Gaza Peace Flotilla

[nonperson]

Considering the number of pinkos and Islamophiles etc. here I am surprised that there is no thread about the Gaze Peace Flotilla.

Is it a non-issue in the States?

PS: If you belong to either of the aforementioned groups don't bother replying to this as you will probably be on my ignore list. I will have to wait until somebody quotes you to see what you said. And then ignore it. :grin:

[Anonymous]

I'm not surprised, Israel proved their trigger-happiness a long time ago. This news is on the same caliber as the U.S. putting an oil company that murdered 11 of their workers due to negligence in charge of cleaning up their own mess, or North Korea torpedoing a boat. It's just what you expect.

[Madrigal]

PS: If you belong to either of the aforementioned groups don't bother replying to this as you will probably be on my ignore list. I will have to wait until somebody quotes you to see what you said. And then ignore it. :grin:

Yeah, because the only reason I'd post in your thread is to talk to you, burger brain.

I love the White House's reaction: "We have to analyze the circumstances." They've been analyzing them since 1948 and they still have their dicks in their mouths.

[barrylevon]

Yeah, because the only reason I'd post in your thread is to talk to you, burger brain.

I love the White House's reaction: "We have to analyze the circumstances." They've been analyzing them since 1948 and they still have their dicks in their mouths.

Just in case, you know, being a member of one of those groups and all.

Other than that, this looks like business as usual.

[Ferrus]

Interesting parallels with the Exodus incident. ;)

[nonperson]

Interesting parallels with the Exodus incident. ;)

True. Many national service RN sailors had an interesting time at the hands of Jewish emigrants as the mandate era came to an end.

[Ferrus]

True. Many national service RN sailors had an interesting time at the hands of Jewish emigrants as the mandate era came to an end.
Well in the end it served the purposes of the US, USSR and most European countries to dump large numbers of Jewish refugees in Israel. The humanitarian situation was causing huge social pressures in Eastern Europe, at a time when famine was becoming a real threat. That along with the withdrawl of the British army just created a fait accompli. It's impossible to talk about this topic without offending either side so I prefer to offend both. As far as I can tell all of the parties in the conflict have blundered forward with little by way of principle and much by way of stupidity and zealotry. By that I mean primarily that the Israelis have basically jettisoned any chance of long term survival without consistant US hegemony, and ensured that their neighbours will seek their destruction the first sniff of an opportunity they get and that the Arabs have consistently fought battles in ways that strategically they couldn't have won at the time and have been punished for it.

I have little sympathy for the leaders and politicians on both sides too, they both seem dominated by religious zealotry and ideological purity over the social and economic well-being of their people. And given the sharply differing world views of the two sides which are existentially exclusive for the most part I don't really see there being peace any time soon.

I don't really see the argument for the instantiation of Israel. It seems to have as much logical cogency as the Welsh demanding to rule Britain on the basis they have a patrimony on the land given their ancestors in Roman times once populated the locality. But howbeit, the number of Jews residing in the territory now is a brute fact, Israel's end would be as great a calamity as its creation. So in pragmatic terms, some kind of two-state solution on 1967 borders with freer movement of populations and some kind of economic stimulus package marketed as compensation for lost property in 1948 to reduce unemployment and poverty among the Palestinian refugees seems to make most practical sense and would probably limit the intifada to a smaller number of diehards. This seems a kind of rational compromise to the benefit of both populations, but I suppose when religion is involved, and ethnic tension of 60 years standing these sort of things aren't supposed to make sense.

[sandwich]

I am continually impressed by Israel's flagrant disregard of international law, among other things. It used to be that they could do no wrong in the eyes of American public, but if they continue at this rate they may even be held accountable in another eight years or so.

[YHWH]

0

[Polemarch]

Considering the number of pinkos and Islamophiles etc. here I am surprised that there is no thread about the Gaze Peace Flotilla.


I was surprised too. Like I have stated in other threads, I have basically no sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Not going to justify why.

I do think it's interesting that the media is focusing on the "brutality" of the Israeli response - but no one is paying any mind to the pitiable negligence of launching a "flotilla" in the first place. If your little country wants to keep firing rockets at my civilians, and I decide to blockade you, you shouldn't be surprised at my brutality when you play games with it. Turkish help or otherwise.

[fripping]

i don't see the controversy here. unarmed boats full of aid are an obvious terrorist threat.

[rhinosaur]

i don't see the controversy here. unarmed boats full of aid are an obvious terrorist threat.

Obvious or not, that aid could have been composed of weapons and ammunition. You know, underneath the MREs.

[Ferrus]

i don't see the controversy here. unarmed boats full of aid are an obvious terrorist threat.
I think there would have been a lot less of an issue had they just searched the boat for the purposes of determing whether there were explosives. All reports suggested they went in all guns blazing, which is where the problem lies. Although I'm aware of the fact that we need to wait to find out exactly what happened.

In the end it is all excellent propoganda. And strategically it is this sort of stunt which the Palestinian authorities should have played all along, instead of resorting to a guerilla war that was unwinninable and merely dissipated any international pressure Israel may have faced, and given the Israel's all the excuses they needed to act as if they were facing an existential threat (which they don't, at least, not yet - but such nice military details are unimportant for the world media).

[nonperson]

Obvious or not, that aid could have been composed of weapons and ammunition. You know, underneath the MREs.

MREs? That is inhuman.

But fear not!! According to the Danish reporter Steffen Jensen the people of Gaza have other options. That is along as they don't want to eat their meals on a new patio as the damned Israelis and Egyptians are still prohibiting cement.

