Israel to World: "Suck It."

justanotherfuckingpresident

^ you got it

O_o opinion piece in Slate today

http://www.slate.com/id/2255572/

The debate about the effectiveness of and justification for the Gaza blockade will be useful some day, but it has nothing to do with the raid on the flotilla.

So, the only question that is really relevant to this recent bloodshed on the high seas is about the use of excessive force against the protesters. And it is not a very interesting or complicated question.

Better information was needed. The commandos didn't know they were going to face an angry mob armed with knives and bats. Different equipment was needed: The raiders apparently didn't have enough nonlethal weapons on hand. A more creative approach was needed: Maybe a way to stop the ship without having to board it. But these are all just technical details of an operation gone sour. Those countries and organizations now wanting an "investigation" can get the answers they need without having to trouble themselves with a lengthy examination. Here's what happened: The soldiers were surprised by a mob; they saw their friends being lynched; they acted as any soldier would have and should have acted. To save their fellow soldiers, they opened fire. Civilians were killed. It's no cause for pride—but also nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't see what's so strange - presumably the last line is about the soldiers' conduct rather than the bad planning

the only surprising thing about this to me is how sloppily/shittily the IDF were with this operation. I thought those guys were all supposed to be crack commandos!

I don't see what's so strange - presumably the last line is about the soldiers' conduct rather than the bad planning

I dunno, I think dismissing different approaches (a way to stop the ship without having to board it vs. dropping commandos by helicopter in the dark) as "just technical details" is a pretty crazy way to try to say that if the blockade is justified (an argument the piece dismisses as "for another time"), then any means of enforcement is justified.

i think -- unless they're lying, and both sides do that a lot -- the idf said, please dock at ashdod, change course, etc., the people on the ship said no, then they boarded. it didn't come out of nowhere.

there blatantly is an argument to be had about the israeli/egyptian blockade. but it's in place, the free gaza convoy knew it was, and knew also that it would be enforced.

israel seems to have been really inept in doing so, but what is the right way to stop a ship?

sink it

israel seems to have been really inept in doing so, but what is the right way to stop a ship?

― truff sqwad (history mayne), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 12:45 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

really go ham, just kill everyone

yeah but that would pis of the international community no end. probably better to board it.

s f

good things i've read about this:

Robert Mackey

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/06/israels-aid-to-the-free-gaza-movement-or-how-to-lose-an-information-war.html

# It demonstrated--to Israel's surprise--a fairly high level of tactical incompetence. The IDF, somewhat like the French Army of 1940, has been living off of its past victories for too long. The IDF today isn't the Hagan ah of the 1930s, the Stern Gang of the 1940s or the IDF of 48, 56 or 67.
# What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show.

Thomas PM Barnett

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/turkey-israel-relations-2010

Trust me: Ankara has about as much interest in the Palestinians as the rest of the Muslim regimes in the region; protesting their plight is a means to larger but self-serving ends. Turkey is pursuing a policy of "zero problems" with its neighbors, all right, but elevating its regional influence requires that Ankara not be trumped by Tehran's successful nuclear bid. And that's why Turkey is now committed to demonizing its old ally across the Mediterranean.

"Declaration of war," you say? Allow me to unspin those heads a bit: Israel's three-year-old blockade of the Gaza Strip was already preapproved for official UN censure, thanks to last September's Goldstone Report. The next logical step for Israel's critics was to place it on the international front burner, dislodging the UN Security Council's regional fixation on Tehran's nuclear enrichment program. An aid flotilla loaded with one ringer (i.e., the sixth and largest ship populated with committed activists spoiling for a violent — and videotaped — showdown) was a brilliantly timed move of passive-aggression on Turkey's part. But no fight equals no media coverage, so the flotilla ignored Tel Aviv's demands that the relief supplies be off-loaded in an Israeli port for inspection and subsequent shipment to Gaza. And while the first five ships submitted peacefully to the boarding inspection parties, the sixth exploded in violent resistance — as planned.

