What does disingenuous mean around here because it seems to be used as a substitute for liar a lot.
I imagine that they were going to attack the soldiers with improvised melee weapons, and let Israel take the blame if their stupidity got them killed. You know, like we both know they did.
Well, if that is the case, they are braver men than me and thee, despite our fearsome keyboard warrior reputations.
Are you sure you want to make this argument? You’re not allowed to call someone a liar in this forum, you know.
Disingenuous means the same thing it usually means. If you have any other rules-related questions, send me a private message. You already know that that stuff does not need to be handled in-thread. There are enough distractions and tangents as it is.
There are a few discrepencies, yes, and several different approaches and points of view; however, all of them agree on the basic facts. Besides the fact that reporters were present at the raid, the wounded soldiers granted interviews to the press from their hospital beds. Do you really think that they slapped some fake bandages on these guys and told them to lie to the press?
You really think that, huh?
I was going to go into a long diatrabe regarding the difference between the U.S. and Israeli military and the difference American and Israeli civil society (as you are obviously looking at the affiar through your own American blinders), but this thread has gone far enough astray already. Suffice to say the following: the soldiers were treated by civilian doctors and nurses at civilian hospitals. Besides reporters, they were also visited by their civilian famlies and friends. The kind of deception you think the government is pulling on the Israeli public would involved hundreds of people outside the military chain of command, many of whom are not fond of the current adimistration; it’s also the kind of thing that, if revealed, would start a scandal that would almost certainly bring down the government. Israeli society is too small and tight-knit to pull this kind of thing off. We like to talk, and we LOVE to criticize our government.
In short, believing such a thing would be entering CT territory.
Some of those peace terrorists managed to get themselves shot three-four times in the head, just to make the Israelis look bad!
Hell, if I got shot in the head just once, I’m pretty sure I’d give it up. I mean, I’m a Texan so I’m pretty tough, but damn!
The Israeli’s have been the masters of media manipulation for a long time. They might have gone off the boil lately, but you don’t lose that talent overnight. And if the amount of law enforcement officers that take leave after the slightest physical altercation is anything to go by, it wouldn’t surprise me if these guys are milking it a bit.
Who wouldn’t lie for their country? Men who would kill for their country, die for it, won’t tell a fib? Heck, I’ve known men who would lie just to get some nookie!
If I thought it was what my country needed from me, hell, yes, I would! If I couldn’t look at myself anymore, I’ll quit shaving and join ZZ Top!
They might lie for the country, but they wouldn’t lie for ther government or their commanding officers. And besides, you’re talking about *hundreds *of people willing to lie for their government. That requires a level of sumission to authority completely alien to the Israeli nature. Look at it this way: Israelis consider *Americans *to be placid cows, always following whatever order anyone in power gives them. You really think nobody in the know would talk to the press, or go online?
Besides, the actual soldiers involved wouldn’t lie about this sort of thing: getting injured makes them look bad. If they could, they’d have hidden the wounds altogether.
I do agree with a bit of what you said, though - those who truly believe in a cause would easily lie to advance it. That’s why I don’t believe anything these so-called “peace activists” say.
Well, I guess that’s why when your guys get injured, that proves something very, very important, but when theirs get dead, it proves nothing at all.
So, would the ones with the bigger cause be prepared to tell the biggest lies?
Cite? “It has been reported…” Who has done the reporting? I read the daily newspaper, news magazines, email journals, etc., and have not seen anything about that.
As to Netanyahu lying, I think I would believe him rather than so-called “peace” activists who want anything but peace: inviting a confrontation. Pro-Palestinian groups call themselves “Amnesty International,” “Human Rights Watch,” etc. They have a history of fabricating stories, as I noted before. And, of course, the Palestinians themselves, with the staged “death” of a boy, making sure that all the paparazzi were around first before they got their act together. So am I going to believe the subjective statements of some of these activists, with no objective evidence, and not going to believe Netanyahu?
If I had a son who died on the ship and who had no such intention to die, I wouldn’t be proclaiming to the world that he died a martyr, in spite of what the technical definition of that word is. That word is most closely associated now with the terrorists. No, I wouldn’t be calling him a “martyr.” I’d be grieving over his death.
Damuri Ajashi:
If you intended their use to inflict death and bodily harm, then you do.
There was only one group fully prepared to inflict death and bodily harm that day, which is why the scoreline was IDF - 9, Palestinian Activists - 0.
And, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if any of the IDF who were wounded by guns had took a shot for the side.
Here’s one account from Henning Mankell.
That part is in the in the audio starting at about 04:00.
First:
I don’t doubt your overall analysis. However, soliders certainly have POV, and while lying about wounds and the like I find an absurd assertion, it does not strain my credulity to allow for a sequence of events that is rather less innocent than IDF has a asserted so far, although I would suspect that what the activists and journalists thought was live fire was not.
Confused perceptions I am sure contribute to this fog, as well as lying and spin by all parties.
Emphasis added.
Well, this says rather a lot about where this argument is coming from. It is rather extremist.
Having seen Netanyahu’s behaviour relative to the American president and others, I’m afraid outside hard core extremist supporters of Israel, that credibility is non-existent.
You’re not of that culture, so you’re POV means fuck all relative to the meaning and intent the people of Turkish culture give to the word.
And this is a most extraordinary example of extremist rhetoric.
It is absolutely laughable that one pulls out “start a new Ottoman empire” as some kind of bizarre fear-mongering smear against a country that spent 40 years as a close military ally of Israel. That anyone thinks writing such a thing is credible as a response truly boggles the mind.
It is also extraordinary the Orwellian denial of any Israeli role in the sharp, stunning decline in the relationship, despite even with the current government, a warm beginning. Funny it is always everyone else’s fault… queer that. And the incredible Orwellian positioning as if it’s not at all an issue that the current Israeli governments have been serially insulting and alienating long-time allies. The behaviour towards the Obama government is nothing short of extraordinary - and not in a complimentary fashion do I mean that, as is the Israeli gov’t behaviour relative UK and others.
Some wiser comment on this gratuitous, unnecessary fiasco relative to Turkish-Israel
and
Emphasis added (as an illustration of how absurd the earlier Orwellian spin about Turkey not having been an important ally to Israel was).
Small countries in need of friends hardly can afford to gratuitously alienate larger, powerful allies, for direct and indirect reasons, as ever observer that is not a mere parrot of the current Israeli government
The back and forth over whether the activists were ‘peaceful’ or not is in the end beside the point. No clear story is likely to come out of this (even with a proper investigation, which clearly isn’t going to be permitted), and just like the UK Navy interception of Exodus at high seas - a reasonably similar ‘protest’ to a blockade - which resulted in deaths was a fiasco for the UK although the Royal Navy made similar types of arguments.
The only way Israel can pull itself out of the bad spot it has put itself in is to learn lessons from this, rather than making excuses.
Reacting to every single event and crisis as if it were 1975, and it were an existential crisis is sheer idiocy, as it trying to label every bloody opponent with the ‘terrorist’ label as was tried early in the news cycle (and idiotically some Israeli ambassadors in Europe have tried to run with). It does Israel no good, and in fact harm. What is positive is there are Israeli voices, the Haaretz article is indicative, that are sanely critical.
One need not think well of the activists to recognize that trying to spin fucking kitchen knives, ship’s fire axes, wrenches and bloody wooden poles as an “arsenal” is embarrassing and stupid. And one need not think well of these activists (I have zero love the European leftist activist organizations) to recognize that Israel chose a stunningly stupid line of action on this, that was unnecessary, incompetent and self-destructive. It is adolescent to not be able to recognize how entirely incompetent and unnecessary this entire event was.
I do not see where Allessan said anything of the kind. The point he has made, sometimes indirectly, is that the injuries of each group “prove” different things.
= = =
ivan astikov, you are, of course, a noted champion of Conspiracy Theories.
I find it interesting, however, that you can never quite recognize the evidence for conspriacies among whatever group you happen to champion. We currently have actual statements from the flotilla organizers that they wished for a confrontation, we have evidence that members of the IDF suffered serious injury, we have (controversial) tapes of the “Peace Activists” attacking the members of the IDF, we have a number of claims from the “Peace Activists” that have been demostrated to be false, yet you only see the “conspiracy” on the Israeli side.
This might lead one to conclude that you have no interest in digging up the facts about any given event; you just like to assign “good guy” and “bad guy” labels to events and then arbitrarily accuse whomever you declare to be “bad” of “conspiracy.”
It goes a long way toward making your posts irrelevant to the discussion.