[awesome]

Lessee.

Gaza: I want to kill Israel
Israel: Gaza can exist

Who's creating the issue?

But of course it's ridiculous to think Israel doesn't want weapons coming in that can kill them. Ridiculous to think they should monitor what comes into there. Ridiculous to let the goods be inspected and then letting the humanitarian aid go in. Ridiculous to think being attacked by a mob might result in violence.

[Anonymous]

Ridiculous to think being attacked by a mob might result in violence.

Yes, the poor Israeli commandos with helicopters were just defending themselves.

[Polemarch]

Yes, the poor Israeli commandos with helicopters were just defending themselves.

Why is this a sympathy game?

Every reporter thinks they deserve a Pulitzer Prize for the stating the obvious - but the elusive truth is that there are no right ways for Israel to handle their Palestinian problems.

Every administration has learned this the hard way. The peaceniks have learned that easing restrictions leads to a dramatic jump in terror attacks, because the Palestinians gain access to weapons. When that fails, and the hardliners take a turn of power, they crack down and earn the ire and disgust of the world media. Where Israel fails the most is in PR, not policy.

Israel is a sovereign nation, and the terror threat is real. Propose a workable solution that acknowledges the generations of hatred, misinformation, lies, and unspeakable violence on both sides. Find a way to loosen the grip that extremists have on both sides, and allow for a secure environment in which investors are willing to build industrial capacity. Generate economic growth, so the common people are not dependent on terrorist organizations for their livelihood.

But above all, acknowledge that Israel is a sovereign nation that has a right to enforce its laws and maintain the integrity of its borders. Disagree all you want with their policies - call them heartless butchers of the innocent - but give some serious thought to how impossible their situation is first.

[nonperson]

Disagree all you want with their policies - call them heartless butchers of the innocent - but give some serious thought to how impossible their situation is first.

This is an interesting comment. You perceive their situation is impossible. Now why is this? Let say instead the West's media leaned to the right politically or better still was objective, does the Israeli position look impossible viewed through those different lenses? Probably not.

[Polemarch]

I elaborated a bit here:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=41672

[nonperson]

I elaborated a bit here:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=41672

Oh right!! I see. Quite reasonable. I suppose. Um. Yes.

[awesome]

Let say instead the West's media leaned to the right politically or better still was objective, does the Israeli position look impossible viewed through those different lenses? Probably not.
Wow, man you have some serious arguing ability. [/sarcasm dripping so much the monitor shorted]

[NoahFence]

Yes, the poor Israeli commandos with helicopters were just defending themselves.

I'm not sure if you meant it as ironic or not, but the Israelis themselves are using this justification. They literally said that all they did was jump out of some helicopters and wave some guns around, these guys attacked us with sticks totally unprovoked, what choice did we have but to defend ourselves with assault rifles?

My only question, at this point: I'm not sure if they believe their own bullshit. The ethical "dilemma" seems fairly cut and dry to me. If someone kicked my door in at night, and I attacked them with a bat, they do NOT get to use "Self defense" as a reason to shoot me.

[foodeater]

I've been cut off from the world for a while, but from what I've read the commandos went in planning on using paintball guns, the people on the boat attacked with iron rods and chairs, and somehow guns were fired. Is that right? If it is then the people on the boat overreacted but they may not have known that they were- they could have thought they were actual guns instead of paintball guns. So they thought they were in danger (or were just really mad, who knows?) and the commandos responded with equivalent or greater force. The first article I read about it said that the aid workers grabbed the commandos' handguns and started shooting, at which point the commandos shot back. I'd side with Israel if that's what happened.

[D33P7HR047]

Palestine is still the Issue (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667764379758632511&hl=en&emb=1#docid=746557429802139093)

[wheelchairdoug]

Yeah, because the only reason I'd post in your thread is to talk to you, burger brain.

I love the White House's reaction: "We have to analyze the circumstances." They've been analyzing them since 1948 and they still have their dicks in their mouths.

:theclap:


i could psychoanalyze the end of this, but i'd much rather not risk getting banned at post number four.:grin:

[Xephon]

Israeli army releases 'flotilla footage' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199862.stm)

It appears from this video that the aid activists were prepared for this eventuality. The video shows activists attacking the commandos with clubs and sticks as they fast-roped down onto the decks of the aid ship. I'm not sure if this is the full story, but I don't think the Israeli soldiers would have fired first if they had not come under attack. Their orders were probably to shut down the engines or change the ship's course. (But maybe the commandos fired first and enraged the activists? It seems unlikely.)

The activists had to have known that the Israelis weren't planning to kill everybody on the ship. They would attempt to capture it. Why would you try to fight armed soldiers with clubs? Leaving aside the legality of boarding a foreign ship in international waters, attacking armed soldiers whose orders you know are to seize the ship (vs. killing and raping the ship's crew) with clubs seems to be asking for a bullet in the face. You did what you could to get aid through to people in suffering, but if someone has a gun in your face, don't try to hit them. You're not going to like the outcome.

[sandwich]

Yisraelim on facebook are keeping it classy (http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=121725647863227#!/pages/yrwslym/lhwzy-lhwrg-t-hk-hnyn-zwby/121725647863227).

[nonperson]

Wow, man you have some serious arguing ability. [/sarcasm dripping so much the monitor shorted]

Are you saying the media where you exist is right wing? Or better objective?

Gosh you are lucky.

