Passengers tried to grab weapons away from soldiers boarding the Gaza protest flotilla, starting the violence, Army Radio reported Tuesday morning, responding to accusations that Israeli commandos assaulted the ships guns blazing.Between the Free Gaza updates and the IDF responses, I'm sure we'll get a clear picture of what really happened any minute now...
According to IDF reports, at least 10 acitivists were killed during the ensuing clashes as well as six Navy commandos, some of them from gunfire and at least one in serious condition with a head wound. Foreign reports claimed that the number of dead was close to 15. Some of the wounded were evacuated to Israeli hospital by Air Force helicopters.posted by andoatnp at 11:37 PM on May 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passangers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists succeeded in stealing the weapon from one of the IDF’s soldiers and reportedly opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.
“It was like a well-planned lynch,” one IDF officer said. “These people were anything but peace activists.”
sharkfu,Well, they won the election, weren't seated, and then took over Gaza by force from the Fatah party. However, there would have been another election by now.
Where did you get that quote in the NYT from? Didn't the "force" happen to be an election?
Genuine question. Seriously.
Some might wonder why on earth Israel would do such a thing knowing full well that it will be universally condemned for doing so. The answer is simple. Like North Korea they have a garrison state mentality in which internal political dynamics and an oversized conception of threats far outweigh any concern with external reactions. Israel gave up a long time ago worrying about how its actions will be perceived by the international community. Its major concern is to not appear weak. Whatever their other differences, the Israeli political elite is virtually unanimous in its support for a hard-line defense policy, to include the blockade. It is a mindset that external actors do not share but which is compelling to them. Anything that could appear to be an exploitation of a point of Israeli weakness (such as successfully running the blockade) is seen as an existential threat. Thus killing activists who dared to challenge Israel’s commitment to enforcing the blockade is seen as a fair price to pay for maintaining its image of toughness. What is more, the Israeli government believes that its Arab neighbours as well as others in the international community quietly respect its toughness, which serves as both a deterrent as well as a reaffirmation that it is here to stay, on its own terms.Personally I am past the point of feeling ashamed "as a Jew". I no longer identify with the right-wing camp in Israel, and far from feeling that a Jewish state gives me a secure haven, in fact the Zionist enterprise as realised via the Israeli right is putting me at risk.
Since the Palestinians receive little more than rhetorical support from the Sunni Arab world, Israel also knows a hard fact that the North Koreans understood when they torpedoed the South Korean frigate in March: there is nothing anyone can really do about the kilings beyond rhetorical condemnation and meaningless UN sanctions (and it will be interesting to see if Israel receives a UNSC sanction while North Korea does not). Although it may engage in some diplomatic retaliation, Turkey is not going to declare war over this incident. No other state or coalition of states are going to mount a counter-blockade that would invite an Israeli armed response, and economic and trade sanctions, even if they were to be applied, will be happily circumvented by the numerous “quiet” partners Israel has around the world. As an old Latin American phrase puts it, impunity has its own reward.
The point being that what appears outrageous to the outside world makes perfect sense to Israeli decision-makers given their garrison state mentalities. Had the flotilla organisers understood this, perhaps they would have thought twice about challenging the blockade. Had the Turkish government understood this, they would have been better served by dealing with the political wrath at home caused by their denying the flotilla permission to leave port rather than deal with the violent protests now occurring in the aftermath of the commando raid.
The truly strong can afford to be magnanimous, only the weak are afraid to show any sign of softness.I think the entire Israeli psyche is predicated on a consciousness of vulnerability, so Israelis don't think they're "truly strong." They can't show any personal weakness precisely because their tough reputation is the only thing that protects them.
Peter Fray, editor of Fairfax publication The Sydney Morning Herald, issued a statement about 8:00pm (AEST) confirming journalist Paul McGeough and photographer Kate Geraghty are safe.posted by Surfurrus at 4:43 AM on May 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mr McGeough and Ms Geraghty had last made contact around noon (AEST) while onboard the MV Samoud.
The pair joined the flotilla in Crete about a week ago and are on assignment covering the convoy and had been moving from boat to boat.
Both have satellite phones but Mr McGeough reported his GPS was not working, blaming the malfunction on Israeli attempts to jam communications.
