Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The point? I asked you why you was lying for the sake of pure propoganda...

Lying about WHAT?

Lying about WHAT?

Lots of things , but lets start with the last post you really dodged(apart from all those horrible legality ones).
That would be #616 which I asked you about in #617, which you followed with as a "response" a pile of entirely unrelated things which I again said were nothing to do with the falsehoods you were questioned about.

It really is very simple, please keep up to speed.
If you get stuck then just run through the makeup of your current coilition and see some of the fruitcakes and their sponsers,then I suppose you can look at any reasonable Israeli media outlet over the past decade or two and find a pletheora of reported incidents that show up the falseness of your statement.
That is the beauty of your attempt at propoganda, it is easily demolished using nothing but primary Israeli sources

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Lots of things , but lets start with the last post you really dodged(apart from all those horrible legality ones).
That would be #616 which I asked you about in #617, which you followed with as a "response" a pile of entirely unrelated things which I again said were nothing to do with the falsehoods you were questioned about.

It really is very simple, please keep up to speed.
If you get stuck then just run through the makeup of your current coilition and see some of the fruitcakes and their sponsers,then I suppose you can look at any reasonable Israeli media outlet over the past decade or two and find a pletheora of reported incidents that show up the falseness of your statement.
That is the beauty of your attempt at propoganda, it is easily demolished using nothing but primary Israeli sources

I'm not sure what you asking for but yes we have small minority fruitcakes sponsored by whoever...there are nut cases Jewish religious zealots.
Prime Minister Rabin was shot by one of them.
Still we are democratic society which don't preach toward hatred.
I live in Jerusalem i served with IDF and i don't hate Palestinians i WANT them to have THEIR state but not at all coast.
If removing all settlements would bring real peace and not more terror i'm ready to vote for it-but well this is unrealistic(for now?) and was already experimented with.
As you said you can learn anything about anything from Israeli sources because we are country of free speech and and opinions, not propaganda.-whats wrong with that?
Try to see Israeli news or debates you can sometimes hear stronger criticism than yours.

About that chain e-mail thing.
I don't care what it is but it goes along certain line of thought which is very close to my perception of whats going on here in Middle East.
Come on... you know and i know that tolerance is not strong point of Arabs and they are still emerging from dark ages.
Just see Syrian or even Egyptian TV(they are relatively progressive ones) or AL Jezira which feeds Arabs one sided crap.
Not even start talking about human rights in some of those countries if not all of them...

From Haaretz, by Gideon Levy.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...idity-1.292959

"Gaza flotilla drives Israel into a sea of stupidity

The Israeli propaganda machine has reached new highs its hopeless frenzy. It has distributed menus from Gaza restaurants, along with false information. It embarrassed itself by entering a futile public relations battle, which it might have been better off never starting. They want to maintain the ineffective, illegal and unethical siege on Gaza and not let the "peace flotilla" dock off the Gaza coast? There is nothing to explain, certainly not to a world that will never buy the web of explanations, lies and tactics. ..."

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Rubber- and high sea-speedboats with missiles, operating from Lebanon.

No, that is no joke.

If they get sunk, the loss for Iran is almost not to be felt, but the anti-Israel propaganda victory would be tremendous.

Didn't think of that but very possible. They did ship some Tir class torpedo boats to Syria for their Navy.

[MH]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

From Haaretz, by Gideon Levy.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...idity-1.292959

"Gaza flotilla drives Israel into a sea of stupidity

The Israeli propaganda machine has reached new highs its hopeless frenzy. It has distributed menus from Gaza restaurants, along with false information. It embarrassed itself by entering a futile public relations battle, which it might have been better off never starting. They want to maintain the ineffective, illegal and unethical siege on Gaza and not let the "peace flotilla" dock off the Gaza coast? There is nothing to explain, certainly not to a world that will never buy the web of explanations, lies and tactics. ..."

Oh well ....Gidon Levi.
He has his own opinion.
Its funny you quote Israeli Haaretz and talk about ISRAELI PROPAGANDA MACHINE at the same time.

[Skybird]

By character, I tend to be a passive, reacting man. But two things in my life taught me that this might not be a good way to adress conflicts one cannot avoid: chess (which I play since 38 years now, since my 5th year on this planet), and martial arts (which I have trained for short of 20 years, until some ten years ago). I believe in the principle of "acting is better than reacting" - although that sets up quite a challenge to my habits and my mind occassionally. By my nature, I feel more comfortable with not needing to act first in a conflict, but by reality I understand the advantage of doing so, and the disadvantage of allowing the opponent/enemy to go first.

