Excellent Telenor customer service

This last week my mobile phone started malfunctioning. I called Telenor who asked me to bring it in to a shop.

I tool it in to the shop on Knez Mihailova. They took a look at the phone and decided it needed repair.

They were about to issue me with a spare when they realised I needed a company stamp to authorise getting a loan phone (I am a business customer).

One of the managers overrode the procedure and accepted my work ID as proof enough.

It is now in getting repaired.

My experience, from calling the call centre and being offered an English option, through to talking to Customer Services and my treatment in the shop were all excellent.

After some recent Customer Service disasters, I just wanted to point out a truly exception company operating here in Serbia that we can all learn from.

Massive failure for SBB customer service

On Friday morning our SBB cable TV signal abruptly failed. I called the call centre and an agent told me there was a general problem in my area and it would be fixed later.

On Saturday morning it was still broken, so I called again. This time I was told that it was not that general problem, but something specific to me, so  “someone will call you later”. On Saturday afternoon I called again, and this time I was told “maybe they will call you today, maybe tomorrow”.

On Sunday, no call from SBB,  I called again and got the  “someone will call you later”. Of course no one called.

This afternoon (Monday) I called again and, yes,  “someone will call you later”. I explained that I had been told this every day for three days, so the agent put me on hold and then came back to tell me “That was the weekend, someone will call you later or tomorrow”.

I do not expect that call any time soon….

Some things that SBB could do to improve thremselves.

1. English option. Its is pot luck if you get an English speaking agent or not when you call the Call Centre. English language skills should be mandatory for all call centre staff. The new phone system (that seems to have gone live today) presents the caller with various options (Press 1 for …). All the options are in Serbian. No English option at all. They could learn from Telenor on this.

2. Tell the truth. I would much rather be told that there are too few engineers working at the weekend to be able to get my problem solved before Monday or Tuesday than fobbed off with nonsense about an imminent call. One can go out and buy an aerial, but not when you think the engineer is imminent.

3. If you say you will call back, then make sure you do. It is deeply frustrating to be told you will be called back then hear nothing day after day. I have Bel Medic do this to me today too. Must be the season for it.

Mesofacts and the lingering effects of propaganda

“Stop, smell the rose”, Dorcol, Belgrade, 2010

Update November 2016:

Two new pieces to add to this article:

Agnotology. It’s a term worth knowing, since it is going global. The word was coined by Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, who described it as “culturally constructed ignorance, created by special interest groups to create confusion and suppress the truth in a societally important issue.” It is especially useful to sow seeds of doubt in complex scientific issues by publicizing inaccurate or misleading data. – Bloomberg.com

And this great piece on nested debunking from FiveThirtyEight called “Who will debunk the debunkers?

Original post

A Boston Globe article – “Warning: Your reality is out of date” – alerted me to the concept of the Mesofact (http://www.mesofacts.org/):

When people think of knowledge, they generally think of two sorts of facts: facts that don’t change, like the height of Mount Everest or the capital of the United States, and facts that fluctuate constantly, like the temperature or the stock market close.

But in between there is a third kind: facts that change slowly. These are facts which we tend to view as fixed, but which shift over the course of a lifetime. For example: What is Earth’s population? I remember learning 6 billion, and some of you might even have learned 5 billion. Well, it turns out it’s about 6.8 billion.

Or, imagine you are considering relocating to another city. Not recognizing the slow change in the economic fortunes of various metropolitan areas, you immediately dismiss certain cities. For example, Pittsburgh, a city in the core of the historic Rust Belt of the United States, was for a long time considered to be something of a city to avoid. But recently, its economic fortunes have changed, swapping steel mills for technology, with its job growth ranked sixth in the entire United States.

These slow-changing facts are what I term “mesofacts.” Mesofacts are the facts that change neither too quickly nor too slowly, that lie in this difficult-to-comprehend middle, or meso-, scale.

This got me thinking about how this plays out in human affairs.

I thought of how 10 years since the end of the last Balkan war (Kosovo 1998-1999) and the establishment of a liberal democracy in Serbia, Serbs are still thought of as the “bad guys” in the Kosovo story, even though we have seen over a decade of exemplary Serb behaviour (economic and social liberalisation, reconciliation with neighbours, apologies for crimes committed by Serbs, cooperation with international authorities, use of diplomacy not aggression) and yet during the same period in Kosovo we saw of ongoing political and violent oppression of of Serbs (and other minorities), massacres, ethnic cleansing, rampant corruption and organised crime penetrating all levels of government and society to operate the vilest practices of human slavery, drug and weapons smuggling.

