New Video of so-called peace activists.

[Shady]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYjuDEZw1w&feature=player_embedded#!

Now they are saying that they will launch a fleet against us. That they will send the commandos here. And we say, 'If you send the commandos, we will throw you down from here and you will be humiliated in front of the whole world'," he told the crowd, who responded by chanting "Allahu akbar".

Another speaker told those present in Arabic, "Don't be like the ones who turned back and don't turn back." Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch can be seen sitting among the crowd.

An Egyptian parliament member then shouted to the crowd: "Millions of martyrs marching to Gaza," and the crowd echoed his words.

The Foreign Ministry said the footage was found among the possessions of one of the flotilla's passengers.

Link

I'm guessing that nobody is really suprised.

[Bob]

Yeah, I saw it this morning. These animals are pure jihadists, to them it's clearly a religious war. Hatred of Jews and Israel is a core belief to them.

To me, the untold story of the Fauxtilla is how moronic the IDF must be to send soldiers onto a boat, ONE AT A TIME, with PAINTBALL GUNS, onto a clearly hostile boat. We know from experience that terrorists and extremists always wrap themselves up in the cloak of "peace activism", with the goals of killing us. Yet we sent in nineteen-year-olds ONE AT A TIME, with instructions NOT TO SHOOT, and misinformation about the true violent intentions of those aboard. After the events, the soldiers said they were "surprised" by the viciousness of the violence they endured. Why were they surprised? That's who these people are! What kind of leadership tells it soldiers not to expect serious danger from terrorists and agitators?

The most sickening part - only once they're assaulted, stabbed, shot, and beaten, do they radio back TO ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DEFEND THEMSELVES and protect their lives. This is insanity. Our boys are bleeding and dying so that we may appease liberal idiots thousands of kilometres away who hate us.

Unsurprisingly, these same liberal idiots then criticize Israel for behaving too aggressively.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Bob

[sharkman]

That video offers proof that they were planning to commit violence, and it wasn't ever a peaceful protest. But of course having pipes to attack with would prove that for anyone with an open mind. The thing is, the supplies that the ships carried were cleared after they were inspected, and had they simply let the soldiers do their jobs they would have achieved it. Very even handed of Israel to do this.

[Bob]

Unfortunately, Israel is acquiescing to the demands of its enemies. The message being sent is that terrorism and delegitimization are effective tools against Israel and the USA. Obama didn't take a position in response to fauxtilla, rather he sat on the fence and didn't support Israel. Obama isn't coming out strongly in support of Israel's security needs at the UN. Israel itself is bowing to the pressure of its enemies by loosening the blockade and outsourcing its security to outsiders (i.e. allowing Turks to play a role in monitoring the flow of goods and people between Israel, the Mediterranean, and Gaza), and conducting an "investigation" with outsiders into events that clearly do not need an investigation. Israel's very right to defend itself is under attack from many fronts. Bassad says that war is now more likely in the reason. Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, and other enemy countries are promising to send ships with martyrs who intend to force the IDF to use violence. The situation doesn't look good.

[Guest American Woman]

Interesting video, and I think it shows exactly what Israel claims it shows; here's another take on it, however:

"If any fair-minded person looked at that video, they would see the leader of a group trying to put heart into people who were unarmed and facing real danger," [Felice Gelman, an activist for the Wespac Foundation who traveled twice to Gaza last year] said.

Gelman compared the language on the video to a coach giving a pep talk. link

I wonder if she would think it was a "fair minded person" who dismissed the same words from say, Israel, that way, if the words actually became a reality?

Seems to me it confirms what Israel said happened, a claim that was made before any knowledge of the "pep talk."

[Jack Weber]

Interesting video, and I think it shows exactly what Israel claims it shows; here's another take on it, however:

"If any fair-minded person looked at that video, they would see the leader of a group trying to put heart into people who were unarmed and facing real danger," [Felice Gelman, an activist for the Wespac Foundation who traveled twice to Gaza last year] said.

Gelman compared the language on the video to a coach giving a pep talk. link

I wonder if she would think it was a "fair minded person" who dismissed the same words from say, Israel, that way, if the words actually became a reality?