With propaganda, it is the same. Every psychologist will confirm that it is the first statement that gets yelled out that will be remembered by people. What comes after that in corrections, evidence for the first claim being wrong, and attempts to counter it, is less likely to be cared for, or to be believed. That's why some old political lies live on and on even when meanwhile they have been proven to be lies. The Jenin "massacre" is one example, or the claims Bush made in order to excuse why he attacked Iraq.

This article is about why Israel must learn again why in the propaganda war acting is better than reacting. Not that the Israelis, and the Mossad, do not try some propaganda coups of their own. They do, no doubt, and sometimes they show great competence in doing so (and soemtimes they mess up badly). It's just that they allowed to be pushed into the defence, and just reacting to propaganda attacks of their enemies.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...-defense-15459

The Problem With Playing Defense
by Noah Pollak

Given past performances, I'd say that Israel and its supporters are doing a better-than-average job of quickly beating back the international lynch mob that loves nothing more than propagating lies about Israel. The key weapon in this fight for truth has been of the IDF commandos descending onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara and into a hornet's nest of murderous "peace activists."

This kind of after-the-fact truth-telling is good as far as it goes, but it actually doesn't go very far: it is restricted to responding to lies, exaggerations, and accusations. Israel is on the receiving end of a viciously negative political campaign, and as any campaign strategist knows, you don't respond to a negative campaign by expending all your energy trying to explain why the lies aren't true -- you go negative and play offense in return.

What would it look like if the Israeli government played offense? First and foremost, this would require some serious criticism of the Islamist government of Turkey, which masterfully created this crisis and is now denouncing Israel for it. Turkey's thuggish prime minister certainly understands the benefits of being on offense. He says that Israel committed a "massacre" and is guilty of "state terrorism," "piracy," has struck "a blow to world peace and against international law," threatens that "if Israel does not immediately free all the detainees and wounded, the rift in relations with it will widen," and thunders that "Israel will not be able to show itself in the world until it apologizes for what happened and undergoes self-criticism."

Quite a performance! Wouldn't it be remarkable if the Israelis had gotten ahead of the story by making their own accusations and demands? Here are a few ideas of the kind of concrete action the Israelis could take -- if they had the stones to really take a stand.

1. Expel the Turkish ambassador and declare his return contingent on a full, credible, and public Turkish investigation of the terrorist organization that planned and funded the "aid flotilla."

2. Publicly demand reparations from Turkey for the costs of the operation, including the medical bills of the thugs and Jew-haters who have been given such lovely medical care in Israeli hospitals.

3. Demand a UN investigation of why Turkey is funding terrorist organizations that are involved in attacks on Israel.

4. Fund a Kurdish human-rights NGO in Israel -- there are lots of Kurdish Jews who I'm sure would be happy to help -- that raises awareness of the plight of Kurds in Turkey. (Short answer: they are treated horribly.) This organization must publicize the apartheid conditions of Kurdish life in Turkey and churn out op-eds, studies, videos, and press releases denouncing Turkey's brutal and racist treatment of its own minorities.

5. Fund a Turkish-language documentary on the Armenian genocide, upload it to YouTube, and promote it heavily in Turkey. If Erdogan wants to call Israel a criminal and a murderer, there's no reason why Israel shouldn't return the favor on this most sensitive of issues.

The model of hasbara, or public diplomacy, that Israel has employed for decades is premised on the persuasiveness of reason, evidence, context, truth, fairness, and apology. Anyone who has been following events in Israel over the past few years understands how profoundly this strategy has failed. For obvious historic reasons, many Jews have internalized the dangerous belief that the best way to respond to condemnation and lies is to show how unthreatening and willing to criticize and investigate themselves they are. The problem is that not only doesn't this work; it actually invites further attack by rewarding those who defame and incite against the Jewish state.

Israel's hasbara strategy must shift to one that is based on power, self-confidence, and an eagerness to vigorously condemn its defamers. This is the difference between driving the debate and reacting to it, refuting lies and validating them, offense and defense, setting the agenda versus being on the agenda. If the Israelis wish to see a good model for how to set the terms of a controversy, they need only look at the Turkish prime minister's brilliant performance this week.

[Bilge_Rat]

some more facts and news came out over the weekend.

The NY Times quotes a turkish doctor who was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara. He saw a small group of activists attack the soldiers as soon as they landed, stabbing them, beating them with wooden and metal poles and taking their weapons away. The "gunfire" from the helicopters appears to be rubber bullets shot to disperse the crowd. It's more and more clear that the IDF's version of what happened is the correct one.

