Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

The fact is that while we would all like to take the religious element out of the situation, the fact is that it is there, like a big elephant in the room no one wishes to talk about. As near as I can tell, all of the countries that have attacked Israel since it's inception have been countries where Islam was the national religion. I could be wrong, but I do not know of a country that is either Christian (as a national religion) or secular that has militarily attacked Israel.

Now, we know that the religion is a flashpoint issue for deeper socio-economic issues, but the fact remains that the Muslim world, be they Arab, Persian (Iran) or whatever is in general hostile to the state of Israel. Some of them may have acknowledged the existence of Israel, but many also advocate for the obliteration of Israel, and I don't buy the whole "oh, that's just Middle eastern hyperbole" argument.

Now Turkey is a country that is struggling with the Muslim issue -- for decades they have tried to be a secular nation, yet the influence of the religion in their public sphere is undeniable (just as the influence of the Christian religion in the public sphere of the US is undeniable.) Up until now they have been friendly toward Israel -- what element of their country decided to provoke this confrontation is beyond me.

I don't think that acknowledging the enormous role played by religion in this conflict is "superficial" at all.

 

Then again, muslims didn't create the Auschwitz camp...

I don't see how it's that big of an issue that none of the other boats posed resistance. People react differently to certain situations. The people on this boat saw the soldiers and maybe thought they were being lethally attacked (or were going to be) and charged. Let's face it, if you think someone will kill you, regardless if it's true or not, you might put up a fight in the offset chance you might survive. Maybe on the other ships they didn't feel that way (or maybe the boarding was done differently). Maybe the passengers were told that the israellis were executing passengers on the other ships and they thought they were defending themselves. Maybe they really did attack the israellis out of spite. The point is we don't know, but we can't make assumptions just based on the difference of reaction between people.

 

My experience on the Turkish mentality in a gross generalisation: Turks are big on rumours. The wilder the better. I can easily imagine the theme 'We're being attacked!' rapidly gaining traction among a group of Turks, getting them agitated. They are also proud people. If you insult them, or they perceive you insulting them, they become volatile. That pride also means that, because backing down is losing face, Turkish group rage is self amplifying.

 

David vs Goliath?

Seeing things only through the religious filter is not a sensible way to approach things either.

Religions have been used as a political tool since the dawn of time. I dispute the relevance of religion to the fundamental issue regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. IMO it's more a question of land and water (both being limited resources). Religion is a political element that shouldn't overshadow the complexity of this very issue.

Generalizing things so that they're reduced to a simple religious conflict is good for politicians who benefit from a simple divide that makes their job much easier but it doesn't make for a sound analysis.

Middle-East leaders have acknowledged the existence of Israel because they know what's good for them. They want to befriend the US and they don't really care that much about Palestinians unless it serves their political agenda (Irak targetting Israel during the Gulf War or Iran threatening to send boats to break the blockade for instance).

There is no denying that the Palestinian cause has been instrumentalized by some political and/or religious figures.

The population of Arab countries is on the whole more sympathetic towards Palestinians (although that doesn't mean that problems didn't exist or still exist especially in countries where refugees were more numerous -Black September for instance).

No they didn't and in fact, prior to the fundation of the state of Israel, there was no tension between Muslims and Jews like between Christians and Jews. Muslims didn't invent ghettos and pogroms.

As far as Palestinians are concerned, there were Jewish Palestinians before 1948 and if most are now Israelis, a very few still consider themselves to be Palestinians (I'm not making this up) this is complicated even further when you consider that roughly 20% of the Israeli population is made of Arab Israelis who are Arabs with the Israeli citizenship (excluding Jews of Arab descent) most consider themselves as being Palestinians by nationality though.

I'm only pointing this out because generalizations naturally tend to simplify things to the extreme and that simplifications always fail to represent accurately reality.

That is indeed a generalization but to a certain extent it seems that pride is a very important trait of most Middle-Eastern, Levantine and Mediterranean peoples.

 

this (heavily edited) video shows the other side of the ship while the boarding is going on, on the otherside the Isralies are being attacked. once again, we hear a short spate of fire, and its over, this video is absoultely pointless. the blood is I believe an after shot which has been moved to an earlier point in the video, Ive seen that before on the news on the day of the event. what about the 2 boats along side? loaded with soldiers armed with rifles, they could have turned the ship into a shooting gallery.

