Report: Israel storms Gaza-bound aid ships

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Speaking of contradictions:

Under Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links

When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts. On June 2, the IDF blasted out a press release to reporters and bloggers with the shocking headline: “Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries.” The only supporting evidence offered in the release was a claim that the passengers “were equipped with bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, and weapons.” A screen capture of the press release is below:



Not content to believe that night vision goggles signal membership in Al Qaeda, Israel-based freelance reporter Lia Tarachansky and I called the IDF press office to ask for more conclusive evidence. Tarachansky reached the IDF’s Israel desk, interviewing a spokesperson in Hebrew; I spoke with the North America desk, using English. We both received the same reply from Army spokespeople: “We don’t have any evidence. The press release was based on information from the [Israeli] National Security Council.” (The Israeli National Security Council is Netanyahu’s kitchen cabinet of advisors).

Today, the Israeli Army’s press office changed the headline of its press release (see below), basically retracting its claim about the flotilla’s Al Qaeda links. The new headline reads: “Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found Without Identification Papers” (the top of the browser screen still contains the original headline about Al Qaeda). The more Israel’s claims about the flotilla’s terrorist links are challenged, the more they fall apart.




(I don't vouch for the tone of the writing or the title of the links)

Full link here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can they really be that stupid? Are you kidding me?

The whole thing was a 'stupid' setup. By a bunch of morons whose only intent was to make Israel look bad.

They were given another option. A peaceful resolution. And they choose to ignore it, completely ignoring the consequences of their actions. Even AFTER they were told that Israel wouldn't let them break the blockade.

So again you ask, were they stupid?

Is that a rhetorical question? Because everyone knows the people on the ship were stupid.

There are better ways to make a point.

I disagree, for the most part the people on the boat weren't stupid. This was a brilliant plan.

They loaded up the boat with what sounds like fairly worthless humanitarian aid.

They stacked the one boat with people that were willing to fight and perhaps be martyred.

while 5 boats stopped and allowed themselves to be searched, the 6th boat followed suspicious activity by trying to pull away from the IDF boat.

They didn't have firearms on that boat as that would have killed the credibility of the peaceful activist theory.

They convinced foreign activists to go with them, putting them in harms way.

This was a brilliant plan with the kicker being the use of the Turkish flagged boats.

the planning, recruiting and execution of this was brilliant and in every way achieved its goal.

They weren't stupid by any sense.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Yeah I'm sure they were ready for battle. Is that why they started pulling metal bars off the hand rails instead of pulling out guns?

Like I said in a earlier post - the truth will never come out.

lol.

The truth will never come out for you because you don't want to believe that these people set out with the clear intent to goad Israel into a public relations nightmare.

[CaptainCrunch]

That doesn't change the fact though that this flotilla was funded by the IHH, which is linked to the Union of Good which is linked to funds transferred to Hammas, Hezbollah and Al Queda, including a very strong link to the millenium bomber.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Believe me, I wouldn't have shed a tear if the Israelis went about this like Soviets in Afghanistan (or Americans in Vietnam), but this is an obvious lie. Nobody in their right mind would machine gun the ship and then descend down by rope with non-lethal weapons. That simply is impossible.

That could be true, but I doubt it. The IDF claimed that their soldiers had their handguns stolen so how are you claiming they roped down to the ship with non-letal weapons?

Anyways I'm done with this thread because we can sit here and talk about this for days, but the truth will never come out. I think blame should be laid on both sides, not just the protesters, and not just the Israelis.

[CaptainCrunch]

Further question . . .wouldn't bullet proof vests and night vision goggles be items that shouldn't be allowed into Gaza?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck

That could be true, but I doubt it. The IDF claimed that their soldiers had their handguns stolen so how are you claiming they roped down to the ship with non-letal weapons?

Anyways I'm done with this thread because we can sit here and talk about this for days, but the truth will never come out. I think blame should be laid on both sides, not just the protesters, and not just the Israelis.

the pistols are the IDF's secondary weapon, you still carry them. But their primary weapons were basically modified paintball guns.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

(I don't vouch for the tone of the writing or the title of the links)

Full link here.

From what I understand those allegations of terror ties have been made prior to June 2.

PARIS — The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 al-Qaida plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France's former top anti-terrorism judge said Wednesday.


