What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

[Pattonias]

I imagine that if they tried to run the blockade, the Israelis would board the ship with more soldiers at one time and would use much more effective crowd control methods than paintballs. The one thing I think we can criticize Israel for is not having a more thought out escalation of force. To go from paintballs to live rounds as the next step was not a good idea. I imagine whoever was in charge of the boarding operation won't be running the next one.

They should have had tear gas, sand bags, stun guns, and low-velocity rubber bullets at the ready. Not to mention some of the new sound suppresion tech that is in common use by the cruise industry. These non-lethal weapons are seriously more dangerous than paintballs. (I've played paintball myself, and apart from sucking to get shot they didn't really make me stop playing all together.)
Perhaps people would still get hurt, but at least Israel would look better on the International level. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. A sand-bag gun can put someone in the hospital, but at least they'll be alive.

 

[zomgwtf]

I imagine that if they tried to run the blockade, the Israelis would board the ship with more soldiers at one time and would use much more effective crowd control methods than paintballs. The one thing I think we can criticize Israel for is not having a more thought out escalation of force. To go from paintballs to live rounds as the next step was not a good idea. I imagine whoever was in charge of the boarding operation won't be running the next one.

They should have had tear gas, sand bags, stun guns, and low-velocity rubber bullets at the ready. Not to mention some of the new sound suppresion tech that is in common use by the cruise industry. These non-lethal weapons are seriously more dangerous than paintballs. (I've played paintball myself, and apart from sucking to get shot they didn't really make me stop playing all together.)
Perhaps people would still get hurt, but at least Israel would look better on the International level. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. A sand-bag gun can put someone in the hospital, but at least they'll be alive.

They apparently did escalate the amount of force which included stun-grenades. Maybe that's how the people on the ship got a hold of them? They just caught them and threw them back? I'm not sure exactly how stun grenades work but maybe it's possible?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...ia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r2:c0.153846:b34565242:z0

 

[zomgwtf]

Evo:

I find it interesting you claim my sources aren't valid, but you say nothing to the people who don't have any source and just make up "facts" out of thin air. I guess that is preferable.

If you want sources for claim then ask. Don't make a blanket statement like this. You posted a source and Evo said it wasn't mainstream, that's her call. If a person makes a claim and you want a source you ask for it (Normally if it's something controversial or not well-known it gets posted in the first place but people do forget when they are stating their opinions mixed in with fact) the source will then under go the same scrutiny that yours just did...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

 

[Pattonias]

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

Good question. I think it was all those things. The intent of the group was to break the blockade, not just take in supplies. It wasn't necessary to send in all the ships to make their point. The responce could have been worse as well if the IDF had to stop multiple ships. Measure the responce if you have a single person shove a police officer or you have a mob bum rush them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Fair enough, but I can't see how using improvised weaponry against armed soldiers is going to accomplish either of those. I find it difficult to connect the Ship to Gaza intentions with the violent actions of the people on board, seeing as their goal was to break the blockade with non-violence. I think that by looking at the participants it is clear that far from all of the members were extremists, at least in the violent sense.

The only thing that I can think of would be that they would have exploited this in order to gain martyrdom, but it seems awfully elaborate, in particular seeing as all of them ended up on the same boat. It just doesn't add up to me.

 

[Pattonias]

It could have had a lot to do with some misconceptions about the rules just like we have them in here. They may have thought they had a right to defend their ship against boarding by any means. They probably didn't realize that the IDF had the right to take the ship by any means as well.

 

[zomgwtf]

It could have had a lot to do with some misconceptions about the rules just like we have them in here. They may have thought they had a right to defend their ship against boarding by any means. They probably didn't realize that the IDF had the right to take the ship by any means as well.

They do have the right to defend their ship. They just didn't bring big enough iron-bars.

 

[mheslep]

This should be good for some more turmoil. VP Joe "what's the big deal here?" Biden just http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm..._Israel_Whats_the_big_deal_here.html?showall":

"I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza," Biden said, according to a transcript of the interview, in which he went on to discuss Hamas's control of Gaza:

"[The Israelis have] said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight -- 3,000 rockets on my people,'" Biden said

Well that's a mildly different take.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, at the least, (presuming that is accurate), that confirms the intention being to break the blockade.