The crack of an Israeli sound grenade and a hail of rubber bullets from above were supposed to disperse activists, but instead set them in motion. And when three Israeli commandos slid down ropes out of helicopters to take over the ship, a crowd set upon them.

“They ran at them without pause or hesitation,” Dr. Coskun recalled.

One soldier was stabbed and two were beaten. From that moment on, the attempted takeover turned into an armed assault, with angry Israeli commandos opening fire. Within an hour, the commandos had taken control of the ship, and nine Turks, including one who also had American citizenship, were dead.

On the morning of the raid, confusion ruled. The first soldiers who rappelled down the ropes appeared disoriented and frightened, Dr. Coskun, the Turkish witness, said, slipping a bit on the dewy deck and calling out in English, which Dr. Coskun said few Turks understood.

Of the two ropes that were dropped simultaneously from the helicopter, one was grabbed by men on board the boat and tied to an antenna, Israeli officials said. The pilot released it to avoid being tethered to the boat, and the commandos then slid down only one rope, slowing the incursion and leaving them vulnerable.

Some of the activists, hearing the pop of the plastic bullets and the sound bomb, believed they were being shot, according to witnesses, including some wounded now in an Ankara hospital.

It was a small group of aggressive activists on the upper deck who overwhelmed the first soldiers, wrenching away their weapons and, according to Dr. Coskun and video images supplied by the Israeli military, beating them with wooden poles and metal rods that they had ripped or sawed off the side of the boat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/wo...ref=middleeast

The NY Times also reports on the takeover of the Rachel Corrie. The IDF learned its lessons since the takeover took place 23 miles offshore, in daylight (12:30 pm). More importantly, Ireland and Israel had come to an agreement on friday that the cargo would be unloaded and inspected at Ashdod, but the activists rejected this:

On Friday, the Israeli and Irish governments reached an agreement to unload the vessel’s cargo in Ashdod, in southern Israel, and transport it to Gaza, but the group sponsoring both this ship and the Turkish flotilla, the Free Gaza Movement, rejected the deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/wo...ref=middleeast

Well then there should be no problem in having the UN do a full examination of what happened. Rubber bullits can still kill you, especially at close range, adds another piece of aggression from the IDF side.

[Skybird]

In 2008, Henryk Broder was invited to deliver a speech on the issue of anti-semitism and anti-zionism to Domestic Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag. This speech I knew since long in it's German original, but today I found out that somebody has translated it into English some time ago, and so: here it is. I liked it very much the first time I've read about it, because it very much reflects the same reasons why I call call the global anti-Israeli mood a form of antisemtiism, too.

Good read.

Antisemitism Without Antisemites
by Henryk Broder

I thank you for the invitation to this hearing. It is an honor for me to be able to speak to you. I know that there has been some unhappiness on account of my participation. But I am sure that by the end of my statement you will not regret having invited me.

This is not the first hearing on the issue of anti-Semitism and it will not be the last. Ever since the writer and self-avowed Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr published his “The Triumph of Germandom [Deutschtum] over Jewry” in 1879, thus becoming the leader of political anti-Semitism in imperial Germany, there have been numerous attempts made to define, explain, and neutralize anti-Semitism. They have all failed. If this was not the case, we would not be here today. Every discussion of anti-Semitism starts with a definition of the concept. And many get no further than that, such that after all the efforts to get a grasp on the phenomenon one is left merely with the finding that anti-Semitism is, as the old joke goes, “when one can’t stand Jews even more than is normal.”

I would like, therefore, to concentrate on two points: two arguments to which one has to pay special attention if one does not want to conduct a merely virtual debate. Firstly, anti-Semitism is not a matter of a prejudice, but rather of a sort of resentment. In and of themselves, prejudices — literally “pre-judgments” [Vorurteile] — are harmless. I have prejudices, you have prejudices: everyone does. It is only negative prejudices that bother us. If I say to you that Germans are hardworking, disciplined, and show their guests great hospitality, you will happily agree with me. If, however, I say that Germans are cheap, infantile, and lack a sense of humor, you will presumably get upset. That’s an unacceptable generalization, you will say. It is the same with Jews. We gladly hear positive prejudices expressed — on the “people of the book” or Jewish humor — but negative prejudices, which thematize our worse tendencies, we take as an insult.

