Israel Attack Humanitarian Ship, 10 men killed

[Hedley Lamarr]

Letter From Israel: The Flotilla in the Israeli Press
By RAN HA COHEN

Published: Jun 4, 2010 01:33 Updated: Jun 4, 2010 01:33

In Antiwar.com, Ran Ha Cohen takes a look at how the Israeli media covered the assault on the "Freedom Flotilla" in his Letter From Israel.

Not many atrocities can be less controversial than Israel's attack on the Turkish-based flotilla heading to Gaza on Sunday night. Like Somali pirates, Israel attacked the boats in international waters. Like the darkest regimes, Israeli forces opened fire on unarmed civilians who had not posed a threat to anybody, except to the siege that Israel imposes on Gaza. Condemnation of what the Turkish prime minister rightly termed "an act of state terrorism" has been global, except for the shameful mumbling of the American government (but what can you expect from the complicit?).

In any normal place, you would expect masses to take to the streets and protest. Indeed, precisely this happened all over the globe. Not in Israel. A few hundred people did demonstrate in Tel Aviv and in several other towns, but then again a few hundred gathered to throw eggs at the Turkish Embassy. On the internal front, the Israeli government has nothing to worry about.

How is this consensus achieved? How can you turn millions of fairly educated citizens into silent lambs, or worse, into supporters of their own state's terrorism? If we concentrate on the short term, leaving aside, for the sake of brevity, decades of indoctrination, one can spot a few themes in the Israeli propaganda, which emerged during the first hours after the incident.



Recurrent Themes

The first theme was "weapons." The peace activists were quickly portrayed by Israel as "armed." The details changed with the minute: some media channels claimed they snatched a gun from an Israeli soldier, others said an empty ammunition magazine was found on board, others simply repeated the words "armed" or "carrying weapons" without bothering to explain. The adjective "cold" disappeared from the Hebrew dictionary: every knife, stick, stool, or cushion turned their holders into dangerous killers — especially when facing Israel's elite soldiers, who entered the boat peacefully and bare-handed (except for their unmentioned pistols, revolvers, hand grenades, tear gas, shockers, noise bombs, smoke bombs, protective vests, etc., etc.).

Soon after, an Israeli military spokesperson came out with the most lunatic theme of all: "Lynching." The Israeli soldiers, so official Israel shamelessly claimed, had to save themselves from being lynched by the activists. This is a direct continuation of the previous theme: when unarmed demonstrators are turned into armed killers, when armed elite soldiers kidnapping a boat become benevolent guests, one can describe the former as "lynching" the latter.

One has to be quite insane to describe armed soldiers as being lynched by unarmed civilians; it's an insult not only to intelligence, but to the soldiers themselves. This is why an alternative theme was introduced: "Battle." The confrontation on the boat has been explicitly termed "a battle," as if the poor Israeli Army (vessels, helicopters, electronic thwarting, etc.) was facing a raging Turkish battalion. Obviously, all three themes — "weapons," "lynching," and "battle" — imply the Israeli soldiers were obliged to open fire; they were the victims of the ruthless attack of the Turkish grand armada.

A fourth theme was "trap" (or "ambush"). This, again, enables Israel to portray those who set the trap — the flotilla — as aggressors, while the Israeli Army was, quite unfortunately, a passive, innocent victim of the hostile conspiracy.

Let's see how Tuesday's Israeli newspapers recycled these propaganda themes.



Tabloid One

The right-wing daily Ma'ariv put its headline in the middle of a blurred photo supplied by the Israeli Army, worded "the harsh attack on the fighters: cudgels, axes, and a fighter thrown off the deck." So now we know who the real victims are. The headline read: "The Failure (nine demonstrators killed, global rage, mumbling government, and exchange of accusations at the top) — And The Heroism (in spite of the intelligence failure and the hard violence, the commando fighters managed to take over the ships)." Criticizing the government is instrumental only to uniting behind the army, and the soldiers who spilled civilian blood are not less than "heroes." At the bottom of the page there were two interchangeable pictures, one showing demonstrators tearing an Israeli flag, the other depicting police arresting a demonstrator next to a great fire. Titles, respectively or otherwise: "Turkey is boiling" and "The [Israeli-Arab] Section Runs Wild." Both subtitles mentioned "Palestinian and Hamas flags everywhere," "torn Israeli flags," "furious mob," "Molotov cocktails, fire, and injured policemen."