The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad," former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

French investigators found in the 1990s that "several members of Fateh Kamel's network worked at the IHH as a cover," Bruguiere said. "It was too systematic and too widespread for the NGO (non-governmental organization) not to know" their real goal, he said.


The former judge, renowned for tracking down convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, said he didn't believe the IHH could have been infiltrated by terrorists without its knowledge.


"It's hard to prove, but all elements of the investigation showed that part of the NGO served to hide jihad-type activities," Bruguiere said. "I'm convinced this was a clear strategy, known by IHH."


The judge said he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other "incriminating" material.


"It was clearly proven that some of the NGO's work was not charity, it was to provide a facade for moving funds, weapons and mujahedeen to and from Bosnia and Afghanistan" — areas focused on by Islamic militants then.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...3ORHAD9G3D4QO0

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100602/...ps_terror_ties

Mentions nothing of Israeli claims.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree, for the most part the people on the boat weren't stupid. This was a brilliant plan.

They loaded up the boat with what sounds like fairly worthless humanitarian aid.

They stacked the one boat with people that were willing to fight and perhaps be martyred.

while 5 boats stopped and allowed themselves to be searched, the 6th boat followed suspicious activity by trying to pull away from the IDF boat.

They didn't have firearms on that boat as that would have killed the credibility of the peaceful activist theory.

They convinced foreign activists to go with them, putting them in harms way.

This was a brilliant plan with the kicker being the use of the Turkish flagged boats.

the planning, recruiting and execution of this was brilliant and in every way achieved its goal.

They weren't stupid by any sense.

Well stupid as in its stupid to try and provoke the IDF if your intention is peaceful.

Which it quite obviously isn't.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

If the army was firing automatic weapons onto random people's heads, you would also expect there to be massive pools of blood all over the deck of the ship. The kind of blood you would slip and fall in. The amount of blood that would be all over everyone around them. Just two people with gaping headwounds like that would produce litres of blood.

I appreciate your passion but the hyperbole here is out of control. There's only about 5 liters of total blood in the human body, and there are very few places that you can sever to get this slip-n-slide of blood that you're talking about.

I agree with you that there is no evidence to suggest that there was indiscriminate strafing of the people on the boat. That's just pure hyperbole from desperate anti-Israeli partisans. But some of your reasons for why it didn't happen are just extreme exaggerations, albeit passionate ones.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by puckluck

That could be true, but I doubt it. The IDF claimed that their soldiers had their handguns stolen so how are you claiming they roped down to the ship with non-letal weapons?

Anyways I'm done with this thread because we can sit here and talk about this for days, but the truth will never come out. I think blame should be laid on both sides, not just the protesters, and not just the Israelis.

Huh?

Are you naive enough to think the soldiers would actually carry out an operation without having lethal firearms with them?

We're talking about commandos that are trained to deal with riot crowds. Israel has a lot of experience with that.

The truth has come out. The ship had a clear intent to incite a public relationships nightmare for Israel.

The only thing you're demonstrating in this thread is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I appreciate your passion but the hyperbole here is out of control. There's only about 5 liters of total blood in the human body, and there are very few places that you can sever to get this slip-n-slide of blood that you're talking about.

I agree with you that there is no evidence to suggest that there was indiscriminate strafing of the people on the boat. That's just pure hyperbole from desperate anti-Israeli partisans. But some of your reasons for why it didn't happen are just extreme exaggerations, albeit passionate ones.

But there would still be blood on the ship.

Another question is why were the other 5 ships boarded peacefully? I suppose the 'truth' according to puckluck would be that Israel only choose to fire on one ship.

And there is absolutely no evidence showing that.

If Israel is to be blamed for anything, its that they actually went to board the ships. They could have just blocked them out and refused to let them through. Or at least wait till the people get tired and settle down.

But once they went ahead with the boarding procedures, I honestly believe they had no choice but to act the way they did.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

From what I understand those allegations of terror ties have been made prior to June 2.

I read your link earlier in the thread (at least I think it was from you).

I can't substantively comment on it, as I was never aware of this group prior to this incident. Were you? (I guess I should read more!)

Regardless, from here in the US, I feel that this notion of terrorism and terror ties is really getting a bit out of control. The desire to cover everything under the terror blanket is a knee-jerk one that is poorly substantiated, and is really nothing but propaganda (at least in the initial phase!).