The distinction between a prejudice and a resentment is as follows: a prejudice concerns a person’s behavior; a resentment concerns that person’s very existence. Anti-Semitism is a resentment. The anti-Semite does not begrudge the Jew how he is or what he does, but that he is at all. The anti-Semite takes offense as much at the Jew’s attempts to assimilate as at his self-marginalization. Rich Jews are exploiters; poor Jews are freeloaders. Smart Jews are arrogant and dumb Jews — and, yes, there are also dumb Jews — are a disgrace to Jewry. The anti-Semite blames Jews in principle for everything and its opposite. That is why there is no point in trying to debate anti-Semites or in wanting to convince them of the absurdity of their views. One has to marginalize anti-Semites: to isolate them in a sort of social quarantine. Society must make clear that it disdains both anti-Semitism and anti-Semites: just as it disdains parents beating their children and rape — including spousal rape — even though it well knows that it cannot monitor everything that transpires behind closed doors.

Secondly, if you want to come to terms with anti-Semitism, you must realize that it is not a fixed quantity like the meter prototype in Paris or the definition of the volt, watt, or ampere. Like all social phenomena, anti-Semitism is susceptible to transformation. Even poverty is no longer today what it once was at the time of Oliver Twist. The anti-Semitism that we are most readily inclined to discuss is an artifact of the last century and the century before that. It is the anti-Semitism of fools, who are still chasing chimeras. [In the late 19th century, the German Social Democrat August Bebel famously described anti-Semitism as the "socialism of fools." -- Translator's Note] The common anti-Semite has no real idea about the object of his obsessions, but only a diffuse feeling. He lets off steam by painting swastikas on aluminum siding and scribbling “Juda verrecke” ["Jews go croak!"] on gravestones. He is a case for the police and the local courts, but nothing more than that. Nobody is going to feel sympathy for thugs who raise their arms to give the Hitler salute and shout “Juden raus!” ["Jews out!"]. This sort of anti-Semitism is ugly, but politically irrelevant: it is its own death notice.

The modern anti-Semite looks entirely different. He does not have a shaved head. He has good manners and often an academic title as well. He mourns for the Jews who died in the Holocaust. But at the same time he wonders why the survivors and their descendants have learned nothing from history and today treat another people as badly as they were once treated themselves. The modern anti-Semite does not believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But instead he fantasizes about an “Israel lobby” that is supposed to control American foreign policy like a tail that wags the dog. For the modern anti-Semite, it goes without saying that every year on January 27 he will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. But at the same time he militates for the right of Iran to have atomic weapons. For “how can one deny Iran what one has permitted Israel or Pakistan?” as Norman Paech [the foreign policy spokesperson of the German Left Party] has put it. Or he inverts the causal relationship and claims that it is Israel that is threatening Iran and not vice-versa — as [German Middle East scholar] Dr. Udo Steinbach did in a recent radio interview. The modern anti-Semite finds ordinary anti-Semitism disgraceful. He has no problem, however, embracing anti-Zionism and is grateful for the opportunity to express his resentment in a politically correct form. For anti-Zionism is a sort of resentment just like classical anti-Semitism was. The anti-Zionist has the same attitude toward Israel as the anti-Semite has to Jews. He is not bothered by what Israel does or does not do, but rather by the fact that Israel exists. That is why he participates so passionately in debates about the solution to the Palestinian question — which could well mean a final solution for Israel. On the other hand, he is left indifferent by conditions in Darfur or Zimbabwe or Congo or Cambodia, because there are no Jews involved in those places. Ask the foreign policy spokesperson of the Left Party, for instance, how many statements he has issued about “Palestine” and how many about Tibet.

Earlier — let’s say at the time of classical anti-Semites like Wilhelm Marr, Karl Lueger, and Adolf Stoecker — everything was plain and simple. There were Jews, there were anti-Semites, and there was anti-Semitism. After 1945, for the well-known reasons, we then had in Germany an anti-Semitism without Jews. And now today we are again confronted by a new phenomenon: an anti-Semitism without anti-Semites. Another new phenomenon is the professional profile of what might be called the “leisure time anti-Semite” who does his regular job during the day, perhaps even in a federal government office, and then in his spare time writes “critical” texts on Israel that appear on obscure anti-Zionist websites. [The reference is to Ludwig Watzal, an official of Germany's Federal Office for Civic Education (BpB), many of whose articles have been reprinted on the site antimperialista.org. See here on Watzal. The BpB has resisted calls for Watzal's dismissal, arguing that the writings in question are not connected to his professional activity. -- Translator's Note] Nobody wants to be an anti-Semite, but the “anti-Zionist” hall of shame is getting increasingly crowded.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are two sides of the same coin. If the anti-Semite was convinced that it is not him, the anti-Semite, who is to blame for anti-Semitism, but rather the Jew himself who is to blame, so too is the anti-Zionist convinced that Israel is responsible not only for the suffering of the Palestinians, but also for the hardship it suffers itself. The older persons among you will perhaps remember what a Green Party politician, who is still a member of the Bundestag, said about the Iraqi rockets that were fired at Israel at the time of the first Gulf War in 1991: “The Iraqi rocket attacks are the logical, nearly unavoidable consequence of Israeli policy.” [The author of the quote is Green Party Member of Parliament Hans-Christian Ströbele. -- Translator's Note] At the time, the same Green Party politician also opposed the delivery of defensive weapons like Patriot rockets to Israel, because this would, he claimed, lead to an escalation in the hostilities.