Once again, note who's the aggressor and who's the victim in this story. None of Israel's newspapers, by the way, reported the demonstrations against the operation within Israel; at best, "riots" in Israeli-Arab towns were reported.

In addition, Ma'ariv gave six opinion and analysis columns, all starting on page 1. A whole spectrum of opinions. Journalist Ben Kaspit, under the hyper-critical title "Absolute Stupidity," opened his column with the following sentence: "First of all, let it be clear: We are on the right side in this story." The Israeli Daniel Pipes, demagogue Ben-Dror Yemini, scolded what he termed "A Leadership of Fools" for its "defeat in a battle against a ship of Hamasniks" — thus the activists were portrayed as Hamas terrorists and Israel's piratical invasion as a battle, in line with official propaganda. Ofer Shelach, a critical columnist, added a new aspect to the soldiers' victimhood: "From this day, the hands of the best unit in this army, whose combatants honestly join it in order to defend the state of Israel, are smeared with civilians' blood." That's as far as criticism goes. Beneath him, Alan Dershowitz urged "Do Not Rush to Pass Judgment," then immediately rushed to pass judgment that attacking the vessels outside Israel's territorial waters was a legitimate act. What can you expect from this discredited joker? Still, Dershowitz's imperative was polite compared to the two Israeli columnists beneath him, who directly commanded the readers to "Salute and Shut Up!": "The pictures will not persuade the hypocritical world, but they should persuade every Zionist Israeli, right or left, to thank the fighters...." At the bottom, journalist Shalom Yerushalmi made political calculations. "But what about the lynching?" you may ask. Don't worry: Ma'ariv's page 1 ended with a big headline at the very bottom: "Netanyahu: 'Israeli Soldiers Were Defending Themselves From a Lynching.'" All the propaganda themes are here.



Tabloid Two

The right-wing daily Yediot Achronot took a completely opposite line, as far as placing the "lynching" theme is concerned. Here it wasn't at the bottom, but at the very top of the page: "The Ambush: 'We Felt Like in a Lynching,' the Fighters Said." The big headline was a single word: "The Trap," theme number four. Within a big picture taken by Reuters (euphemistic wording for the kidnapping: "the marine commando boats escort one of the ships") three smaller pictures were printed: one worded "a soldier thrown off the deck," one worded "the weapons: knives and sticks," and a third one depicting a green cloth with Arabic inscription, upon which two dozen knives were scattered, some of them small kitchen knives; no wording, no credit. Ma'ariv had the same picture on page 8, with credit to "IDF spokesperson," who probably put the green cloth as a suggestive background.

Seven columnists made it to the front. Journalist Nahum Barnea said the "takeover" ended in "frustration": "Israel yesterday made an effort to prove that the people awaiting the commando on board were not human rights activists but violent thugs. I assume this is true. Still, the question is why Israel gave those thugs precisely what they wanted." Journalist Sima Kadmon paraphrased an Israeli cliché: "Where are the days when we were a bit less righteous but a bit wiser," implying the action was perfectly right but simply unwise. Extremely militaristic journalist Alex Fishman said the same differently: "the takeover was right and necessary, and will be right and necessary next time too." Analyst Sever Plotzker urged Defense Minister Ehud Barak to resign, not failing to name the true agent behind the maritime bloodbath: "the trap of Hamas provocation." Senior columnist and political adviser Eitan Haber opened on a good note: "one could have tried to solve this problem peacefully." Reading the rest of his article (page , one learns that he had been consulted in advance, but "I had no doubt that my suggestion as for how to deal with the flotilla of villains would be rejected." Haber's concern is in no way moral: he is just worried about Israel losing Turkey as an ally. Next, journalist Amnon Avramovitz explained that Netanyahu was repeatedly "unlucky," and, last but not least, right-wing columnist Hanoch Daum concluded: "It wasn't Israel that initiated the confrontation at sea, it wasn't Israel that attacked fighters with cold and warm weapons. And it's not Israel that should be held accountable. It's Hamas' fault. Instead of rejecting the world's ludicrous claims, we all start a session of self-accusation."