T2, we dont actually know how many warnings were given.

either way, they attacked the soldiers, whether they were armed with lethal weapons or not, there is no reason to believe after they have given a nice warning and boarded other ships with no loss of life that they would come aboard fireing. Im not going to debate the weapons, while soldiers may have carried non lethal weapons it would be absurd to believe that lethal weapons are not carried, especially since we can hear a rapid fire weapon in the above video.

the soldiers dont know what theyre going to face, of course theyre armed. a paintball gun against an AK 47 isnt going to help much.

nothing going on? the group armed with poles were on the deck before the helecopter arrived, tear gas was used as a crowd control measure.

if this was simple aid... why were there so many activists?

Recognising that the state exists doesnt change much, they can still want it destroyed. muslim fanatics recognise that the US exists, they still want it destroyed.

Exactly, but people are making assumptions about the Isralies, theyre assuming that the Isralies carried out a brutal murderous assult... if that were true.... only 9 people dead? Shame on those heavily armed commandos, they didnt do their job!

or you lay down face first on the ground and put your hands behind your head, shooting someone who has surrendered is a war crime.

100% agree.

 

@Snook and Shosino,

I tried to be neutral on the video since I don't have sound on this system and haven't seen the entire video. I thought it was interesting since it shows some bloodstains at the start of the video, but yes that might be moved to the front.

 

I think I see where you're going with your question but let's talk turkey (no pun intended), what are you hinting at?

If by Muslim fanatics you mean Al-Qaeda, right but we were talking about Arab/Muslim countries. I thought Saudi Arabia (to take but one example) was widely recognized as being America's ally. Are you saying that Saudis want to destroy America?

 

Im suggesting that some of these people, were trying to get into gaza for more then providing aid.

twas but an example

 

What do you mean by more than providing aid?

 

Logically, yes, but when your life is at stake, it's a lot to say "oh if he shoots me, he'll be a war criminal". It's a lot to gamble with considering the soldier might not be caught, might not be convicted or simply doesn't care. Most people will just lie down and hope for the best, but sometimes, others will be proactive.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

Well... you know... there's this story about a flower and a bee...

 

Oh yes, like the Palestinians have room for more children

 

its a choice between 'lay down and risk being shot' or 'resist and be shot', these guys knew there was no way they could take on the IDF, there were more boats loaded with soldiers along side. they fought because they wanted to.

 

You're a romantic Tri, but something tells me it's not what Shoshino was trying to tell us.

 

Shoshino,
what's the point? The only thing that makes this special is that it was on water, which is why you folks have problems understanding that it was just a political demonstration. With ships. Now demonstrations at time get rowdy. Happens all the time. That doesn't make them acts of war, and the participants combatants - irrespective of Israel choosing to use her military against them. It is preposterous to call them 'combatants', only because they resisted the boarding, and because the boarding was done by the IDF. It's not as if they started a war, or, just as silly, 'laid an ambush'.

So walking open eyed but unprepared into a rather disorganised spontaneous resistance is nowadays 'being ambushed'? I call that a simple blunder. But no, an ambush means nobody could have foreseen that, because it was a cleverly disguised trap (and nobody must be held accountable, because, alas, nobody made a mistake - the enemy (curse him!) was just too cunning) ... the ship was a ... trojan horse (implying that, considering that the organisers of the flotilla clearly announced their intentions well in advance, this was a blockade breaker disguising itself as ... a blockade breaker - deceptive genius!). Ambush, victim, combatants, 'trojan horse' - what a silly collection of jokes.

People - had that been an ambush the boarding team would have taken far more casualties. But I digress - of course it was an ambush, and so the soldiers were hapless, innocent victims, who came to the ship in peace - only to see their benevolent advances refused as they repelled! These villains! Whacked them like a pinata! You don't treat people like that

This was if anything about crappy reconnaissance (or rather, a political demand ignoring the intelligence picture), but certainly not an ambush. But then, had they only listened to Admiral Akbar ...

​

One of the two best units the Israeli military has to offer - victims! Because they encountered unexpected resistance on a vessel they boarded! Which makes it an ambush. Those wee, poor ... elite troopers. I presume they never expected when they joined the force that their job would involve so much victimhood.

