don’t know anything about national security. Yet, these are the issues that, according to West, he sits down in his lonely apartment in DC and thinks about.

The campaign to discredit the Gaza Freedom Flotilla by the Israeli government and its staunch defenders appears to have hit a new low: Bloggers discredited a recent video made by an “activist” claiming an LGBT group he led was not allowed to participate in the flotilla to break the blockade of Gaza. What’s more, upon its creation, Israeli government officials and their allies promoted the video.

The hoax is only the latest of what is often called the “pinkwashing” of Israel — using the Jewish State’s general openness to its LGBT community as a public relations bludgeon to demonize Israel’s Arab and Muslim adversaries, where LGBT communities face oppression and discrimination.

“Marc,” the star of the high-production-value clip, said he became interested in broadening his activism beyond LGBT issues by working for the flotilla. He claims that, after he contacted organizers, he was told his participation was not in the “overall interests of the flotilla,” insinuating a homophobic strain among participants. The “activist” said he began to further explore the flotilla, and found photos of participants interacting with officials from the militant Hamas group that runs the blockaded Gaza Strip. Watch it:

The video’s authenticity started to unravel almost immediately. The New York Times’s Lede blog, declaring the video a “hoax,” reported there has been “no evidence of homophobia by the [flotilla organizers], and indeed some of the participants in the new flotilla are gay.”

Bloggers Max Blumenthal, Ali Abunimah, and Benjamin Doherty quickly showed a trail of promotion by employees of top Israeli government offices — including that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and the true identity of the “activist.” His name was not “Marc” at all, but rather Omer Gershon.

Gershon, who no reporter seems to be able to reach, appears to be an Israeli aspiring actor and entrepreneur who was running a night club in Tel Aviv in 2009. Netanyahu’s office gave an Israeli reporter a statement noting that they promote various online content when it “can serve Israel’s campaigns.”

To criticize parties around the world that take anti-LGBT stances is of course perfectly fine, but creating a hoax video to discredit the flotilla activists — for a conjured incident of homophobia — under the banner of an LGBT rights makes a mockery of that struggle.

As ThinkProgress’s Ali Gharib previously noted, the State Department recently put out a statement warning that American citizens who join a flotilla of aid ships to Gaza that is leaving soon — the lead U.S. boat is calling itself the Audacity of Hope — may face arrest, injury, or even death resulting form Israeli military activities. This warning is particularly important given last year’s events, where a U.S. citizen was killed while aboard an aid flotilla.

 

Now, six Members of Congress have written a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to ensure the safety of Americans onboard aid flotillas to Gaza. The Members note that while Israel has every right to defend itself, that the measures it takes must “conform to international humanitarian and human rights law” and that the U.S. must also work to protect its own citizens:

We write to express our concern for the safety of American passengers on the U.S. ship The Audacity of Hope, which will set sail for Gaza in the next few days. We request that you do everything in your power to work with the Israeli government to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens on board. [...]

We wholeheartedly support Israel’s right, and indeed its duty, to protect its citizens from security threats. The measures it uses to do so, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international humanitarian and human rights law. We are encouraged that The Audacity of Hope organizers have stated that their cargo “is open to international inspection” and that they “are fully committed to nonviolence and the the tenets of international law”.

The letter comes at a time when other governments are taking much sterner lines on protecting the activists aboard the flotilla. “Israel must exercise all possible restraint and avoid any use of military force if attempting to uphold their naval blockade,” said Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Eamon Gilmore. “In particular, I would expect that any interception of ships is conducted in a peaceful manner and does not endanger the safety of our citizens or other participants.”

Earlier this week, Apple announced that it would pull an iPhone app published by a group of Palestinian activists calling for a third intifada (Arabic for uprising). The banning of the app came after complaints from the Israeli government and allied activists. In explaining the decision, an Apple spokesman said it violated “the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people” — likely because it protested Israeli policies and helped organize protests against that country’s military presence.