Mr Fray says the pair are being processed in an Israeli detention centre.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914432.htm
I get this, but my point is that to an outsider like myself, the "tough reputation" is the facade of someone inherently weak.Well, yeah. I'm just not sure why that's news to anyone. Jewish Israelis know they're fundamentally weak and that their toughness is a way to compensate for that fundamental weakness. Israel is a tiny country, most of whose citizens are members of a tiny, despised minority, and they're a country whose legitimacy is not accepted by most of the world's people. I don't think the fact that they're really weak is really a "stop the presses" insight.
Barak also noted that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza” – the alleviation of which ostensibly motivated the organizers of this flotilla.posted by rodgerd at 8:11 AM on May 31, 2010 [3 favorites]
We explain, time and again, that we are not at war with the people of Gaza. We say it time and again because we ourselves need to believe it, and because, deep down, we do not.Excerpt from The Second Gaza War: Israel lost at sea by Bradley Burston writing in Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
There was a time, when it could be said that we knew ourselves only in wartime. No longer. Now we know nothing. Yet another problem with refraining from talks with Hamas and Iran: They know us so much better than we know ourselves.
They know, as the song about the Lebanon War suggested ("Lo Yachol La'atzor Et Zeh") that we, unable to see ourselves in any clarity, are no longer capable of stopping ourselves.
Hamas, as well as Iran, have come to know and benefit from the toxicity of Israeli domestic politics, which is all too ready to mortgage the future for the sake of a momentary apparent calm.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.If I recall correctly, this was basically the legal justification the Canadian govt used for its military intervention in Afghanistan (which - arguably, anyway - was providing shelter to an armed force which had attacked the US) and not Iraq (which, you know, hadn't). The Afghan war remains under NATO jurisdiction for this reason.
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:So, yeah, there probably won't be any hair splitting about whether the Mediterranean is covered by the NATO treaty.
* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:It looks to me like this falls squarely under 67a, vessels reasonably believed to be breaching a blockade and having refused to stop after receiving warning.
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
Article 110. Right of visitposted by MaiaMadness at 4:58 PM on May 31, 2010
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag
State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d ) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.
4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.
5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.
Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide
sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, vinegar, nutmeg, chocolate, fruit preserves, seeds and nuts, biscuits and sweets, potato chips, gas for soft drinks, dried fruit, fresh meat, plaster, tar, wood for construction, cement, iron, glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine, tarpaulin, sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing, nylon nets for greenhouses, hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries, spare parts for tractors, dairies for cowsheds, irrigation pipe systems, ropes to tie greenhouses planters for saplings, heaters for chicken farms, musical instruments, size A4 paper, writing implements, notebooks, newspapers, toys, razors, sewing machines and spare parts, heaters, horses, donkeys, goats, cattle, and chicksThese are some of the "weapons" Israel won't allow into Gaza.
My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" President Obama likes to talk a lot about our wonderful American values, and his shiny new National Security Strategy says "we must always seek to uphold these values not just when it is easy, but when it is hard." The same document also talks about a "rule-based international order," and says "America's commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century."this kind of bottom lines it for me; walt goes on about how the US might respond...
Well if that is true, here is an excellent opportunity for Obama to prove that he means what he says. Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes.
More importantly, this latest act of misguided belligerence poses a broader threat to U.S. national interests. Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. This incident will harm our relations with other Middle Eastern countries, lend additional credence to jihadi narratives about the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," and complicate efforts to deal with Iran. It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability.
In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical. And Obama's Cairo speech -- which was entitled "A New Beginning" -- will be guaranteed a prominent place in the Hall of Fame of Empty Rhetoric.
Under international law, the consensus of the maritime attorney's [sic] I have spoken to is that the boarding operation by Israel was legal.as entirely distinct from the broader moral
If we presume the Israeli Navy is competent, we can presume they knew this would happen. That suggests Israel knew the initial boarding would be met with violent resistance, but the political cost of allowing violation of the blockade was higher than the expected political fallout of a violent response.and political
As far as I am concerned, any country that acts as politically stupid as Israel has in this situation deserves every political attack they get. Israel has some seriously tone deaf leadership right now who seems to look at every problem as a nail and every solution requiring a hammer.contexts of that discussion.
chuzzlewit: that looks like it smarted a bit.Obviously, that's what we should focus on: pro-Israel chuckleheads laughing about the victim's pain and disfigurement.
