Report: Israel storms Gaza-bound aid ships

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

If the "aid workers" were shot prior to the riot, as you claim,

If you find that claim then I'll apologize and retract it. I thought I was clear a few posts ago that I do not know who shot first.

If you do not find this claim you're attributing to me, I'd like you to retract your statement.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 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:

I don't think anybody disputes that this situation was badly handled. The dispute is over the depiction of terrorists who savagely beat soldiers as "aid workers" and "protestors".

Your confussing discussion within an open environment (Israel and it's supporters) with condemnation. Of course the Gaza blockade needs to be re-evaluated. You'll find that the supporters for Israel are much more open minded than its deniers. They openly discuss Israel's foreign policy including the blockade, settlers, the wall etc.. You can take pro-stances on some and anti on others. Personally I support the wall but strongly oppose settlers and think the Gaza blockade should be loosened substantially. The vast majority of Israeli supporters wish no harm on Palestinians, and are instead concerned with Israel's security and the right to all nations to secure themselves.

Your idea that these aren't openly discussed in America is total BS. As is your suggestion that this incident will cause supporters of Israel to end their support.

The only crowd here that ever shuts down discussion are the anti-Israeli crowd, who comes up with the most possible anti-Israeli explanation after every incident. The crowd that prevents pro-Israeli speakers from talkign by smashing windows. The crowd that surrounds Jewish student groups with angry mobs. Do you honestly believe anti-Israel speech is censored in any way. Anti-Israel sentiment is probably the most disproportionatelly talked about topic in the world.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

If you find that claim then I'll apologize and retract it. I thought I was clear a few posts ago that I do not know who shot first.

If you do not find this claim you're attributing to me, I'd like you to retract your statement.

I was responsidng to the claim that the evidence showed the violence was started by Israel firing from a helicopter without reason.

I apologize if you have not done anything to insinuate that.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Your idea that these aren't openly discussed in America is total BS. As is your suggestion that this incident will cause supporters of Israel to end their support.

I think you spend too much time attributing views to people that they don't have. I don't feel that this incident will mitigate the level of support that the US provides to Israel. I don't think I've said anything either (again, you're free to find where I wrote that and I'll retract it).

As for the concept of it being openly discussed, please allow me to make the distinction between voiced and discussed. These views are voiced in America; I certainly don't dispute that. However, at the political level, they are not discussed. Discussion would almost assuredly end in decisions that sometimes favour one side and sometimes the other. In the US, discussions of Israel - Palestine unanimously end with US support of the Israeli position (to my knowledge and please correct if necessary) .

Heck, in this last incident, a US citizen was killed and Obama hasn't said a peep! That hardly sounds like discussion to me.

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anybody disputes that this situation was badly handled. The dispute is over the depiction of terrorists who savagely beat soldiers as "aid workers" and "protestors".

And they're "terrorists" because... they were on a boat in international waters? They had blankets? Used wheelchairs?

I fear you're making my point about the term terrorist being trivialized and tossed about without due consideration.

Originally Posted by blankall

Do you honestly believe anti-Israel speech is censored in any way.

No, I do not. I've not said that speech against Israeli policy is curtailed in any way.

Originally Posted by blankall

Anti-Israel sentiment is probably the most disproportionatelly talked about topic in the world.

I'm sure some people of muslim faith believe they can give you a run for that crowd.

[CaptainCrunch]

I respect Wieseltier and the Economist a great deal. But it seems like theres a real generic approach to this whole crisis that is a little disconcerting.

At the end of the day, they talk about Israel losing support in the international community over this incident, but I don't really think that international support has been the primary goal for Israel throughout thier existance. The primary goal is security, everything takes a secondary seat to that. Israel has basically been under constant attack since the first day of their existance, and that type of attack has dynamically shifted over the year which puts even more pressure on their security apparatus.

These articles and condemnations are written from a very cookie cutter understanding of the situation, the writers are trying to apply a very western concept of international relations model to the situation in Israel.

The fact is that the blockade was put into place against Gaza because of the Hamas Government instead of being concerned with feeding and sheltering its people puts a priority on bringing in weapons to attack Israeli civilians. Even if you look at this boat full of peacefull activists, the boat had bullet proof vests, gas masks and goggles, those items alone are enough for Israel not to allow the shipment through.

To me, not enough people are asking the question of what else Israel was suppossed to do to ensure their security first and foremost, remember this is a nation with a bunker complex that believes that the defense of itself will not come with any help from the outside world.

It would be too easy to simply write off Israel in this case and condemn them, but the right questions aren't being asked about this 6th boat, the contents of the cargo (blankets, clothes, toys, expired medicines), the fact that Hamas refused to receive this shipment, the backers of the flotilla and the chain of events that lead to the deaths.

