148 2 mins 12 yrs

I had dubbed the flotilla of double-standard Hamas supporters as Dumbkirk.  Their journey from Cyprus seemed the most ridiculous since Gilligan and his mates set sail on their three hour cruise.  Now Israel has gone and given them more publicity and moral standing then they could have ever obtained on their own. 

Israel’s actions in international waters deserves international condemnation.  The deaths were avoidable and there was no threat by these ships and their cargo to Israel’s security.  Add to the unnecessary human loss the political and public relations disaster of grossly offending Turkey, a genuine ally, under whose flag several of the ships operated, and providing the anti-Israeli voices of the world with a bona fide rallying point.  

I defend Israel against those who seek her destruction.   I also seek to defend it against those who seek her self-destruction.  The absurd grasping of straws that some folks are doing to justify or excuse this fiasco serves neither justice or Israel.  This was a grave error that will have ripple effects for years to come.         

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

148 thoughts on “Turning Farce Into Tragedy – Israel’s Blunder

  1. Maybe Israel should have sub-contracted the job to the North Korean navy.

    The country is broke and could use the cash

    AND,

    They’re good at sinking ships with torpedoes!

    I stand with Israel!

  2. Yes and no Mahons In one of David’s videos, it shows the Israeli captain giving the choice to the flotilla to be escorted to port, unloaded and having the goods delivered by land. The answer was "negative,we’re going to Gaza.

    The captain of the flotilla chose confrontation by proceeding to run the blocade. At that point, Israel could have fired on the ships, but didn’t. They chose to board and put their soilders in harms way. The flotilla crew didn’t have to attack.

    They should have just sunk the boats.

  3. No and No Charles. Israel had no right to stop the ships in international waters, let alone fire on civilian ships that posed no threat to them. Sinking the ships would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people merely because they disagree with your position on Gaza? There was absolutely no justification for what actually happened and none for what you suggest should have happened.

  4. This is yet another attempt to paint Israel in a bad light, at some point these attempts would result in fatalities so that the enemies of Israel including many on this site could use this to further their agenda. The fault is on those people who chose to try to break the legitimate need to filter what is coming into Gaza. This was part of the Oslo accord, furthermore this is legitimate slef defence on the part of Israel.

    Of course it is going to be used against Israel, that was the whole point of these so called peace activists, another one of their actions in a long list to paint Israel as the bad guys and the annoying thing is so many people are simple minded enough to fall for it.

  5. >>I defend Israel against those who seek her destruction<<

    It’s probable that some of those on the ships would like to see the destruction of Israel (which is hardly much worse than some of those who comment here wishing to see the destruction of certain Arab states), but it’s even more probable that most of them did not.

    They want to see justice for the Palestinians; that makes them a political enemy of Israel.

  6. The Irish flotilla, The Rachel Corrie, which was one day behind due to technical difficulty, has made the decision to proceed, and continue toward Gaza!

    "Pray" they keep safe- I have a family member and a close friend on the boat.

  7. Charles,

    "They should have just sunk the boats."

    We used to call that gunboat diplomacy. It worked pretty well for you lot too at New Orleans in 1814. Though mind you, your enemy was armed at the time.

  8. Congratulations to the flotilla organizers.

    They wanted to provoke an incident, and they got even more than what they planned for. This is probably the best day of these activists’ political careers. The blood of all who died are on their hands, and it will never be washed off.

    Israel was right to intercept these ships before they entered its waters. You don’t sit back and wait for the invasion.

    Shame.

  9. You don’t sit back and wait for the invasion.

    Yeah phantom, ships laden with Wheelchairs and textbooks, woulda made Normandy seem like Bundoran.

  10. Typical of the cowardly Irish to find an excuse to hide a few days behind. Only when they’ve a bomb and innocents people to kiill do you find them at the fore. Let’s hope the Israeli’s give them what my Government should have given them in 1969.

  11. How do you know what was on that ship? How do you know that that there were no weapons?

    There have been countless incidents of weapons smuggling in the border tunnels with Egypt. There would be a very high possibility of weapons being in this cargo.

    By those who said that there were no firearms on board – now seen to be a lie.

    And the Israelis said that the cargo could be offloaded and brought into Gaza. They flotilla people said no to this. Which gives the lie to this being about providing aid to the people of Gaza. This was never about aid.

  12. >>This is probably the best day of these activists’ political careers. The blood of all who died are on their hands, and it will never be washed off.<<

    Blood Sunday bells ringing? Oh how circumstances change shallow opinion.

    >>Israel was right to intercept these ships before they entered its waters. You don’t sit back and wait for the invasion.<<

    Crap. The ships had no intention of entering Israeli waters. It was also the kind of "invasion" that sails into NY harbour to stuff your obese arses every day. The people in Gaza are undernourished and can’t rebuild their houses after the last Israeli invasion; this convoy was a sign that decent people all over the world support them and want to help.

    >>And the Israelis said that the cargo could be offloaded and brought into Gaza. They flotilla people said no to this. <<

    Of course. You see, unlike you they aren’t stupid enough to believe the Israelis when they say they’ll suddenly let through materials they have been starving the people of for years.

  13. How do you know what was on that ship? How do you know that that there were no weapons?

    So you would have no problem with the Palestinians boarding any vessels bound for Israel, and shooting all who opposed them?

    And one of the aims was to break the blockade, as stated, not simply encourage its retention.

  14. Noel

    Boy are you confused.

    The Bloody Sunday demonstrators were citizens of the area, had no weapons, were clearly smuggling no material, and attacked nobody. Please compare with the flotilla hijinks. And please do a minimum of research before you shoot your mouth off.

    Please provide evidence of ships illegally entering NY waters to " stuff your obese arses every day ". I’ll be sure to inform the Coast Guard of the illegal incursions you speak of.

