israeli navy kills gaza activists - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

silent_jay · 06-08-2010, 11:29 AM

Thanks for posting your friends account of what happened dlish, it was a very good read, and glad to see he got out safe, too bad he couldn't bring out his personal effects with him, it seems like he had a lot of film of the incident that possibly could have shed some light on this, but as you said Israel isn't going to let any incriminating evidence get out after a clusterfuck such as this.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

ace,

what would palestine be at risk of if it stepped on too many toes?

Given the history in the region, it is my belief that the potential for conflict would be high.

Quote:

generally in the ME, they arent look upon with any sort of favouratism because of the negative effect the palestinian question has had on its arab neighbours...lebanon, jordan, syria, egypt in particular.

I am very sensitive to B.S., admittedly overly sensitive at times. I tend to error on the side of assuming B.S., but my way of managing that is to make an effort to slow down and ask questions. I have present questions, there have been no answers.

In 1930 Gandhi embarked on his infamous Salt March, protesting the British salt tax and in general British rule over India. His objectives were clearly communicated in advance and he openly did not allow females to participate because he expected violent response to a non-violent act. This started a series of non-violent actions that lead to India gaining their freedom from Britain. There was no B.S. in what he did, what he expected, and how he went about it, and it was not about salt. There was honor.

In the matter of the blockade being run, I see subterfuge, misdirection, and attempts to manipulate public opinion using innocent people. And, I am not clear on if you don't see some of the problems, you perpetuate the deception, or if you just want to pretend some of the problems with what and how things happened are not real.

Idyllic · 06-08-2010, 03:53 PM

Ace, sure, I would image that some of the passengers were there for a myriad of reason, personal, humanitarian, journalistic, political, etc.. but the mercenaries, the terrorist linked individuals, these are the ones I have issue with, the persons who would not just invoke violence but who thrive off of violence and fear as a means to an end. You may want to read my posts, I am all about the necessity of the IDF to defend themselves and that this was a plan orchestrated by self-indulgent anti-Zionistic, anti-Hebraic, anti-infidel individuals to bring about bad press for Israel and to devalue the importance of the embargo. I don't think that ALL 700 of the original passengers were aware of the fully violent plans and intentions of many of these unsavory characters, but I am a mother in a free country who would never subject my children to violence in the name of a cause so it is hard for me to grasp that women brought their children on board with the knowledge of what was coming, whereas many in the jihad culture will consider this a just maneuver in jihad, martyrdom is a very, very powerful weapon.

I am pretty sure if you read my posts you can figure out my view of this incident. We are still not done with the realty behind this incident either, espionage is a cyclic action that in exposing one angle you will in turn expose your assets if you move to quickly, so patience and distant and time are inherently one of the coverts most valuable tools. These deaths happened for attention, and attention is exactly what hamas is getting (just not the kind they wanted as they wanted negative press for IDF and Israel and positive press for Palestinians), however, more intelligent people are beginning to recognize the depths terrorists will go to feed their own warped appetite for death and destruction in the singular oppressive cause they seek to justify, not merely the surface cause of a few who simply wished to bring attention to the plight of the citizens of Gaza.

50 men with approximately $10,000.00 each would be pretty close to $500,000.00, at about $5,000 each, this kind of money could have bought the lives of 100 hungry people hoping to help their families, and the deaths of many innocents that these hungry, pigeonholed, and tyrannized suicide bombers could have blown up in their attempts at martyrdom, or simply a way out of hamas’ tyranny. Obviously this is all in my humble opinion, and many will say I seek out only the information that fulfills my views, and that that information is found only within the realms of pro-Israel and pro blah, blah, blah, or whatever it is that I am attempting to prove or my goal, but the reality is, I have no goals, I attempt to prove nothing. I am merely witnessing what is before me and stating my points of perception regarding these actions based on my own education in the realms of terrorism and what is unfolding in the ME. I have no stake in this conversation, it is not even a debate to me as I simply see this as black and white and it is blatantly apparent to me, terrorism and terrorist linked humans are tyrannical regime cohorts and that theses tyrannical regimes can, will and do persist in continuing and spreading, if permitted, the use of anybody and everybody within their ability to achieve their singular goals in the continuations of said self vindicating, tyrannous views of fear, hate and genocide, it really is that simple to me.

Terrorism: The killing of non-combatants, with the specific intent of spreading or perpetuating ones own political, religious or ideological agenda by instilling fear of death in those who would normally, without coercion, reject the views of the movements leaders. Non-combatant being the key term here.

silent_jay · 06-08-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

I am pretty sure if you read my posts you can figure out my view of this incident.

Yes it is easy, and quite comical for someone who says she's trying to 'educate herself further' and that it's too sonn to 'pass blame on this incident'

Quote:

These deaths happened for attention, and attention is exactly what hamas is getting (just not the kind they wanted as they wanted negative press for IDF and Israel and positive press for Palestinians)...

Umm they have got negative press Idyllic, if you opened your mind to read actual news, not just sites that support your views, you'd see they are getting a ton of negative press, just not on your 'sources', but as you said your views are easy to see from your posts, so why look at other sources other than what backs up your views?.

hiredgun · 06-08-2010, 11:56 PM

In the interest of contributing a few data points, the Times has some (I think) new photos from inside the ship during the attack. They show some commandos injured at the hands of the passengers. Of course, the pictures don't really give you context - who instigated the violence, for example.

Photographs of Battered Israeli Commandos Show New Side of Raid - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

I don't know how to elaborate very much on the position I stated earlier. I think that the only truly salient structural fact here is the nature of the blockade itself and its disastrous humanitarian impact on Gazans. Everything else surrounding this event is largely an exercise in PR.

dlish · 06-09-2010, 11:03 AM

hiredgun, if you read the 3 part story that my reporter friend made a few days ago, you'll see that he reported the bashing of the israeli soldier.

idyllic - i take it you havent heard of the 'children overboard scandal'? you know..the story where the australian government used the sinking ship as a motive to politicise the presense of children on a boat. the only difference was that it was in australian waters governments could never lie.

Idyllic · 06-09-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Gandhi and King on the Mavi Marmara

by Dustin Howes | June 8, 2010, 1:22 pm

The recent attack on the Mavi Marmara has inspired discussions of the techniques of nonviolence in the mainstream media. Here at Waging Nonviolence, we have already lamented what appears to have been a lack of discipline on the part of the protesters. However, an interesting commentary by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic shows how misunderstandings about the basic principles of nonviolence play a role in skewing coverage of and opinion about the events.

Information is still murky, but what Wallace gets right in her piece is that Gandhi was insistent that one should always defend oneself with nonviolence, not physical force, if one is able. When the Israeli military raided the ship, they hoped to send the message that the blockade of Gaza would remain firm. In the aftermath, Israel has claimed the activists had terrorist connections.

By breaking from strict nonviolent discipline, the activists played into this narrative, giving it a measure of plausibility and shifting the field of interpretation. Wallace says, expressing the sentiments of many:
[T]here is at best a naivete, and at worst a disingenuousness, in provoking a fight and then complaining noisily that a fight broke out. The activists decided to take on the Israeli military. It doesn’t matter whether the military should have resisted their passage to Gaza, in a moral sense; the fact remains that Israelis had been very clear that they were going to take whatever measures were necessary to stop the boats. So the activists knew they were going to meet resistance. […] There are no lack of individuals, groups, or nations who use violence as a means to an end. But if you decide to step in that world, you can’t complain when your opponent uses violence in return.