The face of this war has changed, nobody is denying that Hammas isn't run by fairly smart and saavy militants. They realized that rocket launches and suicide vests aren't helping anymore, and they've added a interesting combination of media and political Saavy to their handbook. But even with these new additions, we know that Hamas is never going to negotiate for anything but a respite to resupply and rearm, and we know that Israel is never going to give up on their primary goal of securing their country, and they don't feel that they're going to be able to do this with Hamas living next door. Which means Israel is trapped, they can't take down the blockade because the minute that they stop inspecting shipments is the minute that Hamas, and IHH and the Union of Good gain a whole new pipeline for shipping weapons in, so there can really be no comprimise by Israel. Just like there will never be meaning ful negotiations with the Hamas Cult in power.

Neither side will accept UN intervention, and the UN has never shown the strength or resolve to be a true force of change in the world.

In a Tom Clancy book written in the 1990's (The sum of all fears) the Palestines started using peacefull protest methods against the Israeli's and Jack Ryan exclaimed that Palastine had just found a way to destroy Israel. While this situation won't go that far, what it will do is make Israel feel more alone, more paranoid and more into the model that they're responsible for their own defense and nobody else is going to help.

I'm not saying that the media condemnation is wrong, I'm saying that its premature, and it applies the wrong set of national interest and international rules and understanding.

Where the condemnation has to go is to the UN which has failed and continues to fail in showing any kind of leadership, strength, creativity or resolve in the whole middle east situation.

[blankall]

My issue with a lot of this anti-blockade talk, is this:

Even if the blockade were loosened to allow all goods but the most dangerous and deliberate weapons, Israel would still have boarded that ship. It had members of the IHH on it. Israel is in a state of war with Hamas. They had every right to board that ship and would have done so regardless of the existence of a blockade.

They don't need a blockade to board that ship. Under international law the only excuse they need is to show that weapons might be headed towards their opponents. Given that various terrorist groups have commonly used the seas as a way to supply Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO with weapons, Israel has a duty to inspect every ship headed towards the Gaza Strip.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

My issue with a lot of this anti-blockade talk, is this:

Even if the blockade were loosened to allow all goods but the most dangerous and deliberate weapons, Israel would still have boarded that ship. It had members of the IHH on it. Israel is in a state of war with Hamas. They had every right to board that ship and would have done so regardless of the existence of a blockade.

They don't need a blockade to board that ship. Under international law the only excuse they need is to show that weapons might be headed towards their opponents. Given that various terrorist groups have commonly used the seas as a way to supply Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO with weapons, Israel has a duty to inspect every ship headed towards the Gaza Strip.

That ship still wouldn't have been allowed to proceed with the bullet proof vests, gas masks and night vision googles on board.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think you spend too much time attributing views to people that they don't have. I don't feel that this incident will mitigate the level of support that the US provides to Israel. I don't think I've said anything either (again, you're free to find where I wrote that and I'll retract it).

As for the concept of it being openly discussed, please allow me to make the distinction between voiced and discussed. These views are voiced in America; I certainly don't dispute that. However, at the political level, they are not discussed. Discussion would almost assuredly end in decisions that sometimes favour one side and sometimes the other. In the US, discussions of Israel - Palestine unanimously end with US support of the Israeli position (to my knowledge and please correct if necessary) .

Anti-Israel sentiment is most certainly discussed. It often ends as soon as people realize there is no way for the US to impose many restrictions on Israel without impossing restrictions on themselves. The US government looks at the situation from a nation also trying to protect their own security. As opposed to randomly applying international law against Israel as convenient, but ignoring infractions by the other side.

Obama himself has criticized Israel openly on many many occassions.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Heck, in this last incident, a US citizen was killed and Obama hasn't said a peep! That hardly sounds like discussion to me.

As previously stated, Obama has criticized Israel openly on many occasions. Did it ever occur to you that he is not criticizing Israel in this instance, because his own government would have acted in the exact same manner.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

And they're "terrorists" because... they were on a boat in international waters? They had blankets? Used wheelchairs?

I fear you're making my point about the term terrorist being trivialized and tossed about without due consideration.

They are terrorists because they are card carrying member of the IHH. A recognized terrorist organization. An organization that has been caught red handed on several occasions supplying weapons and money to Hamas, Hezobollah, and Al Queda.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

No, I do not. I've not said that speech against Israeli policy is curtailed in any way.

You've insinuated several times that pro-Israeli groups control the media and America to the extent that all voice and discussion on the topic is not heard.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'm sure some people of muslim faith believe they can give you a run for that crowd.

I don't disagree. Islamophobia is most certainly a problem in our society.

[Bleeding Red]

International law has been mentioned a lot here, along with "international waters" and "illegal blockade".