Seems to me it confirms what Israel said happened, a claim that was made before any knowledge of the "pep talk."

Did Benito Mussolini ever give his "team" a "pep talk"?

How 'bout Herr Schicklegruber?

Osama Bin Laden?

[eyeball]

I wonder if she would think it was a "fair minded person" who dismissed the same words from say, Israel, that way, if the words actually became a reality?

Perhaps in hindsight she and others will from now on. You have to at least allow for the possibility...

Seems to me it confirms what Israel said happened, a claim that was made before any knowledge of the "pep talk."

...but only if you choose to I guess.

[eyeball]

Did Benito Mussolini ever give his "team" a "pep talk"?

How 'bout Herr Schicklegruber?

Osama Bin Laden?

How about George Bush?

[Jack Weber]

How about George Bush?

Knute Rockne?

Vince Lombardi?

[myata]

Even with reservations about correctness of translation that no fair minded individual can take for granted without independent verification from a side directly involved in the conflict, I could see nothing in this video but 1) determination to reach Gaza and 2) resist armed assault if it happens.

No incitement of unprovoked violence, nothing to confirm Israel's claims of weapons smuggling (we'll have to see the conclusion of independent enquiry on that). No, Israel does not hold exclusive rights on violence in the region, and if need be force and violence can be resisted with such. Though it may not be the best strategy one cannot deny that it's a legitimate strategy.

[Guest American Woman]

....I could see nothing in this video but 1) determination to reach Gaza and 2) resist armed assault if it happens.

How is "boarding [the] ship" an "armed assault?" Surely they knew that the chances of Israel boarding the ship were very real, so how could they say they wanted to break the blockade "peacefully" when they planned on throwing Israeli soldiers overboard for boarding the ship?

Their mission was not a peaceful one since they had plans to be violent if confronted at all; "boarding the ship" does not equal "armed assault," and should have been expected considering there's a blockade in force.

[Bob]

Even with reservations about correctness of translation that no fair minded individual can take for granted without independent verification from a side directly involved in the conflict, I could see nothing in this video but 1) determination to reach Gaza and 2) resist armed assault if it happens.

No incitement of unprovoked violence, nothing to confirm Israel's claims of weapons smuggling (we'll have to see the conclusion of independent enquiry on that). No, Israel does not hold exclusive rights on violence in the region, and if need be force and violence can be resisted with such. Though it may not be the best strategy one cannot deny that it's a legitimate strategy.

More ignorance. The unprovoked violence started in the late 19th century through Arab and Muslims terrorism against the growing Jewish presence and subsequent statehood in the region. That was the unprovoked violence. Israel and the Jewish people have been defending ourselves ever since.

This didn't start two weeks ago. It didn't start when Israel placed the blockade on Gaza in 2007. It didn't start after Israel's liberation of territory in 1967. This is a continuation of Arab and Muslim hostility to Jewish self-determination, as they view Israel's existence as an affront to Arab land.

The fauxtilla incident didn't occur in a vacuum outside of the historical context of the region and certainly isn't a valid arbitrary starting point for any conflict.

[Bob]

How is "boarding [the] ship" an "armed assault?" Surely they knew that the chances of Israel boarding the ship were very real, so how could they say they wanted to break the blockade "peacefully" when they planned on throwing Israeli soldiers overboard for boarding the ship?

Their mission was not a peaceful one since they had plans to be violent if confronted at all; "boarding the ship" does not equal "armed assault," and should have been expected considering there's a blockade in force.

Exactly. Refusing the permission of the ship the go to Gaza based on legitimate, legal, moral, and necessary security grounds (any country would do the same) isn't "armed assault". When the ship refused to comply with instructions from the Israeli Navy it then became legitimate for a forceful takeover to steer the ship to Ashdod.