Kojak replied to comment from chuzzlewit: Yeah loosing an Eye would sorta put a damper on the entire middle-east experience. I can only theorize that she's in some kind of discomfort.
chuzzlewit replied to comment from Kojak: great story, though - red badge and all that. Glass eye tricks make sure folks remember you. Really, a lot of plusses if you look at it right (close one eye and squint)!
Israel will use more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, a top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.I assume he means the ships that will be escorted by the TURKISH NAVY. Yeah, this'll end well.
"We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war," the officer said. "That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war."
As in past such instances, Israeli leaders and some in the Israeli press are treating the international backlash as just good public-relations a public-relations failure on the part of the government. That’s an act of willful self-deception. By pretending that the problem is bad PR, they are trying to avoid admitting that the real problem is the underlying policy.He also mentions the recent piece written by Peter Beinart, in the New York Review of Books (mentioned upthread by bardic,) which was discussed on MeFi here.
In another such dodge, some Israelis are explaining away the harsh international criticism by claiming that it confirms widespread anti-Semitism. As the Jerusalem Post put it in an editorial about the incident, “It was as if a pent-up torrent of rabid anti-Israel hatred had finally found its release.”
Sorry, no sale.
Is all criticism of Israel’s actions — legitimate or otherwise — to be dismissed as anti-Semitism? Is Israel — and Israel alone — somehow exempt from the judgment of the international community, as if it can never do wrong? The charge of anti-Semitism, with all its tragic implications, should not be cheapened by turning it into a means of silencing criticism or opposition. Yet sadly, that is increasingly what it has become.
We boarded the shipOur soldiers, armed with automatic weapons and wearing body armor, assaulted the ship from combat helicopters and were attacked as if it was a war
The raid is the latest case of Israel choosing militarism over liberalism, which Beinart identifies as the core issue...Israel not only no longer faces any enemies who pose an existential threat, it doesn’t even have enemies who can thwart any strongly held Israeli policy aim. No state is going to go to war to “destroy Israel.” I doubt any state particularly wants to. Certainly no state that might want to can do so. But beyond that, no state is going to go to war on behalf of the Palestinians and the Palestinians lack the power to launch an effective war on their own behalf.Every time Israel takes major, disproportionate action, the“counter productivity corps” tells us that very soon now Israel’shigh-handedness will cost it essential allies, alienate the United States and set the country on the road to ruin. Every time, the furor passes. In particular, the United States has attempted no material rebuke of Israel since the administration of Bush the Elder, and theseposted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:43 AM on June 1, 2010 [3 favorites]
days barely bothers with rhetorical rebukes...This is not Israel “shooting itself in the foot.” This is Israel winning. Be for that or against it, but at least recognize it.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been privately asking foreign leaders to "dial down" criticism of Israel until all the facts of the flotilla attack are known, according to a source who personally discussed the matter with her."posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:22 AM on June 1, 2010
Egypt, which depends on billions of dollars of annual aid from the U.S., says its actions in Gaza are driven by its own national interest. Not only is there pressure from Washington to stop smuggling into Gaza, but Mubarak is a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and views Hamas as an ally of his own most feared opponents, the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
The move came a day after Israel raided an international flotilla carrying supplies to the Palestinian territory, reportedly killing nine activists.Also on Tuesday, Israel transferred the humanitarian supplies aboard the ships to the Gaza Strip after inspecting the cargo. According to Channel 10, COGAT transferred most of the aid which had been on the ships, with the exception of pills whose expiry dates had passed.
Eight previous flotillas were either allowed to reach Gaza or were diverted by the Israeli navy without incident. This time, activists spent a year planning the eight-ship "Freedom Flotilla,'' soliciting the participation of international parliamentarians and the backing of the Turkish government. Because of the much larger scale of this flotilla, and because of concerns about the presence of activists with alleged links to militant groups, Israel mounted a far more aggressive military response than it had before, officials said. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consulted with his top security advisers and approved "Operation Sea Breeze" to try to stop the flotilla from reaching Gaza.