For example, if someone attends an IHH meeting, doesn't return to another one, and then a year later straps himself with bombs and kills people in a public square, did the IHH incite that? Perhaps they did and gave this guy a wink and a nudge and then "disavowed" themselves of any association, knowing implicitly he would go do their bidding. But perhaps the whacko attended a meeting and said "this civil disobedience crap doesn't work" and had no overlapping interest with the IHH? Perhaps he used this peaceful organization as a cover?

This type of 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game applied to "terrorism" is too easily used as propaganda to have any real worth. Heck, the US government employs Blackwater (excuse me, Xe Services) who then goes and discriminately empties cartridges upon cartridges of bullets in a public square? Is that an act of terrorism? Does the US government's legitimate dealings with Blackwater as a contractor make them a terrorist organization? Timothy McVeigh attended Bryant & Stratton College... is the college a terrorist organization? Is the Jewish Defense League a terrorist organization because of Baruch Goldstein? How about Yeshiva University where he studied?

I would be of the opinion that the dealings of this organization be closely followed. But to begin to label this as a terrorist organization or to say it is a de facto sponsor of terror is too easy in this climate. There's a lot of cab drivers locked up in Guantanamo because they gave rides to the wrong people.

I hope I'm not coming off as glib as I do take the notion of terrorism very seriously as a threat. But the rabid way that these organizations are prosecuted in the public square is not the process that I would want for myself in a court of law.

[Azure]

Obviously neither of us know the ties, but this stood out in the article regarding the French saying they had terrorist ties.

"It's hard to prove, but all elements of the investigation showed that part of the NGO served to hide jihad-type activities," Bruguiere said. "I'm convinced this was a clear strategy, known by IHH."

The judge said he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other "incriminating" material.

"It was clearly proven that some of the NGO's work was not charity, it was to provide a facade for moving funds, weapons and mujahedeen to and from Bosnia and Afghanistan" — areas focused on by Islamic militants then.

I'm the last person on earth to defend governments, especially the US government with their 'terror branding' techniques. I think it far too often serves a purpose to manipulate the media, or the public.

So, regarding the Israeli claims, if they were the only ones that made them, I'd believe it if you said they were a bit far-fetched, nevermind the evidence you posted.

But we're coming from a different angle here, from someone who has investigated this group for many years.

[CaptainCrunch]

IHH Activities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHH_(%C...1m_Vakf%C4%B1)

The IHH was established in 1992 and officially registered in Istanbul in 1995. A French intelligence report concluded that in the mid-1990s, IHH president Bulent Yildrim was directly involved in "recruit[ing] veteran soldiers in anticipation of the coming holy war [jihad]. In particular, some men were sent into war zones in Muslim countries in order to acquire combat experience."

In 2006, the Danish Institute for International Studies published a report titled "The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing", by American analyst Evan Kohlman. Kohlman claimed that major international Islamic charities such as IHH, while providing genuine humanitarian relief, are "charitable front groups that provide support to Al-Qaida."[12] Kohlman's sources in making links between IHH and such groups are a report by French investigative magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière [13], evidence presented in US vs. Ressam [14] and assorted news articles. Kohlman also blamed IHH for assisting the Iraqi Sunni insurgency, and mentioned a 1997 raid in which police found weapons, explosives and bomb-making instructions in the IHH headquarter in Istanbul.[12] Turkish authorities searched IHH headquarters in 1997, discovering "firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions" as well as records of calls to an al-Qaida guest house in Milan.[12]

IHH was the subject of a Turkish criminal investigation in late 1997 when sources revealed that leaders of the group were purchasing automatic weapons from other regional Islamist militant groups. Based on an analysis of seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that "detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya

IHH is a member of the "Union of Good" (Itelaf al-Khair, also known as the "Charity Coalition"). According to Palestinian intelligence, this organization "is considered -- with regard to material support -- one of the biggest Hamas supporters." Israel outlawed the Union of Good in February 2002, and the United States named it a specially designated global terrorist entity in November 2008. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Union of Good was created by the Hamas leadership "in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas." Intelligence underpinning the U.S. designation noted that the group "facilitates the transfer of tens of millions of dollars a year to Hamas-managed associations." It also "acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations...and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza."[17]