Here are three items (sorry, only two links) where these experts share their views. Now granted, the John Thompson article was done for B'nai B'rith (which, of course, means instant dismissal by many here), and the Globe & Mail article is by Ed Morgan, former President of Canadian Jewish Congress (but a legitimate International Law expert none the less - Professor at U of T). The link to the Agenda, a show on TV Ontario, includes the opinions of David Frum and John Mearsheimer (author of the Israel Lobby). Well worth reading and watching.

"Briefing on Gaza Flotilla by John Thompson

Having spent two days examining as much of the evidence as I could, there are two points that deserve to be mentioned.

Israel acted well within the confines of international law and maritime practice in enforcing a legitimate blockade of the Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, in halting the flotilla, the Israeli forces involved in the incident began with restraint. International Waters are of no account, if it is clear that the ship is clearly heading towards a blockaded area... the US Navy for instance, has been known to halt and inspect suspected North Korean ships bound for Iran on the high seas on numerous occasions.

Blockades and interdictions are common, and have been so for decades since the Second World War (where unrestricted violence was frequently used). The normal convention is to open communications and demand the ship 'heave to'; if it fails to comply a shot from a large caliber gun or a burst from a machinegun is fired across its bows. If the ship still refuses to comply; this is repeated -- albeit the shot is aimed more carefully and comes closer to the ship. If the ship still refuses to halt, it is warned once more before a shot is fired at its bridge. If it still refuses to heave to, the blockading force has the right to sink it. Once a ship has hove to or slowed down, it may be boarded by personnel from the blockading force.

The Israelis offered another choice to the flotilla (which was refused) and otherwise seems to have behaved with restraint. It is not clear if the ships came to a dead stop or proceeded towards Gaza and a slow pace, but it is abundantly clear they were not sunk!

It is also abundantly clear that the passengers and crews of the boarded ships offered potentially lethal violence -- using "improvised" weapons that had been carefully stowed beforehand. A crate of dishes dropped on someone's head from 6m overhead does not seem as malevolent as shooting them, but a crushed skull is a crushed skull regardless. High pressure hoses and swung chains directed at somebody climbing a rope ladder from a zodiac boat are also potentially lethal.

Canadian and US naval personnel boarding ships (as they regularly do) brandish submachine guns and shotguns; the Israelis came aboard with paintball guns only to be reminded of an unwelcome truth. Metre long metal rods and knives do not seem as lethal as modern assault rifles, but they are in close confines in the dark. This is a calculation that was made ahead of time by many of the so-called peace activists. Many police bulletins remind officers -- often using graphic photographs -- that somebody with a knife within arms reach is equally deadly to a man with a handgun; a man armed with a paintball gun is in very serious danger.

The restraint that the IDF personnel showed on boarding the vessels of the flotilla was directly responsible for the loss of life that ensued when the protestors' pre-planned brawl erupted. Next time, the IDF should behave in a manner more consistent with those used by other navies (including those of Canada) in similar circumstances -- display your firepower and don't hesitate to use it. It saves lives in the long run.

John Thompson
Director of the Mackenzie Institute

John Thompson is a Canadian military and terrorism expert who spent 13 years in the Canadian military. Thompson has been associated with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, the Royal Canadian Military Institute, and is currently the director of the Mackenzie Institute, a Canadian think tank focusing on terrorism, political extremism and warfare."


The Link to the Agenda

The link to the Ed Morgan Article - The Globe & Mail

The Agenda program will have a number of differing views. They talk about the incident in the first ten minutes.

Bottom line - if you believe that Israel & Hamas are in an armed conflict, then Israel has the right to blockade Gaza and board and search ships headed to Gaza in international waters. They also have an obligation to deliver any and all humanitarian aid to Gaza.

If there is no conflict, then Israel was wrong to board the ships and the Blockade is wrong.

Since Israel refuses to deal with Hamas at the negotiating table and Hamas refuses to declare recognition of Israel and an end to the conflict, and since Hamas keeps lobbing rockets into Israel and Israel fires a few bombs in retaliation, i think it is safe to say they are in an armed conflict.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

They are terrorists because they are card carrying member of the IHH. A recognized terrorist organization. An organization that has been caught red handed on several occasions supplying weapons and money to Hamas, Hezobollah, and Al Queda.

I guess this is what people like myself get frustrated about when looking at these situations from the outside. I won't ask you for proof regarding a legitimate terrorist connection between IHH and Hamas / Hezbollah, as I thought that subject had been broached earlier between myself and Azure.

However, I will note that even the IDF retracted the Al Qaeda claim.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I guess this is what people like myself get frustrated about when looking at these situations from the outside. I won't ask you for proof regarding a legitimate terrorist connection between IHH and Hamas / Hezbollah, as I thought that subject had been broached earlier between myself and Azure.

However, I will note that even the IDF retracted the Al Qaeda claim.

