israel gets caught distributing hoax video

[Bob]

My understanding is that they weren't. At least, there's been no evidence of it. The word "distributing" is therefore accurate; it appears it was noticed, and then linked through the twitter accounts of some Israeli officials. Their error seems to be in not having intelligently vetted the video.

Looks like some dummies at the Israeli MFA thought this was some sort of ticket to a successful undermining of the flotilla event. Mind you, if they sincerely believed it was a legitimate video, I can't entirely blame them. It would have contributed to smearing this flotilla.

Yes, but certainly not among the flotilla group. We know that Alice Walker, Ray McGovern and that group are not exactly raving homophobes.

I'm sure the irony is not lost on you that we have openly gay people who are showing solidarity with a population that is highly anti-gay. Even if we make the assumption that the hostility towards gays is only actioned by a minority of Gazans, or that support for such hostilities is only advanced by another minority of Gazans, the silence of these self-described "activists" on the matter of discrimination against gays in Gaza and the broader Arab/Muslim society is telling.

There's something very counterintuitive about pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli "activists" who are openly gay. Imagine Jews advocating on behalf of German civilians in WWII (an extreme comparison, I admit), and protesting against the Allied campaign. Or another example, Kurds protesting against American military operations in Iraq while claiming to be concerned about Iraqi civilians.

[Bob]

In all seriousness, even if we accept the silly assertion that Israel had official involvement in the development of this hoax video as is being alleged (rather than simply unknowingly linking to the video via the Israeli MFA website in an effort to criticize the flotilla), can we not find endless examples of Pallywood productions that are not only confirmed but far more egregious?

We've had Palestinians and their supporters produce all kinds of fake scenes and false narratives. One of the more well-known examples includes the Mohammed al-Durrah incident. More recently, we had the video of the young Palestinian kids assaulting the car of a Jewish "political" personality (I know at least one of his young sons was in the backseat, perhaps both of them) seen here:

And then of course we had the Mavi Marmara incident where the very video that the violent agitators produced in order to create a negative image of the IDF actually backfired. I also remember the Palestinian newspapers describing the murder of the Fogel parents and three of their young children in Itamar as the crime of an angry "foreign worker" who wasn't paid what he was owed (in an attempt to suggest that somehow the Fogels were dishonest people). My point? The trail of lies and deceit from the Palestinians and the broader Arab/Muslim society eclipses anything you can associate with Israel or the Jewish people. Even more absurd is how they can cling to these false narratives when demonstrated false via video evidence. Remember, even after the Mavi Marmara footage was released and made available to anyone willing to watch it, we still have people (including several MLW forum participants who shall remain nameless) suggesting that the IDF were the aggressors against "peace activists". How can we argue with such a commitment to deceit?

[bloodyminded]

The irony of it all....lets face it, the flotillas true organizers are as pro gay as Anita Bryant...and 10000 times as deadly...

False. You're completely wrong.

If you're trying to convince us that you're monumentally ignorant, we already thought so.

Hamas is behind the flotillas,

Ah, now I get it. You are making things up on the fly, as you go.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Although suggesting that Hamas "is behind the flotillas" is a bit of a stretch, bloodyminded, don't be so naive as to assume that there isn't any connection between the organization and participants of this flotilla. Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza. There is no way to do such a thing without dealing with them. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the IHH charity and its links to terrorism, both materialistically and otherwise. As a small example, watch this video where the captain of one of these ships attempting to go to Gaza (he's from Montreal) cannot bring himself to say a bad word about Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqppKgiU8nM

Now, one could suggest that perhaps he's fearful of Hamas, and understandably can't criticize Hamas. I believe that he is a supporter of Hamas, though.

[bloodyminded]

Although suggesting that Hamas "is behind the flotillas" is a bit of a stretch, bloodyminded,

It's not a stretch, but a slimy bit of slander; and it wasn't suggested, but asserted outright.

don't be so naive as to assume that there isn't any connection between the organization and participants of this flotilla.

It's not naive to defer to the fact of exactly zero evidence. That's waht rational people do, even in hotly contested political matters. If evidence arises, then it is of course so; until then, there's no reason to suppose it's the case. Obviously Israeli intelligence has been unable to uncover anything...all they've come up with is a fraudulent story about sulphuric acid!

Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza. There is no way to do such a thing without dealing with them.