    Every ounce of this material could have entered Gaza- the flotilla organizers said no to that. This was never about aid.

  15. Israel has my sympathies but this is not the first time that they have lost in the publicity stakes. This flotilla incident was a publicity disaster waiting to happen and Israel has once more obliged Hamas and its supporters by falling into the prepared trap. I know that for many who support Israel this has been an obvious attempt at generating odium at the actions of the IDF but this realisation will not be generally recognised. Israel needs to address the consequencies and propaganda effects that result from its actions even though those actions may be well be called for.

  16. Phantom, provide evidence of any ship entering illegally into Israeli waters (or even intending to illegal enter them).

  17. RS

    So it was a political gesture – and all statements about it being about aid are a lie. We actually agree on this.

  18. Seamus

    Don’t play dime store lawyer on me.

    They were going to attempt to enter Gazan ports and Israel controls those waters.

  19. Mahons you’ve hit the nail on the head. A complete dumb-ass move by Israel.

    Phantom to a certain extent you are right – the Israeli’s have given these activists a victory they couldnt have hoped to achieve if they had been allowed to deliver their supplies.

    Not even the Israeli govt have made the claim that there were weapons in with the supplies, so I dont think thats a credible defence of their actions.

    In fact the Israeli govt has fallen back on their standard position – blame the victim. Somehow the people on the boats were the aggressors? I mean come on – its not as though the activitts had landed on an israeli boat. The israeli commandoes landed on their boat! The blame for the deaths lies on the attackers – in this case the attackers were fairly clearly the guys jumping out of helicopters with machineguns.

  20. So it was a political gesture – and all statements about it being about aid are a lie. We actually agree on this.

    Ehh no Phantom, it was a solidarity effort, to break the blockade, bring aid and highlight the injustice. Israel does not hold sovereignty over those waters off Gaza. Now care to answer my question at 03:38PM?

  21. Phantom. So why have international waters then? You’re saying any state can pre-emptively attack any ship which it believes going to enter its waters?

    on the "promise" to deliver aid – do you think maybe the flotilla dudes didnt trust Israel?

    by the way – a genuine question to anybody, is it possible to enter Gaza from the sea without entering Israeli waters?

  22. Palestinians interfering with Israeli shipments have the right to be terminated with extreme prejudice. Next question.

  23. "This is probably the best day of these activists’ political careers. The blood of all who died are on their hands, and it will never be washed off.<<

    Blood Sunday bells ringing? Oh how circumstances change shallow opinion."

    Well said Noel.

  24. "Phantom, provide evidence of any ship entering illegally into Israeli waters (or even intending to illegal enter them)."

    Phantom, can you answer this or no?

  25. They said that they were going to land the aid ( and whatever else ) at Gazan ports. It is physicall impossible to do that without entering Israeli controlled waters.

  26. Palestinians interfering with Israeli shipments have the right to be terminated with extreme prejudice. Next question

    And thus we have laid bare for all to see, the blatant double standards which israeli apologists employ with regard to this conflict. Ideological, not moral.

  27. "They said that they were going to land the aid ( and whatever else ) at Gazan ports. It is physicall impossible to do that without entering Israeli controlled waters."

    No one asked about Israeli controlled waters. We asked about Israeli waters.

  28. Phantom,

    "terminated with extreme prejudice."

    I do so love it when you big boys do the sub-Seagal talk.

  29. Phantom, once more you’re showing you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

    >>The Bloody Sunday demonstrators were citizens of the area,<<

    The folk on the ship were sailing in international waters, as much right to be there as the BS demonstrators had on William St.

    >>had no weapons,<<

    In all, they almost certainly had less weapons – both quantitatively and qualitatively – than the Derry demonstrators.
    Again an embarrassing own-goal for you.

    >>were clearly smuggling no material, and attacked nobody.>>

    The ships were also not smuggling anything. And as for attacking, that really is a gem: Part of the BS march attacked the Paras much more directly and much more violently than was here the case. What’s more, they attacked them first. This morning it was the troops who attacked the ship first. There is no comparison with the amount of violence used by either the demonstrators or the troops in both incidents.
    There’s no doubt about whose side you would have been crowing on that Monday in 1972, if you didn’t happen to be proud of your Irish Catholic roots.

    >>Every ounce of this material could have entered Gaza<<

    Why then has Israel being preventing precisely the same material from entering Gaza for years?

    By the way, if you weren’t so blinkered you might have seen I was being ironic with the "invasion" of NY harbour (but not with the "obese arses" bit). An appropriate comparison I think in view of your absurd claim that this was an invasion (???)

  30. Israel controls those waters and has every moral right to do so.

    The flotilla organizers were given a means to deliver 100% of the aid without incident and they refused to take Israel up on it.

    This was never about aid.

  31. "Israel controls those waters and has every moral right to do so. "

    No they don’t. They only control the waters because of their illegal denial of soverignty to the people of Gaza.

  32. It is physicall impossible to do that without entering Israeli controlled waters.

    Lies

    Gaza has territorial waters and it is possible to enter Gaza without impinging on Israeli territorial waters.

  33. Once more:

    "Phantom, provide evidence of any ship entering illegally into Israeli waters (or even intending to illegal enter them)."

    Phantom, can you answer this or no?

  34. Gaza’s waters are controlled by Israel – correctly so. Until there is a comprehensive peace deal, they are to be henceforth considered Israeli waters. Next question.

    If Israel did not keep a tight lid on these waters, there would be unlimited imports of firearms and rockets and materials to produce rockets – as has been the case in the Philadelphii ( sp ) tunnels

  35. The flotilla organizers were given a means to deliver 100% of the aid without incident and they refused to take Israel up on it

    More lies, (christ Phantom, you’re having some day)

    Israel has prevented the UN from bringing some building materials into Gaza, and the flotilla also contains building materials.

