Something happened this morning. I just can't nail down the details.
I'd noticed a few stories over the last week about the flotilla heading to Gaza to deliver aid and supplies to an area that has been blockaded for the last several years. I saw one website report that the flotilla was going to stay in international waters for the time being, to avoid a nighttime confrontation with the Israeli Navy. When I woke up today, I saw headlines all over that there had been an attack, and that there were civilian casualties. The reports ranged from 2 dead to ten times that number, and it seemed that no two sources agreed on whether the civilians were armed and whether they were aggressive.
Here's the opening paragraph in the New York Times article about the incident:"Israel faced intense international condemnation and growing domestic questions on Monday after a raid by naval commandos that killed nine people, many of them Turks, on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza."
That seems to sum it up well. Then I read the The Guardian's take:
"Israel was engulfed by a wave of global condemnation last night after a botched assault on a flotilla carrying aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip ended in carnage and a diplomatic crisis involving the UN security council.
"A raid" is something that, at least to my mind, the police or elite soldiers carry out. An "assault" is something that is equally appropriate for gang violence as military action. Also, the "raid" in the Times' article "killed nine people." In the Guardians' take, the opening paragraph leaves out the precise body count, instead saying that it "ended in carnage and a diplomatic crisis."
As interesting as it was to try discerning a sense of condemnation in one that wasn't present in the other, they were both reporting the same incident. After reading an article on the Jerusalem Post's website, I was certain there had been another naval confrontation that I'd missed. Their lead:
"Obviously, many of those in the “Freedom Flotilla” were not engaged in a humanitarian mission. Had that been their prime motivation, they would have accepted Israel’s offer to escort them to Ashdod Port and arrange for the delivery of their supplies to Gaza, after security checks, over land. They also would have agreed without hesitation to convey a package from the family of the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for almost four years in Gaza, Gilad Schalit."
The words "international waters" do not appear even once in the article. Neither does the civilian death toll. Of course, it's not entirely fair to compare this article to the other two. The first two were front page stories and this is in opinion piece. There are two top stories on the Post's website as of this evening. One is about Turkey's reaction. The other: Zero housing starts in W. Bank.
It's too early for judgment. But it's not too early to start judging the enormous discrepancies between the Israeli and non-Israeli narratives.