Wallace is sympathetic to nonviolent activism and her piece is an indication of the extent to which the Free Gaza movement has lost control over the interpretation of the events. Even while inspiring worldwide condemnation of the unjust Gaza blockade, what has most disturbed me is the character of much of the outrage it has inspired. The Turkish president’s assertion that Turkey will “never forgive” the killing of the ten protesters, protests in Ankara featuring hardliners burning Israeli flags and offering chants of “death to Israel.” This in turn has predictably inspired protests by Israeli hardliners equating Turkey and Hamas and claiming, “We came with paint guns and got lynched.” Israel’s bellicose actions and statements are of course responsible for this, but the activists on the Mavi Marmara bear some responsibility as well.
However, Wallace makes a critical, faulty assumption in her analysis of nonviolence and one that is frequent among those who are casual observers of it. She writes that the problem with the flotilla was that it “went into the confrontation looking for conflict, to draw attention to their cause.” Citing Gandhi and King she says that “[q]uiet, uncomplaining courage is harder and less satisfying than provoking an opponent.” Unlike the Gaza protesters, when “Martin Luther King, John Lewis, the Freedom Riders and the rest of the non-violent protesters for civil rights set out, they knew what they were walking into. And if we admire their courage, it’s because they walked into a hailstorm without so much as a word of complaint.”

Both Dr. King and Gandhi were very keen to use nonviolence to inspire confrontation and they did so in conjunction with some of the most profound words of complaint the world has ever known. Even in particular instances of direct action, “complaining” was important (think of C.T. Vivian confronting Sheriff Jim Clark in Selma). They were also persistently held responsible for being agitators who caused violence. The purpose of nonviolence is to put the violence that is the lifeblood of segregation and colonialism on display and excavate the hatred and fear that drives it. The problem with the flotilla was not in provoking and revealing the character of Israel’s death grip on Gaza. The provocation worked perfectly in demonstrating that only deadly force can support Israel’s current policies. The problem is that by failing to stick to the principles of nonviolence the Free Gaza movement failed to take the opportunity that was given to them.

Nonviolent means usually have a more direct relationship to political outcomes than violent means. When militants fire rockets into Israel for the purpose of protesting the Gaza blockade, the substance of what they are doing is completely divorced from the political outcome. When a flotilla of aid tries to break the embargo, there is consistency between the means and the ends. But attacking commandos—even those trying to stop a flotilla—is not. Maintaining consistency in means and ends can be extremely difficult, but it is why Gandhi thought the methods were more truthful.

Wallace both underestimates how difficult it is to maintain nonviolent discipline in the face of highly trained uses of violence and misunderstands the purpose of nonviolent protests. But her impressions of nonviolence are not uncommon and something those of us who use nonviolent means should keep in mind going forward.

source: Gandhi and King on the Mavi Marmara / Waging Nonviolence

Non-violent protest, would it have drawn the deaths, would it have drawn the attention? It is easy to find the realities of this incident if you look beyond the surface rhetoric of media outlets that have numbers of viewers to gain, pointing out that these terrorism linked individuals mentality resides within the pro-violence sect of Islamic extremism is easy if you open your eyes to jihad mentalities, these are not your everyday peace loving activist trying to change the world for the better of humanity, these extremists thrive on terror and death as do hamas, al qaeda, hezbollah, the taliban, etc. These extreme terrorism regimes and their ideologies are what I am talking about.... these criminals are against personal freedoms and they deeply oppose a quilted religious world that can and does create humanities peaceful coexistence. These tyrannical regimes leaders and followers will use any means, any peoples, any reason to kill in the name of their self glorification and extreme ideologies. This is the reality of extremism in Islamic fundamental religious sects.

eventually I will learn how to embed pictures....... maybe, so if you wish to see the actual pictures you will need to go tho the sources listed, sorry. I am waiting for my husband to teach me, it may be a while.

Quote:

Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive
By Ed Barnes
Published June 08, 2010

On the left, the uncropped photo. On the right, Reuters' released photo. (Reuters)

The British-based Reuters news agency has been stung for the second time by charges that it edited politically sensitive photos in a way that casts Israel in a bad light. But this time Reuters claims it wasn’t at fault.
The news agency reacted to questions raised by an American blogger who showed that Reuters' photo service edited out knives and blood traces from pictures taken aboard the activist ship Mavi Marmara during a clash with Israeli commandos last week. Nine people were killed and scores were injured in the clash.

The pictures of the fight were released by IHH, the Turkish-based group that sponsored the six-ship fleet that tried to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.

In one photo, an Israeli commando is shown lying on the deck of the ship, surrounded by activists. The uncut photo released by IHH shows the hand of an unidentified activist holding a knife. But in the Reuters photo, the hand is visible but the knife has been edited out.

The blog “Little Green Footballs” challenged Reuters' editing of the photo.
“That’s a very interesting way to crop the photo. Most people would consider that knife an important part of the context. There was a huge controversy over whether the activists were armed. Cropping out a knife, in a picture showing a soldier who’s apparently been stabbed, seems like a very odd editorial decision. Unless someone was trying to hide it,” the blog stated.

In a second photo the unedited print issued by IHH showed blood along the ship's railing and a hand holding a knife as an Israeli soldier lies on the deck. Both the blood and the knife were missing in the photo that Reuters released.

Reuters on Tuesday denied it intended to alter the political meanings of the photographs.
“The images in question were made available in Istanbul, and following normal editorial practice were prepared for dissemination which included cropping at the edges," the news agency said in a statement. "When we realized that a dagger was inadvertently cropped from the images, Reuters immediately moved the original set as well."

Reuters has yet to respond to charges about the second photo.
This is the second time Reuters has been accused of manipulating photos. In 2006 a Reuters photographer, Adnan Hajj, doctored several photos of the destruction caused by Israel's bombing of Beirut. In one he added smoke to a panoramic picture of South Beirut to make the damage look more severe than it was. In a second photo, he showed a woman whose home had supposedly been destroyed in the same raid, but an investigation revealed that the woman's house had been destroyed prior to the Israeli strike.

Reuters later removed all of Hajj's more than 900 photos from distribution and severed its relationship with him. A photo editor also was fired.
What happened on the Mavi Marmara and who was responsible for the killing and bloodshed on the ship is still a matter of debate. Activists charge that Israeli commandos fired first and provoked the skirmish. Israeli commandos say they were compelled to use deadly force after they were attacked by people on board the ship.

source and you can see the two images here: FOXNews.com - Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

But of course this is FOX, so whether Reuters admits to cropping or not, just because FOX released it, it must be wrong, right? Truths can be ascertained in common sense and history of conflict also, this conflict and the ME connections with Islamic extremism needs to be taken into account when trying to understand the realities of this incident. This is not the first time ships have sailed for Gaza under intentions of humanitarianism and have been stopped exposing tons of heavy weapons on-board (I am not referencing the Mavi Marmara.....).

