NY Times resorts to historical revisionism to smear Israel
Remember the violent confrontation aboard the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marvara, that tried to run Israel's blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza?
The New York Times revives the incident in an article in its June 5 edition, informing readers that Turkey has indicted four former Israeli military commanders and set their trial to start Oct. 6. ("Turkey Presses On Over Israeli Raid" page A5."
The article, however, quickly veers into historical revisionism in its depiction of what actually happened aboard the Mavi Marvara on May 31, 2010.
Here's the Times' version of events: "The ship was part of a flotilla headed for Gaza in defiance of the naval blockade that Israel imposed on the territory. Israeli commandos boarded the ship and nine activists were killed.
"..... Israel has refused to formally apologize, saying its commandos acted in self-defense."
According to the Times, the Israeli commandos boarded the Mavi Marvara and killed "nine activists." Why and how it came that these so-called activists -- in reality provocateurs bent on creating a violent confrontation -- were killed is kept by the Times as a deep, dark secret.
What the Times fails to tell its readers is that these Turkish "activists," armed with metal rods, knives and other lethal weapons, triggered a violent melee as they mercilessly attacked and beat Israeli commandos who were descending on the ship from a hovering helicopter. Before the Israeli commandos could respond or defend themselves, one of them was thrown from the top deck to a lower deck. Other commandos also were wounded, some within an inch of their lives.
So, it wasn't just a matter of the commandos boarding the ship and killing Turkish "activists." There was more than ample provocation by the Turkish side.
Belatedly and far too briefly, the article mentions that Israel, in refusing an apology, said its commandos acted in "self-defense." But why was there a need for the commandos to act in self-defense? The article doesn't say. It is totally mum about the brutal, bloody welcome extended to the commandos as they rappelled down to the ship.
In the absence of an accurate depiction of the beatings inflicted on the Israeli commandos, the "self-defense" reference leaves it up to readers to guess against what they might have been defending themselves. Perhaps they used lethal means to defend the blockade? Perhaps that's what's meant by "self-defense"? Who knows? The Times won't say.
Why? Because the intended tenor of the article is to load the dice against Israel and its commandos, while expunging the real source of culpability for why nine Turkish "activists" were killed. Turkey is exonerated; only Israel bears blame.
But it's not just what the Times prints about the incident that twists history. It's also what the Times omits - no mention that the other ships in the flotilla peacefully complied with Israeli instructions to check their cargo. No mention that Israel beforehand offered to let the Mavi Marvara dock at Ashdod, off-load the cargo and let Israel take it over land into Gaza, assuming it didn't contain weapons.
The mayhem-bent provocateurs get a pass, while Israeli commandos are maligned as wanton killers.