[Flatchett]

Momentarily leaving aside the issue of who shot first, the aim of this flotilla was to provoke an incident and turn international opinion against Israel, and thanks to a class-A fuckup on the part of Israel, it succeeded admirably.

[zago]

Momentarily leaving aside the issue of who shot first, the aim of this flotilla was to provoke an incident and turn international opinion against Israel, and thanks to a class-A fuckup on the part of Israel, it succeeded admirably.

I'd say that's true, but what else could they have done? The floatilla was warned in advance, knew this was coming, and had already rejected Egypt's and Israel's offers to transfer aid to the Gaza strip.

Another one is going to attempt tomorrow.

[nonperson]

Momentarily leaving aside the issue of who shot first, the aim of this flotilla was to provoke an incident and turn international opinion against Israel, and thanks to a class-A fuckup on the part of Israel, it succeeded admirably.

When you get two groups coming together in a high stress situation things will go wrong. Military men often say the plan is the first casualty of any action. And operations at night and at sea are especially difficult. My limited experiences of both (though only as exercises) probably gives me a slightly better appreciation of how things unfolded.

[Cam'ron]

It seems like no matter what the facts are people will be against Israel.

[ciphersort]

It seems like no matter what the facts are Israel will be against people.

Fixed it for ya.

You're welcome ... not that I like any countries in the middle-east, what a cluster-fuck.

[Flatchett]

It seems like no matter what the facts are people will be against Israel.


It seems like no matter what the facts are people will be for Israel.

Both of these statements are true.

[awesome]

Both of these statements are true.
Here are the facts: a blockade to keep a nation from being attacked (ie. defense, not aggression), a blockade that offered to let humanitarian aid go through (isn't that what the activists wanted, ha ha?) was challenged, so the challengers began the conflict and, holy shit, when you start swinging clubs against a tough fucking army people all of a sudden got killed. However, Israel did not cause the confrontation...yet it is assaulted by the world. It does make nice media for the idiots of the universe: "Peaceful activists shot to death by vicious army!"

[doob]

Here are the facts: a blockade to keep a nation from being attacked (ie. defense, not aggression), a blockade that offered to let humanitarian aid go through (isn't that what the activists wanted, ha ha?) was challenged, so the challengers began the conflict and, holy shit, when you start swinging clubs against a tough fucking army people all of a sudden got killed. However, Israel did not cause the confrontation...yet it is assaulted by the world. It does make nice media for the idiots of the universe: "Peaceful activists shot to death by vicious army!"

Where did you get your facts?

[zago]

Here are the facts: a blockade to keep a nation from being attacked (ie. defense, not aggression), a blockade that offered to let humanitarian aid go through (isn't that what the activists wanted, ha ha?) was challenged, so the challengers began the conflict and, holy shit, when you start swinging clubs against a tough fucking army people all of a sudden got killed. However, Israel did not cause the confrontation...yet it is assaulted by the world. It does make nice media for the idiots of the universe: "Peaceful activists shot to death by vicious army!"


Where did you get your facts?

That's just what happened. I've read the same thing from multiple news sources. The floatilla was definitely warned and aware of what would happen, they also rejected letting Israel and Egypt transfer the aid to Gaza. They were definitely just trying to start shit and apparently they started beating the Israeli soldiers when they came on board. Furthermore, a couple people in this thread said Israel broke international law, but really they did not. Gaza is controlled by Hamas which is a self declared enemy of Israel and constantly launches rocket attacks on them.

[Roger Mexico]

Lessee.

Gaza: I want to kill Israel
Israel: Gaza can exist

Who's creating the issue?
.

Umm, well,

I happen to know or have known a number of hardcore Zionists who like to do things like put the word "Palestinian" in scare quotes whenever they write it or outright say that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian."

I don't know about Gaza, but in the West Bank the Israeli settlements are largely inhabited and built by people (many of them militant religious fundamentalists) whose avowed intention is to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist. Certain Israeli policies in the West Bank (for example, Jews living there are allowed to use more water than Arabs), combined with the Israeli government's continuing tacit support of the settler movement, suggest to me that your statement above is arguably an outright falsehood, and at best disingenuous. [EDIT: I should include the option that you are simply mistaken, unless you happen to be an Israeli government official]

(Unless, of course, you meant to finely differentiate between Palestinian sentiment in--and Israeli policy toward--the West Bank vs. Gaza, which for some reason I doubt.)

[doob]

That's just what happened. I've read the same thing from multiple news sources.

Are the news sources just repeating what the Israeli government said (this is what I've seen and heard from "major" news sources)? Is there an accurate count of the died activist? Where's the video from the activist? Why hasn't the Israeli government released them? Again I ask what are your sources, I'm can't know if they're right or wrong. I do think there are too many unanswered questions.

[Roger Mexico]

Here's the detail I can't seem to get straight no matter how many reports I read:

Did the Israelis just fly over and then rappell down onto the deck, or did they come in with stun grenades and tear gas before they tried to land?

Given what I've read about the flotilla, it seems to me like the original plan was for some classic civil disobedience--run the blockade with some Nobel winners and the like, get boarded and have the high-profile passengers go to jail so that the blockade shows up in the news, etc. Planning to fend off a military boarding party with clubs seems like a dumb idea that wouldn't really serve the purposes of the protest. You're obviously not going to succeed, and it completely fucks the plan if you're going for a seaborne version of a sit-in. It just seems unlikely to me that the people on the ship saw the helicopter coming and decided the best course of action was to mob the commandos as they landed. It's certainly possible, but I find it more likely that something happened which they didn't anticipate, and they panicked.