If you wish to see another different cropped image, visit here: Little Green Footballs - Another Cropped Reuters Photo Deletes Another Knife - And a Pool of Blood

It seems to me perspective is less in the eye of the beholder and more in the eyes of the seller, it just depends on what side you wish to purchase your brand of truth from. As I have said before, I read it all, and make my decisions based on my own perceptions of history and the stories of both sides, mixed in with what I consider to be common sense and from that, I still will never say I am 100% right, but I am still 100% hungry for understanding WHY, WHY the fuck humankind has to treat each other this way, it baffles me. But then extremism within religious ideologies in this day in age baffles me too, however, I was given the opportunity for a free education from the time of my birth, something many humans are not blessed with in this world today, especially many middle easterners. Where I feel education is the answer to humanities cohesiveness, I believe many Muslims view education (outside of the Koran) as the end to their perceived way of life, especially the basic education of ALL Muslim women, though this is just my opinion.

roachboy · 06-09-2010, 12:04 PM

dippin was making this point earlier, but it's worth repeating in the blizzard of idf infotainment coupled now with arbitrary materials that defines non-violence every which way the sole point of which is to somehow "demonstrate" that the idf's version of reality is reality much in the way that a nike commercial's version of reality is reality. you know, that acquiring an active lifestyle is a matter of shoe purchases.

anyway, israel has broadened the list of materials allowed into gaza to include things like jam and halwa. here's a new article that goes through the stuff that dippin posted earlier about what the israelis, those champions of human rights, are letting into gaza:

Quote:

Israel's Blockade of Gaza: What Items Are Allowed In?
digg
facebook Twitter stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Blockade , Dual Use , Flotilla , Gaza , Hamas , Humanitarian Crisis , Israel , Palestinians , World News

One of the arguments one hears a lot from Israel's representatives and supporters is that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and that the blockade only keeps out dangerous materials. The blockade, according to Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev, is only aimed at preventing the shipment of weapons to Hamas. Netanyahu says the same thing, insisting that civilian goods are allowed in but that Israel "will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza."

That narrative took a serious hit yesterday. Today's AP wire has a story about the Israeli government easing the blockade of Gaza in response to international criticism. The newly permitted items: soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy.

Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy. Undoubtedly because of their dual use potential as military weapons. (Well, if you shake a bottle of soda really hard...) I cannot help wondering which particular segment of the population of Gaza was being targeted by the exclusion of cookies and candy.

The existence of a humanitarian crisis is well documented (try the 2008 report by eight British human rights groups, or more recent stories carried by The Guardian, and the BBC. To be sure, there is no question that large amounts of materials are smuggled into Gaza through tunnels from Egypt. But of course, smuggled items are vastly more expensive, and the volume cannot come close to making up for the effects of the blockade. Regardless, it is hardly the case that a blockade is somehow justified by virtue of its imperfect efficiency. So yesterday's announcement raises a fascinating question: what, exactly, are the Israelis keeping out of Gaza other than juice, jam, and candy?

The answer is not clear; I have not been able to discover any public list of prohibited items produced by the Israeli government. Weapons, of course, and also "dual use" materials with a special emphasis on construction materials such as cement and steel that Israel says can be uses to build tunnels and arms factories. The exclusion of cement is a source of particular hardship, given the 12,000 homes that were damaged or destroyed during Operation Cast Lead, as well as hospitals, schools, and other public buildings. Beyond that, there appears to be no publicly available, specific list of blockaded items. The BBC has compiled reports from a variety of international organizations. They report that at various times the ban on importation has included light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner. CNN reports that books and paper have also been kept out. Al JAzeera reports that there is a current list of 81 permitted items that seems to change almost daily.

By far the most interesting part of the BBC report is something else. It is a list of items the importation of which was previously blocked but is now permitted, with the time period in which the importation was allowed. These are announcements like the one yesterday that reveal to the world what has been kept out by the announcement that those same items will now be allowed in. It is not at all clear, however, precisely when all of these items were first excluded - that is, because in early 2009 Israel began to allow the importation of chickpeas does not tell us whether the ban on the importation of chickpeas had been an element of the blockade since 2007 or was added later as a punitive response to some particular event. Nonetheless, the list is rather interesting. Again, this is the BBC's report of information complied from international aid groups including UNRWA, Oxfam, and others.

It would be very interesting to hear a response from the Israeli government in the form of an actual list of excluded items other than the now-permitted soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy. In the meantime, we have only these allegations to go on.

So, according to the BBC's report, in early 2009 Israel eased the blockade of Gaza by permitting the importation of chick peas, salt, sugar, cooking oil, cooking fat, flour, pasta, rice, beans, lentils, dairy products, powdered milk, feminine hygiene products, diapers, toilet paper, detergent, dishwashing liquid, shampoo, soap, and toothpaste. In October 2009, tea and coffee allegedly were allowed in. November and December 2009 were alleged to have been banner months, as olives, blankets, matches, candles, broomsticks, rubbish bins, mops, aniseed, cinnamon, unfertilized eggs, potatoes were allowed across the checkpoints. I wonder whether March of 2010 saw a lot of parties, as it is alleged that clothes, shoes, hair brushes and combs were permitted to cross the checkpoints, and in April 2010 limited amounts of wood, aluminium, kitchenware and glass.

This is only a partial recitation: the full, remarkable, list is here. And now, of course, the Israeli government has confirmed that it will no longer keep out soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy.

Howard Schweber: Israel's Blockade of Gaza: What Items Are Allowed In?

on conditions in gaza brought to you by those champions of human dignity on the israeli right:

Damning Report: Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Worst in 40 Years - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Gaza's markets of unaffordable goods conceal reality of people under siege | World news | guardian.co.uk

BBC News - Guide: Gaza under blockade

but hey, the important thing is to be able to quibble about whether the flotilla of unarmed people that were attacked on the open ocean by the idf using live fucking ammunition fall under a shifting and disengenously constructed definition of non-violence.

silent_jay · 06-09-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

It seems to me perspective is less in the eye of the beholder and more in the eyes of the seller, it just depends on what side you wish to purchase your brand of truth from.

Yes and it's obvious from your sources in this and other posts what side you purchase yours from, I mean and IDF Spokesperson Blog, FoxNews, and now another blog, and they even type like you and use "peace activists", I mean really.

Quote:

As I have said before, I read it all, and make my decisions based on my own perceptions of history and the stories of both sides, mixed in with what I consider to be common sense and from that, I still will never say I am 100% right, but I am still 100% hungry for understanding....

Well this is kind of false, you had your mind made up from your first post in this thread, and have just been trying to find sources that make it so, I mean come on Idyllic, your first post you implied there were terrorist connections and have just spent what is it 7 pages now looking for sources to make it so, so I mean to say you read it all and base your decisions on both sides is well to put it nicely false.
I mean here's a post of yours from page 1, and you've just been looking for sources to make it so for the rest of the thread, say you have an open mind all you like, but your posts say otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

They were just kindly activists, right? They were told to turn around, they were told not to do this, they insisted to continue, they were the provokers also. There are other ways of delivering aid to gaza, they did this intentionally to provoke Israel and then to provoke the soldiers and finally to draw the attention of the world while attempting to demonize Israel. Do we no longer talk of the 500+ citizens and innocents killed in the past few months by terrorist (hamas, al-qaeda, hezbollah, et.al.) suicide bombers, bull shit. These were no activists, they were hate filled animals.

Edit: A fun article about Charles Johnson the 'Righteous Gentile' of Israel and founder of 'Little green footballs':

Quote:

If the title of Righteous Gentile is ever bestowed upon friends of Israel in this war, Charles Johnson will deserve a place on the list of candidates for the honor. If anyone ever compiles a list of Internet sites that contribute to Israel’s public relations effort, Johnson's site will probably come in first, far above the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site.

Johnson isn't Jewish. He's an American, born in New York, who grew up in Hawaii and currently lives in Los Angeles. He was raised Catholic, considers himself an agnostic, and is not one of the Zionist Christians, whose support for Israel is based on messianic faith. He is an educated American, brilliant and multi-talented, who comes from a liberal artistic background, and yet struggles for us in a way that commands respect and warms the heart. The man is simply very much on our side, because of the war, because we are here, because of who he is and because of who we are.