 

[Count Iblis]

I wonder if anyone on this boat will attack the commandos when they begin to board the ship? Somehow, I think they may be more cautious.

NATO has already warned Israel. Although Ireland is not a NATO member, if Israel were to prevent the ship from moving to Gaza, this will likely trigger NATO to step in more forcefully. I.e. the next ship to violate the Israeli blockade could e.g. be a French war ship bringing aid (like building materials, cement etc., that Israel does not currently allow in) to Gaza. There is then no way Israel could stop that. Also any argument that the ship is carrying weapons from militants would be a non-starter.

 

[zomgwtf]

NATO has already warned Israel. Although Ireland is not a NATO member, if Israel were to prevent the ship from moving to Gaza, this will likely trigger NATO to step in more forcefully. I.e. the next ship to violate the Israeli blockade could e.g. be a French war ship bringing aid (like building materials, cement etc., that Israel does not currently allow in) to Gaza. There is then no way Israel could stop that. Also any argument that the ship is carrying weapons from militants would be a non-starter.

I do not believe that would occur, this would be seen as an act of war against Israel from France. I don't think France would declare war on Israel in order to break the blockade, that's just stupid.

I honestly do not see NATO doing anything what-so-ever to stop the blockade other than by urging talks between the two nations.

I think the fact that the world is putting so much attention on this is rediculous. I mean in Sudan right now you have huge milias taking children raping them, killing some, and making the rest into child soldiers. Then they send them to attack the other militias or sometimes govn't forces. Some how this doesn't make it into the news even though it's a MUCH larger humanitarian crisis. Gaza gets aid, a large number of Sudanese people do not get aid and what they do get is very little. (SO many have been purposely starved to death in attempts at genocide)

How the world can turn a blind eye to this tribal warfare going on in a country yet they can pay so much attention to a country DEFENDING itself in an ACTIVE warzone is beyond me.

I think more people die in Africa after a pastor claims they are a witch than have died in Palestine the last year as a direct cause from Israel.

 

[zomgwtf]

Athough this news report is biased I think it depicts the situation on the boats perfectly.

The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows.

In this report it shows a commando claiming that he saw a rifle pointed at them as well an activist had a pistol which he wrestled away from a commando after dropping him out of the ship. There is a video of this actually... I saw it on the news last night CityTV, at 11pm (i think that was the time). So their story seems pretty close to what we actually see in the videos... right along with the speedboat that wasn't mentioned in any other reports I've seen.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/jihadis-brutal-ambush-in-jewish-soldiers-at-sea.html

 

[EnumaElish]

Like I said before I'm sure Israel would gladly exchange geographical locations with any country, including Ireland.

Really? Oh, it must be the British who forced Israel to settle there. Are you sure you aren't typing faster than you can think?

 

[zomgwtf]

Really? Oh, it must be the British who forced Israel to settle there. Are you sure you aren't typing faster than you can think?

Well, you'd have to bring along their holy locations too I guess. My point is that they would gladly get rid of their neighbour in exchange for another. I guess I should have put it that way instead...

As an aside Britain did have a lot to do with the creation of Israel actually. I wonder what it felt like being a Jew, having survived the holocaust, yet no country wants you. I think Canada took 1000 Jews, good job Canada! That brought a huge increase in population of Jews to Palestine which ended up in riots and I'm sure you know the rest (Since British rule was around this is how Britain was involved a lot)

 

[mheslep]

NATO has already warned Israel.

NATO has issued no warning to Israel; this is blatant misinformation. The extent of NATO's Sec. Gen. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-7B10CA1D-56F8C464/natolive/news_63983.htm?mode=pressrelease" was to express regret 'over the loss of lives', and 'call' for investigations.

 

[Evo]

Evo:

I find it interesting you claim my sources aren't valid, but you say nothing to the people who don't have any source and just make up "facts" out of thin air. I guess that is preferable.

That link is not an acceptable source. Anyone can throw up a website and claim that they have no bias.

We only allow well known mainstream sites.

I've yet to see any source that was non-biased.