Quality Paper

How about Ha'aretz, Israel's liberal quality daily? The headline revealed the focus: "IDF's Failed Action Creates International Mess." Underneath it, four small pictures, one taken by the army — "throwing a soldier off the deck," the very same as in both tabloids (but decently smaller) — one by Reuters (same as in Yediot), one taken by the Israeli police, and one showing the defense minister with two uniformed generals. Quite unlike the tabloids, the word "lynch" here is neither at the top nor at the bottom, but in the small print in the center of the page: "Defense minister ... said yesterday the soldiers confronted extreme violence, and justified the decision to open fire in order to protect the fighters who, they said, were facing the risk of lynching." Four op-eds reached the front page of the Hebrew print edition: the editorial, columnists Ari Shavit and Amos Harel, and writer David Grossman. The former two can be found in English on the Internet; the latter two are missing as I write this. All of them were critical to some extent: the editorial demanded an investigation; Shavit drew an unoriginal historical analogy to the raid on the Exodus ship; Harel wrote that the army representatives had no real difficulty explaining the action to the Israeli public: given the "extreme violence" they met, the soldiers "had no other choice," being "exposed to injury and surrounded by a violent mass hitting them with sticks; under these circumstances, no wonder they fired live ammunition to defend themselves." What all three columns, though, highly regretted was the damage to Israel's image. Not a word about morality or legitimacy: it's Israel's image which is at stake. Because of this single flaw, the world might err to think that Israel is no longer the peace-seeking, law-abiding, sane, moderate, and benevolent country it actually is.

The one mild exception was David Grossman, who used the word "crime" for the crime, and even though he too recycled the "trap" metaphor, he did distinguish between the "small, fanatic Turkish organization" behind the flotilla and the "hundreds of activists for freedom and justice" on board. Grossman also equated the action carried out outside Israel's territorial water to an act of piracy. He saw the action in the broader context of Israel's "outrageous" siege on Gaza, and his final paragraph can summarize not only his, but my own column as well:

"More than anything else, this crazy operation is evidence for the place that Israel has reached. There is no point in elaborating. Whoever has eyes in his head sees and feels it. No doubt, within hours some swift minds would find a way to turn the (natural, justified) feelings of guilt of many Israelis into a vociferous accusation against the entire world. The shame, however, would be more difficult to come to terms with."



— Dr. Ran Ha Cohen is a university teacher in Israel, known for his strong criticism of Israel's policies. He grew up in Israel, but was born in the Netherlands.

[Ulick]

How Israeli propaganda shaped U.S. media coverage of the flotilla attack
By Glenn Greenwald

It was clear from the moment news of the flotilla attack emerged that Israel was taking extreme steps to suppress all evidence about what happened other than its own official version.  They detained all passengers on the ship and barred the media from speaking with them, thus, as The NYT put it, "refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel's version of events."  They detained the journalists who were on the ship for days and seized their film, video and cameras.  And worst of all, the IDF -- while still refusing to disclose the full, unedited, raw footage of the incident -- quickly released an extremely edited video of their commandos landing on the ship, which failed even to address, let alone refute, the claim of the passengers:  that the Israelis were shooting at the ship before the commandos were on board.

This campaign of suppression and propaganda worked to shape American media coverage (as state propaganda campaigns virtually always work on the gullible, authority-revering American media).  The edited IDF video was shown over and over on American television without question or challenge.  Israeli officials and Israel-devoted commentators appeared all over television -- almost always unaccompanied by any Turkish, Palestinian or Muslim critics of the raid -- to spout the Israeli version without opposition.  Israel-centric pundits in America claimed, based on the edited IDF video, that anyone was lying who even reported on the statements of the passengers that Israeli fired first.  In sum, that the Israelis used force only after the passengers attacked the commandos became Unquestioned Truth in American discourse.