Turkey's deputy prime minister called the raid "a dark stain on the history of humanity." So now Ankara has its bloody shirt, which will be used — once Tehran inevitably announces the weaponization of its nukes — to justify Turkey's rapid reach for the same.

IOZ

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/06/jewish-military-union.html

The point that really bears repeating is that the Gaza Strip is a concentration camp. I do not mean that as a metaphor or an analogy. I am not building a comparison. It isn't a figure of speech. Gaza is literally a concentration camp.

but they already knew that they'd be vilified, the int'l community (except for the US lol) is all against them - why bother pulling any punches? blockade's totally loathsome and Israel habitually gets all hard-assed about their military operations, I don't see why they'd have any problems killing a bunch of innocent people. they do it all the time in other circumstances.

xp

So now Ankara has its bloody shirt, which will be used — once Tehran inevitably announces the weaponization of its nukes — to justify Turkey's rapid reach for the same.

this seems like a bit of a stretch to me

esquirebro is otm, tho maybe not so much abt turkish nukes

that's thomas barnett's thing -- everybody wants nukes. i mean, true enough...

two angles to this thing that i'm most interested now: what does Egypt do? and what does Turkey try to do w/r/t NATO?

israel seems to have been really inept in doing so, but what is the right way to stop a ship?

in your own territory rather than international waters so that you unambiguously have the legal upper hand

the nukes angle is unnecessary - the turkey/iran power struggle is pretty evident. could this have happened a few years ago when "should turkey join the EU?" was something people could say with a straight-face?

could this have happened w/ turkey as a focus, I mean (plenty of other countries always willing to bait the most baitable country around)

one of the options they thought about was to damage the propeller of the ship.

now,the IDF seems sorry that option wasnt used.

xxpost

in your own territory rather than international waters so that you unambiguously have the legal upper hand

― i see you windin, grindin up on dat po'boy (crüt), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 6:59 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark

true

tho, you know, p sure this wd have gone down the way it went down wherever it went down

Not to harp on this, but that Rosner piece in Slate is another example of settling in with the "stop hitting yourself" logic and admitting of no other possibilities. It basically says: "There is a blockade. The IDF can legitimately enforce this blockade. If you try to circumvent the legitimacy of this blockade, what the IDF winds up doing to you is your problem."

All of which would be peachy logic if no one on earth had any questions about the moral legitimacy of the blockade, but that is just not the case. I mean, you could use this kind of thinking to come to peace with any kind of atrocity whatsoever: "The state decided on X atrocious policy. Its forces can legitimately enforce that atrocious policy. ..."

Not quite, because the shooting was a response to the soldiers being attacked, not to the breaking of the blockade. The enforcement of the blockade was in the boarding of the boat.

'stop hitting yourself' can just as easily be used to describe israel when it comes to PR / world politics, though.

been reading a lot of flip facebook updates and the like about this. have to say the sloganeering responses on every side of this issue make me sort of sick.

one said some fashionable thing like "to associate judaism and zionism is anti-semitic." uh, like try associating zionism with some other world religion then? see how that works.

i agree w/ nabisco on this one btw.

needless to say other regional gov'ts being totally hypocritical about this but that's been their MO for 62 years.

actually, to nuance that very slightly, iran under the shah was actually one of the first countries to recognize israel in 1948. sort of wild, isn't it?

turkey taking up the cause of palestinians is a bit of irony that goes back way longer than that

the word 'zionism' is basically useless in 2010.

the word 'zionism' is basically useless in 2010.

― iatee, Tuesday, June 1, 2010 9:57 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark

otm. i don't remember it being used in the 1990s, and it seems to be a way to take everything back to first principles every time.

