Israeli Commandos Attack Gaza Aid Convoy

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Is unilateralism the answer?

Does "never again!" entail "never again by any means necessary"?

I say yes on both accounts.

Sigaba, what is there to be confused about (your smiley)? There are multiple states and other non-state/state sponsored agencies trying to destroy Israel...

Who are we to tell them how to defend themselves?

Crip

[Debo]

Here are some thoughts from Stratfor....



Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion


By George Friedman

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

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

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

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

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

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

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

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

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

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

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

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

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.


continued...

[Debo]

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

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

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

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

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

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

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

[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does "never again!" entail "never again by any means necessary"?

IMHO, No it doesn't, on both a moral and strategic plane. There is an evil chill to Auschwitz words can't describe. I understand Israel's right to self defense, and admire her grit. However just as most of us wouldn't accept an abusive childhood as a crutch for subsequent conduct, generally speaking neither can they.

Many of my closest friends are Jewish, while a few believe Israel can do no wrong, most, and interestingly all who are IDF vets seem to echo their best chance for peace died with Yitzhak Rabin, some sort of compromise is the only solution, and subsequent Israeli administrations keep hawkishly painting themselves into the same corner.

The counter argument is we don't face what they face, which is true, but their strategy to date has not brought them the resolution they seek. Finally, when I think of the Israelis I applaud Entebbe, but never forget the USS Liberty.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

I say yes on both accounts.

Sigaba, what is there to be confused about (your smiley)? There are multiple states and other non-state/state sponsored agencies trying to destroy Israel...

Who are we to tell them how to defend themselves?

Crip

Crip--

To answer your question, a sovereign nation is responsible unto itself for its own defense.

At the same time, the moment a nation takes the position that the ends justify the means, the notion of "strategy" goes out the window. (And what happens if a state we respect today decides we're in the way of their survival tomorrow?)

Moreover, given the "Why the Conservatives Love the Founders" thread from a week or two ago, it is worth noting that this incident serves as an example why some of the founders advocated neutrality.

Also, PM sent.

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

... it is worth noting that this incident serves as an example why some of the founders advocated neutrality...

Indeed...

[T-Rock]

The real weapons were probably hidden out of site and unaccessable in case of boarding if they were there.

"During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles...

...over 50 passengers with possible terror connections have refused to identify themselves and were not carrying passports. Many of them were carrying envelopes packed with thousands of dollars in cash...."

> http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Since when do peace activists need night-vision goggles, bulletproof vests, and mega wads of cash

[brown77]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kr-F...eature=related

[T-Rock]

I wouldn't expect anything less from the Free Gaza Movement, whose supporters include William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

I'm curious as well to know what Rashid Khalidi has to say about this whole affair....

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...gaza-flotilla/

[mojaveman]

I grew tired of the Israeli-Palestinian problem a long time ago.

Move Gaza to the other side of the Eqyptian boarder.

Relocate all of the Palestinians in the West Bank to the East Bank.

(Sarcasm)

[T-Rock]

Just how secular is Turkey ?

For the last several decades, the Turkish military was untouchable; no one dared to criticize the military or its top generals, lest they risk getting burned. The Turkish Armed Forces were the ultimate protectors of founding father Kemal Ataturk's secular legacy, and no other force in the country could seriously threaten its supremacy. Not anymore.

...In the late 1990s, Gülen went head-to-head with Turkey's military -- and lost...

The FGH has returned, however, with a vengeance. When the AKP, which is largely a reincarnation of the banned RP, came to power in 2002...

...Welcome to the new Turkey: If you listen carefully, you can hear the political ground shifting below your feet...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...rests?page=0,1

This doesn't look good...with Turkey being a member of NATO, the implications are huge...

Turkey threatens action; Israel on alert

Turkey has threatened Israel with unprecedented action after Israeli forces attacked an aid vessel, killing 10 peace activists headed to Gaza.

A shocked world has responded with outrage. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and warned of unprecedented and incalculable reprisals.

The Arab League has called an urgent meeting on Tuesday to decide on a common response. Egypt is under pressure to end the blockade of Gaza while Greece has cancelled a military exercise with Isreal.

The world is waiting for the response from Washington, how will President Obama react to the provocation from America's closest ally.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-th.../116743-2.html

If the Turkish Navy escorts the next flotilla to Gaza and shots are fired, will Turkey invoke NATO's Article V

[brown77]

"Ends justifying means"

"Neutrality"

[T-Rock]

Arab Media Reports on Flotilla Participants: Writing Wills, Preparing for Martyrdom, Determined to Reach Gaza or Die
June 1, 2010
Special Dispatch No.2990

Flotilla Participants

Following is information from the Arab media about some of the flotilla participants. It should be noted that many of these were from the Muslim Brotherhood across the Muslim world.

(For more on this subject, see also MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2986, "MEMRI TV Clips on the Gaza Flotilla: Activists On Board Chant Songs of Martyrdom at Departure," http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4249.htm .)

Egypt

In Friday sermons, Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi' expressed support for Hamas, frequently reiterating harsh statements in favor of jihad and of the armed struggle in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The Egyptian flotilla delegation included two members of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament: Muhammad Al-Baltaji and Hazem Farouq.

Al-Baltaji, who is deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc in Egypt, said at a March 2010 conference, "A nation that excels at dying will be blessed by Allah with a life of dignity and with eternal paradise." He also said that his movement "will never recognize Israel and will never abandon the resistance," and that "resistance is the only road map that can save Jerusalem, restore the Arab honor, and prevent Palestine from becoming a second Andalusia.[1]

Lebanon

The Lebanese flotilla delegation, with six members, was headed by attorney Dr. Hani Suleiman, who also participated in a February 2009 Gaza flotilla. He was pro-bono attorney to Japanese terrorist Kozo Okamoto.[2] In 2006, he signed a communiqué supporting armed resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.[3]

Three other members of the Lebanese delegation are Al-Jazeera TV correspondents.[4] One, 'Abbas Nasser, worked for Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV from 1997 through 2003; he has said that he enjoyed working there because he felt like part of a family, and because the channel "embraced his religious and political orientation." In 2003, he also worked for Iran's Al-'Alam TV.[5]

Another delegation member, Hussein Shaker, is known as "Abu Al-Shuhada" ("Father of the Martyrs"). He has reportedly expressed a desire to meet "his martyrs" (i.e. relatives killed during the 2006 Lebanon war), and has called his participation in the flotilla revenge for their deaths.[6]

Jordan

The Jordanian flotilla delegation included Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan activists such as delegation head Wael Al-Saka, a veteran Muslim Brotherhood member,[7] and Salam Al-Falahat, who was general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan from 2006 to 2008.[8] In an interview last year, Al-Falahat said: "We in the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan see Palestine as part of the Islamic and Arab land that must not be relinquished – on the contrary, defending it is a national and jurisprudential obligation... We see Hamas movement in Palestine as standing at the head of the project of the Arab and Islamic liberation for which the Muslim Brotherhood calls... The Muslim Brotherhood supports Hamas and every Arab resistance movement in the region that works for liberation."[9]

Also in the delegation was Jordanian publicist and journalist Muhammad Abu Ghanima, a former head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan's information bureau and a member of the movement's political bureau. Abu Ghanima writes frequent articles praising Hamas and condemning the Palestinian Authority. In one, he vehemently attacked Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, calling on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to topple his regime even at the cost of thousands of martyrs.[10]

Journalist Saud Salam Abu Mahfouz, member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan's political party, the Islamic Action Front, is also director-general of the Jordanian Al-Sabil newspaper, which is identified with the Muslim Brotherhood. His son, Jordanian correspondent for Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, was arrested in Egypt in 2008.[11]

Syria

The only Syrian citizen of the flotilla's 700 participants was Shadha Barakat. She was sent as a representative of the Civil Association for Resisting Zionism and Aid for Palestine, which supports armed resistance in Palestine and in Iraq. Her husband Ayman said that she had written a play on assassinated Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, and had told him that when she reaches Gaza she "plans to visit [Yassin's] home and inhale the scent of the place where he lived."[12]

Yemen

Prominent activists in the Yemeni flotilla delegation were three MPs from the Al-Islah party, an Islamist party that is close to the Muslim Brotherhood. One, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hazmi, was photographed on the deck of the Mavi Marmara brandishing his large curved dagger.[13]

Another Yemeni MP in the flotilla, Hazza' Al-Maswari, also from the Al-Islah party, previously expressed vehement anti-American sentiment. In 2004, he objected to a Yemeni program for dialogue with prisoners from Al-Qaeda aimed at tempering their views, declaring recently at Friday prayers: "We cannot tell militants 'don't terrorize Americans' or 'don't attack their interests.' Those who plant hatred will harvest hatred."[14]

Kuwait

Among the prominent flotilla activists from Kuwait were Salafist MP Walid Al-Tabtabai, who is known to support armed resistance in Palestine and in Iraq. He said: "We think that the armed resistance in Iraq is legitimate resistance. Every resistance directed against anyone who occupies it is legitimate..."[16] Al-Tabtabai also expressed explicit support for Hamas and objected to the regime of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud 'Abbas.[17]

Another prominent Kuwaiti activist in the flotilla was Dr. Osama Al-Kandari, a Hadith lecturer at the College of Basic Education. In February 2009, he signed a communiqué expressing support for Hamas and for jihad in Palestine against the "Jewish enemies."[18]

Bahrain

Sheikh Jalal Al-Sharqi, head of the Association of Islamic Scholars in the GCC Countries, was also on board. Previously, Al-Sharqi signed a clerics' petition calling to acknowledge Hamas's legitimacy, as recognized by shari'a, and not to prevent it from obtaining weapons. The petition justified the stance of the "fighters in Gaza" who cling to jihad "against the Jews" and to martyrdom.[19]


Anticipating Conflict, Willing to Die

In their statements, flotilla participants raised the possibility that Israel would use force to prevent the ship from reaching the Gaza coast, and declared that this would not stop them. Many noted that they would break the siege even if it cost them their lives.

Muhammad Al-Baltaji, of the Muslim Brotherhood faction in the Egyptian parliament, said: "The flotilla participants have two aims: to reach Gaza and break the siege, and to denounce Israel if it prevents the flotilla from entering Gaza, even at the cost of martyrdom or imprisonment."[22]

Algerian delegation head Dr. Abd Al Razzaq Maqri, who is the deputy head of the Algerian group Movement of Society for Peace, Algeria's major Islamist party, said, "The Algerians on board will hear only the orders of their leaders, who seek to break the siege. [The options are] martyrdom, imprisonment, or breaking [the siege]."[23]

The website of the group titled its collection of photos from the flotilla "Photos of Algerian Mujahideen."[24]

Algerian delegation coordinator Ahmad Brahimi said about his delegation: "Algeria has been known for its support of the Palestinian cause since the days of Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi. Our fathers gave their blood and lives to defend Palestine... and we are the sons of those fathers." He added that the delegation's only purpose was to reach Gaza, and that Israel could not prevent it from doing so.[25]

Another participant, Attorney Fathi Nassar of Jordan, said: "The Freedom Flotilla members are filled with determination to reach Gaza or die."[26]

Rami Abdou, representative of the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza, said that most of the participants were willing to lay down their lives to reach Gaza. He stressed that they would not allow the occupation forces to tow the ship to Ashdod.[27]

Shadha Barakat's husband Ayman said that his wife was likely to be harmed during the venture, adding that "she will make no truce with Zionism" and that "since she was a child, she has dreamed of attacking an Israeli."[28]

Participants Write Their Wills

At a press conference in Antalya, Turkey, the flotilla organizers asked all the participants to "write their wills."[29] Following the press conference, Kuwaiti Salafist MP Walid Al-Tabtabai reportedly "did not hesitate to write his will, in defiance of the Israeli threats."[30]

Kuwaiti MP Walid Al-Tabtabai wrote his will before boarding the Mavi Marmara

The father of Kuwaiti activist Abd Al-Rahman Al-Filkawi told the Kuwaiti Al-Watan daily that his son had told him that the flotilla participants' morale was high, and that they "would sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah. He added that his son had "told them before embarking that he would be a martyr for the sake of Allah."[31] Likewise, on the various Internet forums, it was reported that the mother of one of the Turkish participants had said that her son had bade her farewell and told her that he was going to lay down his life.[32]

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm

Source, Jawa > http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202697.php

[Pete]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

...This doesn't look good...with Turkey being a member of NATO, the implications are huge...

............. If the Turkish Navy escorts the next flotilla to Gaza and shots are fired, will Turkey invoke NATO's Article V

Elections have consequences.

Maybe the US's stance on Israel the past 1 1/2 years has given some the impression to some that now would be a good time to act.

Where is the "Great Leader" as all this is going down?

For all you "peace at any price" folks - wipe Israel of the face of the map tonight. In the morning what will have changed? Nothing. The terrorists leading the Islamic states will still need to focus the people on an outside enemy - to keep them from noticing that their existance is crap because of their leaders - not the Great Satan.

And Turkey? We've had threads around here for years about her slide into the Islamist camp.

[Geenie]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

I grew tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a long time ago.

Move Gaza to the other side of the Eqyptian boarder.

Relocate all of the Palestinians in the West Bank to East Bank.

Neah!

aye, if only it were that easy.

I wonder what the average, patriotic American would say if a 'foreign power' came to their doorstep and told them to leave the land that they've been inhabiting for x generations...