Yet Apple does not seem to be giving similar treatment to an app published by the Israeli Ministry of Affairs (MFA). The “Israel MFA” app features a newsroom, YouTube videos, and photos that portray the Palestinians as obstinant and violent, and convey the message that Israel is committed to peace. In the newsroom section, there are links to stories such as “Palestinian incitement distances peace” and praising the supposed “Israeli humanitarian lifeline to Gaza”:

As you can see from the screenshot above — or if you download the app by following the link here — the Israel MFA appears to have a mirrored purpose to the Third Intifada app that Apple banned — namely, to tell one side’s narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would appear to be an instance where the company is applying its policies in an inconsistent manner.

This isn’t the first time the company has been engaged in such activity. In 2009, Apple rejected an app advocating for single payer health care, reportedly calling it “politically charged.” One has to wonder why the company views the Palestinian cause or single payer health care as too politically toxic but does not feel the same way about an Israeli government progaganda outlet.

The State Department today released an updated travel warning for Israel and the Occupied Territories. The update signified that it was issued “to warn against participation in any attempt to reach Gaza by sea.” The warning is likely in light of the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” of humanitarian activists setting out any day now to break the blockade of Gaza enforced by the Israeli military.

Last year, a similar attempt to break the blockade ended in the deaths of nine people, including an American.

The State Department warning said:

The security environment within Gaza, including its border with Egypt and its seacoast, is dangerous and volatile. U.S. citizens are advised against traveling to Gaza by any means, including via sea. Previous attempts to enter Gaza by sea have been stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens participating in any effort to reach Gaza by sea should understand that they may face arrest, prosecution, and deportation by the Government of Israel. [...] On May 31, 2010, nine people were killed, including one U.S. citizen, in such an attempt.

The U.S. citizen killed was Furkan Doğan, a 19 year old permanent resident of Turkey who witnesses said was shot five times by Israeli commandos that made an early morning raid against the ship he was aboard. (Eight others, all Turkish nationals, were also killed.) The U.S. did not undertake or ask for any special investigations and seemed to accept the validity of Israel’s own investigations, which cleared the Jewish State’s armed forces of any wrong doing.

Both the blockade of Gaza and the raid on ships in international waters have had their legality questioned. Yesterday, the Israeli military attacked two Palestinian fishing boats off the Gaza coast, but within the limits Israel set for them.

State Department spokesperson Mark Toner recently said U.S. citizens who partook in the flotilla to break the Gaza blockade were putting themselves at risk:

We have made clear through the past year that groups and individuals who seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions that entail a risk to their safety.

During his recent visit to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remarked that “America has no better friend than Israel.” As Matthew Yglesias pointed out, the statement is “absurd.” This seems borne out by a travel warning that tells citizens not to try to get to Gaza by sea so that they don’t risk getting shot by their country’s “best friend.”

Last week, in a speech on the Middle East, President Obama reiterated long-standing US policy that there should be a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is based roughly on the pre-1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps.

Despite the fact that Obama’s declaration was nothing new, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the idea of pre-1967 borders, even using a news conference with Obama to call the proposal “indefensible.” His chief political rival, Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, disagreed, noting that the pre-1967 borders is already American policy.

Now, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is announcing that he plans to introduce a resolution condemning Obama’s advocacy for pre-1967 borders. Hatch sensationally claiming that Obama is “rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist“:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a press release today stating his intention to introduce a resolution next week disapproving of the policy concerning Israel that President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. “Israel is the United States’ strongest friend and ally,” Hatch said in the statement. “By calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders, President Obama has directly undermined her.”

Instead, Hatch said, “President Obama is rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist.” “This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous,” he said.

Yet what Hatch, Netanyahu, and their allies in the U.S. Congress are not saying is that most Israelis and Palestinians actually support a settlement based around 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps that result in a safe, secure, free, and prosperous independent Palestinian and Israeli states. Here is a roundup of some of the recent polling on the issue:

- PALESTINIANS SUPPORT PEACE: It a common refrain among those who would deny rights to the Palestinians that they are militantly opposed to Israel’s very existence and would never support a peaceful resolution. Yet the facts do not support this assertion. Polling conducted in 2009 indicated that 74 percent of Palestinians support a two-state solution based around the contours of the international consensus. Polling conducted in 2010 found that 71 percent support peace negotiations with Israel and that a majority of Palestinians oppose rocket attacks on the country. Last month, the top Palestinian diplomat at the UN asked that the international community support a solution based on the pre-1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps.