  36. The fact that they would not be escorted to an Israeli port to be unloaded,inspected and then have the goods delivered to Gaza gives lie to the fact that the Gazans needs were foremost. No, they were political blockade runners, this "Confrontation Flotilla" full of Jihadists and useful fools such as Corrigan.

  37. Charles have you a link to where Israel stated it would deliver 100% of the aid?

  38. Rs, pedantic in the extreme.

    Pinky, America has conquered the earth, now we look to other planets.

  39. The the weirdest "peace chant" I’ve ever heard and the flotilla’s theme song:

    "[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"

    Khaibar being the name of last Jewish village destroyed by Muhammad’s army.

    .
    http://tinyurl.com/3xr2cyb

  40. Pedantic? No, a reality that israel wouldn’t allow ‘the aid’ in as you claimed.

  41. >>Geography is not taught in US schools. Among other things….<<

    What with Phantoms "invasion" and "Israel’s waters" and Charles’ "Gaza gives lie to the fact", we know at least what some of these other things are.

  42. We know that the usual suspects on ATW are doing the predictable thing and that no facts will ever convince them. They don’t deal in facts. And some, like RS, want the Jewish state exterminated, and all comments are to be seen in that context.

    No use having yet another dialogue of the deaf.

    But again – this was never about aid. Aid had zero to do with it. It was an attempt to delegitimize the israeli control over Gaza, with an eye to smuggling weapons on these ships and/or on the flotillas that would have followed. And everyone here knows that.

    The pity is that this pushes the idea of negotiations and settlements much further into the future. To the extent that this muddies the waters and worsens the situation, this flotilla has been an attack on the Gaza people, not any kind of aid to them.

  43. "It was an attempt to delegitimize the israeli control over Gaza"

    That would be relatively pointless. No one needs to delegitimse Israel’s control over Gaza. It is already illegitimate.

  44. and that no facts will ever convince them. No use having yet another dialogue of the deaf.

    From the man who treats the bible as a history textbook?

    LMAO, you really are on form today Billy Zane.

  45. Agreed Phantom. Ad hominins and ad patriums don’t advance the debate much. This advances Hamas and hurts Gaza, not that some people (note my charity here) some people on the flotilla cared much for the average Gazan.

  46. Congratulations to Israel and her security forces. These scum-sucking terrorist enablers got what they deserved. I look forward to the hypocritical wailing if any Irish terror supporters are repatriated in boxes. Off to buy a bottle of bubbly now.

  47. You’d like to think that there could be a better dialogue here, any dialogue.

    So, so completely predictable here.

    Its a fine day in NYC today, I think I’m going to go for a long bike ride.

    Take care, Charles and mahons. . Happy Memorial Day to you.

  48. Thanks Phantom. It’s a beautiful day here as well, although on the hot side. It’s back to Fort Hood for me today. The news on post tomorrow is that Major Hassan comes back to III Corps Headquarters to face charges in the 5 Nov massacre.

  49. >>We know that the usual suspects on ATW are doing the predictable thing and that no facts will ever convince them. They don’t deal in facts<<

    You mean facts like these ships for Gaza constituted "an invasion" of Israel and were going to enter Israel’s territorial waters or that the people on board were armed or that Israel’s control over Gaza is legitimate?

    Or perhaps Charles’s "lie to the fact" fact? 🙂

    Yep, the "usual suspects" here certainly don’t deal in them there facts.

  50. So Israeli troops drop down with paintball guns and holstered pistols, get set upon by people with iron bars and knives and then have to defend themselves, I am so glad that the IDF has learnt their lessons well and videod it, so you anti-Semites will have trouble telling me that these were peaceful people with iron bars and knives, idiots…

  51. Of course those bringing the aid had political agenda. So what? They were civilian ships, no threat to Israel (except politically and never more so than now that they have been unlawfully set upon).

    And to make matters even worse domestically here in the US, I think we are hosting Israel’s Prime Minister tommorrow. Don’t tell me that Israel didn’t take that into account. We should cancel the meeting.

  52. The only one sleeping well tonight is Obama, says the cynic in me. Oil and Sestak are now off the front page for a few days.

  53. Sestak? LOL Charles, wishful thinking.

    I hope the oil disaster does not get backburner treatment, Charles- there has been enough Obama dilly dallying- waiting for big business to clean up its own mess.

  54. OMG, Pinky and I agree re oil! I feel a Riverdance coming on. 😉

    But with Sestak, I have visions of Watergate dancing in my head. Issa I don’t think is going to give up until someone answers some questions before congress, unless he knuckles under like every other spineless,self serving pol in DC,

  55. "But with Sestak, I have visions of Watergate dancing in my head"

    Watergate was very different. Watergate was the proverbial tip of the iceberg of an entire scandal of, effectively, the fixing of the 1972 Presidental Election and the Democratic primaries.

  56. Charles,

    Sestak is an issue only in your and your fellow travellers, " minds."

    Ronald Reagan for one did exactly what The Obama WH did in regard to job offers to representatives.

    Charles, you are really going to have to get some REAL issues, before it is too late!

  57. Seamus, there are 2 other senate seat scandels. Blago in Illinois and some fella in Colorado who are saying kind of the same thing about the WH. A growing scandel? Maybe. This thing might be death by a thousand cuts to Obama, tying up his administration worse that it already is.

    Just to say others have done it is no defense. People get murdered every day. That doesn’t mean that all crimes should not be investigated.

    And let me say that a hobbled POTUS is not good for the USA or the world. I don’t wish a scandel to grow where there is none. I just REPORT, YOU DECIDE! 🙂

  58. The Illinois one seems very seperate to Obama. It was his seat but it seems to be a personal bit of corruption by Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris. I haven’t heard about the Colorado incident but these things happen. It is illegal but not illegal if you know what I mean. Patronage is a standard political power in this day and age. It is very different from the real election tampering that occured in 2000, 1972 and 1960.