Thing is, opening up with a bunch of fireworks is exactly the kind of thing the Israelis would do. Since the breakdown of the whole Camp David scheme, they seem to be stuck on the idea that heavy-handed shows of force are needed to convince anyone opposing them that they're serious. As we saw in the last Gaza offensive, this approach isn't really yielding any results in terms of security, but it does manage to piss off the Western allies who have committed to the stance that Israel has to be supported as a beacon of democracy. And, rather than come to terms with this error, the Israelis and their international supporters continually fall back on a posture of acting misunderstood and unfairly maligned, which only produces more incidents like this from which no one learns anything.

I've heard "flashbangs" go off relatively near me once or twice. In a confused, high-tension situation, it's not that easy to distinguish the sound from gunfire, unless you're looking right at it, or unless you have some kind of specialized (e.g. military) experience, which I'm guessing most of the activists on board the ship didn't. If, in fact, the Israelis didn't start using lethal force until they were attacked, my guess would be that the passengers who came at them thought they were already being shot at, or that shooting was imminent. I mean, let's face it--the Israeli military isn't exactly notable for a history of restraint in that regard. If they were going for either "shock and awe" and/or a "better safe than sorry" approach by softening up the ship with the stun grenades, I could see a... misunderstanding arising pretty quickly.

But again, this is all conjecture as reports of the incident can't seem to achieve any kind of clarity, or at least the ones I've read.

[awesome]

(Unless, of course, you meant to finely differentiate between Palestinian sentiment in--and Israeli policy toward--the West Bank vs. Gaza, which for some reason I doubt.)
That reason could be obtuseness.

Are the news sources just repeating what the Israeli government said (this is what I've seen and heard from "major" news sources)? Is there an accurate count of the died activist? Where's the video from the activist? Why hasn't the Israeli government released them? Again I ask what are your sources, I'm can't know if they're right or wrong. I do think there are too many unanswered questions.
Which points are you questioning?

[peterk]

Here is the root cause of the whole mess: If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel.

[fripping]

yeah, if the palestinians were just humane enough to roll over and let israel assfuck them into oblivion this whole thing would blow over. . .

[Polemarch]

Here is the root cause of the whole mess: If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel.

This is absolutely correct. The biggest reasons why peace hasn't happened in the past are 1) The Palestinians refuse to acknowledge that Israel can exist, and 2) Every time a peace deal is gaining momentum, they fire rockets and plant bombs in populated Israeli areas to prevent a peace deal from happening.

Israel wants peace. The Palestinians want war, but unfortunately for them, they are far weaker, can never win anything but a bloody battle of attrition, and simply don't get it. They believe martyring themselves is noble, and the Israelis are obliging. I just don't get why anyone falls for their martyrdom - especially on an NT forum.


yeah, if the palestinians were just humane enough to roll over and let israel assfuck them into oblivion this whole thing would blow over. . .

The assfucking happened 60 years ago. Wars have been fought in the interim, and one side is simply stronger than the other. I don't see why the Palestinians have any more of a valid claim on the land than the Israelis do. When the losing side of a war keeps on fighting, even though it has no chance of winning in any meaningful way, at a certain point it ceases to be the victim. That happened decades ago. You're right even in your sarcasm - they should just let the Israelis assfuck them into oblivion. The world would be better off if they laid down their arms, submitted to Israeli authority, and stopped fighting long enough to rebuild their torn down society.

[fripping]

totally.

[nonperson]

I don't think the majority of Palestinians see it as noble. They want to return to their jobs in Israel and get on with life. Hamas put the needs of Iran first. You have to compare Israel to the rest of the Middle East and ask under what regime the Palestinian people would benefit being under?

[imanilmu]

the facts
-the ship Mavi marmara was actually at international water.
- the Israel army boarded the vessel in a commando style. 4.30 am. :stupid:

result
article from guardian uk (internet)
w w w .guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

these kind of killing.... Israel call self defence.... what do you think?


As for CNN and BBC reporting regarding this matter... CNN is the worst. almost no reporting.BBC just mention it at the end.

as for media bias .... what do you think?

[Madrigal]

Did the Israelis just fly over and then rappell down onto the deck, or did they come in with stun grenades and tear gas before they tried to land?


They weren't supposed to descend onto the ship in the first place.

[nonperson]

as for media bias .... what do you think?

The BBC is both pro-Palestinian and pro-Islam to such a degree that it is often referred to as Al Beeb. Jeremy Bowen the BBC Middle East Editor despises Israel with a passion; it is surprising that he doesn't submit his report in Arabic wearing a keffiyeh. The BBC gave wide spread coverage to the flotilla in their typical loaded style.

As for the gun shot wounds with a modern semi-automatic with a high cyclic rate it is surprising how many rounds you can fire off; especially if you are under stress. Further you have to consider that the decks were crowded. It would be interesting to know if Shayetet issued the fully auto Glock that has supposedly become popular in Iraq and A-Stan with PMCs. I wouldn't think so as it would go against their training ethos.