I disagree. I dunno if equating Judaism with zionism is anti-semitic (obviously they're related), but they are not interchangeable concepts, and it is possible to be a Jew without being a zionist.

not EQUATING dude, ASSOCIATING. important difference.

also: thanks for presuming i am an idiot!

sorry no presumption intended I agree with you fwiw

when u presume u make a pres out of u and me

and yes although it's not smart to equate zionism and judaism (believe me, this is NOT a mistake i would make), it's not necessarily "anti-semitic" either.

also hate the way the word "zionism" provokes kneejerk reactions among leftists (jewish and non), like the word "fascism" does in the general population. i mean, jesus, a lot of crimes have been committed in the name of zionism but that's true of, i dunno, socialism as well. does the idea of a jewish state--even if you ultimately disagree w/ it--seem so far beyond the pale that the word "zionism" should provoke an instant chill?

anyway, sorry, this is a distraction.

my post wasn't clear - what I was disagreeing with was the term zionism falling out of use/favor. which was a separate point from my second sentence. sorry.

fwiw I can't recall a time in my life when the term zionism was not common linguistic currency among Jews

xp

maybe it's the narcissism of small differences but knee-jerk would-be-revolutionary leftist intellectuals really irritate me. and there's a LOT of them in my field.

What they could have done--let the ships in. Show the world how caring, etc. Israel is. Don't give the Free Gaza movement the PR victory; take it from them by escorting the ships in, providing Israeli "volunteers" to help unload. Have plenty of international media there for the show.

hahahaha what israel is this guy talking about

The use of the word "Zionism" tends to accompany a with-us-or-against-us mentality for both sides, I think. I particularly dislike it because it implies that one is either anti-Palestinian (Zionist) or against the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. Whereas, while I don't like to call myself a Zionist, I tend to think that a one-state solution is pie in the sky and I don't think that destroying a 62-year-old state at this point is a good option either.

I don't know if I qualify as one of those or not lol

I have a problem with ethnocentric states in principle, that this one happens to be for my particular ethnicity just makes it all the more depressing/frustrating

so many x-posts

"see what the hulk should've done here is reasoned with his opponents"

NO HULK ANGRY SMASH

zionism as we know it is a 19th-century concept. it's really fascinating, actually. there are both dubious and admirable figures associated w/ it, and a lot of complexity. but a lot of the aforementioned leftist intellectuals seem to like to bolster their cred by taking the arab states' former line on zionism, namely that's "a form of racism."

btw most of those intellectuals are jews fwiw.

can somebody please give me a reason why anyone should be using the word 'zionist'? there are many better ways to categorize the many, many political opinions that are associated w/ jewish and israeli people around the world. but I guess 'zionist' allows you to paint them all with one broad, ahistorical brush.

xp

I have a problem with ethnocentric states in principle

well, you know, fine, but most states did not come about in accordance with high principles, and it's kind of interesting how this one in particular gets its legitimacy challenged on the reg when others don't

what basis *should* states be founded on?

'zionist' seems to mostly be a way of distinguishing the good jews xp

Not to get into semantic games, but it's really a religious state more than an ethnic state (Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews and Moroccan Jews being about as ethnically different as any other three groups).

The world is full of ethnocentric and/or religio-centric states. I mean pretty much all the Arab states are implicitly Arab-centric. In fact the formation of a Jewish state was particularly upsetting as it coincided with burgeoning Arab nationalism in the region as the British Empire receded.

well any state that's designed to privilege one ethnic group over another is going to end up being racist in practice as well as principle imho. there are plenty of examples of this. but my issues with zionism are also historical and political - in that the creation of Israel was a last gasp of colonialism AND collective guilt, with a fairly tenuous historical rationale attached to it (I don't see why the Jews' claim on the territory is any more legitimate than any other of the numerous groups that have occupied that particular strip of land over the last few thousand years). Just the whole entitlement involved in the creation of the state - "this is ours cuz God said so. Also so did these foreign powers who are sorry for treating us like shit for the last 2,000 years, lol now get out" - is just gross.

but I'm sure you've heard all this haha

x-posts