- ISRAELIS SUPPORT PEACE: While the pre-1967 borders were portrayed as primarily a Palestinian demand by the mainstream media and conservatives, the truth is that most Israelis are actually in favor of withdrawing settlements and establishing roughly these borders in exchange for peace. In a 2010 Brookings Institution poll, a plurality of Israelis supported this border arrangement along with mutually agreed land swaps. More recent polling from the Joint Israeli Palestinian Poll conducted by the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew University and the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 52 percent of Israelis support a peace agreement based roughly around the elements of the Saudi peace plan and Clinton Parameters, which would incorporate the pre-1967 borders, and that most Israelis support negotiating with Hamas. A 2011 poll conducted by a major Israeli newspaper shows that 53 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to seriously engage in peace talks that includes significant concessions.

While it is true that mort Palestinians support this agreement than Israelis — the status quo is much worse for them — it is also true that narrow majorities of Israelis support the general contours of a peace proposal that Obama and the wider international community are endorsing. Netanyahu, Hatch, and their allies in the U.S. Congress and Israeli Knesset are staking out positions that are out of step with public opinion and reality. The question is whether Obama is will use the levers at his disposal to force them to the negotiating table.

Last night, The Nation Institute hosted a debate between former congressman Brian Baird and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and moderated by The New York Times’s Roger Cohen about the UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, which documented alleged war crimes committed by both the Israeli military and Hamas forces during the 22-day long “Operation Cast Lead” conflict in Gaza in 2008.

At one point during the debate, Weiner began to say that the West Bank was more relatively prosperous than Gaza in part because there is no Israeli occupation there (although there is an enormous blockade). Cohen pointedly asked Weiner if he was really serious in claiming that Israel is not currently occupying the West Bank, which is the position of the international community and the United States. Weiner repeatedly insisted that there was no occupation there, even going as far as telling Cohen he agreed that there was “no IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] presence there”:

WEINER: You can see a difference in the development in the West Bank with 11 percent year over year growth, with no Israeli occupation there either, with increasing access to checkpoints —

COHEN: What about area C, D,

WEINER: Hold on, maybe this would be helpful

COHEN: No occupation in the West Bank, did I hear you right?

WEINER: Yes.

COHEN: Have you been to the West Bank lately?

WEINER: Yes.

COHEN: You didn’t see the IDF there?

WEINER: In Ramallah? No. In Nablus? No. Now can I tell ya there might be some people in this room who think Jerusalem is occupied.

COHEN: Well hold on a second there, let’s stick to the West Bank. You’re saying there is no IDF presence there?

WEINER: Yes.

Watch it:

It is simply false to say that the West Bank is not occupied and that there is no Israeli troop presence in the area. Both Nablus and Ramallah are the frequent subjects of Israeli military raids, and access to and from the cities is subject to Israeli control. Americans for Peace Now (APN) is a leading Middle East NGO that advocates for a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On its website, it has an interactive map of the Palestinian territories. The map lays out the presence of thousands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, each of which is connected to eachother by Israeli-only roads guarded by numerous Israeli military battalions and many more checkpoints. In the following map, each blue house represents an Israeli settlement:

It would be surprising to the Palestinian population in the West Bank, which has been under a state of occupation for 44 years, to hear that it lives free of Israeli military presence. This certainly is what the people who live in the territory want. Recent polling has found that 74 percent of the Palestinian population endorses a two-state solution where both the Israelis and Palestinians can live free in two independent states safe from occupation and terrorism. Yet such a solution will never happen as long as American politicians like Weiner advocate for a foreign policy that endorses every move Israel takes and fails to condemn its abuses against the Palestinian population. (HT: Mondoweiss)