Of course there is. And even if Hamas officials were to show up at some point after landing, that doesn't even faintly suggest, in the slightest, that they were behind the whole thing.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the IHH charity and its links to terrorism, both materialistically and otherwise. As a small example, watch this video where the captain of one of these ships attempting to go to Gaza (he's from Montreal) cannot bring himself to say a bad word about Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqppKgiU8nM

Now, one could suggest that perhaps he's fearful of Hamas, and understandably can't criticize Hamas. I believe that he is a supporter of Hamas, though.

Actually, the priceless gem of this clip comes from crazy Ezra: "Isn't this really a military attack on the Israeli Navy?"

Alright, Ezra. Time to get back on the meds, now.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

I remember reading the news articles about the IDF being concerned of a sulhpur attack on soldiers, with intent to murder. You find that surprising? Is it hard for you to believe that certain elements on one or more of these ships have extremely violent intentions?

Did you not see the videos from the first flotilla, where a bunch of angry Muslims were chanting "Allahu Akbhar!" and wishing to become Shahids (in their own words!) after a prayer session and inspiring speech from some religious leader about "battling the Jews"? Did you not see the violence they used against the soldiers in the plethora of videos available online?

I get the impression that you really think that all of these ships are exclusively packed with aging hippies wearing silly t-shirts ("stay human") and keffiyehs. Are you really that naive?

Lastly, was Captain Ehab's response to Ezra's inquiries about Hamas not revealing? I expected such an answer, which was in fact a dodge, but you seem to be avoiding the issue entirely as if it isn't just another small illustration of the solidarity between many "pro-Palestinian" movements (particularly this flotilla) and terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

I remember reading the news articles about the IDF being concerned of a sulhpur attack on soldiers, with intent to murder. You find that surprising? Is it hard for you to believe that certain elements on one or more of these ships have extremely violent intentions?

If your determination of what is truth is based solely on Official Pronouncements by expert propagandists, you are going to be wilfully misled forever.

Did you not see the videos from the first flotilla, where a bunch of angry Muslims were chanting "Allahu Akbhar!" and wishing to become Shahids (in their own words!) after a prayer session and inspiring speech from some religious leader about "battling the Jews"? Did you not see the violence they used against the soldiers in the plethora of videos available online?

Do you mean the video footage that was confiscated by the IDF, so that we get only what we are meant to get by the Israeli aggressors themselves?

No, I haven't seen them. Neither have you.

I get the impression that you really think that all of these ships are exclusively packed with aging hippies wearing silly t-shirts ("stay human") and keffiyehs. Are you really that naive?

Me? You're the one who thinks they're Hamas agents. Ezra Levant thinks they're planning a military attack on the Navy!

Lastly, was Captain Ehab's response to Ezra's inquiries about Hamas not revealing? I expected such an answer, which was in fact a dodge, but you seem to be avoiding the issue entirely as if it isn't just another small illustration of the solidarity between many "pro-Palestinian" movements (particularly this flotilla) and terrorist organizations like Hamas.

A "dodge" of this sort is not an illustration of solidarity.

It is an attempt to avoid baiting, to keep the discussion from going where he doesn't want it to go. Such a thing might be unfortunate, but it is typical of politicized arguments generally, and virtually no one is immune. Is Ezra Levant's implication that the Gazans get everything neccessary to life from Israel--which you and he both know is flatly untrue--a "dodge"? Why is the interviewer making stuff up, and exploring wild and lunatic-paranoid fantasies about a "military attack"?

Must be hiding something? Well, no. He desires to determine the parameters of discussion to his own liking, exactly as Ehab does.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Just for the sake of clarification, are you suggesting that there are still holes in the video record that have yet to be filled because of the Israeli confiscation of much of the video equipment? Remember that some video and photos were not seized by the IDF for one reason or another, and made it into the media. The most prominent examples were the images of the battered IDF soldiers. Are you really trying to tell me that we can't have an excellent grasp of how events unfolded until the "mystery footage" is released? You think that all the video that's been made available doesn't provide enough context? I am probably wasting my time speaking with you, considering I think you were serious when describing the IDF as "the aggressors".

I am not here to defend Ezra's interviewing style, but he asked a legitimate question of this captain's Ehab to try to get him to take a position on Hamas. Now you're deflecting in order not to address the Captain's deflection! Don't you see how pathetic that is? I am making a simple point, that this captain's tacit support for Hamas shouldn't be surprising - that "pro-Palestinian" movements, particularly this flotilla (its organizer and participants), tend to be supportive of Hamas, and by extension, Hamas' ideology.