But now that the passengers and journalists have been released from Israeli detention and are speaking out, a much different story is emerging.  As I noted yesterday, numerous witnesses and journalists are describing Israeli acts of aggression, including the shooting of live ammunition, before the commandos landed.  The New York Times blogger Robert Mackey today commendably compiles that evidence -- I recommend it highly -- and he writes:  "now that the accounts of activists and journalists who were detained by Israel after the raid are starting to be heard, it is clear that their stories and that of the Israeli military do not match in many ways."  As Juan Cole says:  "Many passengers have now confirmed that they were fired on even before the commandos had boots on the deck. Presumably it is this suppressive fire that killed or wounded some passengers and which provoked an angry reaction and an attack on the commandos."

Whether the Israelis fired at the passengers before or after landing on the ship matters little to the crux of what happened here.  The initial act of aggression was the Israeli seizing of a ship in international waters which was doing nothing hostile; that action was taken to enforce a horrific, inhumane blockade and, more generally, a brutal, decades-long occupation; and whatever else is true, at least nine civilians were killed by the Israeli Navy, only the latest example of Israel (and the U.S.) using massive military force against civilians.

But this incident illustrates -- yet again -- the eagerness of the American media to "report" on events by doing nothing but mindlessly repeating official government claims.  How many of the TV hosts who paraded Israeli officials in front of their audiences all week will put these witnesses on their shows to narrate their version of events?  Devotees to Israel have already been convinced that this ship was full of Terrorists and Terrorist-lovers (meaning:  anyone who opposes Israeli policy), so anything these passengers say (indeed, anyone who disputes the Israeli version of events) will be automatically dismissed as unreliable -- just as Muslim villagers who claim that the U.S. military kills civilians (rather than "militants") are, for that reason alone, deemed suspect, and just as individuals who denied reports about Iraqi WMDs before the war were deemed suspect for that reason alone.  But for those who are not committed to defending Israel no matter what it does, these witnesses deserve to be heard every bit as much as Israeli officials.

Nobody's claims are entitled to an automatic assumption of truth, including these passengers.  But as Mackey argues, all of this compellingly underscores the need for an independent -- not an Israeli-led -- investigation.  Mackey quotes Israeli journalist and blogger Noam Sheifaz:

Israel has confiscated some of the most important material for the investigation, namely the films, audio and photos taken by the passengers [and] journalists on board and the Mavi Marmara's security cameras. Since yesterday, Israel has been editing these films and using them for its own PR campaign. In other words, Israel has already confiscated most of the evidence, held it from the world and tampered with it. No court in the world would [trust] it to be the one examining it.

Just as is true for the U.S. on so many occasions, Israel has made unmistakably clear that it is interested only in propagandizing and obfuscating.  The very idea that they can be trusted to reveal what actually happened is ludicrous on its face.

* * * * *

One of the more disturbing -- though predictable -- developments this week is the effort to suggest that Furkan Dogan, the 19-year-old American killed by the Israelis with four bullets to the head and one to the chest, is not a "real citizen."  That, of course, tracks the prior Joe-Lieberman-led proposal to strip Americans of their citizenship (now being replicated in Israel) and the Obama administration's targeting of Americans for due-process-free assassinations.  We now have at least two classes of citizenship:  "real citizens" and "not really citizens."  John Cole says all that needs to be said about this disgusting suggestion.

And for those who haven't done so, see my post from yesterday on the role that rank tribalism plays in causing so many Americans to remain devoted to justifying whatever Israel does.

[Tyrones own]

Nobody's claims are entitled to an automatic assumption of truth, including these passengers.

I think the above is very important to remember when jumping in with the automatic conclusions .... Neither side is whiter than white in all of this.
The title is still firmly in place too i see, the number is still at nine, hows about you change it to nine
til the facts are in, not so sure dramatizing a story of this magnitude does anyone any favors and isn't needed IMO.
It's maximum impact with you at all times with these titles John I'll give you that

[CiKe]

This is from Stratfor, some of the smartest geo-political analysts I have come across.

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.

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.

[give her dixie]

Nobody's claims are entitled to an automatic assumption of truth, including these passengers.

I think the above is very important to remember when jumping in with the automatic conclusions .... Neither side is whiter than white in all of this.
The title is still firmly in place too i see, the number is still at nine, hows about you change it to nine
til the facts are in, not so sure dramatizing a story of this magnitude does anyone any favors and isn't needed IMO.
It's maximum impact with you at all times with these titles John I'll give you that

TO, would you care to elaborate on how neither side is whiter than white?

