as mark lynch pointed out several weeks ago, the obama administration got the israelis to significantly ease the blockade of gaza in return for a whitewash investigation of the flotilla incident. i understand that was the deal and, like lynch, i think the easing of the blockade was worth it.
but just because that's the deal, doesn't mean that anyone should take the ridiculous israeli commission's investigation seriously. sure, the army chief says that the other guys fired first. that's the story that would save his ass. but why is he even qualified to testify? he wasn't there. in fact, pretty much everyone testifying wasn't there.
maybe eventually they will have some of the IDF soldiers testify. at least their testimony of what happened would be relevant. but there doesn't seem to be any plans to have any of the mavi marmara passengers tell their side. and, at least so far, no one seems to be presenting any of the medical evidence, even though some of it (like the turkish-american who was shot at close range in the back of the head) directly contradicts the military chief's testimony. if they're not considering any evidence that contradicts the israeli government's official story, it's not an investigation.
during the soviet era. show trials designed to white wash the regime's actions were often presented in the western press as the kangaroo courts they were. why is anyone pretending this is a real investigation of anything?