--Why Europe? Because if Turkey invokes the NATO charter and the US doesn't react, then NATO is GONE. GONE and DEAD. Why? Because when the US was attacked on 9/11, the NATO charter was invoked -- and that is why NATO troops are in Afghanistan today. 9/11 was proof that NATO was not just an 'anti-Russian' pact -- that it applied anywhere. If the US doesn't go along with a Turkish response... it will reveal NATO as being a "US pact" -- that the entire alliance exists only to help the US. Oh, there will still be mutual defense treaties with the UK and maybe Germany. But that is just about it. And the US will have to go on its own in Afghanistan. That is unless they want to invite the IDF to help....from some trenchant observations by Robert Mackey, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired).
"Meanwhile I'm sitting there knowing it's actually a tad more complicated and that the Israelis are dealing with people who will not rest until it they've all been wiped from the face of the Earth and if it was us then we might just get a bit jumpy too, particularly if someone had tried to do it before.It's quite partisan.
"But if I come out and say that then this vegetarian ponce is going to accuse me of wanting to make a fancy cocktail with the blood of Palestinian babies and there goes any chance I may have of picking off the drunkest woman from the pack.
"If they could just protect their borders against exploding maniacs with a little more tact then that would help me enormously in my quest for a really good blow job."
"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war. They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."posted by tybeet at 7:21 AM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
"We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. "Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."...
Footage of the assault shown on Turkish TV and images released by the Israeli military clearly showed some commandos being beaten with sticks by passengers.
However, Paech said he saw no arms being used by the activists. "There were only two men with short sticks but no knives, iron rods, pistols or any real weapons," he said. "Throughout our planning of the mission we said: 'no arms, no explosives', we said we'd only resist politically, with normal means."...
The tough treatment did not end after they were taken into custody in Israel, others said.
"During their interrogation, many of them were badly beaten in front of us," said Aris Papadokostopoulos.
"There was great mistreatment after our arrest," added Grigoropoulos.
"But if I come out and say that then this vegetarian ponce is going to accuse me of wanting to make a fancy cocktail with the blood of Palestinian babies and there goes any chance I may have of picking off the drunkest woman from the pack.Well spotted! The academic, whom one would expect to be a disinterested exponent of the truth, betrays his petty and ignoble motives in an amusing manner. You have now learned to identify irony. With a little practice you will also be able to identify sarcasm.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mounted a vigorous public defense of Israel’s blockade of Gaza on Wednesday, rejecting international criticism of a deadly Israeli attack on a flotilla of activists who had been trying to carry aid to Gaza.
In his first nationally broadcast comments on the raid, Mr. Netanyahu accused Israel’s critics of hypocrisy and said the blockade of the Hamas-controlled territory of Gaza was necessary to prevent rockets and missiles from being smuggled to militants.
“It is our duty and our responsibility according to international law and common sense to prevent by air, sea and land the smuggling of weapons into Gaza,” Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a translation of his remarks broadcast on Israeli radio. He added: “This was no Love Boat.”
Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry, smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel's cities.It's an interesting disparity: the NYTimes coverage of his remarks doesn't mention Iran at all, but the Reuters excerpts make it sound like he spent most of the time talking about them. That would certainly be in character for Netanyahu, who has spent the last several years and much of his time as Prime Minister raising the specter of a nuclear Iran that wants to wipe Israel off the map.
These missiles can reach Ashdod, Beersheba, these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv and very soon the outskirts of Jerusalem. And from the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach even farther and deeper into Israel. *Under international law and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.
This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We've already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah and for Hamas from Iran containing hundreds of tons of weapons.
*Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea. I'll go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem, and I go beyond that, too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations, the international community cannot afford an Iranian port on the Mediterranean.
My canny theory about what happened is that the Israelis had convinced themselves that the flotilla were gun-running, didn't bother to check, and acted accordingly, planning roughly the clustereff that actually happened, presuming that the justificatory material would be found after the event. And then it wasn't and oooerr, oh shit. This would also explain why the post facto media strategy (via Henry) was so totally incoherent - it was built around a corpus delicti that didn't arrive.DD also links to this, which I also was struck by.