  59. The senate candidate in Colordo is named Romanoff.

    "Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

    Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.

    Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet."

  60. Ultimately, for all intents and purposes, the President is the head of the Democratic Party. He needs to secure a working majority in Congress. In a close seat (and Colorado is close) he needs an undivided party. He can’t afford to have bitter and expensive primary challenges against his incumbent Senators.

  61. Oh my goodness… all these bleeding hearts, just look at the crowd protesting at our city hall.
    such peace loving citizens as gerry the devil himself.
    Well if he’s against it then im definately for it.
    way to go israel.

  62. BB,

    "Well if he’s against it then im definately for it."

    Interesting take on mondial issues. I think I’ll follow your lead, see where it takes me….

  63. Well if he’s against it then im definately for it.

    Gerry doesn’t jump off bridges either BB 😉

  64. Phantom

    "But again – this was never about aid. Aid had zero to do with it. It was an attempt to delegitimize the israeli control over Gaza, with an eye to smuggling weapons on these ships and/or on the flotillas that would have followed. And everyone here knows that."

    None of which would justify attacking unarmed civilians in an unarmed ship in international waters, even if it were true. Those people posed no immediate threat nor could they.

  65. Hi Frank

    From what I can tell, the Israelis boarded the ship in international waters, after which the IDF commandos were attacked and attacked first– and from the looks of it, there were attempts to kill them – throwing one man into the ocean, beating a fallen man unmercifully with what looked to be iron bars or sticks.

    Everything else came after these things.

    I had not seen some of the film footage before. Anyone seeing this footage can only conclude that this was no pacifist aid convoy – those on the ship were the ones who physically attacked first – without mercy.

    If Israel allows unlimited transit of Trojan Horse ships – if it does not restrict the flow of arms to Hamas, you can count the days until Israel is destroyed They have no choice in the matter. Its a matter of the universal right self defense.

    – – –

    This is a big story in America, but nothing near what it appears to be in Europe, where it is WW One, WW Two, Man Landing on the Moon, and Princess Diana coming back to life all at once, the mega story of recorded history.

    I saw it on both France 24 and BBC World a couple of hours ago. France 24 made it seem that the Israelis did all the attacking, and showed nothing of the peaceful protesters trying to kill the IDF guys. The BBC showed all the relevant film, and played it dead straight. Despite all flaws, they’re still the best out there.

    – – –

    This is an astonishing propaganda day for Hamas and for world jihad. They may have driven a wedge between Israel and Turkey, which is not good. The bad guys won big today, but they’re not the bad guys much of the world thinks. Cheers.

  66. >>those on the ship were the ones who physically attacked first<<

    Wrong. The soliders attacked the ship. Look, if a ship is in international waters, nobody has a right to board it without permission and – in the absence of such a legal right – those on board are fully entitled to resist. If permission to board is refused and there is no legal right, any attempt to board is a physical attack.

    Let’s say Phantom is driving his car down the road. Some non-uniformed (i.e. not a cop) jerk stops him and demands to search the car. Phantom refuses and tells the jerk to piss off. The jerk then yanks open the door and tries to get in. In this situaton Phantom has no right to resist, and if he does he will be the attacker, the aggressor, and the jerk will be entitled to pull a gun and shoot him dead.

    A crazy world, but there you are!

  67. France 24 made it seem that the Israelis did all the attacking, and showed nothing of the peaceful protesters trying to kill the IDF guys.

    The France24 that i was watching this morning, about an hour ago, was most definitely showing footage of the IDF guys being attacked.

    From what I can tell, the Israelis boarded the ship in international waters, after which the IDF commandos were attacked and attacked first

    Phantom, I aint going to get involved in this debate any more than replying to the above comment, the reason being that ive very much mixed views on what has occurred. However, coming back to your comment. It doesnt make sense. So we have a flotilla and the IDF. The IDF attempt to board the flotilla, during which the IDF are attacked. But its at that stage that you see cause and affect beginning, not at the point at which the decision is made to board the flotilla. That doesnt make sense to me.

  68. This was not " resistance " it was a physical assault. If the " resisters " had not attacked, no one would have had a hair on their head injured.

    We were told that this was a peaceful endeavor. Well, unless you are trying to protect your own life or that of another, you don’ t attack someone with iron bars. And you certainly don’t hit someone again and again and again when they are prone on the deck, entirely defenseless.

    This was not a peaceful anything – this was jihad by other means

    The role of the Turkish government in this is deeply disturbing. Turkey has clearly slipped from the " pretending to be European " ( wink wink ) to the " Islamic world " camp. The legacy of Ataturk the modernizer is no more.

    Again, the preface to all of this is the right of a state to self defense- here against arms and bomb smuggling. Don’t pretend that is not the ultimate aim of the attempt to break the blockade.. Those who pretend not to know that right can only misunderstand what happened in the Med yesterday morning.

  69. This was not " resistance " it was a physical assault. If the " resisters " had not attacked, no one would have had a hair on their head injured.

    Phantom, the activists on the boat resisted an Israeli attept to commandeer the boat. Kloot has nailed you good and proper. You claim if the resisters had not attacked???? the attack did not begin with the activists attacking the Israeli commandos. The attack began when Israel decided to storm the boats. Israel initiated the attack, the activists responded as they were perfectly entitled to do. If someone illegally enters your property you do not have to wait until he or she threatens your life before you can forcibly resist their presence. Catch a grip of yourself man.

    We were told that this was a peaceful endeavor.

    And peaceful it was. Was there any violence before israel stormed the boats? You still seem unable to grasp that very very simple point. Furthermore, can you please link to where the members of the flotilla signed a contract statring they were all pacifists and claiming they would not resist if Israel decided to invade the vessels? I’d really like to see that contract which you must think exists somewhere.