For example, we know Fox news is biased to the right. We know Huffington Post is biased to the left. At least when it's a well known mainstream site, members can view the information knowing the bias.

 

[Hans de Vries]

However! I'm not afraid to be an ******* and I will say that these people fully deserved to die. Their actions are not defendable in anyway... 5 of the ships went peacefully... They were requested to follow normal procedures AND Israel forces showed immense restraint prior to killing 10 people. HUNDREDS get to go back home. Give me a break.

If I were Israel, and I had no repercussions to take from the developed nations I would torpedo said boat and kill everyone involved. That should set a pretty good precedent of don't push me again.

Your ******* stands for extremist ? The Irish government doesn't
seem to agree with your ****** viewpoint:

Meanwhile, Ireland's leader warned that the Irish government was watching the fate of the 'Rachel Corrie' very closely.

"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.

The Rachel Corrie, called after an American activist who died protesting Israeli actions, had been left behind the main flotilla in Cyprus for repairs and is only now approaching Gaza.

On board the boat is an aid cargo of cement, medical equipment (including a CT scanner) printing paper, schoolbooks and toys.
The ship, which was bought by the Irish Free Gaza Movement and refitted after it was abandoned in port at Dundalk, County Louth, is now heading for a showdown with the Israeli navy.

But Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin confirmed to the Irish parliament that he had received no undertaking from Israel that the 'Rachel Corrie' would be given safe passage.

"In terms of the 'Rachel Corrie', we have received no assurances other than that the ambassador has conveyed to us that the Israeli government does not want conflict or confrontation with the 'Rachel Corrie'. So one would hope that a different mindset will prevail," he said.

Martin warned the Israeli government he would take "appropriate diplomatic action" if the ship was not allowed through.

"We will be watching this situation very closely and it is imperative that Israel avoid any action which leads to further bloodshed," he said.

Prime Minister Brian Cowen reinforced the message by saying Israel "did not have a leg to stand on" and warned there would be "serious consequences" if the Irish crewmembers of the 'Rachel Corrie' were harmed.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...e-with-Israeli-navy-near-Gaza--95400359.html"

"Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin, has accused Israel of "essentially kidnapping” seven Irish citizens who were aboard the Gaza bound aid flotilla.
...
"These people did not enter Israel illegally. They were essentially kidnapped from international waters, taken into Israel, and asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally. That is unacceptable,” said Martin."

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Israel-accused-of-kidnapping-seven-Irish-citizens-95306729.html

Cement, A4 paper and toys are all on the list of forbidden
goods which are blocked from import to Gaza imposed by
military force, as are chocolates, musical instruments,
donkeys and goats.

http://www.economist.com/node/16264970

The donkeys and goats can be used to transport Iran's army
from Gaza to Europe and beyond while the chocolates can be
used to energize the solders and musical instruments can be
used for combat stimulation.

At least that's what one might conclude from Netanyahu's speech,
where he claims that the real intention of the activists is to help
prepare an attack on Europe by Iran using the Gaza strip. He is
proud that his solders helped to avoid this...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898256,00.html

It must be true since I have trouble finding another good reason
of using military to enforce an import ban of chocolate, potato
chips, vinegar and so on. Certainly they wouldn't do that just to
harass and bully the Palestinian population, would they?

Civilized, grown up persons with a bit of self respect don't do
things like that, don't they? especially not when you want some
respect for your home country from the international community.

Netanyahu should make his point clear to the NATO however
because they seem to be pretty pissed off and had an "extraordinary
meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound
for Gaza"

 

[Proton Soup]

Your ******* stands for extremist ? The Irish government doesn't
seem to agree with your ****** viewpoint:



http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...e-with-Israeli-navy-near-Gaza--95400359.html"

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Israel-accused-of-kidnapping-seven-Irish-citizens-95306729.html

Cement, A4 paper and toys are all on the list of forbidden
goods which are blocked from import to Gaza imposed by
military force, as are chocolates, musical instruments,
donkeys and goats.

http://www.economist.com/node/16264970

The donkeys and goats can be used to transport Iran's army
from Gaza to Europe and beyond while the chocolates can be
used to energize the solders and musical instruments can be
used for combat stimulation.

