Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Mavi Marmara and the Exodus

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mavi-marmara-and-the-exodus/86983/
It’s going to be illuminating to see what the New York Times comes up
with for an editorial in respect of the so-called “aid flotilla” that
sought to run the blockade of Gaza. This afternoon, on a Times’ blog
called The Lede, Robert Mackey put up a post suggesting the events
earlier in the day echoed the events of 1947. His post quoted one
Israeli blogger as asking pointedly, “Will This Be the Palestinian
Exodus?” It was a reference to the violence with which the British
intercepted the Haganah packet, Exodus, as it sought to run an earlier
blockade. The Times blog yesterday quoted a dispatch issued by the Times
in 1947, reporting that one crewman of the Exodus, a Christian activist,
was accusing the British of having fired on Jews armed with nothing more
than potatoes and canned goods.
What the Times blog failed to quote was the attitude of the Times
itself, which back in 1947 issued an editorial sharply critical of the
decision of the Zionists to bring the Jews on the Exodus to Israel in
the first place. The Times wanted the Jews to suffer through their
desperation while the United Nations tried to find a peaceful solution
via some kind of 11 nation committee. It seems the General Assembly had
called on “all governments and all peoples” to observe a truce and, as
the Times put it, “to refrain meantime from ‘any action’ which ‘might
create an atmosphere prejudicial to an early settlement of the
question.’” Quoth the Times: “Despite this proper and reasonable
request, there arrived on the coast of Palestine, two months later, a
company of 4,500 unauthorized Jewish immigrants, aboard the ill-fated
Exodus.”
“Reckless” is the word the Times used to describe the how the truce
request was ignored by “those who arrange and finance unauthorized
immigration into Palestine.” It called such ignoring the “first act in a
tragic story.” The Times was not entirely against the Jews; it concluded
its editorial by noting that America had made its own contribution to
the tragedy by not being welcoming enough — by keeping “our doors, and
our hearts” closed — to the refugees trapped in Europe, a minority of
whom, it said, were Jews. It noted that had America, after the war,
taken a more generous attitude, “some of these voyagers on the Exodus
might now be well on their way to become useful American citizens, and
for others faith and hope would be kept alive.”
The one thing the Times failed to credit then was the idea that the real
source of hope for the Jews was the prospect of Israel itself. That hope
was made clear in the months and years after the voyage of the Exodus in
1947, if it had not been made so clear, at least to some, in the
millennia before. So what has the Times learned since then? Is it still
blind to the Zionist idea? Will it back the desire of those aboard the
Turkish-backed flotilla to get to Gaza 60-some years after it failed to
back the Jews who sought to get to Israel? Or will it finally see that
there is no parallel between the voyage of the Exodus, which was filled
with refugees with no home, and the voyage of the Turkish flotilla,
which is part of a war to destroy the home that was finally built to
accommodate the exodus from Europe of those Jews who survived the
Holocaust and made it to the land they’d been promised?

 with for an editorial
di proprietà di signori sionisti, con la cronaca mediorientale
affidata ad altri 2 signori che hanno figli nell'IDF. Una fonte al di
sopra di ogni sospetto