The next person to use the term international waters incorrectly will be soundly beaten with a stick of rhubarb. That is not an idle threat. :mad::grin:;)

[Madrigal]

The BBC is both pro-Palestinian and pro-Islam to such a degree that it is often referred to as Al Beeb. Jeremy Bowen the BBC Middle East Editor despises Israel with a passion; it is surprising that he doesn't submit his report in Arabic wearing a keffiyeh.
:lol:


As for the gun shot wounds with a modern semi-automatic with a high cyclic rate it is surprising how many rounds you can fire off; especially if you are under stress.
Yes, that's why people were shot 30 times and repeatedly in places as far from each other as the leg, chest and head, and even their head on both sides (the face and back of the neck). Yeah, the rounds just fired off, oops. And these highly trained soldiers don't know how to use a gun under stress, which is THE VERY THING THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO.


The next person to use the term international waters incorrectly will be soundly beaten with a stick of rhubarb. That is not an idle threat. :mad::grin:;)

Yeaaaah. Let us know what else isn't "international waters" according to the the Book of Nonperson. Should be interesting.


'Shot from helicopter'

Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, who was travelling in the flotilla and witnessed the Israeli raid, confirmed that some passengers took apart some of the ship's railings to defend themselves as they saw the Israeli soldiers approaching.

He said that he witnessed some of the killings, and confirmed that at least "one person was shot through the top of the head from [the helicopter] above."

"After the shooting and the first deaths, people put up white flags and signs in English and Hebrew," he said.

"An Israeli activist [on the ship] asked the soldiers to take away the injured, but they did not and the injured died on the ship."

[Flatchett]

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear."


:(

[Kleptocracy]

0

Some of the quotes on these videos speak volumes:

"at least we dont burn flags!!!we need to completey close the gaza borders.. if hamas controls israel the US is definetly next. no doubt abt that"

"Hamas is in a declared state of war with Israel yet Israel continues to let aid convoys enter Gaza through its border. This statement sums up the madness of the conflict. Israel is feeding the very regime that despises it, yet the world accuses Israel of barbarity!? Seriously, the Turks are on the wrong side of history on this one...Why don't they persuade Egypt to let aid into Gaza? It seems we're back in the dark ages again with the rabid villages blaming the Jews for drinking childrens blood."

"Long live Israel's never-ending struggle for freedom of speech, press and women rights. PC-idiots of the west don't have the intelligence to know what force protects them."

"borarding a ship (while carrying paintguns) that is intending to break the blockaid, refuse to be checked, and can carry missiles for the Hamas to shoot at our civllians (which they have done for 8 years!!!), is not an attack. its commonsence.
self defence means when "peace activists" beat you up with metal poles, stab you with knives, take your backup handgun and use it on you - so yeah, u will do whatever it takes to defend yourself.
just watch who started the violence on board"



"the Muslims countries are too busy with killing each other (Sunnies vs. Shiites) - they will never unite...and besides the Arabs states need Israel to help them control their people and direct hatred to Israel...like the Nazis, it is always easy to control you people and make them forget their crappy life when you have someone to hate...if Israel will be gone who will they hate?

All the Arabs states don't even care about the so called "Palestinians" (which BTW never existed)!"

[peterk]

Israel and Hamas are at war, therefore Israel has a right to blockade Gaza. What difference does it make where the Israelis bordered the ship? Should they have waited until the ship was in Gaza's territorial waters? If they did there still would have been mayhem because some of those crazy Turks wanted to be "martyrs".

[C.J.Woolf]

An article in Ha'aretz criticizes the tactics of the attack: What the IDF could learn from the Royal Navy (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-the-idf-could-learn-from-the-royal-navy-1.294599?localLinksEnabled=false)


But third, and perhaps most significant of all, was respect. The Royal Navy never underestimated its adversaries. Commanders appreciated that boarding operations in particular could be tricky, and prepared for them meticulously.

The archives reveal that as early as September 1946 crews received "proper training in the art usually known as street fighting." Subsequently, such courses were expanded at the Royal Marine Training Center at Ghajn Tuffieha in Malta, where troops practiced seizing control over a ship, even in the face of violent opposition, without firing a shot.

Indeed, firearms were carried only by officers (partly to reduce the risk that they would be grabbed by immigrants during boarding operations ) and employed on just five occasions.


But the British achievements were only tactical ones. At the political and strategic levels, which are the ones that really count, Britain was defeated.

Although successful, the blockade did not salvage the Mandate; neither did it save the British government from accusations of inhumanity.
Some Israelis recognize that history is repeating itself, with an extra helping of irony.

[nonperson]

That doesn't say much really. Eleven people were killed. There were a lot of people on those decks and not much space. It all seemed a bit nuanced. Now if the Israelis had swept the decks with machine gun fire and killed hundreds I could see at where you were driving. But considering the amount of confusion, the high level training of the Israelis, and the documented well organized preparations to resist the boardings (the crew it seems were ignorant of this and had effectively lost control of the ship,) to somehow infer that the Israelis response was so controlled and subtle just to kill a handful or so is a bit of a stretch.

[ghost]

Here's some interesting footage. (http://vimeo.com/12429821)

[nonperson]

Here's some interesting footage. (http://vimeo.com/12429821)

Yes that is interesting, but it tells us nothing that is new. Perhaps all it does do is show how the activists were well organized.

I am a bit skeptical about the red stuff around the hatch during the opening shots of the video.

Apparently the Mavi Marmara was carrying no aid only activists. It is shame that they didn't save some money by not chartering the ship and bought more aid.

[Roger Mexico]

Here is the root cause of the whole mess: If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel.


Whether or not your statement is true, the Palestinians are unlikely to "lay down their arms" while Israel persists with a de facto annexation of most of the land it claims to be offering in exchange for peace.