The same is true of the Afrikaner people of South Africa. Fifteen years since the end of Apartheid, one third of Afrikaners are living below the poverty line. Rural Afrikaans farmers are being subjected to what some describe as a genocidal campaign of murder and intimidation. Three thousand people have been killed, many of whom tortured and mutilated in acts of near incomprehensible cruelty and sadism. Despite this, both at home and abroad they are still seen as a strongly, privileged group, even though they are politically and economically disenfranchised, and subject to violent oppression.

Outdated mesofacts about the Serbs and Afrikaners dominate the public discourse, and these “facts” strongly influence the fortunes of these people.

When you combine the phenomenon of the mesofact, with disinformation and the confirmation bias, you have entire nations trapped in a negative stereotype deliberately maintained by special interest groups for political purposes.

In fact the mesofact can be established over time by relentless propaganda and other disinformation. Once the “facts” about the target group are established – they become Flat Earth News – all it takes is an occasional “top up” to refresh the stereotype. Reporting the anniversaries of massacres is a good excuse.

In the Serbian example, the media focusses on the trials of notorious Serbs over crimes committed in the 1990’s whilst ignoring the daily attacks on Serbs in Kosovo today.

Similarly, in South Africa a case where a white farmer murdered one of his workers then fed his remains to lions made front page news across the world, yet the 11 gruesome murders committed against white farmers that month were never reported, and continue to be largely ignored to this day.

Nebojsa Malic of Gray Falcon explores this in relation to the recent Gaza Flotilla incident, where he observes that the Israel’s were “Serbed”:

It should be obvious by now that the “Gaza flotilla” was a trap. Israel walked right into it. Fortunately for the Israelis, they too were filming the whole thing, and knew how to use blogs and YouTube, so they may have even come out ahead in the propaganda skirmish that followed. But there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the whole flotilla operation was designed from the start to be a propaganda stunt. The “activists” (is that what they are called these days?) aboard those ships were armed and ready. They wanted to be stopped and boarded, so they could scream to high heaven about being abused by the Israeli “pirates” on the high seas. It almost worked, too.

…the entire strategy employed by Hamas seems to be a reprise of Sarajevo. So the Israeli presence on its borders becomes a “siege”, the legitimate blockade of a hostile polity becomes “strangling”, and Israeli raids in response to missiles fired from Gaza become “terror.” Israel is dubbed an occupying power even though it unilaterally retreated from Gaza in 2005, leaving it as a de facto independent city-state. And Israeli inspections in international waters, though legal, become “piracy.”

Hamas routinely fires missiles from Gaza at Israeli civilians across the border. They see nothing wrong with this – remember, to Hamas, Israel has no right to exist, and needs to be obliterated. But if Israel retaliates, whether by assassinating Hamas leaders or sending tanks into Gaza to destroy missile launchers, or by enforcing a perfectly legal blockade to deny Hamas weapons and ammunition, while allowing food and other civilian supplies in – ah, that’s nothing short of “genocide,” then!

Israel has a powerful conventional army, navy, air force, and most likely even nuclear weapons (though not officially acknowledged). It has defeated Arab armies on numerous occasions in open warfare, and has successfully fought terrorism and insurgency through special operations. So those who wish it destroyed came up with a way of turning that strength into a weakness: cast themselves as innocent, unarmed, helpless victims and howl as loud as possible about being abused by that very Israel whose strength no one can dispute.

We can now chance a definition of the verb “To Serb”:

To Serb (verb): To place a country, ethnic group or people in a situation where their designated victims can literally get away with murder yet be portrayed as innocent and virtuous, while they, the designated culprit, can be slandered with impunity, and anything they do is portrayed as as purely evil and motivated by malice.

The mechanisms is simple and effective. It is a staple of 4th Generation warfare, which is conducted mostly as a pantomime for the global mediated masses (public opinion). Perceived weakness is an asset, and perceived strength is a liability. One side is cartoonishly evil, the other saintly and beyond reproach. Simple tropes and characters for a simple media landscape.