= = =
barbitu8, I don’t think your “martyr” argument is going to get much traction. While there has been a cottage industry in that region of creating martyrs by sending folks out to kill a lot of people in a suicidal action, the word continues to mean a person who has died while providing witness to one’s beliefs. The families of the slain are very much going to consider their losses in that light and that would be true even if the only death had occurred when a piece of equipment had fallen from an Israeli helicopter and bashed in someone’s head and no further confrontation had occurred.
The use of the word “martyr” is simply not good evidence that any particular person set out to be killed by the IDF or even that that person intended to pick a fight.
I believe that these aren’t the lies that people are talking about. Soldiers probably were injured as two of them were captured and disarmed by the activist, which also means they could have shot them in the head with their own weapons at close range, but they didn’t.
The lie is the stuff that the Israeli Government is putting out about the activist and what happened leading up to the point where people felt that they better do something or else they would all be killed. The Israeli goverment is hidding this information, they have it, but they won’t show it. The have the full video but they won’t show it. They stole everyone else’s video because they are afraid of what might be on it that doesn’t support the story they want to put out. People that think understand this and that’s why you got world wide condemnation of the actions of the Israeli goverment.
The deception is selective release of video segments to support a particular claim and judging by the posters in this thread a lot of people believe what they are seeing to be the whole truth since they don’t have an opportunity to see the full video or the video of other people that were on the scene.
It’s clear to me that the Israeli government has something to hide, better yet knew that they would have something to hide which is why the have a policy of confiscating and not returning peoples devices that are capable of recording events that happened so that they can control what’s said. It really doesn’t matter if your press has freedom if they can’t get any information other than what is told to them or provided by their government.
…into what is hopefully a coherent story.
I tried to organize the links into witness accounts that take place prior to the raid, during the raid, and after the raid, but that was not possible. So I just splattered them all here and gave a summary. These widely varying sources do give a somewhat consistent picture.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7143825.ece This article points to the activists’ belief that they were protected by rules that would not allow Israeli forces to board the ships while they remained in international waters. Sarah Colborne’s account starts with this premise, but she doesn’t seem to have witnessed the actual fighting. She does mention the long wait during which several wounded protesters died and could have been given medical attention.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6512XE20100602 This 2nd article confirms the intention to stay in international waters and maintain focus on the blockade while Israel would continue to forbid them to dock in Gaza. In addition, the witnesses’ accounts indicate several groups of differently armed IDF groups attempting to board the ship. For example, there are two videos of commandos boarding the ship, one where they are beaten as they repel from a helicopter and one where they get on ship on some lower deck and look to be well-armed. The activists in this article indicate at least a 3rd group armed with weapons used to control crowds, but not just paint ball guns. There were rubber bullets, batons, stun grenades (I personally think these Israeli stun grenades are the source of activists’ stun grenades as presented by the Israeli government), and tear gas. These types of differing accounts make me think that the storyline of IDF soldiers armed with coriander grenades attacked the ships but only pulled their side-arms after it became a life-threatening situation is overly simplistic. Also, given that the activists thought themselves safe in international waters, they must have shit their pants when they realized an invading force of IDF were coming. I wonder how many were really able to keep themselves controlled enough to evaluate whether it was a deadly bullet, a rubber bullet, or just a paintball coming at them. If unable to do so, they might have seen themselves as people being shot at with no escape.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Deported-Activists-Arrive-in-Turkey-95504044.html Here is a quote which attempts to give actual numbers of Israeli forceswhich gives actual numbers: “Twelve or 13 boats attacked us, along with four or five helicopters,” one man said. " They just opened up fire on us. I heard the captain saying on the VHF radio we are unarmed." I doubt they just opened up on them with live ammunition, but once again, would your average activist know the difference between hearing bullets, rubber bullets, or paintballs hit their ship? Probably not.
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views Now this is by far the most even keeled witness account as it gives support to both sides. It is a quote from Andre Abu Khalil, a Lebanese cameraman for Al Jazeera TV:
So finally a neutral source that gives a sequence of events. Given the mentality of the activists, they were taking prisoners from a force invading Turkish soil. Given the mentality of the IDF, they were attacking hostage-takers to rescue their fellow soldiers. Looks like they were pretty much going to shoot everyone available given the number of wounded. I think this explains the number of headshots on a lot of these individuals. It was the number of guns arrayed against them. This account Israelis "humiliated" ship activists: eyewitness | Reuters adds to the camerman’s story by indicating the commandos had captured some activists and this is part of what initiated negotiations.