[bloodyminded]

Just for the sake of clarification, are you suggesting that there are still holes in the video record that have yet to be filled because of the Israeli confiscation of much of the video equipment?

There is information missing. In fact, information seized. Now, perhaps you think Israeli officials are simply acting like wanton douchebags, just for fun; I happen to think they do things for a reason.

Remember that some video and photos were not seized by the IDF for one reason or another, and made it into the media. The most prominent examples were the images of the battered IDF soldiers.

Holy cow. Battered IDF soldiers? A bunch of people were killed.

I am probably wasting my time speaking with you, considering I think you were serious when describing the IDF as "the aggressors".

They were. As commonly recognized.

I am not here to defend Ezra's interviewing style, but he asked a legitimate question of this captain's Ehab to try to get him to take a position on Hamas. Now you're deflecting in order not to address the Captain's deflection!

I did address it. I specifically and concretely addressed it! Go back and read the post before you make inane retorts.

Don't you see how pathetic that is?

Your bizarre pretence that this is a different discussion entirely from the actually-existing one, and your telling me I avoided something that I addressed in greater detail than you did....is what's pathetic.

You're just pissed that I don't agree with you. I should think we'd both be taking some fundamental disagreements between as a given by this point.

I am making a simple point, that this captain's tacit support for Hamas shouldn't be surprising - that "pro-Palestinian" movements, particularly this flotilla (its organizer and participants), tend to be supportive of Hamas, and by extension, Hamas' ideology.

The "tacit support" is all your speculation, notr something that is plainly the truth. And no, I have seen no evidence that Alice Walker, Ray McGovern, et al are in any way supportive of Hamas or the ideology. In fact, that's ridiculous. They're ideologically further away from such arch-conservatism than you are, Bob...and by some distance.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

cite proof.

here is who is behind the launch of the canadian flotilla

How many ships do the Canadians have? A flotilla is a small fleet....

Never the less, the funding is provided by Hamas...

The flotilla is being funded in large part by three Islamic charity funds from the Hamas-affiliated Charity Coalition, which directly fund Hamas and other terror groups.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145361

[bud]

How many ships do the Canadians have? A flotilla is a small fleet....

Never the less, the funding is provided by Hamas...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145361

there is no evidence presented that they are linked. it's all fabricated.

link

Israel army uses fabrications to assert flotilla financial links to Hamas

The Israeli military claimed today that it had “uncovered financial links” between the Gaza-bound flotilla and the Palestinian movement Hamas. But their claims are based on unsubstantiated assertions and outright fabrications.

Arafat Madi Mahmoud Shukri

Israel’s military presented absolutely no evidence to back its laundry list of familiar accusations, except for supposedly one damning connection:

ECESG Chairman Dr. Arafat Madi Mahmoud Shukri also serves as chairman of the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC). Due to PRC’s flagrant links to Hamas, it was declared illegal in Israel.

However, this information is false. PRC’s General Director Majed al-Zeer told The Electronic Intifada that Shukri is not and has never been chairman of PRC. Moreover, the connection – even if it were true – does not amount to evidence of anything.

here is how the israeli government creates bs and the useful idiots repeat them:

Israel never presented any evidence to support its lurid accusations against PRC either, and it continues to function as a legal organization doing normal educational and advocacy work as we reported.

Israel’s “evidence” of financial links between Hamas and the flotilla amounts to the alleged involvement of one person in an organization Israel baselessly defamed in the past, with another Palestine solidarity grouping that it is slandering now. In other words, Israel cites its own fabrications as “evidence.”

The Israeli military press release also claims – without presenting a shred of evidence – that two other European organizations “are openly and intimately involved in Hamas charity efforts as well as efforts to illegally break the lawfully enforced naval blockade on Gaza.”

If Israel had any actual evidence it would present it. Because it doesn’t it has to resort to this sort of laughable smear tactic backed only by its own fabrications.

[Oleg Bach]

Although suggesting that Hamas "is behind the flotillas" is a bit of a stretch, bloodyminded, don't be so naive as to assume that there isn't any connection between the organization and participants of this flotilla. Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza. There is no way to do such a thing without dealing with them. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the IHH charity and its links to terrorism, both materialistically and otherwise. As a small example, watch this video where the captain of one of these ships attempting to go to Gaza (he's from Montreal) cannot bring himself to say a bad word about Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqppKgiU8nM

Now, one could suggest that perhaps he's fearful of Hamas, and understandably can't criticize Hamas. I believe that he is a supporter of Hamas, though.