Dogan, who held a U.S. passport, had four bullet wounds to the head and one to the chest, Omer Yagmur of the Foundation of Humanitarian Relief (IHH), told Anatolia.posted by tybeet at 7:09 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Alexandra Lort-Phillips, 37, an activist from Hackney, was on the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed and described seeing an Israeli soldier taken down into the stairwell below the deck where the soldiers landed.posted by lullaby at 8:01 AM on June 4, 2010
“I went down the stairwell and there was a massive crowd of people and lots of shouting,” she said, after being deported to Istanbul.
“They had got a soldier who had boarded the ship from the roof. There was a sense of ‘My god, we’ve got an Israeli soldier’. I don’t think we really knew what we were going to do.”
“I saw a gun being taken. His gunbelt was removed and someone, I don’t know who, ran past me with the weapon and disappeared. They could have shot him but didn’t.” She said around 25 people were gathered around the soldier, who was held by his legs and stripped to his underwear as he was restrained.
“The women who were there were shouting ‘Don’t hurt him’.” Ms Lort-Phillips denied he was beaten, but said: “There were obviously some guys there who were extremely agitated by the situation. It is like you’d expect when there’s a fight between men.”
I grabbed some food the other night with a longtime Jewish friend. We had an honest conversation - the kind you cannot have on US television. He's a big liberal but strongly sided with Israel in this latest incident. Why? "They're my people." But you're an American, I countered, you're not an Israeli, let alone a supporter of Netanyahu. None of that mattered to him. His attachment to Israel was indistinguishable from his attachment to America, and, if push came to shove, Israel came first, right or wrong. This had been dinned into him since childhood. His iPhone was deluged with texts from relatives and friends all appalled by any criticism of the commando attack, and immediately seeing it as anti-Semitic or designed to end the state of Israel for ever.posted by fatbird at 2:15 PM on June 4, 2010
Abu Khalil told Reuters by telephone from the southern Lebanese village of Marjayoun: "There were four Israeli soldiers brought to the lowest deck. They had fracture wounds."Well, it certainly couldn't be any clearer that whatever happened, the top deck of the Marmara was a complete clusterfuck.
The soldiers were apparently captured during attempts to descend to the ship from helicopters, Abu Khalil heard from activists who had been on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara.
[...]
One activist used a loudhailer to tell the Israelis the four captive soldiers were well and would be released if they provided medical help for the wounded.
With an Israeli Arab lawmaker acting as mediator, the Israelis agreed to the request and the wounded were brought to the top deck where they were airlifted off the ship.
* I don't think they've fired any rockets sinceOh, so the blockade is actually not doing anything then? Good to know. I thought they stopped and hadn't heard that they'd fired any until now. They do hardly any damage, so it really doesn't matter that much. It certainly doesn't justify the economic blockade.'08yesterday.
I thought they were a "party" in the Palestinian Authority like Fatah or something.They are, or were. They actually won the election. But control wasn't given to them, then they took over the Gaza strip (but not the west bank), etc.
Ireland: Agreement reached with Israel over 'Rachel Corrie' but crew refusedIt seems apparent that the Irish would understand that if the ship violated the agreement between the two governments that Israel would take action, and that such action needed to be minimal and reasonable.
The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs has announced that it reached an agreement with the Israeli government by which the 'Rachel Corrie' would dock at Ashdod port, where it would unload the aid meant for Gaza and submit it to inspection, however the crew aboard the vessel refused.
Therefore, the ministry said in a statement, "the Government demands that (Israel) demonstrate every restraint" when it intercepts the ship. (Ynet)
That is a constant refrain of imperialism. You have your jackboot on someone's neck and they're about to destroy you.posted by Jimmy Havok at 11:59 PM on June 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Your right, the Palestinians are basically screwed. But they screwed themselves, and were screwed by their "allies" moreso than by Israel.To be fair, though, they'd been living there for generations before a minority population (roughly 10-15%) was given half of Palestine by the UN. It was a pretty shitty scenario no matter how you cut it, and while riots and military resistance rarely get things off on the wrong foot, it's undeniable that the existing population of Palestine got shafted by Partition.
“I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine.”Of course, who was he? Some fringe radical barely remembered today.