Influence through the Internet

Johnson has a long, varied and successful career behind him. For many years he was a professional guitarist who accompanied well-known jazz artists both onstage and in recordings. In addition, in the 1980's he acquired a reputation as a groundbreaking computer programmer and was one of the first programmers to write for Atari computers. Today, he and his brother Michael have a successful web design studio. He is a very busy man who somehow manages to radiate calm, and to find time for his hobby, the sport of cycling. But since the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, most of his time is devoted to another matter altogether.

At the beginning of 2001 Charles Johnson opened his own "blog" – short for "weblog" – which refers, in Internet lingo, to a sort of personal column or online diary where one posts links and commentary on the news, on one’s field of professional expertise or hobbies, about oneself… or about whatever one wishes. The charm of the blog as a medium, is that it allows anyone, anywhere in the world, to be a news commentator, a comedian, a pundit, a philosopher – or a combination thereof. There is no serious financial outlay, there are no editors standing over your head, and there is no censorship.

There are many blogs in cyberspace, but few of them manage to attract a large, regular audience. Johnson's blog, with the strange name of "Little Green Footballs" – LGF for short (www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog) – is rated sixth in the listing of popular blogs in the world. His site is currently accessed by anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 visitors per day. The number of site visitors grows monthly and on the list of regular readers are some well-known intellectuals and top American journalists – mainly right-wing conservatives – who sometimes also contribute comments.

All of this happened in the past two years. At its inception, LGF focused on programming and web page design, with occasional links to amusing news items. But the events of September 11, 2001, changed everything, and Johnson’s blog became a warblog.

Johnson links news items about events in Iraq, in Israel, and in the rest of the world and adds commentary generously spiced with humor, charisma and creativity. In the course of time, he has generated a following of people who are influenced and inspired by him. In a world searching for leaders, Johnson is a kind of leader.

The ‘Wonders’ of Palestinian ‘Culture’

The leftist/anti-Israel bloggers hate Johnson and view him as a dangerous rival. Some of them have posted a doctored photo of him with a Hitler moustache, and compare LGF readers' comments with Nazi propaganda. Johnson, for his part, has compiled an online slide show composed of hundreds of photos of Palestinian children wearing bomb belts, brandishing weapons or marching aside armed men, all under the caption of "Palestinian Child Abuse." Looking at the photos in succession, one can’t help feeling that Palestinian culture is terminally sick and depraved.

That's just a snippet of the article, to see the rest here's the link:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/62000

Baraka_Guru · 06-09-2010, 12:42 PM

More on the investigation here.

Some are taking the position that the proposed investigation is flawed. It looks like they won't be permitted to interrogate the soldiers involved in the incident, for example, and that the primary focus will be on the lead-up top-down decisions and tactics—factors/conditions that occurred before things turned bad.

Quote:

Experts mock Israeli inquiry into attack on flotilla
JASON KOUTSOUKIS HERALD CORRESPONDENT
June 9, 2010

JERUSALEM: Israeli legal experts have poured scorn on a proposed inquiry to examine the military raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla last week that resulted in the deaths of nine people.

After a marathon meeting of his inner cabinet on Monday that approved the inquiry's parameters, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was awaiting the agreement of the US President, Barack Obama, before making an official announcement.

Media reports said the panel would include several leading Israeli maritime law experts and two foreign observers, but would have no power to compel witnesses to appear, and its findings would have no legal effect. Nor would it be allowed to interrogate any of the soldiers or officers who took part in the commando raid.
Advertisement: Story continues below

A leading Israeli jurist, Amnon Rubinstein, who is among those approached to be a part of the inquiry, denounced the decision not to appoint a formal commission of inquiry.

''There is coffee without caffeine and there is an investigative committee without an investigation,'' Professor Rubinstein said yesterday.

''When you don't investigate, it's not an investigative committee. I think that only a legal investigative committee, according to the law with full powers, the exact opposite of what the Defence Minister wants, can help Israel.''

Professor Yehezkel Dror, who was a member of the Winograd commission that investigated Israel's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, said the proposed committee would not go far enough.

Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest-selling daily newspaper, the political analyst Boaz Okon branded the proposed inquiry a whitewash.

''An investigative committee without investigators - that is the recipe by means of which the government is trying to ensure the failure of the investigation into the flotilla events,'' he said.

''If the government wished to make a real investigation, it would form a state commission of inquiry or a government investigative committee that is headed by a judge.''

The details of the proposed inquiry came as the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, Gabi Ashkenazi, announced the appointment of the general who oversaw Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 to head an internal investigation of the legality of the assault on the aid flotilla. Major-General Giora Eiland has also been instructed to analyse what lessons can be learnt from the mission's failures. His investigations will be in addition to any government inquiry.

Israeli media reports yesterday suggested that if Mr Obama rejected the proposed government inquiry as not meeting international standards, the matter would go back to Mr Netanyahu's inner cabinet for further deliberation.

In Istanbul on Monday, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told worshippers at a mosque that the ''Zionist regime's'' raid on the Gaza flotilla was ''a major step towards its total annihilation''.

In Turkey for a summit with regional leaders including the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, Mr Ahmadinejad said Israel was guilty of ''unmatched crimes'' over its raid on the flotilla.

Iran is also threatening to send its own aid flotilla to the Gaza Strip, although it appeared yesterday that Egypt would not allow the convoy to pass through the Suez Canal because it would be seen as a military provocation.

Speaking on Monday, the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, continued to attack Israel over the raid.

''We believe that an independent inquiry to investigate this unlawful incident in a very transparent and fair manner has to be initiated as soon as possible,'' Mr Erdogan said.

Standing alongside Mr Erdogan at a news conference in Istanbul, the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, called for an end to the blockade of Gaza.

''If blood was shed for a certain objective we should make everything possible to achieve their objective [to break the blockade] and we should continue in our efforts on this path,'' Mr Assad said.

Experts mock Israeli inquiry into attack on flotilla

Quote:

Ya'alon: Probe needed of navy tactics
By YAAKOV KATZ AND HERB KEINON
06/09/2010 02:55

IDF panel of experts begins investigating 'Mavi Marmara' raid.

The naval operation to prevent a flotilla of international aid ships from breaking the Israel-imposed sea blockade on Gaza last week needs to be investigated on a tactical level, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Tuesday, in the first sign of criticism of the operation by a top cabinet minister.

“The decision not to allow the flotilla to reach Gaza was the right decision,” Ya’alon said during a meeting with local council heads in the Knesset. “The soldiers’ decision to open fire was made in self-defense. The soldiers and commanders are deserving of praise and appreciation for their bravery – but in the same place that medals are given out, it is also necessary to investigate the military planning of the operation.”

The critical comments by Ya’alon were the first made by a senior cabinet minister regarding last week’s operation, which ended with nine dead passengers – all of them, according to the IDF, part of a group of well-trained mercenaries who violently attacked the navy commandos as they boarded the ship.

Ya’alon was acting prime minister at the time of the operation, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Canada for high-level diplomatic talks.

Kadima MK Yoel Hasson slammed Ya’alon and claimed that in his remarks, the deputy prime minister had implied that the operation had been flawed from the outset and had not gone through the correct decision-making process.

“There is no limit to Ya’alon and Netanyahu’s attempts to evade responsibility,” Hasson said.

Also Tuesday, a panel of military experts – set up by Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi – began investigating the flotilla operation.