Also, this account quotes one of the heads of IHH, who indicates that pistols were taken from Israelis but never used. Turkish News - Latest News from Turkey - Hürriyet Daily News This is substantiated by another activist who says they emptied the guns of bullets and threw them in the water.
Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star Some information provided here on IDF brutality toward captured activists. It looks like they were beating the cuffed Turks. They also waited to give medical treatment to wounded activists and apprarently 4 died unnecessarily due to the number of activists who were doctors and the presence of medical facilities on board the ship (this last part I don’t have a cite for, it was in English Daily Hurriyet about the Turkish woman who returned home with her 1-year old baby, but in this article you get to see how sweet she is: Factbox: Turk aid activists return home after Gaza sea raid | Reuters).
There are also several accounts taken from other ships and they weren’t the peaceful takeovers described by the Israeli government. The activists on these ships were shocked and beaten while resisting the soldiers’ attempts to take-over the ships. There are also accounts of the Mavi Mamara raid from these individuals and they make it look like the assaults were set-up in waves and once the 1st wave went bad the 2nd wave came in with heavier weapons.
My take on what happened given the witnesses accounts:
Before the raid: All parties were geared up for a fight, the IDF and Israeli government had adopted a “we can’t win this” attitude which basically freed them of any responsibility in their minds. Of the activists, it is probably the Turkish ones that were most ready for conflict. They believed that rules governing international waters made that ship Turkish soil. They’re weren’t just going to sit down and let them take it over. They, like everyone on every ship were going to offer token resistance.
During the raid: The IDF came with 13+ boats and 3+ helicopters to the Mavi Mamara alone. The boats surrounding the ship fired with rubber bullets and paintball guns while moving in to board. The soldiers in a single helicopter repelled into angry crowds of protestors. These soldiers were beaten and disarmed, the weapons were discarded for the most part but at least 1 was retained by an activist and later used on Israeli commandos. The defeated soldiers were taken below decks to be treated.
A 2nd assault was rapidly organized and the unprepared IDF made the decision that it was a hostage situation. They approached the with live ammunition toward a group of Turkish protesters who were waving metal bars and shooting at them with slingshots. They opened fire on these protesters and this is why so many Turks are among the dead. They continued to fire which broke all resistance and the commandos were able to raid at will. There was an hour where the activists had not quite given up but subsequently surrendered, or agreed to stop being beaten, killed and injured. As the soldiers captured large groups of people these people were bound and stored in a central location.
After the raid: The soldiers had everyone rounded up, and 1+ more injured died because of a lack of medical treatment that could have been given. The activists spend a day bound and beaten by the soldiers watching them. All evidence was destroyed except those parts which presented the government’s story and those have been distributed on the internet.
After the raid, long-term: **First, a note about martyrdom to Turks ***Anyone following these stories already know that the Turkish dead are being treated as martyrs, an honor given usually only to soldiers that die defending the country, but I am also informed that martyrdom is given to doctors, teachers, other nonviolent government workers who have died in PKK terrorist attacks. I hope that gives you some idea of the heroic status imparted on those who died in the raid. In fact, this treatment of soldiers is equivalent to the way we call our soldiers “heroes” and there is probably very little difference in attitude or connotation to the average person. *
My prediction is the Turkish government will eventually diminish ties to the most basic level. Insults will continue, Ayalon, Lieberman and the other arrogant members of the current Israeli government, and Erdogan’s mouth and popularity in the Arab world will be the major players in the final break.
Israel will give a fair and impartial investigation into the raid. It will come up with results that will be ignored by pretty much everyone. The UN will also do some investigation that will be selectively quoted until long after I am dead. Given the overall positive outcome of the flotilla (for the organizers and the cause, not the dead and wounded obviously) these attempts to break the blockade will continue but there will never be any military protection by the Turkish or any other government.
Thank you for a good bit of work.
Something of information rather than competing spin emerges from this.
I think it important to note the mentality item you highlight:
This probably captures in one paragraph the differing interpretations, and two understandable, but of course highly divergent perceptions.
I also highlight the translation of the Hebrew article I cited earlier which quoted IDF sources in a manner strongly suggesting that the Government and senior commanding leadership had very much put themselves into a “terrorists” frame of mind, which one has to think influenced how the soldiers reacted to the Turkish sailors / activists.
Finally, re the martyrdom, thanks for putting that concisely.
Again this reinforces what an utter cock-up this was, and I think highlights the correctness of the Haaretz rebuke.
You English get all the cool words and phrases! “Cock-up”, “nicked”, etc…