Ezra get a little to pushy shoving his Jewish agenda and rightfully so seeing he is a Jew - but during the interview he had his guest so pressured that he paniced and looked like a fool. This "captain" was slightly more dumb than Ezra and Ezra took advantage of this poor delluded fool that meant well ----what was nasty was when Sun Media showed pictures of Gaza looking like Lebanon prior the destruction - the reality is that the Gaza infrastruture is damaged and the Jews are not worried about the import of weapons so much as building material -

They figure that they will rot the Palistinians back into the stone age...Incrimentaly debase the folks till they are gone - don't like to say it but slow genocide and occupation of Gaza is the obvious agenda...sorry Israel - but that's what I see....It is not so much about pushihg Israel into the sea seeing they really don't have a coast - Gaza is on the coast and it is them being forced out of existance - The Hamas social workers and terrorist are of little consequence but a nice excuse to commit furture cruelty - You would hope that the Jews learned from what was done to them - apparently history fades as does memory.

[M.Dancer]

*chortle*

He isn't but even if he was.....

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do;jsessionid=FE83B7446EF4F64B5129D54003294F7D.node1?type=WQ&language=EN&reference=E-2011-004483&secondRef=0

Last year's flotilla was organised by the Turkish group IHH, which has extensive links to Islamist terror groups, including Hamas. Although IHH has now pulled out of the upcoming flotilla, citing "technical reasons", it has nonetheless been extensively involved in its preparations.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gaza-flotilla-blind-to-hamas/story-e6frg6ux-1226080858425

[bud]

How many ships do the Canadians have? A flotilla is a small fleet....

Never the less, the funding is provided by Hamas...

where is the evidence? *chortle*

show me how the canadian ship is funded by hamas.

[Oleg Bach]

Funny how nerdish western academics get sucked into causes that are based in some form of sinisterism. You just have to look at their yaps and you can tell they are one brick shy a load. BUT - at least they have brought attention to the forgotten fact that Gaza is in a state of poverty caused by religious zealots and power seeking politicals... Hamas are just a bunch of assholes ---Ironically very similar to those manning the flotilla.

[M.Dancer]

where is the evidence? *chortle*

show me how the canadian ship is funded by hamas.

Is it a Canadian ship or a Canadian Flotilla...make up your minds...

Show me where I claimed the Canadian Ship is funded by Hamas....I claim the entire flotilla is funded by Hamas.

Clearly, those in favour of this flotilla are also in favour of Hamas and its terrorism...

Edited July 5, 2011 by M.Dancer

[bloodyminded]

Show me where I claimed the Canadian Ship is funded by Hamas....I claim the entire flotilla is funded by Hamas.

And you really, honestly don't know that one implies the other? Or you're reduced to pedantry after having your ideological behind kicked?

Clearly, those in favour of this flotilla are also in favour of Hamas and its terrorism...

No, "clearly" you you have no idea what you're talking about.

Less "clear" is whether you're aware of this or not; whether you're ignorant or disingenuous.

It is an either/or, however. I'll let you choose for yourself.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Thus, the convoy of ships allegedly trying to bring aid to the Gaza Strip could never be characterized as a "peace flotilla." With ties to Hamas and other dangerous groups, the IHH can only be described as a dangerous organization. Its members only underscored this fact when they attacked Israeli naval personnel with iron bars and knives, ultimately leading to the regrettable deaths this morning on the Mediterranean Sea.

Jonathan Schanzer is a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

http://schanzer.pundicity.com/7539/the-terror-finance-flotilla

I will concede that perhaps a few are not direct supporters of terrorism, those can be lumped as useful idiots and useless idiots.

Never the less, those flotidiots who do not directly support terrorism, indirectly support terrorism

[bloodyminded]

http://schanzer.pundicity.com/7539/the-terror-finance-flotilla

I will concede that perhaps a few are not direct supporters of terrorism, those can be lumped as useful idiots and useless idiots.

Never the less, those flotidiots who do not directly support terrorism, indirectly support terrorism

Ever so slowly backing away from your wild, initial stance.

I suppose incremental bits of honesty are better than nothing.

After a while, you'll be admitting that there's no evidence for a Hamas connection, so that all, rather than some, of the flotilla passengers are "useful idiots," in service to...no one!