According to statements issued by the U.S. government, the primary purpose behind the founding of the Union of Good by Hamas leaders was "to strengthen Hamas' political and military position in the West Bank and Gaza, including by: (i) diverting charitable donations to support Hamas members and the families of terrorist operatives; and (ii) dispensing social welfare and other charitable services on behalf of Hamas."[17]

IHH’s name was also mentioned during the trial of Ahmed Ressam held in the United States in 2000 (Ressam was a senior Al-Qaeda operative active in Canada, who at the end of 1999 entered the United States in a car carrying 600 kilograms (1320 pounds) of explosives. He planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.) The United States federal prosecutors called Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate in charge of terrorism affairs, as an expert witness. He testified that IHH had played an important role in Al-Qaeda’s planned attack. According to Bruguière, IHH served as a cover for Al-Qaeda and acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and transferred weapons.

Union of Good

The Union is chaired by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an islamist cleric close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Initially he founded a "Campaign of 101 Days" in October 2000, immediately after the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, with the involvement of the Hamas leadership.[1]

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

But there would still be blood on the ship.

Another question is why were the other 5 ships boarded peacefully? I suppose the 'truth' according to puckluck would be that Israel only choose to fire on one ship.

And there is absolutely no evidence showing that.

If Israel is to be blamed for anything, its that they actually went to board the ships. They could have just blocked them out and refused to let them through. Or at least wait till the people get tired and settle down.

But once they went ahead with the boarding procedures, I honestly believe they had no choice but to act the way they did.

To be candid, I try not to weigh the gravity of the matter by counting the bloodstains or the volume of blood on the ground. But I do recall seeing a bloody gurney being held by an elderly woman in a head scarf. There was clearly blood spilt. I won't enter the realm of whether or not it was enough (!). I just wanted to point out to the previous poster that their scenario was basically violating physiology.

I also agree with you that the people on the Mavi Marmara (Blue Mediterranean for those interested) were inclined to attack / defend themselves (depending on your preference ). You guys can discuss whether or not the posture of the IDF or those on the boat is the correct one. I don't think I've entered that fray in my posts as I do not feel that sufficient information has been released in this regard. While I do not dispute what I see in the IDF video, I'm also aware of where it comes from (all governments resort to propaganda in these highly charged situations), and I'm also aware that Adam Shapiro, the Free Gaza board member whose wife was on the ship, said that there was clear shooting from the helicopters prior to the rappelling soldiers. He made no claim as to whether they were live ammunition or plastic bullets. He'll need some additional evidence for me to buy his claim*.

So admittedly I can't speak to who shot first (nor do I really see how any of us can make a claim in this regard). Given that (to my knowledge) no guns were found on the ship, it's much harder for someone on the boat to be the first shooter. However, I do think it is clear that the general distrust around this situation (and the Israel - Palestine conflict in general) will make sure that only highly charged rhetoric will hit the airwaves in the next couple of weeks. We'll hear more talk of jihad-driven terrorists and blood thirsty zionists.

Pass the popcorn.



*note that the video released by the IDF does not refute Shapiro's claim. And as a cynical observer of human nature, I doubt that any human organization would release video that counters their bluster.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

But we're coming from a different angle here, from someone who has investigated this group for many years.

I identify with the thrust of your post, but let's play a quick game here.

This is part of an interesting quote:

"where they found weapons, false documents and other "incriminating" material."

Weapons? Like the railing of the ship that the people on the Mavi Marmara used? Or actual guns? Or a pillow (one was used to kill Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai)?

False documents? As in the fake British passports used by Mossad operatives who were in Dubai?

Incriminating material? Such as surveillance video of Mossad operatives in the same hotel in Dubai where Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed?


I say this not to comment on whether Al-Mabhouh is a terrorist / deserved death / etc..., but to point out that Orwell was right. Structures of authority espouse double-standards. While I have no knowledge to refute the French prosecutor's claims, I'm cognizant that these are malleable concepts people hammer into the shapes they desire.

[Pastiche]

For anyone who cares about Israel, this tragedy should be the starting point for deeper questions—about the blockade, about the Jewish state’s increasing loneliness and the route to peace. A policy of trying to imprison the Palestinians has left their jailer strangely besieged.