At least that's what one might conclude from Netanyahu's speech,
where he claims that the real intention of the activists is to help
prepare an attack on Europe by Iran using the Gaza strip. He is
proud that his solders helped to avoid this...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898256,00.html

It must be true since I have trouble finding another good reason
of using military to enforce an import ban of chocolate, potato
chips, vinegar and so on. Certainly they wouldn't do that just to
harass and bully the Palestinian population, would they?

Civilized, grown up persons with a bit of self respect don't do
things like that, don't they? especially not when you want some
respect for your home country from the international community.

Netanyahu should make his point clear to the NATO however
because they seem to be pretty pissed off and had an "extraordinary
meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound
for Gaza"

many of those prohibitions seemed designed to thwart any sort of stockpiling of food, self-reliance, industry, permanence, etc. others just seem there to demoralize them.

i find it odd that Peter Beinart's article came out just before this warning that they were slipping too far to the right and that fascism was on the rise in israel.

 

[Proton Soup]

If Ireland does not want their citizens to be harmed, they shouldn't send civilians to break a blockade. For the rest, a blockade doesn't have to be "guns and ammo", in fact pressuring and demoralizing a population can be part of it. You may not like that, but it is not unusual. Realpolitik again, like it or not. Casting Israel as heroes or villains, or the Palestinians as cultists or underdogs is simplistic and misses decades of history. Far uglier things are happening around the world, yet notice seems to pass them by. The bottom line is that Israel is an effective proxy for US interests, and unless that changes they have as close to carte blanche as it gets.

By the way, how has the wall and blockade done in terms of keeping attacks down? Seems to be working, and keeping Hamas and Hezbollah contained.

i think the ultimate goal of the israeli government now in power is ethnic cleansing of the area and jewish resettlement there. effective proxy or not, the current US administration is not playing along. a lot of israelis are very unhappy about that, too. it'll be interesting to see what happens. i imagine nothing much for the next couple years, and a concerted effort by groups like AIPAC to seat a republican candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

What shocks me, is that Israel is not known for bluffing; surrounded as they are such a thing cannot be afforded.

Indeed, the risky but successful no-negotiation policy on airplane hijackings from the '80s is evidence of that.

So...

The interesting question to me is WHY one of the boats displayed such aggressive behaviour when it was not apparent in the rest (and was as far as I can discern not the purpose of the trip, rather the opposite). Was it planned in advance that one of the boats would act aggressive? Was it some sort of internal pact between the people on that boat? Or did just the wrong people end up together?

The very nature of the effort by the activists was intentional confrontation, so the real questions are what they thought would happen when they tried to run the blockade and how far they were willing to go to do it. There's two schools of thought on this. Either the protesters were very smart or very stupid. While I have a serious disdain from such activists and have seen incredible stupdity from them, it is hard to me to believe that with the resources required to make the effort that stupidity could have dominated. But the reality may have just been that confrontation was desired and passion took the confrontation to violence. Either way, though, the result was a positive one for the movement: publicity and knee-jerk anti-Israel reactions.

The issue for the Israelis is far more complicated. Here's a pretty even-handed editorial on it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-06-02-editorial02_ST_N.htm

You can take your pick of who was more to blame for the deadly shipboard clash Monday between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian activists. In practical terms, the argument hardly matters. By opting for an assault on the six-ship convoy trying to break a 3-year-old blockade of Gaza, Israel handed its opponents a victory they could not have achieved by other means and simultaneously left itself, the United States and the struggling Mideast peace process with a huge problem...

The truth is more complicated. The activists' stated core mission — delivering humanitarian aid — was by definition peaceful. But it is also undeniable that they sought a confrontation. What else would one expect of an attempt to break a military blockade? If the organizers didn't plan on a violent ending, they or some on board certainly could not have missed the potential benefit in such an outcome...

To be sure, the commando raid was not the Israelis' initial response. Israel issued warnings and offered to let the vessels land in Israel and have the supplies shipped to Gaza. And granted, too, that keeping weapons out of the hands of Hamas was legitimate cause for establishing a blockade. Israel has every right to protect itself from its enemies.