Today, some 17 years later, we hear similar remarks about rocket attacks on Israel from southern Lebanon or the Gaza Strip: namely, that they are the logical, nearly unavoidable result of Israeli occupation and that Israel would do well not to react in order to avoid escalating hostilities. The modern anti-Semite pays tribute to Jews who have been dead for 60 years, but he resents it when living Jews take measures to defend themselves. He screams “Beware of the Beginnings!” when a handful of weekend Nazis hold a demonstration in Cottbus, but he justifies the policies of the current Iranian president and defends the continuation of German business with Iran.

Ladies and gentleman, we will not solve the problem of anti-Semitism: not at this hearing nor at the next. But the mere fact that you are discussing the issue — when there are also other and more pressing problems that need attention — is a good sign. If I may in all modesty make a suggestion: leave the good old anti-Semitism to the archaeologists and antiquarians and historians. Devote your attention to the modern anti-Semitism that wears the disguise of anti-Zionism and to its representatives. You will find some of the latter among your own ranks.

I thank you for listening.

(English Translation by John Rosenthal)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anti-se...inglepage=true

German version:
http://www.lizaswelt.net/2008/06/ant...emiten_16.html

I'm not sure what you asking for but yes

There you go, it was really that simple wasn't it, what you wrote was not true and you knew it wasn't true.
You were doing absolutes where there are non, you keep falling into the one sided trap.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well then there should be no problem in having the UN do a full examination of what happened.

yeah right, like that is going to happen, we all know what the results of an "impartial" UN investigation will be:

The U.N. Human Rights Council voted 32 to 3 to adopt an Arab and Islamic-sponsored resolution that began by declaring Israel guilty of committing an “outrageous attack” in monday’s Intifada on the high seas, and ended by creating a probe to find the facts.

UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights monitoring group in Geneva, praised the U.S., Italy and Netherlands for opposing the “deeply flawed” text, as well as Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, U.K., Japan, South Korea, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Zambia and Madagacar for refusing to support the resolution by abstaining or absenting themselves.

(...)

“Not surprsisingly, the sponsors of the text include the chief military, financial and political sponsors of Hamas — Iran and Syria — along with such tyrannies as genocidal Sudan and dictatorial Libya.”

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/20...ion-to-israel/

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There you go, it was really that simple wasn't it, what you wrote was not true and you knew it wasn't true.
You were doing absolutes where there are non, you keep falling into the one sided trap.

I dont know what you saying -all i wrote is true.
You still rant abouts something i don't understand.
You want me to admit to some things i cant.Maybe that we are baby-killers?
Why don't you please just spell it out if you are so sure that i lie.
I I'm not shamed to admit to anything that IS true.

[tater]

For those reflexive leftists here, don't you hate fundamentalists? Say Jerry Falwell (sp?) and his ilk?

I sure do. They are regressive, and against everything positive and humanist accomplished by western civilization.

Hamas, and this "aid group" are Islamists. They, like all other sects of Islam with more than a handful of members are fundamentalists (biblical or in this case koranic literalists). All. The shining light of Islamic secularism is...

Turkey.

Now run by, you guessed it, Islamists.

Why always side with fundamentalist Islamists? They are against everything the political left stands for socially.

The real issue is one of geopolitics. We need the destabilizing force of Israel in the Eastern Med and Western Middle East. An ascendant Turkey is showing itself to be a Bad Thing™. As the more traditional Easterners have outbred the more secular West, the demographics have changed, and I fear that Turkey is going to be a powerful, Islamist state. This is bad. Period.

If they get truly powerful, and Europe starts having problems, will the Poles come down and save civilization again? I hope so.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by MH

I dont know what you saying -all i wrote is true.
You still rant abouts something i don't understand.
You want me to admit to some things i cant.Maybe that we are baby-killers?
Why don't you please just spell it out if you are so sure that i lie.

Tribesman always accuses of lying anyone that doesnt support his radical leftist agenda.

In his world he doesnt ever have to act based on limited time or info, he has never made a mistake because he doesnt do anything but rant online and criticize others after someone else has acted.

He doesnt see that there are exactly absolutes surrounding Israel and there is no middle ground with those forces.