Israel to World: "Suck It."

Tom D close enough on JAFP

I didn't see it as a reminder that the blockade exists because of Shalit, esp since that's not the reason for the blockade. I just saw it as a sign of goodwill -- like here are the supplies, please release this dude. I think everyone agrees that Hamas's demands for releasing Shalit (releasing 1,000 convicted terrorists from prison) is pretty odious.

It's like passive aggressiveness raised to Level 10.

can you explain further tracer? why passive aggressive?

not enough gunshots

amateurist you don't see anything passive-aggressive about greeting pro-gaza demonstrators with female IDF soldiers dressed all in white (and presumably smiling beatifically), holding a letter to deliver to the man on whom 1000 acts of petty and not-so-petty revenge have been justified??

I mean yeah, in the end they just went with full on "aggressive", and by "aggressive" I mean "slaughter", which is more honest I guess.

lol at the idea that it's better to kill a bunch of people and "be honest" than deliver letters to a prisoner in a staged event. if that's passive aggressive, would take it over actual aggressive any day.

tracer: you mean it would have been dishonest to make that gesture when the blockade is so hurting the people of gaza?

sorry, i wasn't arguing w/ you, just trying to understand.

passive-aggressive shit should be considered something of a step-up (for both sides)

the IDF certainly seemed surprised and unprepared.

― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 2:13 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

I mean yeah, in the end they just went with full on "aggressive", and by "aggressive" I mean "slaughter", which is more honest I guess.

― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 3:56 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

sorry, just to clarify, which is it?

a - surprised
b - unprepared
c - aggressive
d - all of the above

passive-aggressive shit should be considered something of a step-up (for both sides)

I agree! Maybe eventually Israel could just make assholish symbolic gestures their usual thing instead of illegal state killing. Think big!

Oh and before anybody gets on me: YES, THE SAME GOES FOR HAMAS, TOTALLY. THEY TOO HAVE BEEN JUST TERRIBLE.

ooh, rim-shot

I still don't get what's assholish about symbolic gestures -- aren't politics 99% of the time symbolic? Isn't that kind of the point?

I think you just answered your own question

Newp.

but it wouldn't be wholly or even mostly symbolic if they actually let the aid through. it would be like a real thing with some symbolic stuff added on.

Mordy I'm not going to continue explaining why I think the journalist's proposal about soldiers dressed in white bearing a letter to deliver to a political prisoner is passive-aggressive way to greet people laden with 10,000 tonnes of aid for people those same soldiers are enforcing a lifetime of misery on. Oh wait I guess I am. Well, anyway.

didn't you just agree that passive-aggressiveness is a step-up?

This is inane, so I'm dropping it. If Tracer has a problem with symbolic gestures like sending letters to a kidnapped dude then I'm not going to argue about it.

It's totally inane - but I think it's worth reflecting on how such gimmickry could appeal to heads of state. If the issue is the blockade, then deflect, deflect, deflect..

Anyway, the Belfast Palestine Solidarity Committee is apparently sending a ship called "MV Rachel Corrie".. That'll end well.

Obama administration will stand with Israel.

Tracer, it's 25 hours from Gaza:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0601/breaking33.html

Jesus Christ why do I read the comments on these things.

xpost

I'm glad uh 'Micheál Martin' has decided to take the Israel/Palestine situation in his own hands

Jewish American Funky Princess?

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