Unfortunately, the brave young boys who boarded the ship one at a time were ill-informed about the nature or these agitators, who were clearly intent on killing the soldiers. What kind of moronic intelligence were these soldiers given, considering that they were surprised to be viciously assaulted by hate-filled agitators? Any reasonable person knows that the types of people who go on these ships are likely to be hate-filled and violent. Only when the soldiers had their lives and safety threatened did they radio their controller for permission to use necessary force to protect themselves - only after several commandos were stabbed and shot. Another example of Israeli soldiers being put as risk to appease extremist politics - the same things happens in the USA, with American soldiers being wounded and killed with ridiculous rules of engagement and political considerations being put before security and military necessity.

Based on these recent events, hopefully the IDF will smarten up and take a much more conservative and cautious approach to future ships trying to make a political statement and incite violence. No more hesitation, more stern commands to trespassing vessels, and with more serious consequences for non-compliance.

[sharkman]

Interesting video, and I think it shows exactly what Israel claims it shows; here's another take on it, however:

"If any fair-minded person looked at that video, they would see the leader of a group trying to put heart into people who were unarmed and facing real danger," [Felice Gelman, an activist for the Wespac Foundation who traveled twice to Gaza last year] said.

Gelman compared the language on the video to a coach giving a pep talk. link

I wonder if she would think it was a "fair minded person" who dismissed the same words from say, Israel, that way, if the words actually became a reality?

Seems to me it confirms what Israel said happened, a claim that was made before any knowledge of the "pep talk."

Characterizing the peaceful protest of the blockade as facing real danger seems dubious to me. The first 2 ships of the protest were peaceful as they were searched, and nothing happened. It wasn't until they pulled out the pipes and began striking soldiers that things went wrong. And I'm pretty sure that those bringing pipes with the intent to injure knew that would get a response from the Israelis.

[Bob]

Characterizing the peaceful protest of the blockade as facing real danger seems dubious to me. The first 2 ships of the protest were peaceful as they were searched, and nothing happened. It wasn't until they pulled out the pipes and began striking soldiers that things went wrong. And I'm pretty sure that those bringing pipes with the intent to injure knew that would get a response from the Israelis.

They got exactly what they wanted, eight of the nine vessels were diverted without serious incident, but at least one group on the Mavi Marmara intended to cause violence and achieve martyrdom. Those aboard the Mavi Marmara wanted to put the IDF in a position where it would need to use violence to protect itself, and therefore lead to the typical jeering and outrage from Israel's enemies (i.e. myata). The predictable outrage from Muslims, Arabs, and other typical anti-Israel groups came out like clockwork.

Unfortunately, we've seen weak leadership from the international community, as usual, with respect to these events. Even Israel is showing weakness by complying with the pressure to loosen the blockade and weaken its security with respect to Gaza. Israel can never allow its right to self-defense to be undermined.

[myata]

How is "boarding [the] ship" an "armed assault?" Surely they knew that the chances of Israel boarding the ship were very real, so how could they say they wanted to break the blockade "peacefully" when they planned on throwing Israeli soldiers overboard for boarding the ship?

Let's see. A group of heavily armed individuals attempts to "board" an american ship in the international waters. What would be your interpetation of such episode, from the terminological point of view?

Again I'm not necessarily saying that I support what they did or planned to do. Only what in my view it's certainly legitimate or at least more legitimate than stopping ships by force in the international waters. After all, isn't that what those notorious pirates do? It's very obvious which side has initiated the incident. Do attempt to explain that it has a legitimate right to do so.

Their mission was not a peaceful one since they had plans to be violent if confronted at all; "boarding the ship" does not equal "armed assault," and should have been expected considering there's a blockade in force.

We already discussed this at length but I understand that it settles hard if you believe that some of us have a natural claim to force and violence, while any resistance to it by anybody else outside the club is deemed as hostility and belligerence.

[Bob]

Let's see. A group of heavily armed individuals attempts to "board" an american ship in the international waters. What would be your interpetation of such episode, from the terminological point of view?

Again I'm not necessarily saying that I support what they did or planned to do. Only what in my view it's certainly legitimate or at least more legitimate than stopping ships by force in the international waters. After all, isn't that what those notorious pirates do? It's very obvious which side has initiated the incident. Do attempt to explain that it has a legitimate right to do so.

