Lieberman: "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip"

I don't doubt that the people on the ships fougth the IDF but I find it hard to believe that they set this up ahead of time by setting up cameras on other ships. How would the people on the flotilla know what ship the IDF would board first?

 

I agree we should make things better for both the Palestinians and Israelis but the problem I see with your argument that you are placing almost the whole onus on the pro-Palestinian side to do something while absolving the Israelis of most responsibility.

Yes the IDF are made of testosterone laden 20 somethings but that doesn't mean that they aren't also trained soldiers and that this wasn't some rogue operation but they were ordered by the Israeli government to take this action. So while yes the members of the flotilla should act peacefully shouldn't Israel and the IDF considered showing restraint?

In my opinion the Israelis missed a huge chance to turn the PR tables on the flotilla by instead of raiding vessels escorted them in, offer to help them unload the vessels publically with the press there to see it. If all the ships are carrying is humanitarian aid Israel is no worse off and if there is anything going to arm Hamas it will be out in the open and seen by the World.

 

As I stated before, Israel is the point of inflection. The Israelis hold the keys to the kingdom - they are the fulcrum that a state change hinges upon. So yeah, I appreciate that it sucks for the Palestinians, but I don't see any way it happens otherwise (I mean short of a total war with one side obliterating the other).

If you look at Northern Ireland, it isn't too different from the leap of faith that the IRA took in agreeing to a ceasefire. The British didn't really give up anything until well into the process. As with Israel/Palestine, shifting the UK forces out of the country was ultimately the fulcrum on which the peace was leveraged.

The one consolation possibly is that backing off temporarily can be undone without real damage to the cause. If it appears that the Israelis aren't ready, then the Palestinians can turn the pressure back on, and its temporary absence might make the return of the campaign all the more noticeable.

 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZcrZO0Jh0Cg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZcrZO0Jh0Cg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Except even when the Palestinians have mostly held to their end of peace agreements for even periods up to a year, Israel doesn't live up to its end of the deal. There is reason to let Israel wait and not give up stuff until well into the peace process, but not when Israel has proven to be an untrustworthy partner.

When both sides are untrustworthy which is mostly the case here, both sides have to show their good will to have serious chance for the process to work.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199862.stm

Some video footage of what happened when Israelis landed on the flotilla.

 

They look like peace activists to me.

 

I guess maybe I wasn't clear. It isn't a function of who deserves it or who has been honorable or anything like that. These factors are non-issues.

It is a function of who has the power to control events. The only way the siege of Gaza ends, is either when the Israelis decide it ends or when someone destroys the Israeli military and prevents them from imposing the blockade. Certainly some people would prefer the latter. But barring that, the only people who can end the siege are the Israelis. This necessarily makes their situation the location around which events hinge.

Try to back off of whose "fault" anything is, and look at the mechanics of how it unwinds itself.

 

As Glen Greenwald astutely noted via twitter, what would the US or international response be had this been Iran instead of Israel?

I've defended Israel repeatedly on here - but consider my stance considerably shaken, if not totally altered.

 

Interesting (and long) political analysis from STRATFOR:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2010...readmore&elq=ec0dbb5abd264ff39b3645c5d73e93b4

Here's the end summary:


...

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.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

 

This type of stuff is what turned international opinion away from Israel during the first intifada. The Palestinians responded with boycotts, kids throwing stones (as opposed to suicide bombs) at Israeli troops, and a fairly non-violent resistance. It was so powerful that the guy who initiated Israel's heavy handed response to this relatively non-violent opposition, Yitzhak Rabin, would become a major catalyst in the peace process. (and if Rabin never gets assassinated there might even be some relative peace in the region)

Hopefully, the Palestinians remember what got them the backchannel negotiations that ultimately led to Oslo. (granted it took the right Israeli leader and the right American president to make that stuff happen)

 

Iran has repeatedly kidnapped Westerners in international waters.

Also, what was the US or international response when North Korea killed 45 or so South Korean marines - really not more so far than in this case.

 

ATW spreading his bull****, whats new?

Any one that isn't a complete biased moron clearly realizes that these actions were deplorable.

I used to DEFEND Israel A LOT. The seige of ghaza ultimately made me turn sides.

Its like they are suffocating the people and letting them know it.

They made it so hard for humanitarian aid to get inside and rev their propoganda machine up for stupid sheep like ATW to believe.


I could care less about Israel. Let it face the consequences for what it does, DON'T MAKE MY TAX DOLLAR BE USED FOR ITS MISTAKES.

 

Finally people are seeing Isreal for what it really is..

 

I'm surprised DaDakota hasn't said anything in this thread yet. I would love to hear his take on this.

 

The hypocrisy of a certain poster is quiet evident in this thread.

Carry on.

 

But isn't the flotilla justified on exactly these grounds? To provide an impetus for Israel to ease the blockade? The problem with your rather...zero sum...framing of the issue--two possible resolutions: Israeli unilateral dissolution of the blockade or external usurpation of Israel's authority in the region by destruction of its military--is that it ignores opportunities precisely like the one the aid flotilla presented.

If Israel had allowed the flotilla to proceed, you wouldn't have said that the IDF withdrew the blockade, nor would that action constitute the destruction of the IDF. In that case, the Palestinian people, represented by the flotilla passengers, would have gained agency in the peace process--and THAT is the real threat, the outcome Bibi can't accept.

You're right that it's pointless to lay blame on one side or the other of a complex conflict. You're also right that Israel holds the final trump card, and may continue the siege at its discretion. But there is still room for a popular Palestinian resistance that does not aim towards a genocidal end. That, to me, is what the flotilla represents. A way out of the cycle of violence. An impetus for a new way forward. Instead, Israel's heavy handed approach has botched a delicate situation.

 

It is a direct challenge to the IDF.

Look at the way that Republicans and Democrats react to each other reflexively when certain buttons are pushed. I'm as guilty of it as anybody else in many instances. Democrats say, "Health Care" or Republicans say, "WMD" and you are guaranteed a fight. Pushing people on certain sensitive subjects guarantees posturing.

To repeat another example, one might as easily say that UN sanctions are an impetus for Iran to give up its nuclear program. In fact, it has the opposite effect. By continuing to provide a direct challenge, you ensure that Iran is more or less compelled to continue its nuclear program. If he bends under pressure - if he "surrenders to the West" - Aminadinajad is pretty much guaranteed that his political career is over - he will forever be the guy who caved into the Zionist world order.

Direct pressure backs people into a corner. Even if they don't want to fight, they have to do so to keep from looking weak. If you want to provide them with an out, provide them with a way that they can end the blockade and make it look like it was their idea and that it was done because they'd "defeated terrorism" or some other platitude.

Another example would be the secret deal that the Kennedy administration struck with Khrushchev to remove American Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet Union removing missiles from Cuba. If the Soviets had demanded that the US publicly announce the removal of the missiles, and demanded that the Kennedy did it right away, it probably would have meant WWIII.

If the IDF let them past, then the IDF looks like it is too pathetic to even defend Israel from a bunch of dope smoking hippies on dinghies. Heads would roll, and defense officials would be sacked left and right.

 

In another generation or two, the only lever Israel will have will be threatening to nuke the entire middle east. You'd think the cooler heads would cut a deal now, in their days of waning influence. No... instead, they walk right into a PR disaster, of which they had foreknowledge and could have bypassed easily. Cold, hard stupidity.