Report: Israel storms Gaza-bound aid ships

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So the body count is 9 or 10 on one side, zero on the other. Yeah, the IDF was in fear for their lives.

Sounds like the Vancouver RCMP. "he came at me with a stapler, I had to kill him".

Like always, the Israeli response is so out of proportion as to be criminal.

Irael illegally boarded a humanitarian vessel in international waters, then shot and killed people armed with clubs They are worse than pirates.

Israel is on the road to becoming a pariah state. Even their staunchest allies haven't rushed to their defense. Netanyahu is a war mongerer and terrorist.

Really?

Please point out the law that makes it illegal to board a vessel in international waters.

The ship was warned. They didn't listen. And they were violent. Why should I have sympathy for them if they're that stupid?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

What I get from this is your opinion of Israel is so entrenched that I don't even need to consider what you have to say because you won't consider anything alternative to you previous position.

Which would be pretty much in line with all his posts regarding Israel.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Not so ludicrous. The article clearly stated that they can be used to help "subdue crowds" and they though this would be a mostly European crowd who are not used to seeing guns let alone being shot at. If you were in a crowd at Olympic Square and a cop started shooting a paintball gun and you suddenly found yourself covered in red paint,you would probably freeze for a few moments.



Some random source - Two of the commandos and the Israeli Military spokesperson are not random source, they are just sources you choose not to believe.

These aren't cops at Olympic Square. They're Israeli Special Forces boarding a shop they suspected of possibly aiding a nation they're at war with. Completely and utterly different.

They ARE two random sources. One (where is the 2nd commando saying this?) soldier and a "military spokesperson" who doesn't happen to have a name.

A soldier identified only as a sergeant told reporters at a military briefing that the activists on board "were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns." He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle. "It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," he said. "I saw my friends on the deck spitting blood."

Tell me why the Israeli Special Forces lands on a ship that has 1) refused to listen to their demands, and 2) they suspect of aiding a nation they're at war with with paintball guns that a 12-year old can handle?

If that is true, it's completely negligent. The Israeli's SHOULD have boarded with rifles. I really cannot see why they wouldn't have.

[longsuffering]

I think this is a fair and balanced analysis of the unenviable position Israel finds itself in.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100...public_opinion

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario

In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis.

(snip)

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism.

(snip)

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

(snip)

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

In a different article, Stratford raises a frightening possibility:

Turkish activists may decide to decide to send more ships, or provide the ships with Turkish military escorts in the future, which will bear close watching to see how the diplomatic community, particularly in the United States and Europe, chooses to respond to the incident.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

They've got a bit of a track record proving his point. Look at their offensive on Lebanon. They leveled Beirut over homemade Quassam rockets and 3 abducted soldiers. Since 2005 roughly 10 times more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis.

Lets just forget about the rocket shots into Israel on a daily basis.

And blame Israel because they use superior tactics and firepower, and don't put their people or troops at risk by intentionally placing a military base into the middle of a bunch of innocent people.

Not only that, damn those Israelis for not dying. For every Palestinian they kill, one Israel should strap himself up with a suicide vest and walk into the Gaza strip and blow himself up.

How the hell is it even possible to prevent the loss of innocent life considering where the terrorists hole up?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which would be pretty much in line with all his posts regarding Israel.

Says the guy who is firmly entrenched in the "Israel can do no wrong camp".

Not everyone who is critical of Israeli policy is an anti-semite, but its easier to label those on the the humanist side with that label.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

How the hell is it even possible to prevent the loss of innocent life considering where the terrorists hole up?

Well one way is not to shoot bullets at activists on a boat.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Sure, that is true, but as a result of this latest incident, many of Israel's friends are going to rethink their continued support. Is Israel even at the bargaining table?

Doubtful.

Most of Israel's friends have the same problems they do. Israel has become an expert at dealing with terrorism, and its allies will continue to pursue a relationship with Israel.

This whole thing also reaks of a set up too. There was no reason for Israel to allow entry of that angry mob. The governments who sent their citizens into Israel were totally irresponsible.

As for Israel's position at the bargaining table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

They offered the Palestinians virtually everything they wanted: the Gaza strip, east jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank, but were met with a renewed suicide bombing campaign.

Israel not too long ago withdrew every settler it had in the Gaza Strip. The citizens took the opportunity to elect a government dedicated to Israel's destruction that spend the next three years lobbign rockets at Israel.

What incentive does Israel have to return to the table at this point? Any concession they give is turned against them. They withdraw from Lebanon and its a sign of weakness. The UN refusses to disarm Hezbollah like they promissed under the terms of the agreement. They withdraw form Gaza and they end up with their very own terrorist factory in their back yard. They can't invade or even put economic sanctions on Gaza, becasue that becomes "collective punishment".

I'm not trying to make Israel out to be victims, but realistically from their point of view they will need to see that have something to gain from a "peace agreement". If a peace agreement means you back off while the other side rearms, I don't see why they would want to sit down and talk.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Maybe you missed the ludicrous assertion they landed on the ship with paintball guns.

Uh, really?

Its quite well documented that IDF troops used anti-riot paintball guns to try and subdue the crowd.

Of course you secretly don't want that to be true because it would mean Israel actually didn't use excessive force.

Maybe you should talk a little less and read a bit more about what actually happened before sticking your foot back into your mouth.

One marine told reporters his squad went in with anti-riot paintball guns but, fearing for their lives, resorted to using normal pistols or leapt overboard. Navy video showed a commando fire a paintball at a man who seemed to be clubbing an Israeli.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/...nians_flotilla

A soldier identified only as a sergeant told reporters at a military briefing that the activists on board "were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns." He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle. "It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," he said. "I saw my friends on the deck spitting blood."