So, in summary, the way to defeat your enemy in the 21st Century:

  1. “Serb” your enemy so that their evil become Flat Earth News
  2. Maintain a steady stream of propaganda, disinformation and selective reporting to “top up” the myth of evil applied to your enemy
  3. Attack and otherwise provoke your enemy, relying on your friends in the media to ignore your violence and provocations
  4. When your enemy counter-attacks or resists your violence, cry foul and rely on your friends on the media to portray them as evil and depraved.
  5. Continue to exploit your enemy’s vile reputation in the post-conflict era to cover up and distract attention from your own crimes against them and corruption.

The neurobiological effects of the internet

Great piece from Charles Crawford, commenting on a review by Adam Thierer of Nicholas Carr’s new book about how the internet is changing our brains:

The general Carr argument is that the immediacy of unlimited communication actually changes the way we think, to the extent of affecting the way our very neural circuits tick:

… fewer and fewer people are likely to be engaged in such contemplative, deep reading activities due to the highly distractive nature of the Internet and digital technologies.

“With the exception of alphabets and number systems, the Net may well be the single most powerful mind-altering technology that has ever come into general use,” Carr claims. “At the very least, it’s the most powerful that has come along since the book.”

The Net and multimedia “strains our cognitive abilities, diminishing our learning and weakening our understanding” …

…Anyway, does the Internet in fact change our brains?


We read more, but surely we also read less systematically. We get jumpy if we have not checked our emails/texts.

I am struck by the way even serious grown-ups now think there is nothing wrong in abruptly tuning out of a conversation with the person next to them while checking some or other e-device. Go to a park or restaurant and look at people who are ostensibly together in fact ignoring each other, as they tap away on little gadgets or simply talk to people on their mobiles. The remote starts to get more ‘real’ or at least immediate/important than reality.

Read on at: http://www.charlescrawford.biz/blog/the-internet-changes-our-brains

Neuromarketing and the Pepsi Paradox

Great discussion with Danish science journalist Lorne Frank on “All In The Mind“.

Natasha Mitchell:…the Pepsi paradox: that actually is very interesting isn’t it? In a sense it gets at the neurobiology of branding.

Lorne Frank: That was a study that started off this whole neuromarketing, I think it was in 2004, it’s been known for a long time that there’s this thing called the Pepsi paradox because Coca Cola of course sells much more than Pepsi. But in blind tastings most people will say that they prefer Pepsi, so why do they actually buy Coke? So there’s this guy Clinton Kilts in Georgia who wanted to find out what is going on in the brain, where is branding actually happening, can we pinpoint it somewhere? So he took people and did that blind tasting while they were in a MRI scanner (they just had very, very long straws).

Natasha Mitchell: Is that what they did?

Lorne Frank: Yeah, it looks crazy to see a picture of it, they would be sucking on these straws metres long, and they would guess Pepsi or Coke, and in the first round it was blind tasting, they didn’t know what was what. And you could see the response in the brain and the response to the one, the drink they liked the most, there was more reward, basically, in reward areas.

Natasha Mitchell: It’s a whole sort of circuitry in the brain, it’s no one spot.

Lorne Frank: Everything in the brain is basically circuitry, but there are areas where you can see that will really light up and become active when you ingest something sweet for example—oh, that gives you a reward. And Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, so most people would like that best and it would give the best response, basically. And then in the next round they would tell people, now you’re ingesting Pepsi and now you’re ingesting Coke. And then you would have the same, initially the same kind of reward reaction, but then an area in the front of the brain where we actually do our conscious thinking and whatever would come on. There would be an area that is usually involved when you think about yourself, and you think about what you like in the world. This would come on and would sort of actually convince the reward system that oh no, Pepsi is not the best drink, Coke is the best drink. So the reward would actually be dampened so they would actually trick themselves to like Coke better because of this branding effect that goes on in the thinking part of the brain.

Natasha Mitchell: Real identification with the branding.

Lorne Frank: Yes, this is more me.