The blockade of Gaza is cruel and has failed. The Gazans have suffered sorely but have not been starved into submission. Hamas has not been throttled and overthrown, as Israeli governments (and many others) have wished. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier taken hostage, has not been freed. Weapons and missiles can still be smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt.



Just as bad, from Israel’s point of view, it helps feed antipathy towards Israel, not just in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but in Europe too. Israel once had warm relations with a ring of non-Arab countries in the vicinity, including Iran and Turkey. The deterioration of Israel’s relations with Turkey, whose citizens were among the nine dead, is depriving Israel of a rare Muslim ally and mediator. It is startling how, in its bungled effort to isolate Gaza, democratic Israel has come off worse than Hamas, which used to send suicide-bombers into restaurants.

As usual Economist with another great lens:


http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=16274081

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

The view expressed in the Economist is slowly seeping into the words of even staunch advocates.

Leon Wieseltier is one of the most prominent, most vocal pro-Israel voices in the US. You can read his latest column here.

Some choice quotes of the type not readily uttered in the US media:

"The important point is that the killing of civilians on the Mavi Marmara—I understand that they were “armed” with metal bars and a knife, but still they were civilians, and soldiers are trained to respond unlethally to the recklessness of a mob—cannot be extenuated by reference to “asymmetrical warfare” and Israel’s right to defend itself. This was not warfare, at least of the physical sort. Israel was not under attack. A headline in The Washington Post yesterday reported that "Israel says Free Gaza Movement poses threat to Jewish state." Such a claim is absurd'”

'You do not have to be a general to grasp these distinctions. In fact, judging by Israel’s recent history, it might help not to be one. But the militarization of the Israeli government’s understanding of Israel’s situation—this has been the most sterile period for diplomacy in all of Israel’s history—is not all that led to the debacle at sea. Rules of military engagement that allow soldiers to fire on political activists (I leave aside the question of their humanitarianism for a moment) may signify something still deeper and even more troubling. It is hard not to conclude from this Israeli action, and also from other Israeli actions in recent years, that the Israeli leadership simply does not care any longer about what anybody thinks. It does not seem to care about what even the United States—its only real friend, even in the choppy era of Obama—thinks. This is not defiance, it is despair. The Israeli leadership seems to have given up any expectation of fairness and sympathy from the world. It is behaving as if it believes, in the manner of the most perilous Jewish pessimism, that the whole world hates the Jews, and that is all there is to it. This is the very opposite of the measured and empirical attitude, the search for strategic opportunity, the enlistment of imagination in the service of ideals and interests, that is required for statecraft.'

'The complication—the one that deprives anybody who acknowledges it of membership in any of the gangs of commentary—is that there is a partial basis in the actually existing world for a degree of Israeli pessimism. There are leaders, states, organizations, and peoples whose hostility to the Jewish state is irrational and absolute and in some cases murderous. Things are said critically about Israel that wildly burst the bounds of thoughtful criticism. The language in which Israel is described by some governments and international organizations is lurid and grotesque and foul. Anti-Semitic tropes—the conspiracy theory about the Jews, most conspicuously—are regularly encountered in otherwise respectable places. The analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that absolves the Palestinians of any significant role in it is widespread. I do not see how any of this can be denied, or shunted aside, or explained entirely in terms of Israeli behavior. But it is emphatically not the whole picture, except for those Israelis and Jews whose political interests and ideological inclinations prefer it to be the whole picture. For there are forces in Israel, and in its government, that have a use for Jewish hopelessness.'

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I appreciate your passion but the hyperbole here is out of control. There's only about 5 liters of total blood in the human body, and there are very few places that you can sever to get this slip-n-slide of blood that you're talking about.

I agree with you that there is no evidence to suggest that there was indiscriminate strafing of the people on the boat. That's just pure hyperbole from desperate anti-Israeli partisans. But some of your reasons for why it didn't happen are just extreme exaggerations, albeit passionate ones.

Out of control? You've obviously never had a head wound or had to clean up after one. I've had headwounds that required stitches that were enough to cover entire bathroom floors with blood. Bullet wounds that shatter the skull, would result in a lot of blood. A lot.

If the "aid workers" were shot prior to the riot, as you claim, you would also expect them to have footage of the bodies. The aid workers clearly were filming prior to the riot, but stopped sometimes afterwards. If the killing happened before the riot you would expect them to have footage of either the killing or the bodies.