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Wash...-95276049.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Sure, that is true, but as a result of this latest incident, many of Israel's friends are going to rethink their continued support. Is Israel even at the bargaining table?

You think Israel actually cares?

What exactly do they have to lose by not being at the bargaining table?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

These aren't cops at Olympic Square. They're Israeli Special Forces boarding a shop they suspected of possibly aiding a nation they're at war with. Completely and utterly different.

They ARE two random sources. One (where is the 2nd commando saying this?) soldier and a "military spokesperson" who doesn't happen to have a name.



Tell me why the Israeli Special Forces lands on a ship that has 1) refused to listen to their demands, and 2) they suspect of aiding a nation they're at war with with paintball guns that a 12-year old can handle?

If that is true, it's completely negligent. The Israeli's SHOULD have boarded with rifles. I really cannot see why they wouldn't have.

lol at your epic fail and backtrack.

They use paintball guns all the time to subdue riots. Just because they had them with them doesn't mean they didn't have real guns as well.

Unless you're stupid enough to think Israeli commandos would raid a ship and forget their guns.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Says the guy who is firmly entrenched in the "Israel can do no wrong camp".

Not everyone who is critical of Israeli policy is an anti-semite, but its easier to label those on the the humanist side with that label.

And not everyone who defends Israel is in the "Israel can do no wrong camp."

Fact is if this were Canada, you wouldn't be posting in this thread.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think Israel actually cares?

Yeah, I do. The world would be an awfully lonely place for Israel if US public opinion turns against them, or even indifferent to them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Well one way is not to shoot bullets at activists on a boat.

Nice job avoiding my question.

I'm not talking about the boat. I'm talking about terrorists strongholds in the middle of a bunch of civilians.

Did I also forget to mention that those terrorists shoot rockets into Israel from those strongholds.

And to actually think Israel shouldn't respond.

Again, if it were Canada you wouldn't be posting here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Doubtful.

Most of Israel's friends have the same problems they do. Israel has become an expert at dealing with terrorism, and its allies will continue to pursue a relationship with Israel.

This whole thing also reaks of a set up too. There was no reason for Israel to allow entry of that angry mob. The governments who sent their citizens into Israel were totally irresponsible.

As for Israel's position at the bargaining table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

They offered the Palestinians virtually everything they wanted: the Gaza strip, east jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank, but were met with a renewed suicide bombing campaign.

Israel not too long ago withdrew every settler it had in the Gaza Strip. The citizens took the opportunity to elect a government dedicated to Israel's destruction that spend the next three years lobbign rockets at Israel.

What incentive does Israel have to return to the table at this point? Any concession they give is turned against them. They withdraw from Lebanon and its a sign of weakness. The UN refusses to disarm Hezbollah like they promissed under the terms of the agreement. They withdraw form Gaza and they end up with their very own terrorist factory in their back yard. They can't invade or even put economic sanctions on Gaza, becasue that becomes "collective punishment".

I'm not trying to make Israel out to be victims, but realistically from their point of view they will need to see that have something to gain from a "peace agreement". If a peace agreement means you back off while the other side rearms, I don't see why they would want to sit down and talk.

Careful.

Lets not throw 'facts' out there that might cloud the judgment of those people who just want to blame Israel.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Yeah, I do. The world would be an awfully lonely place for Israel if US public opinion turns against them, or even indifferent to them.

Just because the media is overplaying this as usual doesn't mean the heads of states around the world will think in the same line.

Any other country in the whole world would respond the same way.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It was a stunt for publicity reasons. They should have quietly surrendered and then whined in the media about the outrage of Israel stopping humanitarian aid.

Out of curiosity, how long are the Palestinian's supposed to whine for simple necessities?

6 months? 1 year? Should they whine in the New York Times or the Guardian?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Uh, really?

Its quite well documented that IDF troops used anti-riot paintball guns to try and subdue the crowd.

Of course you secretly don't want that to be true because it would mean Israel actually didn't use excessive force.

Maybe you should talk a little less and read a bit more about what actually happened before sticking your foot back into your mouth.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/...nians_flotilla



http://www.king5.com/news/local/Wash...-95276049.html

Good God, man, it's impossible to talk with you. Are you that obsessed with "secret" anti-Semite conspiracies that you believe every random poster on the internet is secretly plotting against them? Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe -- you're better off doing that in your YouTube posts, not on CP. All you're doing is making yourself look like an over-reactive fool.

If you call two sources that have been regurgitated amongst all the news outlets -- an unnamed commando and an unnamed "military spokesperson" -- as quite well documented, I'm not sure what to say.

Back away from your computer, take a deep breath, and try not to take what people say online quite so personally. Your health will be better off for it, bud.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Fact is if this were Canada, you wouldn't be posting in this thread.

You mean this isn't Canada? Where the hell am I then? LOL

If Canada went in guns blazing, I sure as hell would be posting.

If this was Iran boarding a US ship with guns blazing, you wouldn't be posting, let alone defending murder, big shot.

For all the fierce battle that the IDF describes, they managed to kill a dozen or more activists while suffering no fatalities of their own. I think that better than anything illustrates that the opposition the IDF encountered wasn't as serious as is claimed.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

lol at your epic fail and backtrack.

They use paintball guns all the time to subdue riots. Just because they had them with them doesn't mean they didn't have real guns as well.

Unless you're stupid enough to think Israeli commandos would raid a ship and forget their guns.

What epic back-track? I've stated from the beginning that this incident is most likely a mix of Israeli violence and "aid worker" violence. No s*** they have a secondary weapon.

You're the only one foolish enough to think this type of event is black-and-white. Your attempts at labeling everyone else as having some sort of secret agenda is humorous considering your blind defending of the Israelis.