Given the existential threat Israel faces, you can understand why it does such things. But that doesn't make the strategy smart.

There is, though, a smart solution to the current impasse. Israel should allow humanitarian aid into Gaza on the condition that cargo first be inspected for weapons. Palestinians should accept that restriction. The United States and United Nations should try to ensure its enforcement.

That approach will take time, if it can succeed at all. In the interim, Israel, for its own sake, had better come up with a new plan before the next flotilla arrives.

The problem with the USA Today solution and the criticism of Israel's response is that the reality is that Israel is in this alone. The US's economic support is just money and the political support (such as it is right now) is just talk. We have no real risk here, nothing at stake if Israel gets overrun by terrorists or nuked by Iran. As a result, people look for simple, easy, painless solutions to a problem that has none.

USA Today's solution doesn't look altogether different from what the Israelis are already doing and just as the Israelis can't just open the floodgates, the opponents of Israel have nothing to lose by confrontation (no, the death of a few activists is not really a loss, it is a win for the activists).

 

[zomgwtf]

The problem with the USA Today solution and the criticism of Israel's response is that the reality is that Israel is in this alone. The US's economic support is just money and the political support (such as it is right now) is just talk. We have no real risk here, nothing at stake if Israel gets overrun by terrorists or nuked by Iran. As a result, people look for simple, easy, painless solutions to a problem that has none.

USA Today's solution doesn't look altogether different from what the Israelis are already doing and just as the Israelis can't just open the floodgates, the opponents of Israel have nothing to lose by confrontation (no, the death of a few activists is not really a loss, it is a win for the activists).

Agreed completely.

 

[Hans de Vries]

You could see it coming in advance: The "provocation" will be stopped at any cost...

Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said the country was prepared to stop the flotilla "at any cost." He called the aid mission a provocation and urged the international community to show understanding for the tough response. "We really have all determination and political will to prevent this provocation against us," he said. "I think that we're ready at any cost ... to prevent this provocation." Military officials said an initial group of gunships went out to sea Friday to prepare for the flotilla's arrival.

Avigdor Lieberman, Russian ultra nationalist and his controversies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversies

Russian language election video for his nationalist party Yisrael_Beiteinu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWHaeIvXyEM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWHaeIvXyEM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu

Irish ship Rachel Corrie was sabotaged by Israeli intelligence says report

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...sraeli-intelligence-says-report-95425309.html

During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ael-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

 

[arildno]

I see that absolutely NOONE has been able to refer to any treaties by which:

a) Israel's blockade is illegal

b) Further restrictions are laid upon a blockading power's rights to board neutral vessels than those given by the London Declaration and San Remo Manual

c) That Israel in any way has violated either the San Remo Manual or the London Declaration.



But, some people are so noble of mind and pure of heart that every sentiment they feel ought automatically be recognized as binding, international law (except by evildoers, of course).

 

[arildno]

Plain logic. Suppose Iran imposes an illegal blockade on Hawaii and I'm in my sail boat traveling to Hawaii. Are you saying that I'm not entitled to sail to Hawaii?

State structures possesses the right to exert violence. You don't, except in cases of unavoidable preservation of life.

Since you can avoid threats to your own life by not sailing to Hawaii, that is the course you should choose.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

There's two schools of thought on this. Either the protesters were very smart or very stupid. While I have a serious disdain from such activists and have seen incredible stupdity from them, it is hard to me to believe that with the resources required to make the effort that stupidity could have dominated.

Seems like there was a healthy mix of both. They certainly would have gained more in the long run by making no violent resistance. You obviously have a death wish if you toss flash bangs at Israel, there's no way I can argue with that. The thing here is that one boat acted very differently from the rest, and I can see several explanations for this;
1. The people on the boat were in general more militant and more likely to use force; the concentration of them was a fluke or a mistake, depending on how you see it.
2. This was planned in advance; "martyrs" were intentionally placed on one boat in order to provoke deadly force from Israel.
3. Israel, for no reason, acted differently, thus inciting violence.
4. Israel intentionally used excessive force in order to provoke the people on the boat.