Can you give us any examples of how unarmed humanitarians are in the wrong, having been illegally attacked in International waters?

Would you have an opinion of your own, or will you take the line of the US and Israhell, and be the only ones to fail to condemn the attack?

Let me ask you, and others this question.

Seeing as an unarmed US citizen was executed with 4 bullets to his head, and the US have failed to condemn it, what do you think the reaction would be if Iran had of been responsible for carrying out such an attack?

As for the thread title, it will stand until the true facts are out in the open.

If you read my above post of points, you will see that there are still people unaccounted for.

Oh, and by the way, Israhell are now going to award one of the elite commando's with a medal for bravery for killing the unarmed US citizen, and 5 others.

[stew]

It's maximum impact with you at all times with these titles John I'll give you that
[/quote]
Cant argue with that.

TO, would you care to elaborate on how neither side is whiter than white?

Ok you are now Mother Theresa, we get it.

Can you give us any examples of how unarmed humanitarians are in the wrong, having been illegally attacked in International waters?
According to the Israelis some were armed, I dont believe that but there you go. You also knew that you would elicit a response and that they would react badly to the flotilla and you got what you wanted, publicity, job done I would say.

Would you have an opinion of your own, or will you take the line of the US and Israhell, and be the only ones to fail to condemn the attack?
Your hatred of Israel is there for all to see, you do yourself no favours calling the country by a deragotary name, it shows you up to be a hater of the State which is fine and also the people which is not. The attack was illegal and I am disgusted by the response of the US and the UN, their actions are disgraceful.

Let me ask you, and others this question.

Seeing as an unarmed US citizen was executed with 4 bullets to his head, and the US have failed to condemn it, what do you think the reaction would be if Iran had of been responsible for carrying out such an attack?

The yanks would have condemned the attck and issues immediate sanctions on Iran.

As for the thread title, it will stand until the true facts are out in the open.

So the actual number is unclear but you like the nice round number of twenty as it suits your agenda.

If you read my above post of points, you will see that there are still people unaccounted for.

Oh, and by the way, Israhell are now going to award one of the elite commando's with a medal for bravery for killing the unarmed US citizen, and 5 others.
[/quote]

That is disgusting, sick sad, and wrond, and the Brits for one have been doing it for centuries.

So the true facts are not in but you are choosing to leave the original number up there of your choosing, no agenda there.

[mylestheslasher]

Nobody's claims are entitled to an automatic assumption of truth, including these passengers.

I think the above is very important to remember when jumping in with the automatic conclusions .... Neither side is whiter than white in all of this.
The title is still firmly in place too i see, the number is still at nine, hows about you change it to nine
til the facts are in, not so sure dramatizing a story of this magnitude does anyone any favors and isn't needed IMO.
It's maximum impact with you at all times with these titles John I'll give you that

Its a bit like bloody sunday. Sure neither side was without blame. I mean, those civil rights protesters were told the march was banned and they made a political statement by trying to provoke the british army. Apparently one of them fired first and sure what could the brits do only slaughter as many as they could. Yeh - I can see where you are coming from TO. Amazing how little people can learn. So whats the latest shite from Fox news? Don't tell me, the humanitarian "activists" had a weapon of mass destruction, made by Iranians and blessed by Osama Bin Laden.

[no mo do yakamo]

Activism  is going to be the new terrorism. Humanitarianism is just not dramatic or sinister enough for the 'News' mongers.

[give her dixie]

Title changed. Is that satisfactory?

[mylestheslasher]

You should have left the word murder in the title

[stew]

You should have left the word murder in the title

I could not agree more, this was nothing but State Sanctioned Murder and it looks to me that they will get away with it, absolutely disgusting and the US and UN should be absolutely ashamed of themselves in the way they have handled this situation.

Obama is a disaster at this stage and I think McCain would have been much better equipped to deal with this situation.

[give her dixie]

According to our resident Fox News Reporters, we need to wait until the facts are out before we can say that. We can't be too dramatic now can we?

Maybe the following report will shed some light on what happened:


Istanbul, Turkey (CNN) -- Autopsy results by forensics experts in Istanbul revealed that all nine of the men killed by Israeli commandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.