In The Mind – 29 May 2010 – It’s a Mindfield! All in the Mind at the
2010 Sydney Writers’ Festival

Jerry Weinberg’s ten laws of trust

Jerry Weinberg is a legend in Project Management and Consulting circles. Here are his 10 Laws of Trust:

1. Nobody but you cares about the reason you let another person down.
2. Trust takes years to win, moments to lose.
3. People don’t tell you when they stop trusting you.
4. The trick of earning trust is to avoid all tricks.
5. People are never liars—in their own eyes.
6. Always trust your client—and cut the cards.
7. Never be dishonest, even if the client requests it.
8. Never promise anything.
9. Always keep your promise.
10. Get it in writing, but depend on trust.

Conferences That Work | Jerry Weinberg’s ten laws of trust

Doomsayers, is it time to retire?

Good one from the New York Times on Matt Ridley’s new book “The Rational Optimist“:

Long before “sustainable” became a buzzword, intellectuals wondered how
long industrial society could survive. In “The
Idea of Decline in Western History,”
after surveying predictions
from the mid-19th century until today, the historian Arthur Herman
identifies two consistently dominant schools of thought.

The first school despairs because it foresees inevitable ruin. The
second school is hopeful — but only because these intellectuals foresee
ruin, too, and can hardly wait for the decadent modern world to be
replaced by one more to their liking. Every now and then, someone comes
along to note that society has failed to collapse and might go on
prospering, but the notion is promptly dismissed in academia as happy
talk from a simpleton. Predicting that the world will not end is also
pretty good insurance against a prolonged stay on the best-seller list.

“The Rational Optimist,”
by Matt Ridley. It does much more than debunk the doomsaying. Dr.
Ridley provides a grand unified theory of history from the Stone Age to
the better age awaiting us in 2100.
It’s an audacious task, but he has the intellectual breadth for it… he takes on all of human history, starting with our mysteriously
successful debut. What made Homo sapiens so special? Dr. Ridley argues
that it wasn’t our big brain, because Neanderthals had a big brain, too.
Nor was it our willingness to help one another, because apes and other
social animals also had an instinct for reciprocity.

…“Forget wars, religions, famines and poems for the moment,” Dr. Ridley
writes. “This is history’s greatest theme: the metastasis of exchange,
specialization and the invention it has called forth, the ‘creation’ of

You can appreciate the timesaving benefits through a measure devised by
the economist William D.
: how long it takes the average worker to pay for an hour of
reading light. In ancient Babylon, it took more than 50 hours to pay
for that light from a sesame-oil lamp. In 1800, it took more than six
hours of work to pay for it from a tallow candle. Today, thanks to the
countless specialists producing electricity and compact fluorescent bulbs, it takes less
than a second. That technological progress, though, was sporadic.
Innovation would flourish in one trading hub for a while but then
stagnate, sometimes because of external predators — roving pirates,
invading barbarians — but more often because of internal parasites, as
Dr. Ridley writes:

“Empires bought stability at the price of creating a parasitic court;
monotheistic religions bought social cohesion at the expense of a
parasitic priestly class; nationalism bought power at the expense of a
parasitic military; socialism bought equality at the price of a
parasitic bureaucracy; capitalism bought efficiency at the price of
parasitic financiers.”

Progress this century could be impeded by politics, wars, plagues or climate change, but Dr. Ridley argues that,
as usual, the “apocaholics” are overstating the risks and
underestimating innovative responses.

“The modern world is a history of ideas meeting, mixing, mating and
mutating,” Dr. Ridley writes. “And the reason that economic growth has
accelerated so in the past two centuries is down to the fact that ideas
have been mixing more than ever before.”

Our progress is unsustainable, he argues, only if we stifle innovation
and trade, the way China and other empires did in the past. Is that
possible? Well, European countries are already banning technologies
based on the precautionary principle requiring advance proof that
they’re risk-free. Americans are turning more protectionist
and advocating byzantine restrictions like carbon tariffs.
Globalization is denounced by affluent Westerners preaching a return to

Findings – Doomsayers Beware, a Bright Future Beckons – NYTimes.com

The Gaza flotilla fiasco and Turkey’s slide into extremism

Right now we face two happy endings: either martyrdom, or reaching Gaza” – Activist aboard the Gaza flotilla, May 2010

“The Gaza Flotilla was successful political manoeuvre planed by Hamas and their supporters. Success was guaranteed by win-win position of operation. Either the Flotilla goes through blockade or Israel uses force to stop it – with both cases Hamas could take a tactical win. The later option realized even better than dreamed: There were casualties, there were Western politicians, aid workers from Israel’s former ally Turkey, there were other useful public figures brought along for camouflage to guarantee media coverage. Same time IDF acted according insufficient information without sufficient force and was late in its media response giving the theatre on hands of Hamas. The early conclusions that Israel aggressively attacked Turkish aid vessel carrying desired humanitarian relief to Gaza will have its effect to political climate long time.” –  Ari Rusila

I decided to wait a while before commenting on Sunday’s incident on the Mavi Marmara. As usual, the first draft of history is composed mostly of lies.