    And you certainly don’t hit someone again and again and again when they are prone on the deck, entirely defenseless.

    A great condemnation of Israeli policy toward the native populace it has subjugated since the states inception.

    It seems to me that nevermind the Palestinians not being allowed to resist, but now we have the Israeli apologists claiming nobody can resist israeli agression.

  70. It wasn’t a boat – it was a ship. You landlubber.

    It was not a peaceful endeavor at all. The tape gives the lie to this.

    You’d hardly see Gandhi or the Quakers assaulting the soldiers like that. But what did folks like that ever accomplish?

    It was jihad and an entree to arms smuggling by refined means.

  71. The tapes show a boat/ship/schooner/canoe/pedant being defended from an attempted commandeering by a hostile armed group. If they were not hostile, they would only have set foot on the boat with the Captain’s permission. If they weren’t interested in confrontation they could have incapacitated the ships propeller.

    Now I’ll ask again, if someone illegally enters your proerty do you wait until he threatens you before using force to resist him?

    Still waiting on that link to your imaginary contract.

  72. The action was not illegal – I declare it fully sanctioned under the universal doctrine of self defense. If we disagree on this point, I will consent that David to be the tie breaker.

    If my property was proceeding to a place it had no business being, that person might be well within his rights.

    My house doesn’t move. This ship was moving, to a place where it did not belong.

  73. >>A great condemnation of Israeli policy toward the native populace it has subjugated since the states inception.<<

    LOL. Nice one.

    This was an attack by Israeli forces: they came unwanted, without any legal right and in the middle of the night, throwing stun grenades onto the ship before lowering stormtroopers armed with machine guns onto the deck. It was only then that they met with physical resistance.

    All this of course does not constitute an attack in world Phantom, as long as it’s carried out by Israelis and directed at Muslims. Of course as soon as such measures are directed against someone he’s politically fond of, he’ll immediately raise the howls of "atrocity", "terrorism", "vicious act of war" etc, etc. etc.
    See his Bloody Sunday debacle yesterday.

  74. Noel

    You are grasping at intellectual straws- Good thing you have the goon squad to prop you up.

    How many British soldiers were injured on Bloody Sunday? Zero. That is what I was getting at.

    The IDF was well within their legal and moral rights under the international right of self defense.

  75. I declare it fully sanctioned under the universal doctrine of self defense.

    Well thats okay then.

    If we disagree on this point, I will consent that David to be the tie breaker.

    I’d be a great outside bet there…wouldn’t I?

    If my property was proceeding to a place it had no business being, that person might be well within his rights.

    No, the person would be within his rights once you entered such a place, not before.

  76. The IDF was well within their legal and moral rights under the international right of self defense.

    The activists were well within their rights to attack any and all armed personnel who set foot on that ship with the intention of hijacking it.

  77. No, that is one thing that GW Bush got right.

    You don’t wait to be attacked. You bring the fight to the attacker, at a time of your choosing.

    There was an 100% chance that the ship would breach the blockade perimeter, so there was no point in waiting.

  78. It is a sad fact that Israel can be its own worst enemy, often to the exasperation of her friends and allies.

    Being a fiercely independent nation they tend to react in the only way they know how, – with their ‘eye for an eye’ sense of justice. and the knowledge that the international community has little influence with those who wish her harm, they just ‘do what they feel they have to do’, to protect themselves, – sometimes acting rashly and with impatience.

    The Arab world knows this, and takes full advantage of the fact. I am sure Israel is equally aware of that fact, and being intelligent people, I am surprised that they still get ambushed in this fashion.

    Perhaps they feel there is no alternative, other than an all-out confrontation, which they sensibly and commendably, do their best to avoid, realising the global consequences of any escalation, which Hamas and co. – being generally of a suicidal disposition, – seems to care little about.

    Let us all hope, whether friend or foe, that they continue to have the patience to ride the ‘knife edge’ of international diplomacy, until a sensible solution to the problem can be found.

  79. A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

    Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place
    on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

    There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

    Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

    Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

    In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

  80. >>How many British soldiers were injured on Bloody Sunday? Zero. That is what I was getting at. <<

    Oh no it wasnt 🙂 We both know what you were getting at – you namely – and foolishly – listed a number of points you thought showed the BS demonstrators were in the right and the massacre was a crime:

    – they had a right to be where they were
    – there were non violent
    – they were not armed
    – were not smuggling
    etc

    This "how-many-British-soldiers-were-injured" line wasnt mentioned with a word, and is just your latest attempt after 24 h reflection on the mess you made.

    Because, as I pointed out, the folks on the boats/ships were exhonerated even more by those points than the BS demonstators were:

    They had a right to be where they were (in international waters. By constrast the BS march was competely banned, the security forces of the country – legally speaking – notified them and prevented them from entering William Street)

    there were non violent until attacked by the soliders. (On BS on the other hand a crowd of rioters broke away from the march and started pelting the soldiers with stones etc. There were also apparently shots fired in the direction of the army beforehand.)

    – they were not armed (see my remarks about shots fired at the BA, there were also apparently nail bombs thrown by some of the rioters)

    – they were not smuggling anything. Israel has imposed an illegal blockade of Gaza. What the ships were bringing in was goods available in any store. Smuggling is only when you break a legal restriction. With your arguments, these unfortunates have also just been caught smuggling and are deserving punishment.

    I think the above all fairly show your prejudices, Phantom. You are bending over backwards to excuse an act just because it was carried out by Israel, and that in 100 other contexts you would condemn. Either that or in your condemnation of BA actions on Bloody Sunday you are just scratching a tribal itch.