But they certainly didn't retract the links to Hezbollah and Hammas, nor the links to the union of good which was founded by Hamas leadership.

Nor has there been retractions on the different raids with IHH offices and what was found there. Nor the link between the Union of Good and the Millenium bomber.

Most of the radical terrorist groups hide behind or within charity organizations of their own creation.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But they certainly didn't retract the links to Hezbollah and Hammas, nor the links to the union of good which was founded by Hamas leadership.

Nor has there been retractions on the different raids with IHH offices and what was found there. Nor the link between the Union of Good and the Millenium bomber.

Most of the radical terrorist groups hide behind or within charity organizations of their own creation.

Out of curiosity, are you aware of any information outside of the report by the French judge?

[CaptainCrunch]

There are multiple sources.

The intelligence and Terrorism Center

Danish Research Institute for international studies

The U.S. state department

The french of course.


The EU, UK, Israel, the U.S.

i believe that Canada has even branded them on the terror group watch list that we have due to its links with Hamas and Hezbollah, which means that the Canadian activist will eventually have to answer some questions.

[Azure]

Apparently another ship is aiming to break the blockade. Should be there tomorrow sometime. As usual the activists don't want to go for the peaceful route.

Israel says they will block it.

Hopefully they do actually block it. Just refuse to let it through. Box them out. And fire warning shots if you have too. Hell, fire non-lethal weapons on the ship from helicopters. But don't board.

See how long these activists(morons) will hang around.

[Azure]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060304287.html

MOD EDIT: Please don't copy and paste entire articles.

[Azure]

Oh, I can't resist.

[Dan02]

Why shouldn't they board it Azure? IMO not boarding is akin to admitting they never should have boarded the others in the first place.

Board it, search it and expidite the transfer of the legitimate aid to Gaza.

Whether the blockade is legit or not isn't for me to sa , and the list of prohibited items looks like someone was playing a drunk game of darts at a pub, but US and Canada would do the exact same thing for boats headed to Iraq/Afghanistan(yes i realize Afghanistan is landlocked but if it wasn't I am sure that would be standard op) hell the US bombs targets in Pakistan if they think they're connected to anything going on in Afghanistan.

To me what we have is a very well executed PR move, I'm not going to say that certain people were hoping some of the activists died, but it certainly hasn't hurt the amount of publicity, would we still be talking about it now if they surrendered peacefully? Well we certainly aren't about the other boats in the flotila are we?

[Azure]

Under different circumstances I would say they should board, but Israel needs to be smart about this right now. These people are simply looking for a problem, and Israel doesn't need to get caught in the middle of another situation like the other day.

The blockade is legit. Nobody would be complaining about this if it were any other country. I don't think people realize that Gaza is being used by Hamas to shoot thousands of rockets into Israel.

If the US would be doing the same thing from Alaska, and constantly attacking our northern provinces, Canada would have no choice but to put up a blockade and inspect everything coming in.

In a way, Israel is doing the people of Gaza a favor. Because God forbid the blockade is taken down, and weapons are taken into Gaza and used to attack Israel. Israel will forced to retaliate, and I doubt they will giving a flying rats ass about collateral damage.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Azure

These people are simply looking for a problem, and Israel doesn't need to get caught in the middle of another situation like the other day.

Why? What does Israel really have to lose here. I doubt the internation condemnation is going to get any louder and really their key ally who has been critical of other things they have done lately ain't gonna say jack crap about it.

If I was Israel I play ball with them, invite out the big news networks, BBC, CNN to put the whole thing on camera, pull up alongside the ship with one of their warships and get on the loudspeaker advising them they have to submit to inspection to continue on to Gaza, if they refuse to stop drop the commandos in and make sure you do nothing to provoke the violence. hopefully(from a PR perspective), the protestors put up a bit of a fight but the commandos don't have to use lethal force. This time instead of the videos of the injured protestors, you trot out some bloodied up Israelis for the big boy networks and confiscate any video equipment found on the ship.

To me it was quite obvious last time one side was prepared to trot out their version of events on camera while the other side hastily tried to toss out some grainy black and white videos to counter after the damage was done.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Under different circumstances I would say they should board, but Israel needs to be smart about this right now. These people are simply looking for a problem, and Israel doesn't need to get caught in the middle of another situation like the other day.

The problem is that middle eastern politics are based very much on image and pride. If the blockade is broken, it weakens Israel's stance in the entire region. It's the same reason why the Iraqi inforation minister was preaching about there being no American troops. The same reason Hezbollah declared the invasion of Lebanon a "victory".

It's basically a no win situation. The Israelis do nothing and every terrorist group in the region becomes emboldened. They attack and every western media network in the world laps up the "humanitarians" testament of a massacre.

I think Dan02 has the right idea. Try to fight fire with fire.