Headed by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, the former head of the National Security Council, the panel is expected to collect testimony from Ashkenazi, navy head V.-Adm. Eli Marom and other senior officers involved in planning the operation.

Meanwhile, the government still appeared to be waiting Tuesday to ensure that it would have the backing of the US and key players in Europe before making a formal announcement regarding the type of probe it would establish.

One diplomatic official said that Israel’s friends abroad, such as Germany and France, were entreating the government to “help us help you” – meaning they wanted Israel to set up an independent and credible body to investigate the events.

If Israel is able to get the US, as well as countries like France and Germany, to back the type of probe being set up, diplomatic officials said, it would be able to deflect calls – including those coming from Turkey – for an international investigation.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his inner cabinet, a forum known as the “septet,” have reportedly agreed on the establishment of an Israeli committee made up of jurists and diplomats who would probe the legality of the blockade on Gaza, as well as the manner in which Israel prevented the flotilla from reaching the territory.

The probe is expected to question the political echelon and senior military officials, but not the soldiers who took part in the raid. The committee is also expected to include two foreign observers – one from the US, and the other from another, as-yet-unnamed country.

Diplomatic officials said the US was keen on the involvement of another country, not wanting to be the only international representative on the committee.

Ya'alon: Probe needed of navy tactics

Pearl Trade · 06-09-2010, 02:08 PM

Reuters under fire for removing weapons, blood from images of Gaza flotilla - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Article explaining how Reuters cropped a knife out of an activists hand. That site probably takes Israel's side more often than not, but this same story is on many other news sites.

The pictures prove that there were weapons aboard the ship.

dippin · 06-09-2010, 02:23 PM

I would be very surprised if a boat that size didn't have knives on board. To act as if that changes anything or makes the use of live ammunition from attack helicopters somehow a symmetrical response is worse than anything reuters has done.

And as far as editing goes, we still don't have a full release of the videos and photos confiscated.

silent_jay · 06-09-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

The pictures prove that there were weapons aboard the ship.

No it doesn't, it shows there was a knife on the ship, and probably more than one knife on it, don't know many ships that go out to sea and don't have knives on board, they're quite helpful for many different things, to say it proves there were 'weapons' on the ship is false and quite the stretch of the imagination.

Pearl Trade · 06-09-2010, 03:52 PM

By weapons I meant knives. My fault for not clarifying. I didn't want "weapons" to mean "guns", though I believe the activists did have guns.

I'm not debating any attack coming from the choppers, to be honest I don't really know much about that. Would you like to give me the post number that explains that part of this story, dippin?

A large part of the debate was whether the activists had attacked the Israeli's first, right? Isn't it possible that the activists attacked the Israeli's with knives, provoking the commandos to use deadly force in self defense?

silent_jay · 06-09-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

By weapons I meant knives. My fault for not clarifying. I didn't want "weapons" to mean "guns", though I believe the activists did have guns.

Ahh, sorry about that, the only guns they had were the ones that were taken from the Israeli commando at least that's my understanding.

As for the second part, it appears the Israeli's were firing from helicopters at the activists, check out dlish's 3 part post of his reporter friends account of what happened, it's from someone who was actually on the ship and was quite an informative read.

dippin · 06-09-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

By weapons I meant knives. My fault for not clarifying. I didn't want "weapons" to mean "guns", though I believe the activists did have guns.

I'm not debating any attack coming from the choppers, to be honest I don't really know much about that. Would you like to give me the post number that explains that part of this story, dippin?

A large part of the debate was whether the activists had attacked the Israeli's first, right? Isn't it possible that the activists attacked the Israeli's with knives, provoking the commandos to use deadly force in self defense?

Even the israelis, who confiscated everything on the boats, acknowledge there were no guns on the boat. The only guns the people on the boat eventually got were the ones they got from the 2 soldiers.

Trying to board a ship in international waters IS an attack, so by definition the Israelis attacked first.

Pearl Trade · 06-09-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Ahh, sorry about that, the only guns they had were the ones that were taken from the Israeli commando at least that's my understanding.

As for the second part, it appears the Israeli's were firing from helicopters at the activists, check out dlish's 3 part post of his reporter friends account of what happened, it's from someone who was actually on the ship and was quite an informative read.

No problem, bro.

While dlish's report was compelling and a very interesting read, I think any and every story should be taken with a grain of salt. CNN, FOX, BBC, they're all biased in some way. Israel is trying to justify what they did, so they're going to spin it to make themselves look good. The activists are trying to make Israel look like shit, so they're going to say anything they want and hope it sticks.

I think Israel had the right idea, they just went about it wrong. Slightly wrong, at the least. Both sides could have done more right. Based on what I've read, and along with my prior beliefs and values, Israel has my support. Like I said, everyone could have done something better, but Israel had the right idea; something went wrong along the way.

I have a fairly open mind, but I can't see my opinion changing unless someone comes out with hard evidence. I bet a lot of people here share that reasoning.

dlish · 06-09-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

It seems to me perspective is less in the eye of the beholder and more in the eyes of the seller, it just depends on what side you wish to purchase your brand of truth from. As I have said before, I read it all, and make my decisions based on my own perceptions of history and the stories of both sides, mixed in with what I consider to be common sense and from that, I still will never say I am 100% right, but I am still 100% hungry for understanding WHY, WHY the fuck humankind has to treat each other this way, it baffles me. But then extremism within religious ideologies in this day in age baffles me too, however, I was given the opportunity for a free education from the time of my birth, something many humans are not blessed with in this world today, especially many middle easterners. Where I feel education is the answer to humanities cohesiveness, I believe many Muslims view education (outside of the Koran) as the end to their perceived way of life, especially the basic education of ALL Muslim women, though this is just my opinion.

im not sure where you're going with this idyllic, except to say that its not really about the flotilla or the israeli raid.

but to rephrase what you're saying is that "ALL" muslims believe that the education of women is a thread to their society. you dont know many muslims by the looks of it do you. if you're thinking of women in afghanistan...then thats ridiculous. 99.9999% of muslim women dont live under taliban rule.

sure there are social pressures at play here, as there are political, theological and economic ones for the lack of education in 'muslim' countries, but thats for another thgread. but to say that muslims believe that all women shouldnt be educated is absurd. she-lish is a testament to that.

extremism isnt limited to religious ideology.... extremist idiocy is just as dangerous

dippin · 06-09-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

Where I feel education is the answer to humanities cohesiveness, I believe many Muslims view education (outside of the Koran) as the end to their perceived way of life, especially the basic education of ALL Muslim women, though this is just my opinion.

The same could be said of people of most religions, including Christians. And not just Christians in certain developing nations, but even in the US.

dlish · 06-10-2010, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

No problem, bro.

While dlish's report was compelling and a very interesting read, I think any and every story should be taken with a grain of salt. CNN, FOX, BBC, they're all biased in some way. Israel is trying to justify what they did, so they're going to spin it to make themselves look good. The activists are trying to make Israel look like shit, so they're going to say anything they want and hope it sticks.

I think Israel had the right idea, they just went about it wrong. Slightly wrong, at the least. Both sides could have done more right. Based on what I've read, and along with my prior beliefs and values, Israel has my support. Like I said, everyone could have done something better, but Israel had the right idea; something went wrong along the way.