  81. I think the description for all that is ‘le langue de bois’, – as spoken by politicians and lawyers.

    There is a colloquial expression for it, but do read the link and the comments and form your own impressions.

  82. Earnest.

    Let us all hope, whether friend or foe, that they continue to have the patience to ride the ‘knife edge’ of international diplomacy, until a sensible solution to the problem can be found.

    The more I think about it the more I can only see one outcome to this, and its not a positive one. Its possible that things have gone too far for the Israelis and Palestinians to ever live peacefully as neighbours, because of the violent history that has passed, but also because of external influences and pressures.

    Its not beyond possibility, were there a peace process that might hold, that relations could become functional and maybe with time, cordial between the two, but that doesnt seem to me to be likely anyway.

    Israel handled this one badly, and lost out in the PR battle. Israel tends not to put enough emphasis on the PR of what they do, being firm in the belief, im sure, that what they do is correct for them.

  83. Kloot

    Unfortunately, I largely agree with you.

    I see no happy ending on these matters.

    Compared to this, North Korea is easy.

  84. Kloot,

    "Israel handled this one badly, and lost out in the PR battle."

    Seems they’re regrouping:

    Amid the crowd, a sophisticated public relations operation was underway. Spinners and spokesmen from the Israeli military and government departments politely answered questions and offered their own narrative of the day’s events. A barrage of emails and text message alerts firing into inboxes provided a background of electronic muzak….

    There was nothing to challenge the Israeli version of events. Repeated attempts to reach the cell and satellite phones of activists on board the flotilla were rebuffed; it was unclear whether their phones had been confiscated, jammed or if they were simply out of range.

    So the only narrative we’re allowed to hear and see is the oh-so-impartial Israeli one.

    Reports that Jerusalem is now twinned with Beijing are as yet unconfirmed….

  85. Phantom,

    I own a TV, yes. Are they broadcasting that footage the activists shot?

  86. My TV showed both IDF and " peace activist " ( cough ) footage last night and this morning

    ( On BBC World. I didn’t even bother watching CNN or Fox )

  87. Phantom,

    Can you link me to the activists’ footage? Maybe YouTube. I can only find the Israeli version of events and wish to see what happened prior to the IDF boarding the ship.

  88. I don’t have access to youtube from here. Where are you located? Don’t you have access to BBC World News?

    I imagine that someone else can provide youtube clips?

  89. Phantom,

    BBC don’t have anything besides what Israel is allowing out.

    Reuters reported that Israel was holding hundreds of activists incommunicado in and around the port city of Ashdod, refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel’s version of events.

    What can Israel fear? Didn’t someone on ATW call Israel a "liberal democracy" only the other day?

    Would you agree with Glenn Greenwald? He writes:

    Isn’t it strange how Plucky, Democratic Israel goes to such extreme lengths to prevent any media coverage of what they do, any journalistic interference with their propaganda machine, in light of the fact that — as always — They Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong? Is physically blocking the media from covering what happens the act of a government that is in the right? Thomas Jefferson answered that question quite some time ago:

    "Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

  90. Phantom,

    You didn’t answer my questions. And who told you they’re criminals? No, let me guess, the Izzies?

  91. Rabbi

    This event just happened. These ship is being looked at and the " activists " are being questioned.

    What you wanted the Israelis for fly them out to the Larry King show immediately upon capture?

  92. Phantom,

    To refresh your memory, here are the questions you haven’t answered yet:

    "What can Israel fear? Didn’t someone on ATW call Israel a "liberal democracy" only the other day?

    "Would you agree with Glenn Greenwald?"

    And… you called those hundreds of people criminals. Where did you get that information? Do you believe without question everything the Izzies tell you?

  93. Phantom,

    From what I can tell, the Israelis boarded the ship in international waters, after which the IDF commandos were attacked and attacked first- and from the looks of it, there were attempts to kill them – throwing one man into the ocean, beating a fallen man unmercifully with what looked to be iron bars or sticks.

    I have seen that footage since – you’re right, they aren’t exactly singing Kum Ba Ya. I can’t conceive of any circumstances that would justify that beating either – so as long as people are talking about ‘disportionate force’ let’s talk about that.

    But the rest of it depends on whether Israel had any legal right to board the boat in International waters in the first place. If not, the first attack was theirs. It further depends on whether they came on board firing or not.

    Certainly if heavily armed criminals, apparently lunatics, board your ship in the middle of the night and start shooting, then it is not reasonable to expect the crew and passengers to come waltzing out onto the deck and wait to be falsely imprisoned, kidnapped or shot. Come onto anyone else’s boat like that and you might expect to be thrown over the side, if that is what it takes to stop you. And I’m sure you’d be making that argument if the nationalities were different.

    Also reports coming from the IDF contradict each other – some say the solidiers fired and then the others fired back. Others say the activists fired first. Initial reports said the soldiers used ‘crowd control’, which playbook apparently includes ‘live fire’ and tear gas – in other reports it’s supposed to be paintball guns they had (and regardless all of it is dangerous and potentially lethal at such close quarters). The activists say the IDF boarded firing. And now we have a news blackout.

    I don’t want to hear about what some hypothetical next ship might have had on it, or the pitiful argument that there were guns on board all along because the activists took some off the IDF. Such an argument can justify killing anyone. The people who died weren’t on some hypothetical next ship, and they will never be on such a ship.

    Anyway, what I cannot understand at all is the celebration of this as if it were some genius move on the part of Israel, when it is at best a monumental cockup.

  94. Rabbi

    They’re interrorgating the rats from the ships. This just happened. Jeez, so impatient.

    Frank

    Yes it was a cockup by the Israelis.

    For the jihad by other means movement, it was an off the charts success.

  95. They should have just sunk the boats. – Charles.

    Charles would prefer 700 people were killed rather than 10.

    Words fail me.

    Free Gaza.