None of them seem too likely to me. 2 seems to conflict with the general idea of the project as far as I can see it. 3 would seem strange coming from such an elite military force. 4 would be very, very difficult to pull off and get away with, not to mention incredibly callous. 1 strikes me as the most likely; Wrong people end up together, some idiot brought flashbangs, and they end up exciting each other.

 

[arildno]

Seems like there was a healthy mix of both. They certainly would have gained more in the long run by making no violent resistance.

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

An amount of passengers on one boat were intent on jihad, it appears. I'm talking about to project at a large scale.

 

[arildno]

An amount of passengers on one boat were intent on jihad, it appears. I'm talking about to project at a large scale.

And why is it not better to just let ONE group stand for the violence, so that naive fools will cling to the hope that the others were firmly OPPOSED to that violence?

It's mere deception tactic, and extremely effective.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That IS certainly a possibility. However, two things:

1. I'd like it if myself and others refrained from the term "jihad". It has provokative and rhethoric connotations, and different meanings to different muslims (the non-fundamentalist interpretation is generally that jihad is the holy war the righteous muslim fights... in his head, against doubt)

2. Regardless, I don't think the non-muslims are interested in a holy muslim war. Of course, it's certainly POSSIBLE that this whole thing was a conspiracy, deceiving the peace activists to make them go along with extremist fundamentalists, but I, at least, find it dubious that they would INTENTIONALLY go along, knowing that it would take violent turns. I don't think they'd risk their life for a "holy war" they don't believe in.

 

[tiny-tim]

Avigdor Lieberman

You could see it coming in advance … Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said the country was prepared to stop the flotilla "at any cost." …

Yes, Avigdor Lieberman is foreign minister, not defence minister or prime minister.

It is unlikely that he had anything to do with the operation.

Even as foreign minister, he is pretty much sidelined, with restricted access to foreign governments (because he is so right-wing), in favour of (former foreign minister and prime minister) Shimon Peres and defence minister Ehud Barak.

Here's an extract about Barak and Lieberman from the (London) Jewish Chronicle (21st January 2010), headed "http://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/26320/barak-israel’s-de-facto-foreign-minister"" …

When Israel’s regional strategic alliances are jeopardised by senior ministers’ inflammatory statements, he [Ehud Barak] is sent to Cairo, Amman or Ankara to calm the waters. In capitals where Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is persona non grata, in the small handful of Muslim countries with which Israel has diplomatic relations, Mr Barak is an honoured guest.

But Mr Barak is also the preferred interlocutor of Israel’s traditional allies. In the last 10 months, he has racked up more meetings with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Representative George Mitchell than Mr Lieberman. Both sides tacitly acknowledge that Mr Barak is the one who can do business.

Morale within the professional ranks of the Foreign Ministry has never been lower. They have been almost totally usurped from their traditional role, not just by Mr Barak, but by a whole group of ambassadors-at-large who have become the government’s point-men around the globe. …

Lieberman is in the cabinet under sufferance because of Israel's coalition system … Kadima refused to serve in the coalition, so (prime minister) Netanyahu reluctantly accepted Lieberman's extreme right-wing party.

Speeches like Lieberman's are just political posturing. It is unlikely that that he had anything to do with policy on this matter, and may not even have been kept "in the loop".

 

[billiards]

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

It is amazing how someone who is supposedly intelligently can take such a skewed view on reality, and to use the word cynical there is a whole new level of irony.

 

[arildno]

...
HERE is how the "activists" thought of, and chanted about, the action prior to the confrontation:


And here is one jubilant theologian reflecting on martyrdom, and armed, muslim fleets:
http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2490.htm

It is amazing how someone who is supposedly intelligently can take such a skewed view on reality, and to use the word cynical there is a whole new level of irony.

Let's see who's got a skewed perception of reality, hm??

 

[Nusc]

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected? Have they found weapons?

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

Source?

 

[Pattonias]

Its not that they have or haven't found weapons. It's that they can't make any exceptions for inspections despite the guise the ship takes. If they allow the ships to pass without inspection because they say they are carrying relief supplies, it would be a matter of days before weapons are smuggled in using this loop hole as their cover.