When you open up (or direct your browser to) your favorite newspaper on Tuesday morning, will its story on the violence aboard the Mavi Marmara accurately and prominently describe the contents of the videos shown here? If not — if, for example, the violent attacks on Israeli soldiers that prompted return fire are described only as an Israeli claim — your newspaper is not doing its job, betraying readers who expect accurate, full accounts of important stories.

Ron Ben Yishai of Ynet describes the unfolding of the battle on the Marvi Marmama, how the Israeli forces came equipped with paintball guns and finally resorting to lethal force after the violent attacks from the ship’s passengers, including the use of live fire and throwing a soldier from the top deck to a lower deck 30 feet below.

Below is IDF footage, with descriptions, of attacks against Israeli troops boarding the Mavi Marmara:

Following communication with CAMERA, Reuters commendably corrected an erroneous headline for the photo pictured here which appeared in the photo service available to clients. The erroneous headline misidentified an Israeli soldier, wounded in the violent confrontation on the Gaza flotilla today, as a pro-Palestinian activist. The erroneous headline, along with the caption which contained the correct information appear below:

When notified about the error, Reuters promptly corrected:

The New York Times‘ developing story today on the Gaza flotilla confrontation misses the boat on at least two key points.

1) Regarding the warning that the Israeli navy gave to the Free Gaza boats, Isabel Kershner writes selectively:

On Sunday, three Israeli Navy missile boats had left the Haifa naval base in northern Israel a few minutes after 9 p.m. local time, planning to intercept the flotilla. After asking the captains of the boats to identify themselves, the navy told them they were approaching a blockaded area and asked them either to proceed to Ashdod or return to their countries of origin.

The activists responded that they would continue toward their destination, Gaza.

Here is a video clip of the naval warning:

Notice that it also included an offer to the activists to land in Ashdod and have the aid delivered by land to Gaza, under the activists’ supervision. Kershner’s report does not relay the Israeli offer to transfer the aid to the Gaza population.The so-called human rights activists’ rejection of that offer was likewise not reported.

2) Kershner also reports without clarification the Turkish claim that Israel’s forcible boarding of the ships was a violation of international law:

“Israel launched this operation in international waters and to a ship flagged white, which is unacceptable under any clause of the international law,” the head of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Commission, Murat Mercan, said on the Turkish station NTV.

Yet, according to the San Remo Manual, it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.”

An Israeli soldier, injured while intercepting the Gaza flotilla, was evacuated by his comrades today (Alex Rozkovsky/Reuters)

The Free Gaza flotilla, described by the Wall Street Journal and others in the media as peace activists, has been overtaken by the Israeli navy — and all was not peaceful.

1) The IDF reports:

During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.

Several Israeli military personnel were wounded.

2) Also, from the IDF, two pistols were found on the “peace activists,” stolen from IDF troops. The activists reportedly opened fire on the troops.

3) As the Los Angeles Times reports:

Video images released by the protesters appeared to show passengers beating commandos with clubs as the soldiers rappelled onto the vessel’s deck. A live video feed, which showed bloodstains and injured people, was abruptly cut.

4) MEMRI provides an Al Jazeera clip of the activists chanting intifada songs and praising “martyrdom,” not the usual melodies sung by your garden variety peace activists.

5) Of course, let’s not forget who these peace activists are, from ISM to IHH. Many have endorsed violence in the past.

6) A broadcast today from Israel’s Channel 10 carries clips from Turkish CNN, showing the activists using clubs and other weapons against the Israeli forces:

The Jerusalem Post reports on a study my media monitors CIF Watch which find that Chris McGreal’s report on an alleged Israeli offer to sell nuclear arms to apartheid South Africa manipulated a key document:

In an analysis, CIF Watch shows that McGreal quoted from a part of the type-written document that was edited by hand soon afterwards – including a sentence that implies nuclear weapons were available – and said that McGreal injected his own opinion to infer that Israel was ready to supply the apartheid regime with nuclear weapons.

The paragraph McGreal used, written by a civil servant, states in its original form, prior to hand-written editing and deletions: “[South African Defense] Minister [P.W.] Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet [said to be the Jericho missile] provide [sic] the correct payload could be provided, Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.”

CIF Watch points out that words “provide” and “could be provided” were crossed out in the by-hand edit, and that “provide” was replaced by the words “subject to.” The latter part of the paragraph was also deleted, so that the only part of the paragraph that remained was the first part of the first sentence, which now read: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload.”

Ignoring the edit and using the entire original draft to back his claim, McGreal, in his Guardian article, asserted, based on the deleted wording: “The ‘three sizes’ are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.”

CIF Watch said that this was McGreal’s own opinion: “The person who ‘believes’ this last sentence is not identified, nor are his qualifications to draw this inference given, nor is any source provided for the inference. Plainly, McGreal does not have enough confidence in it to say “I believe it” and give his grounds.

See also criticism on the McGreal piece by Avner Cohen.

Yesterday Israeli papers reported that the German Deutsche Bank divested from the Israeli company Elbit, but could this be another false tale of BDS success? A Reuters report suggests that this is the case.

Don’t miss these critical updates about the delayed Gaza flotilla, due to arrive today:

1) Mere Rhetoric: Israel Publishes Travel Guide for Pro-Hamas Freedom Flotilla

2) Elder of Zion: Today’s Free Gaza Lies (on the amount of aid they are bringing)

3) CAMERA: Radical, Pro-Hamas ‘Flotilla’ Seeks Media Win