  96. Barbi,

    How quicky you, and Noel, show your true colours! – ‘Izzies’? – whatever happened to all that PC nonsense about derogatory names for those of other cultures? If anyone had used ‘Paddy’, ‘Taffy or perhaps ‘Paki’, or even ‘Nignog’, you would be the first to be ‘tut tutting’ and shouting ‘racist’, or some other epithet to show your ‘oh! so faux’ disgust… What bloody hypocrites you both are!!!!

    I look forward to reading your excuses for such a lapse of decorum….

  97. Frank: "I can’t conceive of any circumstances that would justify that beating either"

    Riiight. So if armed pirates board your ship you shoud greet them with a cup of bovril?

    Phantom: "throwing one man into the ocean, beating a fallen man unmercifully with what looked to be iron bars or sticks."

    How I enjoy watching that! It never gets old. The Zionist-pirate scum got a well-desvered ass kicking.

    And remember folks, these are the elite, the best of the best. They slide down the rope one by one to an inevitable beating, two of them allow themselves to be disarmed, and one gets tossed in the sea! LOL

    All this at the hands of unarmed men!

    Elite forces!

  98. Phantom,

    "They’re interrorgating the rats from the ships."

    There you go again. First they were "criminals", now they’re "rats".

    And again: Where do you get this information? Were you there?

    Honestly, you disappoint me. I thought you were a bit more discerning with what you allow into your consciousness.

    Our host begins this thread by stating: "I defend Israel against those who seek her destruction."

    As do I, as does anyone with a sense of decency. As I stated elsewhere, I’m more than familiar with the intelligentsia of Israel. They bear little resemblance to the thugs and religious lunatics who rule the place.

    I fail to understand how anybody with a fully operational cortex can accept their propaganda unchallenged. Especially in our modern times when an uncensored differing view is available with a couple of keystrokes.

  99. Ernest,

    Sorry to have offended your sensibilities. Yes, Noel must bear some of the blame for "Izzies".

    I could be wrong but figured it was his riposte to "Pallies", a term that appears with monotonous regularity on ATW.

    Odd that you never expressed your distaste for that particular term of endearment….

  100. Rabbi

    You don’t need propaganda to reach logical conclusions

    And since a large number of the lurkers, shirkers, and know-nothings here do seek Israel’s destruction, I guess they " have no sense of decency ". Now who’s spouting propaganda?

  101. Phantom,

    A very poor response. It’s tough answering such questions as those I posed, isn’t it?

    What happened to you? When did you lose your sense of justice?

    What did you think of that Thomas Jefferson quote? Okay, I’ll remind you of what he said:

    Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions [the Izzies in this case].

  102. Rabbi

    You need to go back to shul and study harder

    The facts will emerge in the near future, and Mr. Jefferson’s ghost will be very happy

    This staged crisis just happened five minutes ago. Be patient.

  103. Phantom,

    Be patient with Likud propaganda? Is there a good reason why a thinking man should be?

  104. Petr

    Frank: "I can’t conceive of any circumstances that would justify that beating either"

    Riiight. So if armed pirates board your ship you shoud greet them with a cup of bovril?

    As far as I can see a gang of people beating a defenceless man on the ground is just savagery no matter the circumstances. You can’t argue that is self defence as even if he originally posed a threat he couldn’t have then.

    Any of the rest of it could have been self defence or could have been a lynching as portrayed by the IDF. But if that particular incident was what it looked like, it was a lynching.

  105. Petr,

    I’m trying to piece this together, to get beyond the Izzie propaganda. Is it true that the IDF wore masks, or as another report said, balaclavas?

    If that’s the case then why do I think of this?

    Terrorists being defended on ATW? Surely not.

    Phantom,

    Do try not to be cute. It doesn’t suit you.

  106. Frank: "As far as I can see a gang of people beating a defenceless man on the ground is just savagery no matter the circumstances."

    The Israeli "commandos" (lol) were armed. To me the response of the activists was entirely justified and actually quite brave in that they’d have been aware of the IDF tendancy to murder.

    When some of the concentration camps were liberated the Nazi guards got a severe beating too. I’ll not lose any sleep over that either.

    Rabbi,

    They seem to be wearing masks in the video.

  107. The Legal Position on the Israeli Attack, Craig Murray.

    In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

  108. Petr

    I hope you’re searching for the truth, but I’m losing the thread of what you are trying to say

  109. Petr,

    "They seem to be wearing masks in the video."

    Hmm, that’s what I thought. Wonder when the Izzies will release the video shot by the victims.

    Terrorists from Israel. Oy vey, who’s have thought it?

  110. This whole flotilla nonsense is just one big anti-Israeli agitprop. It’s theater, people. Staged. Cynical. Theater.

    It should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Even Code Pink is involved in the flotilla.

    The Left is especially good at this kind of propaganda. Poor, poor Lefties. Always the underdog. Always fighting the man. And the Palestinians are also masters of the agitprop. Always starving. Always in camps. For years. and years. in camps. starving. Despite the millions and millions put into their coffers. Wierd. Where does all the aid go? In any event, the Palestinian is always the underdog.

    Lefties and Palestinians are always victims, regardless of facts. Or at least that is what the propoganda would like us to assume.

  111. I believe the reason Israel is taking the flotilla nonsense serious is that they cannot risk losing control of the waterway. Something to do with Iran, and rockets, and war…and the stated desire of so many n the ME to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

    Now, why the Western Left is so keen to help ME anti-semites attack Jews is a mystery to me. The Western Left is such a spoiled bunch of ideologues it’s difficult to fathom their motives.

  112. You should go to Palestine and have a look for yourself Patty. Like myself and RS have done.

    I suspect you don’t know very much by your post.

  113. "I believe the reason Israel is taking the flotilla nonsense serious is that they cannot risk losing control of the waterway."