Arafat expended most of the PLO/Fatah's political capital convincing the Palestinian population that the Israelis would honor their offer of pulling out the settlements if the Palestinians recognized Israel.

The rest is history, and now the Israelis get to deal with Hamas, who by all indications are quite willing to wage the war of attrition Polemarch refers to.

[rhinosaur]

Relevant article from The Economist

http://www.economist.com/node/16333417?story_id=16333417&CFID=133253095&CFTOKEN=44037613

[nonperson]

Relevant article from The Economist

http://www.economist.com/node/16333417?story_id=16333417&CFID=133253095&CFTOKEN=44037613

Again if you follow Mid East affairs there is nothing new here. I am only skeptical of the general's irrelevance if they can't carry their troops with them. Turkey has gone from wanting to be screwed by the EU to be being screwed by Iran.

It will be interesting to see if elements of Iran Revolutionary Guard are used to protect the next aid flotilla. I don't think it will happen. An actually shooting match wouldn't gain as much sympathy.

[awesome]

Israel should just clear out everyone from the West Bank and the Gaza strip, ship 'em off to some other place, and take over all the territory and turn it into a nice, cohesive unit.

[Kleptocracy]

Israel should just clear out everyone from the West Bank and the Gaza strip, ship 'em off to some other place, and take over all the territory and turn it into a nice, cohesive unit.

Somebody should clear out your house, ship you off somewhere, then turn it into a refugee pad for victims of Israel.

[Flatchett]

Somebody should clear out your house, ship you off somewhere, then turn it into a refugee pad for victims of Israel.

Someone should clear off this planet, ship the humans to an asteroid, and use the Earth as an intergalactic discotheque for hip young things with three eyes.

[awesome]

Somebody should clear out your house, ship you off somewhere, then turn it into a refugee pad for victims of Israel.
Seems there are plenty of places these "refugees" could go. Of course, they probably won't get as good jobs as Israel gives them...

[euterpenc]

I've found the posts in this thread insightful and helpful to my politically challenged mind.

But really, whenever I read "flotilla," I think "tortilla."

[Roger Mexico]

Seems there are plenty of places these "refugees" could go. Of course, they probably won't get as good jobs as Israel gives them...

This line of argument is also weak.

Imagine whoever the major indigenous groups in southern Canada are decided to create their own ethnocentric state(s) and either denied citizenship rights in this state to Caucasians or set out to drive them off through intimidation and violence. (Or imagine that, absent a clear answer to "who started it," violence broke out between the two groups and the whites came out on the losing end, which is closer to what happened in 1948 in Israel/Palestine). You've now got a large population of displaced people who have had to abandon most of what they own that has value, and the new authority where they used to live announces there's no chance of restitution.

How would you expect the U.S. government [to wit: Jordan, Egypt,etc.] to respond to the proposition "Hey, you guys are white [Arabs] too. Why don't you figure out what to do with them?"

How would you expect the displaced white population [Palestinians] to respond to the proposition "Hey, you guys should just keep moving and pitch a tent down there somewhere. Look, there's all these white people all around you. Why is it such a big deal for us to want to have some small piece of land to call our own? Just because what used to be your house is here? Why don't you get over it and stop hatin'? Finders keepers."

EDIT: and if anyone is going to claim that the Americans would welcome an influx of broke, uprooted refugees--who now have to be allocated jobs, housing, services, etc. or become a social-control issue--the governor of Arizona says you're full of shit.

[Roger Mexico]

I've found the posts in this thread insightful and helpful to my politically challenged mind.

But really, whenever I read "flotilla," I think "tortilla."

I think this wins the thread.

[awesome]

There will never be peace there, so if the Arabs don't like what they have and want to ruin Israel, then the only thing to do is to take all 4 million of them and ship them UPS to Iran.

[ghost]

There will never be peace there, so if the Arabs don't like what they have and want to ruin Israel, then the only thing to do is to take all 4 million of them and ship them UPS to Iran.

Hey! Great idea! Or we could just slowly encroach on their land, dividing it up into isolated pockets without proper access to food, water or any chance at prosperity, then wait until they get angry and start throwing rocks. After that we can just dehumanise them, call them terrorists and kill them in the name of freedom and democracy.

It will be like ethnic cleansing 2.0 - we get to wipe them out, but without all the bad publicity or piles of dead stinking bodies. :gm:

We can get started right away with this helpful map:

http://imgur.com/EpDp6.jpg

[NoahFence]

The Green Zone is for loading and unloading of bazookas only.

[Roger Mexico]

There will never be peace there, so if the Arabs don't like what they have and want to ruin Israel, then the only thing to do is to take all 4 million of them and ship them UPS to Iran.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Great.. they've invented a bot to randomly generate Glenn Beck talking points.

Are we getting Freeped?

[awesome]

This doesn't even make any sense.

What doesn't make sense about shipping people by UPS?

[Roger Mexico]

What doesn't make sense about shipping people by UPS?

I'm bored. Gonna go read some Guccimane posts.

[lowtech redneck]

You have to compare Israel to the rest of the Middle East and ask under what regime the Palestinian people would benefit being under?

The Palestinians who qualify as Israeli citizens are the best off-the other Palestinians live under different conditions. Unfortunately for the other Palestinians, living under citizenship conditions would destroy those conditions, even if Israel would allow it; the Arabs would end up living under the same dis-functional and oppressive groups they live under now, while large populations of Jews would not be able to even survive, much less live well within a state with a Palestinian majority.