After that incoherence becomes revealed to you, you will "discover" something else...no doubt an Official Pronouncement by a PR spokesperson (pure fact, in other words!), to then be taken, again, as unassailable Truth.

Since we're on the subject of "useful idiots," and all; Commissars definitely apply to the phenomenon.

It's awesome that you use The Foundation for Defense of Democracies as your go-to source. Check out their members and Board of Directors! Truly a "non-partisan" group, as they claim, and not in any way influenced by the neocons who comprise their entire membership. I mean, it's not like Bill Kristol is a Straussian scholar, and so a believer in the "noble lie" theory of running democracies. (Well, not democracies, but rather, priopagandistic tyrannies disguised with democratic forms.) Oh, wait, he is. Or Richard Perle...nope, nothing dubious about that fellow! Or Joseph Lieberman....good lord.

Their "non-partisan" nature is all about enlarging American empire through violence. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.

So long as we don't cite them as somehow "athoritative," rather than as extremist ideologues.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

A man that defends him self with out good and proper represention is a fool - I am that fool - that idiot!

[Saipan]

there is no evidence presented that they are linked. it's all fabricated.

Ali Abunimah's blog, Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada tells the truth

[Bob]

There is information missing. In fact, information seized. Now, perhaps you think Israeli officials are simply acting like wanton douchebags, just for fun; I happen to think they do things for a reason.

So what you're basically telling us is that the video made available of the events, as well as the video of the agitators on the Mavi Marmara before their departure and prior to the incident isn't enough information upon which to have a deep understanding of what took place. You think there are some "secret tapes" which would somehow change the story, and what any honest observer knows - that these "activists" were certainly not peaceful, and wanted violence and martyrdom. You will continue to be steadfast in describing the IDF as the "aggressors" when the Mavi Marmara refused instructions and assaulted soldiers when all other options had been exhausted to enforce the blockade.

I bet if we were to dig a bit deeper, you'd go so far as to suggest that the blockade on Gaza is immoral or unjustifiable. Why don't you just come out and say it? Why waste our time discussing this incident when view the IDF as enforcing an illegitimate military condition? Everything the IDF does, in your view, is immoral in this instance, as you reject the legitimacy of the blockade. Conversely, the flotilla in your view, is justified in trying to break the blockade, which invariably places the flotilla "activists" as engaging in self-defense against an unjustified seizure.

Holy cow. Battered IDF soldiers? A bunch of people were killed.

And why were those nine people killed? Were they singing and chanting kumbaya while IDF soldiers executed them? Let me tell you something, if you assault and give me reasonable cause to have concern for my health and safety, I reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to protect my health and safety. That may include killing you. If I get injured in the process and you die as I defend myself, there is no moral equivalency to be drawn between the two of us.

I won't waste any more time with this, as you're still dodging Captain Ehab's evasiveness when questioned about his feelings towards Hamas. Although it's not a particularly important detail, it's a small example of the solidarity between the organizers and participants of this stunt and Hamas and its ideology. There are many examples out there of this solidarity among the activists, did you not see the videos of the Mavi Marmara agitators engaging in prayer and chanting "Allahu Akbhar" before their "battle with the Jews", and their own statements expressing desire for martyrdom? It's all part of the same tapestry, and it's become clear that your commitment to dishonesty is preventing you from acknowledging this. Lastly, the relationship between the Islamic charity from charity (the IHH) and Hamas is well-documented, which is why they officially backed out of being involved with the second flotilla movement. There is nothing strange about us suspecting the same relationship between the current flotilla and Hamas as existed with the previous flotilla. And there is nothing strange in expecting a commitment to violence among at least a part of the flotilla participants considering they are following in the footsteps of the first flotilla (who you view as the victims).

[Bob]

It's awesome that you use The Foundation for Defense of Democracies as your go-to source. Check out their members and Board of Directors! Truly a "non-partisan" group, as they claim, and not in any way influenced by the neocons who comprise their entire membership. I mean, it's not like Bill Kristol is a Straussian scholar, and so a believer in the "noble lie" theory of running democracies. (Well, not democracies, but rather, priopagandistic tyrannies disguised with democratic forms.) Oh, wait, he is. Or Richard Perle...nope, nothing dubious about that fellow! Or Joseph Lieberman....good lord.

Their "non-partisan" nature is all about enlarging American empire through violence. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.

So long as we don't cite them as somehow "athoritative," rather than as extremist ideologues.