    Gosh, the oracle has spoken.

    Petr,

    "Like myself and RS have done."

    Et moi! But hell, what do I know? I’m just another self-hating Jew.

  114. What do you suspect that I don’t know? The location of the "camps?" The amount of Western aid given to them over the years? The prevalent stated anti-semitism in the ME? The size of Israel? What is it that you suspect?

  115. If I recognize the flotillas nonsense as just more anti-Israel agitprop, then surely the Israelis do as well.

    And yet..the Israelis couldn’t just let the flotilla go…wonder why…do you think they couldn’t see a potential propoganda bonanza for the Left/Palestinians looming if something went wrong? Do you think they couldn’t recognize needless provocation — which is what the flotilla is?

    Obviously control of the waterways is an issue — and it has something to do with war….thus spake the Oracle.

  116. Gosh, the oracle has spoken.

    ROFL.

    Phantom: If I remember correctly you didn’t visit the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or Gaza.

  117. Patty

    They can’t set a precedent of letting the flotilla " go " to Gaza – as doing so will quickly lead to transport of arms in a far more convenient way than via the tunnels

  118. Petr,

    "Phantom: If I remember correctly you didn’t visit the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or Gaza."

    Every man has the right to invent his own history ~ Confucius

  119. Patty would you accept incorrect interpretations of something somebody said in….hmmm….lets say, hewbrew, from me?

    Despite the millions and millions put into their coffers. Wierd.

    Indeed, the corruption of fatah (yet some people weren’t happy that the Palestinains voted them out of power) and also the theft israel has committed. So do you condemn both?

  120. Petr

    I was in Israel proper. I went to the Golan Heights, which I guess is " West Bank "

    I did not go to Gaza, as it would be about the last place in the world I would ever wish to go to, right behind Mogadishu

    I intend to go there again, and would like to visit some of the larger towns in the West Bank

  121. RS: it’s always easier to ask ambiguous questions, isn’t it? If you want to make a point, then make it.

  122. Frank,

    The commandos attacking that ship used force even before they landed. They fired stun grenades onto the decks before the soldiers started their abseiling. Also, when the first one landed the second was already on the way down and the third already on the cable. If the people on the ship wanted to put up any kind of defence, they would therefore have had to put each of the soliders out of action immediately. They also obvioiusly didnt intend a lynching; there were naturally enough knives on the boat, and if someone is "lying helpless on the deck" and you intended to kill him, surely it would have been more prudent to stab him immediately instead of waiting for him to get up and shoot you.

    Some of those on the other ships also said the Israelis used rubber bullets and tear gas to gain control of the ship.

    >>Always starving. Always in camps. For years. and years. in camps. starving. Despite the millions and millions put into their coffers. Wierd.<<

    Patty, I hope for your sake you are drunk.

  123. "RS: it’s always easier to ask ambiguous questions, isn’t it? If you want to make a point, then make it."

    Come back, Pythia. All is forgiven.

  124. Noel,

    "The commandos attacking that ship used force even before they landed. They fired stun grenades onto the decks before the soldiers started their abseiling."

    I’ve been asking about this for hours now but nobody seems to have the skinny. Where did you get this information?

  125. Rabbi, it was reported on the Irish Times today, I’ll go look for a link.

    But it was also on CNN yesterday. That blonde Aussie guy on CNN (name?) was examining the video footage taken from a helicopter together with some security geek. The stun grenades were identified and quite visible hitting the deck, there were quite a few of them. I’ll also look for the link.

  126. Here’s the CNN report.

    Note, however, how Israeli propaganda is so keen to show the bits where their soldiers are being beaten, but strangely never show their soldiers shooting the people.

  127. Here’s another report from the Irish Times, quoting a man who was on one of the other ships. He tells how on his ship the people merely resisted passively, blocking the way to the bridge; the Israeli commandos nevertheless fired plastic bullets at them and used taser guns on them, etc.

  128. RS: it’s always easier to ask ambiguous questions, isn’t it? If you want to make a point, then make it.

    I asked what seemed a pretty simple question…

    Patty would you accept incorrect interpretations of something somebody said in….hmmm….lets say, hewbrew, from me?

  129. Petr,

    Your comment is ridiculous drivel.

    Noel,

    It looks like it goes well beyond any reasonable attempt to put the guy out of action. Of course it is impossible to tell exactly what was happening there – probably nobody on the ship really knew at the time either.

    The problem is that neither side’s statements add up.

    If the IDF boarded all guns blazing then why are any of the activists still alive?

    On the other hand if the commandos were surprised by a lynching party then why are all of them still alive?

  130. Noel: "Patty, I hope for your sake you are drunk." I guess I need to bring back the "sarc." flag?

    RS: make your point, would you? And what the heck is "hewbrew?" Izzies, hewbrew…. I need a shower after this thread…(sarc) 🙂

  131. Lynching party? I didn’t see many burning crosses, pillow cases and chevy pickups on the deck of that ship.

  132. Frank,

    Thanks for that great addition to the discussion!

    There’s a lot of drivel on this thread but this must certainly be up there:

    "As far as I can see a gang of people beating a defenceless man on the ground is just savagery no matter the circumstances."

    How could they beat that cuddly soldier?

    Doh Frank, he’s only defenseless because they beat him up. HE HAS A GUN! And those Zionist scum deserved every blow that was rained down on them richly.

    The bravery of men who will take on armed pirates like that is quite inspiring, IMO.

  133. History will judge very poorly those who side with the rogue state of Israel. Apartheid South Africa had many supporters, though they’ve gone all quiet now it must be said. Right-wingers of course, just like many of the ATW rabble.

  134. Petr – I’m hardly right wing, but I have no problem "siding" with Israel. In fact, it is because I am on their side that I find this incident so deplorable.

Comments are closed.