The Palestinians in Gaza would have been better off as Egyptian citizens (with Gaza as part of Egypt's territory). That didn't happen because Nasser and the Arab League were stupid and dreamed of driving the Jews into the sea long after they had lost the moral authority to oppose a Jewish state after ethnically cleansing their own Jewish inhabitants into Israel.

The Palestinians in the West Bank would have been better off as part of Jordan, along with their territory (that ship has also long since sailed)

The Palestinian refugees would have been better off as citizens of the countries they reside in (like Qaddafi himself hypocritically noted, most Arabs seem to hate other Arabs-particularly Palestinians-almost as much as they hate Jews. Besides, they're a useful source of cheap labor and political diversion for Arab regimes).

Given all that has happened over the decades, a two-state solution, with almost no right of return for the Palestinians and almost no right to retain Jewish settlements (at least not without reasonably equitable land exchanges that preserve the territorial integrity of a future Palestinian state) for the Israelis seems like the most utilitarian possibility. The Mofaz plan seems like a good half-way measure in the meantime. A conventional opinion, perhaps, but I think its the best one.

[Polemarch]

The Palestinians in Gaza would have been better off as Egyptian citizens (with Gaza as part of Egypt's territory).

The Palestinians in the West Bank would have been better off as part of Jordan, along with their territory (that ship has also long since sailed)


I am sort of with this argument - and I have made no secret about my obvious pro-Israel stance in this thread - however Israel made some critical mistakes in their decisions prior to, during, and following the Six Day War and 1973 Arab-Israeli war in particular - in the sense that they began to assert authority over new lands without taking measures to integrate those new lands within their nation. Kissenger, Kosygyn, and the Cold War governments they represented, manipulated both sides of the conflict, and the aftermath resulted in a half-assed plan for the region's future.

While I agree that Egypt and Syria (and to a much lesser extent Jordan) intended to push Israel into the sea - there are other factors that influenced their military decisions leading up to and during the armed conflicts between 1967-73. The United Arab Republic (Egypt's name at the time) spoke for the Arab world to some extent, and Nasser's dream of Pan-Arab socialism/nationalism was intertwined with the rhetoric of Israel's destruction. However, the Arab leaders of the time, himself included, were far more pragmatic than the people they led; King Hussein made almost every effort to avoid war with Israel, but the PLO within his own country made a policy of rapproachment with the Israelis untenable. Syria's meddling on Israel's eastern borders created a security threat that, coupled with Hussein's internal security struggles, produced provocations that neither side could really back down from. Nasser hoped to gain from a conflict with Israel in 1967, but this was mostly symbolic, not practical. Israel's perception that war was imminent was very flawed, and their choice to deploy the Israeli Air Force preemptively against the Egyptians was primarily based on strategic advantage, not existential threat.

The whooping the Israeli's put on the Arab world during the Six Day War was symbolic as well - and in some sense, the early victories of the Arabs in 1973 are thought to have made peace more attainable by healing the collective psychic wounds inflicted by events six years prior. The Israelis responded by pushing closer to Cairo and Damascus than ever before; the encirclement of the Third Army was a final period on the question of military dominance in the region. But the Egyptians responded pragmatically - Sadat's choice to engage the Israeli's resulted in normalization in 1979. But the final resolution of the conflict in the west was flawed, in the sense that Gaza remained under the administration of Israel, who never employed a fungible plan to integrate it within the social and political boundaries of the nation. Settler activity on the part of Israelis contributed to this outcome - but so did Sadat's choice to shift allegiance away from the Soviet Union and towards the United States, which resulted in significant aid to Egypt.

The West Bank is a more obvious result of Hussein's inability to control his population. The Hashemite regime was buckling under the pressure from Palestinian refugees; the best thing they could do was to wash their hands of the West Bank and allow the PLO to control it. This removed a critical thorn in their side - and believe me, they didn't want it.

[Polemarch]

THIS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311011923686570.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

[Roger Mexico]

THIS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311011923686570.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Maybe. The characterization of Arab politics seems fairly accurate to me. (The problem goes back to the questions of sovereignty that emerged from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.)

The Israelis (or rather their ascendant nationalist right) have made it fairly clear, however, that what they really want is not integration of the Palestinians, or even their subjugation under Israeli authority, but rather Palestinian land minus the people on it. This isn't "annihilation," but it's hardly an easy compromise for Palestinian leaders to make. A reconciliation that would appease the less moderate factions on either side seems unlikely under these conditions, and calling the Palestinians unreasonable for being hesitant to make concessions fails to comprehensively describe the problem, in my opinion.

And it makes Israel--often held up as a poster child for modernization and democracy in the Middle East--something of a liability for Western states with other interests in the region. I would be inclined to see this as a better explanation for a lessening commitment to excuse Israeli actions than moralistic self-doubt and "political correctness."

[Anonymous]

THIS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311011923686570.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular


Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist.

:facepalm:

[Roger Mexico]

:facepalm:

Yes, the "decline and fall" rhetoric is a bit much. Who's the "we"? (Like, who exactly in the U.S. is reluctant to use our "full military might" out of a fear of appearing imperialistic? Not Obama, that's for sure.)

[Polemarch]

Yes, the "decline and fall" rhetoric is a bit much. Who's the "we"? (Like, who exactly in the U.S. is reluctant to use our "full military might" out of a fear of appearing imperialistic? Not Obama, that's for sure.)