That organization is non-partisan. Subscribing to a worldview that supports great global involvement and support for democratic reform isn't partisan. Many Republicans and many Democrats fall on varying sides of that perspective.

I respect that foundation much more than the link provided to electronicintifada.com, which might as well name itself electronicmassmurder.com or electronicjihad.com. The very URL is offensive. Did you even read M. Dancer's link? It's short and brief, and Schanzer is a respectable guy. As I've already said, the relationship between the IHH (the charity that organized the first flotilla and Islamist ideology and terrorist groups is well-documented. It's not our problem if you don't know this or refuse to see it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

You think there are some "secret tapes" which would somehow change the story,

Why are you putting the phrase in scare quotes, implying mockery? You agree that the IDF seized the tapes; you agree that at least some of them are being held for a purpose. That purpose is that Israeli officials don't want them to be seen. That's attempted control over information that could cast a different light on events. So it's illegitimate. You just don't care, that's all. Statists don't.

So you also agree that it's acceptable for the State to determine what should and shouldn't be seen by the public in contentious matters, so that officials can effect some control over the narrative, and ensure that the Official Version of "truth" is the primary one available.

That's an outright propaganda method. Soviet-style, without exaggeration. It's not even concealed...presumably because they know there are any number of sycophants who will always defend glorious Castr....er...well, you get it.

and what any honest observer knows - that these "activists" were certainly not peaceful, and wanted violence and martyrdom.

An honest observer could know no such thing, by definition.

You will continue to be steadfast in describing the IDF as the "aggressors" when the Mavi Marmara refused instructions and assaulted soldiers

They assaulted invaders in international waters. "Assault" is not the normal word for such an event.

The IDF got off just fine. Several activists, on the other hand, were assassinated.

I bet if we were to dig a bit deeper, you'd go so far as to suggest that the blockade on Gaza is immoral or unjustifiable. Why don't you just come out and say it?

I have already said it. It has long been my view.

Why the pretence to so many "gotcha" moments which are already uncontroversial truths?

And why were those nine people killed? Were they singing and chanting kumbaya while IDF soldiers executed them? Let me tell you something, if you assault and give me reasonable cause to have concern for my health and safety, I reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to protect my health and safety. That may include killing you. If I get injured in the process and you die as I defend myself, there is no moral equivalency to be drawn between the two of us.

Why do you think every specific incident, each one which is bound by the laws of probability, physics, and the sheer complexity of human interaction, can be precisely explained away by your Grand narrative of Israel? That's worse than absurd; it's obscene. It's servile and sycophantic to Power. By definition.

You should be asking yourself the first question in your passage here. Do you have exact information on each one of the killings? You know that each person deserved to be killed; or, more specifically, that in each single case the IDF soldiers had no recourse but to kill?

Why would you think so? No disinterested forensic account is forthcoming, but "the facts" are crystal clear...in favour of the more powerful entity, in the usual formulation. Aside from the comfort of Sheltering-State propaganda (which is seductive, no question), why should you automatically believe any of this?

Why did the activists not have "reasonable concerns about their health and safety," as the IDF--apparently now an International Police Force with rights not afforded to anyone except the United States of America (a far more egregious case, I concede)--so obviously does, as "any honest observer" must agree. Since several were killed--at least one shot in the back--the concerns sound a lot more present, more real, than do the concerns of the IDF.

We do know that one man was shot in the back of the head while lying face down on the deck. Anyone who calls this "self-defense" is demanding not to be taken seriously.

Another important point: You are trying to define the parameters of this discussion as mine being a radical view, and yours as mainstream and sensible. However, my view (and yes, it's quite incidental in a sense) seems to more closely align with what most people think about this issue; yours is the minority, radical view.

I hasten to add that this proves nothing about the facts of the case either way; any more than my aligning with the clear majority view about the Iraq War, against a shrinking minority of fairly extreme radicals, proves my case.

But it's important to the discussion; just as the Iraq war was hilariously painted as "common sense folk" debating the "anti-war left," when in fact the Left just happened to be in agreement with overwhelming global majority opinion on that particular issue, the advocates for state violence always assume themselves "mainstream," even when they're not. Maybe especially when they're not.

So while it may appear a side issue, I would in fact contend that an honest debate cannot occur if the one of the underlying premises is false in the first place. Which I suppose is rather the point of such propaganda efforts: to undermine honest debate by drawing false delineations around the whole thing.