I have a fairly open mind, but I can't see my opinion changing unless someone comes out with hard evidence. I bet a lot of people here share that reasoning.

you're right, israel does have a right to protect its borders, as does any sovereign nation.

what they dont have a right to do is attack a ship in international waters that posed no immediate threat. with that reasoning, al qaeda though that the USS Cole was fair game as it was in yemeni waters and posed a threat, but it doesnt mean that the USS Cole should have been bombed.

pearl trade - i agree. even journalists cant be objective, and im sure of an arab slant to the story. at least it gives a different perspective to the IDF's/idyllics version that seems to paint everyone as terrorists onboard the flotilla.

there truth lies somewhere herein.

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

what they dont have a right to do is attack a ship in international waters that posed no immediate threat.

So you don't think that Israel has a right to inspect ships carrying weapons to Hamas...or you don't think that the ships are carrying weapons to Hamas...or you think they should be carrying weapons to Hamas?? If they are smuggling weapons to Hamas does it really matter if the ships were 1, 3, 5 or 100 miles outside Israel's territorial waters when the intention (from an Israeli perspective) is to deliver weapons specifically intended to harm Israelis??

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 07:05 AM

but they weren't bringing weapons to hamas and everyone including the israelis knew that they weren't. so what's your point?

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 07:19 AM

If you are going to maintain a blockade to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas I think it stands to reason you are going to want to inspect each and every large ship capable of carrying such that is headed into Gaza. Why else do you think they bother to inspect the ships at all?

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 07:25 AM

that's not what the blockade is primarily about, powerclown. look at the information posted earlier about what's excluded by it. the argument that it's about weapons is ludicrous. it's not not about weapons, just as until yesterday is was also not not about halwa and fruit jelly (which were also prohibited).

Baraka_Guru · 06-10-2010, 07:46 AM

Well, we wouldn't want Hamas to get a hold of kitchen knives and slingshots, would we?!

Those marbles aren't toys; they're munitions.

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 08:02 AM

you wouldn't think this necessary to say.

Quote:

Israel Without Clichés
By Tony Judt

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was not wholly wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian resistance movements from 1948 through the early 1980s did them little good. And Hamas, firmly in that tradition though far more genuinely popular than its predecessors, will have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative blunders.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good job — that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the Israel lobby is unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the subtext of excessive Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a point: the gun lobby, the oil lobby and the banking lobby have all done far more damage to the health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two. In Arthur Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.”

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Ill Fares the Land.”

Op-Ed Contributor - Talking About Israel, Without the Clichés - NYTimes.com

for the record, i think the mistake here was in not allowing the ships to do their off-load and leave as if the publicity from that was too dangerous for israel to bear because, presumably, it would get information out into the international press about actual conditions in gaza. which aren't great. like at all. at. all.
so the mistake was strategic and followed from the logic of conservative politics in israel which relies way way too much on the phantom of "terrorism" to legitimate its various forms of colonialism.
and from specific people inside netanyahu's cabinet who are nameless of course.

once the idf was dispatched with real weapons and live ammunition and was seemingly instructed to forcibly board the ships, it was not surprising that something bad happened, really. i mean, there are weapons and real ammunition and aggression and panic all happening in a confined space.

seems to me that the attempt to act as though all that matters is the dynamics that unfolded on the boats is pretty disengenuous. not as disengenuous as the attempts to paint everyone on the boats as some sort of "terrorist" operative. but still, all very idf disinformation, don't you think?

dlish · 06-10-2010, 08:20 AM

bet you dont know what halwa is...

it's better known as 'halawa' in lebanon, jordan, palestine and syria

AL AMEERA FOOD INDUSTRIES

---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ----------

powerclown, no i dont think they had the right to board without reasonable cause to believe that they were carrying guns. thats because israel knows they werent carrying guns to hamas.

even then, they could have waited till they came into israeli waters. there was no immediate danger to any israeli citizens. in fact israeli put its own soldiers at risk with their cowboy attitude that could have easily gotten their guys killed.

Baraka_Guru · 06-10-2010, 08:21 AM

Wow, why would Israel bar something so delicious?

dlish · 06-10-2010, 08:24 AM

probably so that israel can sell it to them instead i presume..or maybe they'll use the pestachia nuts as slingshot pellets.. who knows

Baraka_Guru · 06-10-2010, 08:27 AM

Maybe they thought it can be used as a coagulant for homemade bomb materials or something.

dlish · 06-10-2010, 08:35 AM

its made of sesame seed mainly..maybe its oil would be refined to be used for hamas jeeps

Baraka_Guru · 06-10-2010, 08:36 AM

It also has trace amounts of copper. They could smelt it and then Gaza would hit the Copper Age.

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 08:45 AM

Yeah, maybe they were more concerned with policing nautical speed limits and the potential harm done colliding with dolphins, sea turtles or flying fish or maybe even other ships fumbling to deliver god knows what into Gaza probably just more gummy bears and tampons. You don't want to acknowledge the smuggling of weapons into Gaza because then your whole story would fall apart.

The_Jazz · 06-10-2010, 08:55 AM

It's pretty much impossible to have a rational conversation about things when both sides are simulateously right and wrong.

dlish · 06-10-2010, 08:56 AM

i dont think anyone in this thread has denied that there are attempts to smuggle guns into gaza..it just so happens that those guns were not on that boat. had they been, israel would have flaunted it to the worlds media by now.

i think you dont want to acknowledge that there were no weapons or terrorists, otherwise your story would likewise fall apart. keep the accusations going. thats the best way to sell it to fox and the rest of the world.

Baraka_Guru · 06-10-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

It's pretty much impossible to have a rational conversation about things when both sides are simulateously right and wrong.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? It's difficult to sort these things out when the one holding the bag and all the marbles is the IDF.

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 09:08 AM

Jazz I think you are right.
I'll do this one last thing, and let it go:

Quote:

The MV Francop is a German-owned, Antigua and Barbuda-flagged merchant cargo ship. In November 2009 the Israeli navy boarded the vessel in the Mediterranean Sea, suspecting that it was carrying weapons destined for Hezbollah from the Islamic Republic of Iran in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Hundreds of tons of weapons were found on the ship, which was then directed to berth in Israel.

MV Francop: Cargo Ship Laden with Tons of Weapons

With the Israelis it seems pretty simple: Just stop bombing us please.

dippin · 06-10-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Jazz I think you are right.
I'll do this one last thing, and let it go:

MV Francop: Cargo Ship Laden with Tons of Weapons

With the Israelis it seems pretty simple: Just stop bombing us please.

Lebanon is not Gaza and a highly publicized flotilla of activists is not Iran.

As for the second part, the Palestinian authority and the West Bank have been "rewarded" for ceasing attacks and being the most willing to negotiate by the fastest expansion in settlements in recent history.

hiredgun · 06-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Trying to board a ship in international waters IS an attack, so by definition the Israelis attacked first.

I think the 'international waters' bit is also kind of a red herring, for two reasons.

1) Historically, it has been acceptable for countries to enforce blockades outside of their own territorial waters. (The distinction, of course, is that this blockade is not widely recognized as legitimate - but the precise location of the incident is not really the issue.) Interception of goods en route is routine in a blockade.

2) Consider the counterfactual - if precisely the same incident had taken place a few miles east, in Israeli (or really Gazan) territorial waters, would it really change your mind about the meaning of the event? Would it have played out any differently? For me, the answer is a resounding no.

If you look at the list of goods restricted, it is obvious for anyone with eyes to see - really, truly obvious, and I dare you to say otherwise - that a primary purpose of the blockade (along with keeping out weapons) is to deprive the Gazan population as political leverage. Make of this whatever you will. Many sanctions regimes work this way, and sometimes they are preferable to the alternatives. But please do not deny it or offer 'weapons' as a misdirection.

For my part, I would argue that this blockade of deprivation - as opposed to the blockade of arms - is counter-productive. It might seem like a good idea to prevent Hamas from succeeding, but the audiences that matter believe that the Gaza crisis is Israel's fault, and the suffering of the Gazans is hurting rather than helping Abbas/Fayyad in the PA. So why continue? I appreciate that it is politically difficult for Israel to lift the blockade on its own without losing face - which is why I think the US could facilitate the change.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

Send the Sixth Fleet to Gaza | Stephen M. Walt

Quote:

How to end the blockade of Gaza
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, June 7, 2010 - 5:08 PM Share

Back in May 1967, the Egyptian government led by Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. This action crossed a "red line" for Israel, and was a major escalatory step in the crisis that led to the Six Day War. President Lyndon Johnson considered sending U.S. warships or some sort of international flotilla to challenge the blockade and defuse the crisis. But even though the United States had previously given Israel certain assurances about protecting freedom of navigation in the straits, Johnson ultimately declined to take decisive action to defend Israel's navigation rights. The United States was already bogged down in Vietnam and Johnson feared getting trapped in another volatile conflict. So he dithered, and Israel ultimately chose to go to war instead.

Had Johnson used U.S. naval forces to challenge the blockade, the Six Day War might not have occurred. Egypt would not have dared to challenge U.S. warships, of course, and sending a U.S. fleet to break the blockade would have given Nasser a way to back down but save face (i.e., he would have been backing down to a superpower, and not to Israel). And had the Six Day War been averted, many of the problems we are wrestling with now -- including the disastrous occupation of the West Bank -- might never have arisen.

Remembering this previous failure got me thinking: why doesn't the United States use its considerable power to lift the blockade of Gaza unilaterally? It's clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering and making both the United States and Israel look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world. It has also failed to achieve any positive political purpose, like defeating Hamas. So why doesn't the United States take the bull by the horns and organize a relief flotilla of its own, and use the U.S. Navy to escort the ships into Gaza? I'll bet we could easily get a few NATO allies to help too, and if money's the issue, we can get some EU members or Scandinavians to help pay for the relief supplies. And somehow I don't think the IDF would try to stop us, or board any of the vessels.

The advantages of this course of action seem obvious. The United States has been looking both ineffective and hypocritical ever since the Cairo speech a year ago, and many people in the Arab and Islamic world are beginning to see Barack Obama as just a smooth-talking version of George W. Bush. By taking concrete steps to relieve Palestinian suffering, Obama would be showing the world that the United States was not in thrall to Israel or its hard-core lobbyists here in the United States. What better way to discredit the fulminations of anti-American terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who constantly accuse us of being indifferent to Muslim suffering? The photo ops of U.S. personnel unloading tons of relief supplies would go a long way to repairing our tarnished image in that part of the world. Remember the Berlin airlift, or our relief operations in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami? Doing good for others can win a lot of good will.

Second, having the U.S. and NATO take charge of a relief operation would alleviate Israel's security concerns. The Israeli government claims the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. That is surely a legitimate concern, but if the United States and its allies are bringing relief aid in, then we can determine what goes on the ships and we obviously won't bring in weaponry.

But wait a minute: wouldn't bringing relief aid to Gaza end up strengthening Hamas? Not if we arrange for the relief aid to be distributed through the United Nations or other independent relief agencies. Some of it might end up in Hamas's hands indirectly but most of it won't, and reducing the level of deprivation and suffering would undercut the influence Hamas gains as a provider of social services.

It's true that a relief operation of this sort will probably require some U.S. officials to have some minimal dealings with Hamas, but this would actually be a good thing. If the United States is really serious about a genuine two-state solution, it is going to have to bring Hamas into the political process sooner or later and this is a pretty low-key, non-committal way to start. And while we're at it, we can tell them to get busy fixing that Charter of theirs and take a humanitarian gesture or two of their own, such as releasing captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

In short, using American power to end the blockade of Gaza could be a win-win-win for everyone. The United States (and Obama himself) would demonstrate that we really did seek a "new beginning" in the Middle East, and correct the impression that the Cairo speech was just a lot of elegant hooey. Israel's security concerns would be addressed, it would look flexible and reasonable, and we would be providing Netanyahu with an easy way to extricate himself from a position that is increasingly untenable. (It's one thing for him to lift the blockade himself, but quite another to do it at Washington's behest). And of course the long-suffering population of Gaza would be much better off, which should make us all feel better.

The more that I think about it, the more attractive this approach looks. All it takes is an administration that is willing to take bold action to correct a situation that is both a humanitarian outrage and a simmering threat to regional peace. That probably means that it has zero chance of being adopted. And of course you all know why.

dippin · 06-10-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I think the 'international waters' bit is also kind of a red herring, for two reasons.

1) Historically, it has been acceptable for countries to enforce blockades outside of their own territorial waters. (The distinction, of course, is that this blockade is not widely recognized as legitimate - but the precise location of the incident is not really the issue.) Interception of goods en route is routine in a blockade.

2) Consider the counterfactual - if precisely the same incident had taken place a few miles east, in Israeli (or really Gazan) territorial waters, would it really change your mind about the meaning of the event? Would it have played out any differently? For me, the answer is a resounding no.

If you look at the list of goods restricted, it is obvious for anyone with eyes to see - really, truly obvious, and I dare you to say otherwise - that a primary purpose of the blockade (along with keeping out weapons) is to deprive the Gazan population as political leverage. Make of this whatever you will. Many sanctions regimes work this way, and sometimes they are preferable to the alternatives. But please do not deny it or offer 'weapons' as a misdirection.

For my part, I would argue that this blockade of deprivation - as opposed to the blockade of arms - is counter-productive. It might seem like a good idea to prevent Hamas from succeeding, but the audiences that matter believe that the Gaza crisis is Israel's fault, and the suffering of the Gazans is hurting rather than helping Abbas/Fayyad in the PA. So why continue? I appreciate that it is politically difficult for Israel to lift the blockade on its own without losing face - which is why I think the US could facilitate the change.

But the issue is one of legitimacy. So the fact that it happened in international waters is certainly relevant. For be it as it may regarding other blockades, it is still a violation of international law. And it speaks to the sort of mindset of the Israeli leadership that that distinction between a legal action within it's waters and an illegal one outside of it is completely lost.

Sure, had it happened inside Israeli waters the disproportionate use of force would still be an issue, but it would be a different matter altogether.

The best example of why these distinctions matter is what happened in Cuba in 1996, when the Cuban air force shot down 2 planes flown by protesters, and a week later more protests were organized.