How can you be so obtuse as to drop all the relevant context of this situation with such a ridiculous comparison? I know I shouldn't be surprised, this is your modus operandi of consistent deceit and misrepresentation. To clarify your hypothetical scneario, the non-governmental NGO American vessel would have to be sailing to a non-state territory being blockaded by a country with which it is currently engaged in hostilities. Furthermore, the American NGO vessel would be delivering goods, services, and persons to this non-state territory in violation of the blockade imposed on the territory by the country it is at war with. So, the country imposing the blockade has no way of verifying for itself that the vessel is not carrying contraband contrary to its blockade regulations.

So the next time an American vessel does that - refuses to comply with the instructions of the country imposing the blockade on the non-state territory, and then viciously resists attempts by the military blockade to redirect it to a port where an inspection can take place, then we'll see how Americans should respond to such a "similar" scenario. When that happens, I don't think you'll find a lot of supports among Americans for this rogue hypothetical fauxtilla.

By the way, interceptions of threats take place in "international waters". Furthermore, the water off the coast of Gaza is not internationally recognized as Israeli waters. Israel itself doesn't claim these waters as its own. These facts do not override Israel's responsibilities to defend itself through the blockade of Gaza, however. Israeli lives are just a tad bit more important than philosophical debates.

Why don't you just come out and support what they're doing? Why are you so afraid to tell how you really feel? It is no secret that someone such as yourself, you consistently drops all relevant context in order to shape the narrative to fit his ignorant worldview, supports the organizers, participants, and agitators of this fauxtilla. We all know how you feel - don't be delusional and think that you can fool us into thinking you're on the fence on this issue.

How someone can be so moronic as to drop all the context of war between Gaza and Israel is beyond me.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Bob

[myata]

...

Yes you read me right. People have full legitimate right to resist illegal military blocade, illegal military occupation and so on, even by force if necessary.

We cannot deny it as a natural right of every oppressed people or individual without taking from them the very status of humanity, as you just did for the obvious reason ("animals" -Bob)

Edited June 20, 2010 by myata

[JB Globe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYjuDEZw1w&feature=player_embedded#!

I'm guessing that nobody is really suprised.

No, I'm not surprised that after seizing hours and hours of videotape, the IDF has managed to scrape a few clips together that support their version of events.

It's called selective editing - and as a video editor, it's pretty easy to do, if you have enough footage.

What's more surpassing is that people are so willing to completely swallow whatever the IDF puts out, but I guess that's what you do when you've put all your eggs in one basket - that basket being the one that positions Israel as some white knight, incapable of such dirty things as propaganda.

I've said before - we'll never truly know what happened, but to claim that the IDF isn't actively engaged in full-out propaganda, isn't just naive, it's false - given that they have a large, well-funded propaganda unit. Keep in mind most of the gov'ts initial claims about IHH have been retracted.

Face it, the IDF isn't any more credible a source than the activists.

[bloodyminded]

No, I'm not surprised that after seizing hours and hours of videotape, the IDF has managed to scrape a few clips together that support their version of events.

It's called selective editing - and as a video editor, it's pretty easy to do, if you have enough footage.

What's more surpassing is that people are so willing to completely swallow whatever the IDF puts out, but I guess that's what you do when you've put all your eggs in one basket - that basket being the one that positions Israel as some white knight, incapable of such dirty things as propaganda.

I've said before - we'll never truly know what happened, but to claim that the IDF isn't actively engaged in full-out propaganda, isn't just naive, it's false - given that they have a large, well-funded propaganda unit. Keep in mind most of the gov'ts initial claims about IHH have been retracted.

Face it, the IDF isn't any more credible a source than the activists.

Since distrust of official claims is part of the very bedrock of the democratic impulse, it's interesting that you need to point this out.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[myata]

Face it, the IDF isn't any more credible a source than the activists.

Even with that in mind, having carefully watched and listened the entire episode I haven't found anything inherently damning in it.

[Shady]

Let's see. A group of heavily armed individuals

You're completely wrong right from the start. They were'nt heavily armed.

[myata]

You're completely wrong right from the start. They were'nt heavily armed.

Well, how do we really know who was (and did) what in this situation? We either take words for truth according to our beliefs, or insist on detailed objective and independent investigation.