A prime cause of this inversion is the distortion in perception brought about by rank tribalism. Those whose worldview is shaped by their identification as members of a particular religious, nationalistic, or ethnic group invariably over-value the wrongs done to them and greatly under-value the wrongs their group perpetrates. Those whose world view is shaped by tribalism are typically plagued by an extreme persecution complex (the whole world is against us!!!; everyone who criticizes us is hateful and biased!!!)I've mentioned the wonderful facility certain people have for finding covert antisemitism, even seeing it in the way the word is capitalized. I've been accused of antisemitism for making the tribal argument," because 'tribe' is a derogatory word." It's a great way to divert attention from the validity of the argument, even as it illustrates it.
...When it comes to Israel, we see the same mindset from otherwise admirable Jewish progressives such as Anthony Weiner, Jerry Nadler, Eliot Spitzer, Alan Grayson, and (after a brief stint of deviation) Barney Frank. On this one issue, they magically abandon their opposition to military attacks on civilians, their defense of weaker groups being bullied and occupied by far stronger factions, their belief that unilateral military attacks are unjustified, and suddenly find common cause with Charles Krauthammer, The Weekly Standard, and the Bush administration in justifying even the most heinous Israeli crimes of aggression.
... They never wonder to themselves:I had it continuously drummed into my head from the time I was a small child, from every direction, that Israel was special and was to be cherished, that it's fundamentally good but persecuted and victimized by Evil Arab forces surrounding it, that I am a part of that group and should see the world accordingly. Is this tribal identity which was pummeled into me from childhood -- rather than some independent, dispassionate analysis -- the reason I find myself perpetually sympathizing with and defending Israel?Doesn't the most minimal level of intellectual awareness -- indeed, the concept of adulthood itself -- require that re-analysis? And, of course, the "self-hating" epithet -- with which I've naturally been bombarded relentlessly over the last week -- is explicitly grounded in the premise that one should automatically defend one's "own group" rather than endeaveor to objectively assess facts and determine what is right and true.
...listen to Fox News fear-mongers declare how Christians in the U.S. and/or white males -- comprising the vast majority of the population and every power structure in the country -- are the Real Persecuted Victims, from the War on Christmas to affirmative action evils. Ronald Reagan even managed to convince much of the country that the true economic injustices in America were caused by rich black women driving their Cadillacs to collect their welfare checks. This kind of blinding, all-consuming tribalism leads members of even the most powerful group to convince themselves that they are deeply victimized by those who are far weaker, whose necks have been under the boots of the stronger group for decades, if not longer.
Odd question. I was referring to the things I mentioned: People packed into open air prisons (Gaza) and being evicted from their homes today to make room for Jewish settlers (west bank).delmoi wrote: Why is it "fair" for the decedents of the other side to be packed into open air prisons, or be evicted from their homes today to make room for Jewish settlers from other countries?Can you tell me what you're referring to?
Also, I don't believe that people in the West Bank are being evicted from their homeThen you're an idiot.
Can you provide some evidence for your assertion?Also, since you're apparently to lazy to Google yourself, here you go
“an international consensus was built [against apartheid], which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
– Nelson Mandela
Below, the protesters rummaged through captured soldiers' belongings and claimed to unearth a document that they allege is a list of people Israel intended to assassinate. The booklet, written in Hebrew and in English, contained some photographs of passengers on the Marmara, including the leader of IHH, the Turkish charity that provided two of the ships, an 88-year-old priest and Ra'ad Salah, head of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, Mr Elshayyal said.Dunno if The Independent is a good source.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident.posted by lullaby at 8:50 AM on June 8, 2010
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 19% of voters think the Israelis are to blame. Thirty-two percent (32%) more are not sure.
But 51% say Israel should allow an international investigation of the incident. Twenty-five percent (25%) agree with the Israeli government and reject the idea of an international probe. Another 24% are undecided.
« Older The Best Party (link in Icelandic), led by comedia... | Forest Facts, a site that deta... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
You can follow the Free Gaza Movement's twitter page to read what has happened from the moment it left Cyprus to the aftermath.
posted by hal_c_on at 10:07 PM on May 30, 2010 [6 favorites]