Now the facts are starting to emerge and the global rush to denounce Israel was clearly premature.

Its clear what happened now.

There were six ships. Five were peaceful, the sixth was operated by the radical Islamist group Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), an organisation with links to Turkey’s ruling AK party and to international terrorism.

On that ship, the Marvi Marmara, the IHH extremists prepared for a fight. They fashioned weapons waited for the Israelis. When the Israelis landed, expecting peaceniks singing defiant songs, they were attacked by a lynch mob.

Instead of ending up like the two British soldiers who were beaten to death in Belfast, they defended themselves. Nine of their attackers were killed.

The evidence is mounting that these Islamic radicals cynically co-opted a humanitarian mission for their own, violent purpose.

Like anarchists at a peace march, they violently exploited the legitimate protest, and right at the middle of this is Turkey’s right-wing radical government.

The more footage that emerges, the more the Israeli case is strengthened and the more we see rapid back-tracking in the media.

Of course we are seeing the the usual mock outrage of the Arab street. The new elements is the gasconade of Turkey’s populist Islamist government and the country’s general slide towards radicalism.

Turkey’s recent cosying up to Iran and staged confrontation with Israel,  should be a warning to us all about the nature and intentions of the Islamist government.

Luckily there are many in Turkey that are deeply unhappy with the swing towards Islamism, not least of which are the army.

These are very dangerous times. A Democrat led US government, increasingly hostile Iran, Turkey’s right wing populist government and a heavily armed Israel exasperated by the global hypocrisy…..dangerous mix.

Do not be too sure that the Turks will do anything other than blow hot air. Their armed forces are traditionally pro-Israeli. By ordering their Navy to confront the Israelis, they may provoke and internal crisis in Turkey. I also think that the Americans who have kept a very low profile so far, will unsheath their fangs if there is a genuine threat to Israel.

You might also see Israel agree to partially lift the blockade in return for concessions, perhaps access to Gilad Shalit, or even his release.

There are very serious questions about how Israel conducted itself. Why did they use commando’s? Why did they not jam the signals from the boats? How come they did not know in advance that these radicals were plotting serious violence? I am sure heads will roll in Israel for yet another botched job.

I am not sure though, that Israel is as big a loser as it seems. What has it really lost? Public opinion battle? Even before the incident the they knew they had already lost and said so. The incident sparked the utterly predictable “outrage” that is a staple of any incident involving Israel. Israel’s usual detractors are shrill, its usual defenders are clamourous. No change there.

“Losing Turkey as an ally”? The current Islamist and populist government is pandering to its base with anti-Israeli rhetoric and sponsorship of the IHH. There are very strong and stable moderate, pro-Israeli forces in Turkey that are strongly against this rabble rousing, and the Israelis know it, so do the Turks.

One of the positives to come out of the event is highlighting of the Turkish government’s increasing radicalism (the head of the Catholic Church in Turkey was murdered today, the latest in a spate of attacks on Christians), and the role of radical NGOs like IHI in the “peace movement”.

It may also lead to a partial lifting of the blockade – by that I mean vastly more genuinely humanitarian aid being allowed in – which will be a good thing.

Its way to early to see what the full ramifications will be.

A mere 4 days later the Western press (e.g The Times of London), who immediately and unreservedly denounced Israel the day after the incident, are starting to come around to the Israeli position.

Apart from Turkey, there has been a rapid cooling of diplomatic rhetoric against Israel too, I suspect as a result of governments learning the truth about what happened.

I will leave you with a recent editorial from the Jerusalem Post, reproduced in full:

The rush to judgement

The details of precisely what happened before dawn on the deck of the Mavi Marmara streamed in throughout Monday, and some were still unclear as night fell. How many pro-Palestinian activists participated in the attacks on the naval commandos who abseiled from helicopters onto the Turkish ship – the one vessel where the soldiers, armed with paintball guns, encountered heavy violence? Which weapons were wielded by the mobs on the ship – “just” pipes, stones and knives, or guns, too? Were the gunshot wounds sustained by some of the commandos fired from their own handguns, which had been seized by the violent activists? Or were some of those on this “humanitarian” mission armed?