The autopsy results give clues about how the violence unfolded after Israeli commandoes stormed the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in the pre-dawn hours on Monday.

Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head, said Dr. Haluk Ince, the director of Istanbul's Medical Examination Institute, said Friday.

One casualty, a 19-year-old dual national Turkish-American citizen named Furkan Dogan, was found to have bullet wounds in his head and multiple bullets in his body, Ince said.

According to the U.S. State department, Dogan was born in Troy, New York and had been living in Turkey. American diplomats have been extending consular services to the deceased's family.

In one case, Ince said, a gunshot victim had been shot at at extremely close range.

"From the analysis of the bullet distance on one of the bodies," Dr. Ince said, "the gun was fired between 2 and 14 centimeters' distance from the victim's head."

In one month, the forensic report will be submitted to an Istanbul prosecutor's office. There have already been petitions from families of Turkish activists this week, submitted to state prosecutors to sue the government of Israel on charges of murder.

The dead activists were treated like fallen heroes at a mass funeral held at Istanbul's Fatih Mosque on Thursday. Crowds gathered in a courtyard, below the domes of the centuries' old Ottoman mosque, in front of the coffins, which were wrapped in Turkish and Palestinian flags. In one case, a flag from the Palestinian movement Hamas lay over a casket.

"We will remember this, what Israel did," said a young Turkish volunteer named Muhamed Sahin, who was helping hold back the surging crowd. "Everybody has to learn what is going on in Gaza, on the ship, what Israel did."

Periodically, the crowd chanted "Israel, terrorist" and "Damn Israel."

The bodies of the 9 dead, as well as more then 460 surviving passengers from the convoy arrived at Istanbul airport before dawn on Thursday. They were treated to a hero's welcome, particularly Bulent Yildirim, the chairman of the Islamist, fiercely pro-Palestinian Turkish charity the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). IHH was one of the main groups organizing the blockade-busting flotilla.

In remarks to the press, Yildirim said his colleagues fought Israeli troops in self-defense aboard the Mavi Marmara. He added that in the early stages of the clashes, his activists captured several Israel commandoes, as well as their weapons, and took them below decks.

The Israeli troops were given water, Yildirim said. He insisted none of the activists fired the captured Israeli guns.

Israeli officials have accused the protesters of firing captured weapons during the battle at sea. The Israeli military has also shown images of a commando being beaten with a plastic chair, as well as photos of knives, metal poles, slingshots and marbles as evidence that the Mavi Marmara was a "ship of hatred" full of terrorist sympathizers rather then a "love boat" filled with peace-loving human rights activists.

"The defense of the boat was quite well organized," said Espen Goffeng, a 38-year-old activist from Norway who sailed aboard the Mavi Marmara. "There was a plan to keep soldiers off the boat."

Goffeng said passengers aboard the lead ship Mavi Marmara at first successfully repelled Israeli troops on boats. Then, he said, soldiers began their helicopters assault on the vessel.

"They started off with some kind of paintball bullets with glass in them that left terrible soft tissue wounds. And then rubber bullets. And then live ammunition afterwards. And that's when things started to get really dangerous," Goffeng added.

Despite the tears and sobbing at Istanbul's Fatih Mosque on Thursday, many of the people gathered for the activists' funeral called this week a "victory," because it brought international attention to Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza.

Turkey, once Israel's closest Muslim ally in the Middle East, has accused Israel of committing an act of international piracy.

"From now on, Turkish-Israeli ties will never be the same," Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on Thursday. "The incident has left a deep and irreparable scar."

According to a spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ankara has issued 3 demands to Israel: apologize for the raid, organize an independent investigation, and lift the blockade of Gaza.

[pintsofguinness]

What's the latest on the Irish ship?

[give her dixie]

Click on the following link to see some photo's of the attacks on the ship:

They are not for the faint hearted, and if you are easily offended, please do not click.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=174757&id=582489254&ref=mf

[give her dixie]

Irish Ship, Rachel Corrie, is now roughly 100 miles from Gaza.

It is expected to reach Gaza by early morning.

It is very very tense righht now, and it is anyones guess as to what the outcome will be.

I will be posting immediatley any news comes in.