 

Rags, now your just making yourself look stupid

I refer you to an earlier post of mine:

thank you for agreeing with me

rubbish, when drug runners or immigrants attempt to access the UK via the water, the millitary deals with, its not the police's job.

really?

combatant
–noun
1. a nation engaged in active fighting with enemy forces.
2. a person or group that fights.

Ive never said anything about starting a war or laying an ambush.

where was this said?

stop dribbling, your avoiding the debate and just making conjecture. I never said that a mistake wasnt made, the team boarded without preparing to be attacked, as said by T2, this was a check on a suspicious vessel.

despite injuries, I'd say that the IDF won, their objective was to stop the ship and take it to Ashdod to prevent contraband breaking the blockade. mission accomplished.

who said this? also pointing out... Israel clearly announced their intentions.

your last post is a joke

did you watch the video?

I take it youve never heared the phrase "victim of enemy fire" or "victim of enemy aggression"

 

What are you talking about? As I've heard it, repeatedly, they issued three warnings to the ship. I don't know exactly what was said, but I'd assume it was similar to what you posted. The ship refused to stop for inspection as ordered and then they boarded. It sounds to me like it went much according to your account, though I'm not sure where tear gas may have come into play.

I think this is where we disagree. To me, it was the aid flotilla's violation of the blockade that was the first provocative act. It was their refusal to stop and allow boarding that was the second.

Standard side-arms were carried. Because they're standard.

It is when they're storming a military installation. Well, maybe not war, but something to use apprpriate force to stop at least. It's not 100% accurate to compare this to a military installation, I know, but I don't think there's any direct comparison to a naval blockade. A guarded boarder, perhaps? Maybe an armed checkpoint. Yeah, imagine a bunch of 'peace activists' in a van trying to run a checkpoint in Iraq. When the soldiers forcibly board the (moving!) bus, the activists attack them with metal poles and knives.


And again, I ask to those complaining that this was a military assault, who would you have had the Israelis send? How would you have had them stop the ship? Remember, we're assuming they're actually planning to enforce the blockade that they've declared and manned and guarded.

 

That was a most interesting post but at least it's refreshing and nice to see you haven't lost your sense of humour.

FYI there were more than 60 journalists on the ships. Are you going to call them "terrorists" as well?

By the way, I've read what the French nationals on another ship (the French aid workers were on the Sofia) had to say about the way they were apprehended by the Israeli military and while noone was shot, they said that people got beaten up and that the military was very rough and violent.

I've looked around and found this in English:

If you're going to call a man who tries to shield an old lady a "terrorist" go ahead. I think that it only proves that the military used excessive and unecessary force (which was not unexpected considering the reputation of the Israeli military).

It may look insignificant compared to the people who were shot on the Marvi Marmara but it corroborates the French testimonies I've read. That there was violence involved in the boarding of other ships can't be denied.

The fact that it didn't escalate on the other ships doesn't mean that it went smoothly, it just means that people curled up on the floor and took a beating rather than trying to resist.

It also seems that the US and the French governments have been watching Israel's back (which was predictable) but the CCIPPP (Campagne civile internationale pour la protection du peuple palestinien), a French humanitarian association is going to press charges before the International Court of Justice (I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand it looks like it's more like a plea than charges per se and that it will be up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to initiate a prosecution).

Also something that has been left out of the debate is that the Egyptian government has a major responsibility in helping Israel maintaining the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Egypt is both an Arab and a Muslim country so that tends to prove my earlier point that religion is not the only factor in the matter. I don't know what the people who claim that the Arab world is working on the demise of Israel and America will make with that piece of information. The simple fact is that the blockade couldn't be enforced without the active help of the Egyptian government.

 

NOG, I know of one message sent from the Israelis to the Mava Marmara, with no further dialog initiated by the Israelis to find a non-violent solution. I have not heard of any other messages to the ship from the blockade force. There were many warning by the Israeli government before the ships sailed, but that not the same.

 

I never lose my sense of humor, regardless of how serious I may seem

so... you assemble an 'aid' flotilla and fill it full of journalists... hmm, how are they going to help the stricken people of gaza?

yes, Ive read this stuff as well... nice bias jounrnalism

you do realise that the description of the 'assult' matches tactics used by the police to restrain a resistant person?

Ive read about people who have been "assulted" on the other ships, but the descriptions are nothing more than physical restraint of a non compliant.

I am also trained to strike non compliants, in green areas, legs and arms first, the back, then stomach.

I have never argued that religion has ever been a factor.