Although so much remained to be clarified, there could be no doubt that the injury and loss of life were a premeditated act not by Israeli armed forces, who had been repeatedly told to exercise restraint, but by those on the Mavi Marmara.

Nonetheless, unsurprisingly, much of the international community rushed to pass judgment, and found Israel guilty. It was as if a pent-up torrent of rabid anti-Israel hatred had finally found its release. And the criticism, of course, will be understood as legitimation for the most violent of the activists, emboldening further such incidents.

WITHIN HOURS of the confrontation at sea, Turkey ordered its ambassador out of Israel, endangering 61 years of diplomatic relations. The Turkish government, of course, was to some extent a sponsor of the flotilla, and its stance on Israel has become viciously hostile since Operation Cast Lead a year and a half ago. Demonic depictions of the IDF have become a feature of the country’s popular culture, in Turkish-produced TV dramas such as Valley of the Wolves, Separation: Palestine in Love and War and Ayrilik that have aired on Turkey’s state-run TV station.

Now, Jews living in Turkey are being advised to remain indoors. Israel has issued an alert, warning its citizens not to travel to Turkey out of fear they might be singled out for attack.

Closer to home, Israel’s hard-earned diplomatic relations with Jordan and Egypt might be hurt as the Arab League calls an emergency meeting slated for Tuesday. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s choice of the word “slaughter” to describe what happened sheds renewed doubt on the fragile beginnings of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

And amid rioting in Wadi Ara, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch is warning of possible conflagrations inside Israel instigated by Arab Israelis, reminiscent of the first and second intifadas.

In Europe, Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague “deplored” the loss of life – a relatively mild reaction. France asserted that “nothing could justify” the military operations against a “humanitarian initiative.” Sweden, Greece, Iceland, Germany, Denmark and Italy also criticized Israel in varying degrees, while Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, called for the lifting of the Israeli blockade on Gaza, foreshadowing the pressure Israel will be under in coming days as the EU prepares to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the ramifications of the Mavi Marmara incident. Spain, the current EU president, branded the storming of the flotilla “unacceptable.”

In this atmosphere, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to cut short his trip abroad, cancelling a planned meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington, was unavoidable.

WHAT HAPPENED on the Mavi Marmara was tragic. But it did not justify the international response. Israel left Gaza in 2005, removing every civilian and every military remnant. It would have no quarrel with Gaza if it had not faced relentless missile attacks from the Strip, and if the Hamas government there were not arming itself at every opportunity in pursuit of its declared goal of Israel’s elimination.

Israel’s restrictions on the flow of people and material into Gaza stem solely from the need to prevent the arming of Hamas and its terrorist allies. That was why the “Freedom flotilla” was intercepted, and that was why Israel had offered to transport the supplies aboard the six vessels over land once they had been checked.

The premeditated refusal of those aboard one of the ships to act peacefully when confronted by IDF troops was the trigger for the violence at sea. Confronted with such violence when they had been expecting non-violent protests, or at worst, low-level clashes, it is doubtful that the soldiers of any of the nations that rushed to criticize Israel would have acted any differently. Indeed, it is likely that the consequences would have been considerably worse.

Notes and Resources

For a great summary of the situation, see  http://www.markhumphrys.com/free.gaza.html

‘I want to be a shahid’: Flotilla activist hoped for martyrdom – Haaretz

Hamas blocking entry of flotilla aid into Gaza – Haaretz

Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us – Haaretz

Turkish airlines pilot removes Israeli co-pilot from plane – Jerusalem Post

FM: Lift blockade if Hamas lets Red Cross visit Schalit –  Jerusalem Post

Biden: Israel has absolute right to act on security concerns – Jerusalem Post

Hamas refuses to accept aid cargo from flotilla – Jerusalem Post

Israel points finger at Turkish activists – FT

Why was Israeli raider force unprepared for violent resistance? Debka

Turkish charity that sent aid convoy to Gaza ‘has links to terrorism’ – The Times

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion – Stratfor