06-08-2010, 03:53 PM	#243 (permalink)
Idyllic Psycho Location: My House	Ace, sure, I would image that some of the passengers were there for a myriad of reason, personal, humanitarian, journalistic, political, etc.. but the mercenaries, the terrorist linked individuals, these are the ones I have issue with, the persons who would not just invoke violence but who thrive off of violence and fear as a means to an end. You may want to read my posts, I am all about the necessity of the IDF to defend themselves and that this was a plan orchestrated by self-indulgent anti-Zionistic, anti-Hebraic, anti-infidel individuals to bring about bad press for Israel and to devalue the importance of the embargo. I don't think that ALL 700 of the original passengers were aware of the fully violent plans and intentions of many of these unsavory characters, but I am a mother in a free country who would never subject my children to violence in the name of a cause so it is hard for me to grasp that women brought their children on board with the knowledge of what was coming, whereas many in the jihad culture will consider this a just maneuver in jihad, martyrdom is a very, very powerful weapon. I am pretty sure if you read my posts you can figure out my view of this incident. We are still not done with the realty behind this incident either, espionage is a cyclic action that in exposing one angle you will in turn expose your assets if you move to quickly, so patience and distant and time are inherently one of the coverts most valuable tools. These deaths happened for attention, and attention is exactly what hamas is getting (just not the kind they wanted as they wanted negative press for IDF and Israel and positive press for Palestinians), however, more intelligent people are beginning to recognize the depths terrorists will go to feed their own warped appetite for death and destruction in the singular oppressive cause they seek to justify, not merely the surface cause of a few who simply wished to bring attention to the plight of the citizens of Gaza. 50 men with approximately $10,000.00 each would be pretty close to $500,000.00, at about $5,000 each, this kind of money could have bought the lives of 100 hungry people hoping to help their families, and the deaths of many innocents that these hungry, pigeonholed, and tyrannized suicide bombers could have blown up in their attempts at martyrdom, or simply a way out of hamas’ tyranny. Obviously this is all in my humble opinion, and many will say I seek out only the information that fulfills my views, and that that information is found only within the realms of pro-Israel and pro blah, blah, blah, or whatever it is that I am attempting to prove or my goal, but the reality is, I have no goals, I attempt to prove nothing. I am merely witnessing what is before me and stating my points of perception regarding these actions based on my own education in the realms of terrorism and what is unfolding in the ME. I have no stake in this conversation, it is not even a debate to me as I simply see this as black and white and it is blatantly apparent to me, terrorism and terrorist linked humans are tyrannical regime cohorts and that theses tyrannical regimes can, will and do persist in continuing and spreading, if permitted, the use of anybody and everybody within their ability to achieve their singular goals in the continuations of said self vindicating, tyrannous views of fear, hate and genocide, it really is that simple to me. Terrorism: The killing of non-combatants, with the specific intent of spreading or perpetuating ones own political, religious or ideological agenda by instilling fear of death in those who would normally, without coercion, reject the views of the movements leaders. Non-combatant being the key term here. __________________ you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

06-09-2010, 11:03 AM	#246 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	hiredgun, if you read the 3 part story that my reporter friend made a few days ago, you'll see that he reported the bashing of the israeli soldier. idyllic - i take it you havent heard of the 'children overboard scandal'? you know..the story where the australian government used the sinking ship as a motive to politicise the presense of children on a boat. the only difference was that it was in australian waters governments could never lie. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-09-2010, 02:08 PM	#251 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	Reuters under fire for removing weapons, blood from images of Gaza flotilla - Haaretz Daily Newspaper \| Israel News Article explaining how Reuters cropped a knife out of an activists hand. That site probably takes Israel's side more often than not, but this same story is on many other news sites. The pictures prove that there were weapons aboard the ship. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death! Last edited by Pearl Trade; 06-09-2010 at 02:13 PM..

06-09-2010, 03:52 PM	#254 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	By weapons I meant knives. My fault for not clarifying. I didn't want "weapons" to mean "guns", though I believe the activists did have guns. I'm not debating any attack coming from the choppers, to be honest I don't really know much about that. Would you like to give me the post number that explains that part of this story, dippin? A large part of the debate was whether the activists had attacked the Israeli's first, right? Isn't it possible that the activists attacked the Israeli's with knives, provoking the commandos to use deadly force in self defense? __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

06-10-2010, 07:05 AM	#262 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	but they weren't bringing weapons to hamas and everyone including the israelis knew that they weren't. so what's your point? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 11:29 AM	#241 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	Thanks for posting your friends account of what happened dlish, it was a very good read, and glad to see he got out safe, too bad he couldn't bring out his personal effects with him, it seems like he had a lot of film of the incident that possibly could have shed some light on this, but as you said Israel isn't going to let any incriminating evidence get out after a clusterfuck such as this.

06-08-2010, 11:56 PM	#245 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	In the interest of contributing a few data points, the Times has some (I think) new photos from inside the ship during the attack. They show some commandos injured at the hands of the passengers. Of course, the pictures don't really give you context - who instigated the violence, for example. Photographs of Battered Israeli Commandos Show New Side of Raid - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com I don't know how to elaborate very much on the position I stated earlier. I think that the only truly salient structural fact here is the nature of the blockade itself and its disastrous humanitarian impact on Gazans. Everything else surrounding this event is largely an exercise in PR.

06-09-2010, 02:23 PM	#252 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I would be very surprised if a boat that size didn't have knives on board. To act as if that changes anything or makes the use of live ammunition from attack helicopters somehow a symmetrical response is worse than anything reuters has done. And as far as editing goes, we still don't have a full release of the videos and photos confiscated.

06-10-2010, 07:19 AM	#263 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	If you are going to maintain a blockade to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas I think it stands to reason you are going to want to inspect each and every large ship capable of carrying such that is headed into Gaza. Why else do you think they bother to inspect the ships at all?

06-10-2010, 07:25 AM	#264 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's not what the blockade is primarily about, powerclown. look at the information posted earlier about what's excluded by it. the argument that it's about weapons is ludicrous. it's not not about weapons, just as until yesterday is was also not not about halwa and fruit jelly (which were also prohibited). __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-10-2010, 07:46 AM	#265 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, we wouldn't want Hamas to get a hold of kitchen knives and slingshots, would we?! Those marbles aren't toys; they're munitions. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-10-2010, 08:20 AM	#267 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	bet you dont know what halwa is... it's better known as 'halawa' in lebanon, jordan, palestine and syria AL AMEERA FOOD INDUSTRIES ---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ---------- powerclown, no i dont think they had the right to board without reasonable cause to believe that they were carrying guns. thats because israel knows they werent carrying guns to hamas. even then, they could have waited till they came into israeli waters. there was no immediate danger to any israeli citizens. in fact israeli put its own soldiers at risk with their cowboy attitude that could have easily gotten their guys killed. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-10-2010, 08:21 AM	#268 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Wow, why would Israel bar something so delicious? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-10-2010, 08:24 AM	#269 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	probably so that israel can sell it to them instead i presume..or maybe they'll use the pestachia nuts as slingshot pellets.. who knows __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-10-2010, 08:27 AM	#270 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Maybe they thought it can be used as a coagulant for homemade bomb materials or something. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-10-2010, 08:35 AM	#271 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	its made of sesame seed mainly..maybe its oil would be refined to be used for hamas jeeps __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-10-2010, 08:36 AM	#272 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It also has trace amounts of copper. They could smelt it and then Gaza would hit the Copper Age. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-10-2010, 08:45 AM	#273 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Yeah, maybe they were more concerned with policing nautical speed limits and the potential harm done colliding with dolphins, sea turtles or flying fish or maybe even other ships fumbling to deliver god knows what into Gaza probably just more gummy bears and tampons. You don't want to acknowledge the smuggling of weapons into Gaza because then your whole story would fall apart.

06-10-2010, 08:55 AM	#274 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	It's pretty much impossible to have a rational conversation about things when both sides are simulateously right and wrong. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-10-2010, 08:56 AM	#275 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i dont think anyone in this thread has denied that there are attempts to smuggle guns into gaza..it just so happens that those guns were not on that boat. had they been, israel would have flaunted it to the worlds media by now. i think you dont want to acknowledge that there were no weapons or terrorists, otherwise your story would likewise fall apart. keep the accusations going. thats the best way to sell it to fox and the rest of the world. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy