Update: Newly released video (12:32 PM EDT) (hat-tip - Jameel)
Aargh.
This is going to be an impossible, ugly, hate-filled day.
The world's governments have already decided what happened on the boats. Ambassadors summoned, partnerships cancelled, condemnations issued.
Videos like the ones below show the violence that met the Israelis who came to investigate the boats:
And
We know this script, we've seen it before. It's Rachel Corrie multiplied by a few hundred - a more 'civilized' version of the suicide bomber, but with the same idea: We are willing to give our own lives in order to destroy you. If we can take down Israel, it's worth the sacrifice.
So they attack the teenage soldier, force him to use his gun to save his own life, and then claim 'Police Brutality.'
No matter how much video there is to demonstrate that the Israelis were only reacting, the response is still going to be the same: International Waters, Aid Flotilla, Benign human rights activists and so on.
I wondered all along why the IDF was insisting on boarding these ships - although, of course, the answer is that they had to do it, because the people on the boats believe in 'armed resistance,' and believe in providing weapons for Gaza. Need evidence? Look at the shipments of weapons already provided under the guise of 'aid,' and look at the violence today.
I want Peace, but I understand that when someone attacks me, I have to defend myself.
But no explanations are going to suffice.
The world loves this stuff.
Get your updates from Jameel here.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a lose-lose situation that is as you said going to get uglier throughout the day.
ReplyDeleteSunday: “Listen more than you speak; when you’re talking, you’re not learning.”
ReplyDeleteMonday: "Videos like the ones below show the violence that met the Israelis who came to investigate the boats..."
Not much listening there.
"I want Peace, but I understand that when someone attacks me, I have to defend myself." You state that but then as your videos show- and I thank you for posting them- armed israeli soldiers were coming down onto the ship deck from helicopters. I have no experience at interdicting ships at sea- international waters especially- but thought the usual method is to call up to the captain and say you want to board and inspect- no what Israel's rights to inspect 70 miles out is questionable- but it is not ordinarily done with commandos dropped onto the deck from helicopters.
ReplyDeleteFrom another perspective, if Israel expected armed and hostile people on deck, doesn't droppng soldiers down in the midst seem a stupid strategy? To be beat with rods and thrown overboard may be the least to be expected. Israel's boarding seemed to have aspects of Somali pirates rather than respected nation state.
I have no experience at interdicting ships at sea- international waters especially- but thought the usual method is to call up to the captain and say you want to board and inspect
ReplyDeleteThey did contact them and offered safe passage to Ashdod so that the supplies could be delivered through normal channels. The captain refused: watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4
And then ask yourself what would happen if some group decided that they wanted to deliver "supplies" to the US and was confronted by the Coast Guard. Would the Coast Guard ignore their refusal and simply allow them to continue.
No nation will allow this to happen and in many cases they would sink the ship or massacre all on board without any questions asked.
armed israeli soldiers were coming down onto the ship deck from helicopters.
This is kind of silly. The soldiers did board from above but they did not come down in a fashion that said that they expected to be met with violence.
Really, they could have used any number of means to have subdued the people on board prior to boarding, but they did not. I suppose that you could argue that it was a tactical error not to be prepared for violence.
Or you could say that they expected passive resistance for that is what the "activtists" had said they were going to do. So they came down armed as soldiers will be, but not with their weapons at ready. They expected to talk.
To be beat with rods and thrown overboard may be the least to be expected.
I recommend reading this:
http://danielgordis.org/2010/05/31/facebook-meets-the-flotilla/
No, those are the actions taken by people engaged in a PR stunt. They knew that there was no way that they could beat them in a fight and did the best that they could to provoke an incident.
One could easily argue that they hoped that people would die and that the "activists" are responsible for the deaths of their compatriots.
Mick-
ReplyDeleteGuess it depends on what you think "listening" means. I think it means hearing both sides and making up your mind. What do you think "listening" means?
Max-
1. The soldiers are armed with paint guns as their primary weapon, with pistols for life-saving backup. No machine guns. You call that armed?
2. They did call up the captain, as Jack showed in his comment.
3. International law allows checking and even attacking suspicious vessels in international waters. See Paragraph 67 of the San Remo protocols here.
4. I believe they were very surprised by the level of hostilities. They expected protestors, not armed rioters.
"... hearing both sides and making up your mind"! I'd like to believe you did that, because that would mean that you simply didnt see much of the evidence. Sadly, it's clear from your wanton and evidence-less demonisation of the people on the boat (although we all know the triumphant press conference revealing the hidden stash of arms is coming!), and your unquestionning repetition of the line put out by the Israeli government, that you simply grasped at some evidence that enabled you to support one side.
ReplyDeleteYour blog has nothing to contribute to the search for peace; rather, it's become one of the cheerleaders along the sidelines of the suicidal path Israel is headed down. It's not worth debating the issues with you, and the blog isnt worth reading any more. And you bill yourself as a man of God; not any God I'm interested in.
Rabbi,
ReplyDeleteHow do you respond to those words?
Sincerely,
An avid reader struggling to make sense of today's events.
Mick-
ReplyDeleteWhat have you seen that contradicts what I'm saying? The only claims I've heard from the boat supporters is that they weren't violent - which the videos disprove. What else do you have?
Or will this just be the baseless sort of comment you posted back here?
Josh-
See my answer to Mick just above this. The reality is that people like Mick blow smoke and try to demonize, but they provide nothing to support their words.
1. The San Remo protocol I referenced in an earlier comment licenses not only boarding but attacking threatening ships.
2. Videos show the "peace activists" chanting about death to Jews, invoking Mohammed's Khaibar Massacre of Jews.
3. Aid reaches Gaza daily via land routes, and these activists could have done the same, were they serious.
4. The boat was warned multiple times, for days in advance of this event.
5. The soldiers were assaulted before they could do anything.
On the other side, all I hear are people claiming non-violence, claims that are demonstrably false.
Jack- You stated they did contact them and offered safe passage to Ashdod- but that is the equivalent of being forced to go to another's country and fall under their laws and jurisdiction. That is a Hobson's choice, with only downsides to those on the ship. To say they can use "normal channels" is an empty statement when normal is embargo.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, I was trying to say what occurred was at best a "tactical error", but much more.
Rebbitzen's Husabnd- Let me start by saying I read your blog regularly and would not do that if I did not find your commentary helpful and was not often in agreement. One must wonder if those being boarded were aware of what was in those weapons- much as a policeman does not know that the weapon in the person's hand isn't loaded, it is an attack with weapons. The paint weapon argument does not fly- it sure looked lethal to me in the videos.
As to the San Remo Protcols you cited: I have not studied each line of the Protocol, but I do see it begins with stating this addresses: The parties to an armed conflict at sea. Did Israel regard the ship that way prior to when it boarded? It has not made that claim- is it ready to say the flotilla was part of an armed naval conflict?
Max-
ReplyDeleteGood to know you are a regular; thanks for reading.
1. Which videos have you seen that make the weapon look lethal? I haven't seen any yet that actually show the weapon in detail.
2. Not sure where you are going with San Remo - the protocols themselves define the situations to which they apply. They begin, "The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used." This was, indeed, an armed conflict at sea.
I believe the ship was Turkish- diplomatic relations with Israel existed; before the boarding there was no armed conflict; therefore by my reading the protocols would not have permitted the boarding. I am neither a rabbi nor a lawyer, so I am signing out with respect.
ReplyDeletebut that is the equivalent of being forced to go to another's country and fall under their laws and jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteSo what. If they were truly interested in sending aid they would cooperate and see that it go there.
They did not do that. They wanted a confrontation and forced it. They intentionally put people in harms way.
But I'll take a step back and say that maybe they really are interested in helping and got "confused."
They could have had peaceful negotiations. They could have turned to the international press and said that they were very disappointed that Israel wouldn't let them pass.
But they didn't do that. They attacked. Did anyone of them really believe that they could win a fight.
Somehow I doubt it. This was about intentional provocation.
I am shocked at how quickly and how harshly the world condemned Israel. This will embolden Hamas and Iran, its a very bad thing all around.
ReplyDeleteOf course this is exactly like a suicide bombing, you were the only blog I read to make that point and it was so true that they wanted to die in order to achieve martyrdom, a lesson to the world and to Israel on Iran's intentions.
What is next for Israel? what choices do they have from here?
And to all American Jews, including my own temples rabbi who supported Obama look hard at this.
Obama's turning on Israel helped create this pooring out of hate by showing that even America won't stand by Israel when it becomes inconvient for Obama's wishes to befriend the Muslims, what a naive bunch of fools American Jews have been.
As much as I dislike Palin, we must remember, we are Jews, McCain and Palin were very pro Israel, Obama as we have seen? With friends like him we can do without enemies.
What do you see happeneing now? Where will Israel take this?