We represents those who possess capital, be it political, social, or economic, and their misguided apologist attitudes. I would elaborate further, but someone will just Godwin it - or worse - Rand-win it.

[Roger Mexico]

I would elaborate further, but someone will just Godwin it - or worse - Rand-win it.

No one wants that.

But who--other than the American progressive left, who don't have a ton of influence even now--actually espouses these attitudes? I hear this stuff from college professors all the time, but where's the evidence of effect on policy?

The U.S. hasn't exactly been reluctant to support Israel. Even the moderate right treats every expression of mild displeasure as some kind of disowning and betrayal, but in practice the aid and diplomatic support keeps right on flowing. As I said, a recent mild cooling of rhetorical support probably has more to do with the issue being a pothole in U.S.-Arab relations. I guess I don't follow European politics, but as for the U.S., don't you see a disconnect between what the article is claiming and what the (U.S.) government actually does? If this kind of self-critique is really going on, whatever "damage" it might be doing seems pretty minor. What else could we be doing? Tell the Israelis to invade Iran?

I've been student-teaching a high-school history class (four of them on two different subjects, actually). As for the supposed reluctance to praise Western Civilization, there's certainly no evidence of that in curriculum trends. If anything, the opposite has been occurring for some time. I had to write a paper on the OR state history standards--the word "racism" doesn't even appear in what is otherwise an anally meticulous list of subjects; you're not even technically required to teach the Civil Rights movement in U.S. history.

[/OFF-TOPIC]

[Polemarch]

No one wants that.

But who--other than the American progressive left, who don't have a ton of influence even now--actually espouses these attitudes?


I think the article is mainly reacting to the media portrayals - and perhaps you are right, and mainstream American thought is elsewhere. As for curriculum trends, I will take your word for it, as I am not on the front-lines of education. My impression was that TX is calling the shots anyway...

Nixon famously spoke of a "silent majority" - and to a large extent I believe that it existed. The loudest, most visible activists in his time were counterculture hippies, Black Panthers, and anti-war activists - so the silent majority was intended to represent the attitudes of the largely conformist, white, pro-war masses who supported America against all and weren't making news.

Nixon's enemies were not only the activists - but the media that covered them. So his invectives of social conservatism were intended to appeal to a large chunk of the population that hated what they saw around them; the free, open expression of civic skepticism (which they viewed as unpatriotic), racial diversity (which they viewed as inappropriate) and social liberalization (which they viewed as immoral or even vulgar). Nixon's message rang loud and clear to a majority of voting Americans over his first stint in office - and as distasteful as the message was in many ways, it contributed to an election landslide in '72. Bugging his opponents didn't hurt either.

Fast forward 42 years. We have a black president. Racial diversity does not make the news - it READS the news, and has done so for a long time. Every other show on ABC Family is about teenagers having sex. Times have changed, and that applies to both the right wing and the left wing. And while there is still a silent majority, the attitudes of this silent majority are now primarily shaped by the media, as opposed to the traditions, rural values, and generally old ways that still were pervasive in Nixon's era. So while Nixon could cast aspersions on the media and expect support from the rank-and-file American, the modern battle for America is fought within the media on both sides, where a very well-funded, well-armed, caricaturish Beck-Limbaugh-O'Reilly-FOX ridiculoid does battle with the rest of the left-wing media on a daily basis. What gets lost in the ratings-grabbing hysterics is any hint of subtlety or truth.

The author of the WSJ editorial is most likely reacting to the fact that most of the intellectual establishment has lined up against Israel because it's the cool thing to do. The fact that the conservative media is a cartoonish joke doesn't help, because there is no credible counterpoint. If there is a silent majority today, they are more likely to base their opinions on sound bytes than on fact. Which is why his editorial is relevant - although not necessarily important - because he is challenging the lemming-like rush to view the Middle East through the scope of victimization.

When I was in college (not too terribly long ago), the big cause was Mumia Abu-Jamal. Most of these kids had no clue who this guy was, but all they needed to hear was "black man" "falsely accused", and they were on the bandwagon. The facts of the case became irrelevant, because it was the cool thing to do to support the oppressed against the oppressors. It doesn't help that America has a spectacular history of racism - we distrust our government to such a degree in this area, that many people today are likely to assume the police are lying.

Right down Bruin Walk from the Mumia folks were the "Free Palestine" folks. They were the same. They didn't know a thing about Israel, and I found this out any time I would waste a minute reading their drivel. They were two booths over from the "Homeless Paper" - like I want to pay 1.25 to read some crappy charity newspaper and support the squalid conditions they live in. Next to them was the religious nut who had a 20 foot cross (srsly no lie) tied to him with ropes. And finally, behind him was the "Vanguard".

I bring this up because college is the breeding ground of intellectual thought in this nation - not the media - and it plays host to every kind of phony cause imaginable. While it may have once been "counterculture" to be counter-culture, today it is a basic tenet of education. If you aren't against the fascist-capitalist-Neoconservative military industrial complex, you aren't hip, and the chicks will not give it up.

The media has made Israel a pet cause, and the reason that threatens an author like Steele is because the only people who support his position are the loudmouths at FOX, and they have no credibility to most educated Americans. Steele isn't satisfied with a nation of rabid anti-Muslim bigots to support his position; he wants to convince intelligent people that Israel is not the blood-hungry butcher it is being portrayed as. The battle is not for the hearts and minds of the voter - it is for the hearts and minds of the WSJ audience.

(And the Nixon analogy is relevant - if you don't think Obama is taking pages from his playbook, look more carefully.)