I won't waste any more time with this, as you're still dodging Captain Ehab's evasiveness when questioned about his feelings towards Hamas.

Christ on a cracker, Bob! You already made this false charge, and I already answered it: ie. not only did I not dodge this matter, but I had more to say about it than you did.

You, however, are dodging it, by pretending I haven't responded.

Although it's not a particularly important detail, it's a small example of the solidarity between the organizers and participants of this stunt and Hamas and its ideology.

No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how often you repeat the talking point. Like I said, you, personally, are closer to arch-conservative Hamas in ideology than are the flotilla activists.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

That organization is non-partisan. Subscribing to a worldview that supports great global involvement and support for democratic reform isn't partisan. Many Republicans and many Democrats fall on varying sides of that perspective.

Yes, it's those with a pretty deep-seated objection to democratic principles, though they like democratic forms well enough. They're elitists...I mean by design. They embrace poltical elitism.

And while I'm the one who summoned the word "neocons" here, I don't actually consider them something brand spanking new (as do many of their critics and supporters); I think they're part of the tradtional political/business nexus with a recognizeable worldview; however, they are far, far over on the existing spectrum of statism and deception of the populace.

And that's because, while most politicians--conservative, liberal, "centrist"--are to varying degrees believers in the institutionalized status quo,the neocons are a lot more aware (or at least they fancy themselves as such), and thus more concretely employ Machiavellianism.

More accurately, actually, Straussianism, as Strauss has been termed (by Kristol, Fukuyama, et al, not by critics) as "the father of neoconservatism."

Most of Strauss' work centres on Plato, and I have little opinion on his views in that realm. But this teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, Allan Bloom, and others also held distictly illiberal political views. He thought liberalism had destroyed America, and that a conservative society built on faith, patriotism, and proper "roles" would ensure its longevity. While he was mildly cautious of the way reactionary conservatism can arise out of a liberal society (he was, after all Jewish, and intimately conscious of the grand shift that occurred in the Weimar Republic), he thought overall that a liberal society was a bad one.

However, in relatively free societies, like the UK and the US, he thought liberal tendencies were quite natural, maybe inevitable. This is a weakness, evidently, though I don't know how well he ever made the case for it. So the proper role for the True Philosopher was as advisor to the government, a shadowy real power behind the ceremonial one.

And the Straussians deal in deception. It is part of their belief system, because True Philosoper Kings simply understand the existential, nihlistic world better than you or I do, Bob. To them, it's anti-democratic in impulse, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Strauss eschewed the Enlightenment ideals of human liberty as a primary goal. More important, Strauss contended, was human excellence and political virtue, since classical philosophy mixed with Judaism and Christianity provided a better way of viewing the world. When the two are incompatible, as is often the case, virtue and excellence must take precedence.

OK, these are interesting ideas, either way. I think people should apreciate that these are monumentally enormous ideas (the Enlightenment thinking is wrong? That's big indeed.) However, Strauss and his most important acolytes felt that society must be ruled according to precepts of order, and that patriotism and religious faith were crucial.

An interesting assertion by a group that boasts such a large number of essentially nihilistic atheists, no?

Just as Professor Allan Bloom (who wrote the popular Closing of the American Mind) was a promiscuous homosexual who believed that traditional marriage was necessary for good order, sex before marriage was bad for the masses, that personal happiness in marriage was "irrelevant," (his word) and that such roles did not apply to him, as an elite thinker somewhat Above It All. (That people admire this shit makes my jaw drop, frankly.)

Hence, deception is a must. There's no other way.

(Hell, Hitchens, who is a friend of Paul Wolfowitz, made a similar observation about the administration...and supported it! How far that man has fallen from (arguably) a once-principled political thinker.)

It perhaps all boils down to Strauss's view of "exoteric" versus "esoteric" texts. The "exoteric" texts (or political speeches, or PR announcements, as we extrapolate) are the ones with a plain surface meaning, that can be understood essentially on their own terms. That's for public consumption, as well as for the consumption by society's Managers, called "Gentlemen."

The "esoteric" text contains true meaning, deeper and more complex notions, ones that might be "dangerous" if the public knows of it; most people live through simplistic prisms of morality, and can't bear the harsher truths, you see. The peasants just don't get it. Straussians can stare into the Abyss and know what to do; know how to rule us accordingly. Most of us cannot handle the cold facts. So, deception, such as War Propaganda, is a necessary adjunct to rule.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded