Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think you overrate the operative and functional importance of intra-Party factions in structural politics, versus say the influence of business interests, collectively and severally. The libertarian wing in particular I think is composed on one hand of predominantly insincere kept intellectuals who stump for particular sectors and interest bundles for U.S. business using right-"libertarianism" as an intellectual veneer, and on the other hand a coalition of a bare handful of lonely principled libertarian intellectuals with minor influence at best, together with the group of intellectually-inclined, right-libertarian-sympathetic ground-level voters outside the political organization or intellectual-academic institutions and groupings. The former group is a kept priesthood of sectors of U.S. business, and the dominant component of the libertarian wing, while the latter may mean well but is largely excluded from meaningful organizational and participatory power, and merely invited to debase themselves periodically ratifying candidates and policies in "lesser evil" electoral practices. The latter is also very, very small relative to the the electorate at large without a shred of doubt, and this probably extends to even relative to smaller more precise groupings such as the Party loyalists, and even -- I would contend -- probably tiny even relative to the itself tiny minority composed of organizationally-active and/or intellectually-conscious/politically-educated -- to the limited extent this is true at all among any statistically significant quantity of the electorate -- sectors of the voting public in general.

[Einzige]

Even if that's so, and I don't especially disagree with any of it, of what use is it to business to remain aligned with Israel? Aside from some very specific military-industrial firms, Israel is not a particularly great consumer of American goods, and in return produces rather little that American industry needs. The business sector in America - again with the exception of military producers - is not a tremendous booster of Israel. Moreover, it makes sense from a business perspective to curry favor with the Arab nations as oil producers.

The Republican Party's blind loyalty to Israel is not a result of its closeness with industry. To the contrary, it is rather the product of its relationship with industry's natural enemies: the poor theocrats and their more elite neo-conservative allies. There's a stake here that can be driven into the vampiric heart of neo-conservatism, if anyone ever learns how to wield it properly.

[Coyote]

The only reasonable szenario for armed conflict between Turkey and Israel would look something like that:
-Turkey sends warships to escort the next convoy. Less a matter of helping the Palestinans, more a matter of national pride. (new convoys and escorts are already planned).

Actually, don't discount the ethical high ground that running a risk to support the Palestinains can bring. For a long time, Turkey was the defender of the Muslim faith and Islamic world, they've lost a lot of their inroads with the Muslim people over the years by secularizing, buddying up with Europeans and Israel, and so their influence has withered considerably.

Now, as the pro-Islamists gain momentum in Turkey, they can assume a powerfully influential voice in regional affairs again. This actually puts them in opposition to (Persian, Shia'a) Iran which is th eonly other powerful Muslim voice on the stage (mosrtly due to a lack of concerted opposition from the Sunni/Arab world).

So it is national pride but also... more deep than that. I don't know if the Turkish Islamic groups are thinking this historically or philosophically, but chances are some of them are.

-Israel doesn't let them trough and sends warships to intercept. The turkish fleet doesn't back up.
-Israel opens fire on turkish warships or ships under their escort. This would be a clear act of war against Turkey.

The notion of Israel actually attacking a Turkish warship is doubtful-- at most I could see shots across the bow or buzzing by IAF fighters, and tense moments as targeting radars illuminate each other, but I'm about 90% certain that even the Netanyahu government isn't this amazingly stupid.

But it is telling I gave myself a 10% margin for them being that amazingly stupid.

-Turkey demands that the NATO assists them against a foreign attack.
-Either the NATO intervenes or looks totally powerless while one of it's members is getting attacked. As Turkey is a valuabe ally in an important region, this would be a bad move.

I think it gets more grey here. Europe does not want a war right now, and cannot really afford one (actually, a second or third, depending on who is involved in Afghanistan and Iraq still) and the Euro is eroding. There's also a lot of people in Europe who would be, quite frankly, perfectly happy to cut Turkey loose (although these are probably just the nationalists like lePen and Haider before he died). I know a lot of people see Turkey as the gateway for filthy immigrants to swarm in and take their jobs, etc.

Of course, that doesn't have to happen - but there is no other szenario that would result in an armed conflict.

That's why I think it is far more likely --even if Turks and Israelis exchange fire-- that international condemnation and sanctions, South Africa-style, are more likely... and they'll stick this time. Israel is awash in a sea of European imports, from cars to household goods, and it'll hurt to cut that off.

People conveniently forget that Egypt was also enforcing this exact same blockade.

They didn't fire on foreighn citizens trying to help starving people.
Thus, no negative public perception.

They didn't fire on the fleet, true, but they were (it could be argued) helping to contribute to the conditions that made the starving in the first place.

-There's a gallows humor to the angle that people were trying to take supplies to Gaza because Israel is heavy-handed and forceful, and then they're all shocked and amazed that Israel lashes out in a heavy-handed and forceful manner; I mean, seriously, what did they really expect? To be greeted as liberators?

Um...Israel inspecting the ships and letting them supply Gaza with food?

Not what I meant. Israel is famous for heavy-handed over-reaction; so I find it odd that people were surprised when Israel does something heavy-handed and over-reacting.

-For all the moral outrage about Irgun being a terrorist organization pretending to be a government, the truth is Hamas is pretty much the same.

Oh, shut up.
This isn't about Hamas, it isn't even that much about Gaza anymore.

Sorry to point it out, but it is an inconvenient truth. People criticise the US for propping up Hamid Karzai, a corrupt wanna-be autocrat, so it is worth remembering that this aid convoy was going to be intercepted at the dockyards and distributed by Hamas, and anyone who thinks Hamas wasn't going to keep the choice bits for themselves and their cronies has blinders on. This in no way absolves Israel's heavy-handed actions ro excuses it; don't get confused here. But when Europe is doing the math about "how deep do we want to get in this?" at some point the question of "how far out on a limb do we want to go for Hamas?" will come up.

Until the Gazan people vote Hamas out, you cannot send aid to Gaza without sending it through Hamas.

This is about Israels armed forces (and their politics) being a loose gun incapable of backing up to anything and nearly shooting on sight.
They have done this for years, using a legitimate threat as excuse for starving civilians. Now they have done it to someone who is not a threat to them (a few soldiers do not really count).

The question is wether other nations will let Israel do that or not. And that's how the public seems to perceive it.

In this I agree.

[Thanas]

Now, as the pro-Islamists gain momentum in Turkey, they can assume a powerfully influential voice in regional affairs again. This actually puts them in opposition to (Persian, Shia'a) Iran which is th eonly other powerful Muslim voice on the stage (mosrtly due to a lack of concerted opposition from the Sunni/Arab world).

Erdogan is not pro-islamist. To say that he is is overly simplifying.

[Serafina]

I think it gets more grey here. Europe does not want a war right now, and cannot really afford one (actually, a second or third, depending on who is involved in Afghanistan and Iraq still) and the Euro is eroding. There's also a lot of people in Europe who would be, quite frankly, perfectly happy to cut Turkey loose (although these are probably just the nationalists like lePen and Haider before he died). I know a lot of people see Turkey as the gateway for filthy immigrants to swarm in and take their jobs, etc.

A war against Israel would not really be all that expensive - the difference is just too big, and it's not like we are talking about an invasion.
Plus, the economical situation is really not all that bad - not bad enough to crush the european economy, at least (but i digress).

That's why I think it is far more likely --even if Turks and Israelis exchange fire-- that international condemnation and sanctions, South Africa-style, are more likely... and they'll stick this time. Israel is awash in a sea of European imports, from cars to household goods, and it'll hurt to cut that off.

Yes, that would be the final result - but with everything be so close together, it is possible that the EU, NATO and USA will move forces into the region and bash the israelic military first.
An occupation or prolonged war is pretty much inconceivable right now.

They didn't fire on the fleet, true, but they were (it could be argued) helping to contribute to the conditions that made the starving in the first place.

Well, yes - but IIRC only under pressure from Israel.
And again, public perception matters. A lot.

Not what I meant. Israel is famous for heavy-handed over-reaction; so I find it odd that people were surprised when Israel does something heavy-handed and over-reacting.

Ah, right then.
Well, i suppose they tought they had to do it somehow. And since Gandhi, peacefully standing up to opressors is quite popular.

Until the Gazan people vote Hamas out, you cannot send aid to Gaza without sending it through Hamas.

True -but Europeans in general seem to be more concerned about the humanitary problems in Gaza than the political ones.
Israel is seen as the evil guy here.

[Coyote]

Now, as the pro-Islamists gain momentum in Turkey, they can assume a powerfully influential voice in regional affairs again. This actually puts them in opposition to (Persian, Shia'a) Iran which is th eonly other powerful Muslim voice on the stage (mosrtly due to a lack of concerted opposition from the Sunni/Arab world).

Erdogan is not pro-islamist. To say that he is is overly simplifying.

Erdogan and the core government himself is not, but there is an increasingly pro-Islamist movement in Turkey. IIRC it was ironically one of the first countries to ban the burqua and veil/headscarf, but a female MP recently bucked the ban and wore her headscarf to their Parliament causing something of an uproar; when she was told to remove it a lot of pro-Islamist protests were had. A lot more than people expected. Islam has a long way to go in Turkey before it re-asserts its socio-political dominance, but it's gaining support.

[Zed]

There's a difference between Islamism and being allowed to practice Islam in public (e.g. by wearing headscarves in parliament).

[Oskuro]

Sheppard said:

Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.

Ahh, the powers of cherry-picking quotes. Here, let me remind you of Shep's actual opening statement (the one I'm poking fun at):

However you're all ignoring the most important point--the people on the ships fought back with axe-handles.

And 10+ foot long poles. See the video I posted.

If that had been happening to one of my teams; I'd have withdrawn my troopers and then proceeded to rake the ship in question with three inch and five inch (if I could have it) gunfire, until it was a burning wreck in the water. Then I'd apply a coup-de grace with an under the hull shot from a torpedo.

Or, in other words (again), troops being attacked with axes and poles requires withdrawal of said troops, and, once there is no direct danger to the soldiers and the axe-equipped protesters cannot cause harm, rake them with high caliber fire until they all die, and sink their the burning wreck afterwards.

All the political justification came after this shinning example of Internet Tough Guyism and moral bankrupcy.

[Serafina]

There's a difference between Islamism and being allowed to practice Islam in public (e.g. by wearing headscarves in parliament).

This.
Honestly, the amount of remotely fundamental islamists in Turkey seems to be quite small.
I would go as far as claiming that the USA have a higher percentage of radical religious people than Turkey.

[Coyote]

Honestly, the amount of remotely fundamental islamists in Turkey seems to be quite small.
I would go as far as claiming that the USA have a higher percentage of radical religious people than Turkey.

I can't argue that! ...unfortunately.

[Darth Hoth]

Ahh, the powers of cherry-picking quotes. Here, let me remind you of Shep's actual opening statement (the one I'm poking fun at):

However you're all ignoring the most important point--the people on the ships fought back with axe-handles.

And 10+ foot long poles. See the video I posted.

If that had been happening to one of my teams; I'd have withdrawn my troopers and then proceeded to rake the ship in question with three inch and five inch (if I could have it) gunfire, until it was a burning wreck in the water. Then I'd apply a coup-de grace with an under the hull shot from a torpedo.

Or, in other words (again), troops being attacked with axes and poles requires withdrawal of said troops, and, once there is no direct danger to the soldiers and the axe-equipped protesters cannot cause harm, rake them with high caliber fire until they all die, and sink their the burning wreck afterwards.

All the political justification came after this shinning example of Internet Tough Guyism and moral bankrupcy.

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone? Sending new boarding parties, who are likely to meet with the same hostility? The problems will not go away; they will merely be delayed, and will still have to be dealt with. And in such a case as this, the best solution (from a moral standpoint) might still require those extreme measures Shep espoused, even if he did not immediately provide the whole of his rationale.

If his initial post is to be faulted for anything, it is for not giving them a final chance to surrender.

If it was me there, Commodore Hoth, I would withdraw the troops and then fire off a single volley of heavy MG/light cannon fire, as appropriate, at the deck. If the survivors surrendered after that, I would take them prisoner. If not, then I would give free reigns to my deputy, Captain Shepilov.

[Tiriol]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone? Sending new boarding parties, who are likely to meet with the same hostility? The problems will not go away; they will merely be delayed, and will still have to be dealt with. And in such a case as this, the best solution (from a moral standpoint) might still require those extreme measures Shep espoused, even if he did not immediately provide the whole of his rationale.

If his initial post is to be faulted for anything, it is for not giving them a final chance to surrender.

If it was me there, Commodore Hoth, I would withdraw the troops and then fire off a single volley of heavy MG/light cannon fire, as appropriate, at the deck. If the survivors surrendered after that, I would take them prisoner. If not, then I would give free reigns to my deputy, Captain Shepilov.

That's one way to guarantee that foreign powers WILL send armed escort ships to protect their own citizens and ships flying under their flags, or even to start hostilities (even though they might be limited in nature). You do realize that there IS a difference between civilians and soldiers and how they act? And that you are basically advocating the cold-blooded murder of everyone on board of a CIVILIAN vessel where a minority were assholes and fought against soldiers who were basically trying to take command of their ship (whether they actually WERE wrong is a different matter - they may have justifiably been afraid of an Israeli task force seizing control of their ships under false pretenses even when the Turkish officials had already cleared their cargo)?

[Serafina]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone? Sending new boarding parties, who are likely to meet with the same hostility? The problems will not go away; they will merely be delayed, and will still have to be dealt with. And in such a case as this, the best solution (from a moral standpoint) might still require those extreme measures Shep espoused, even if he did not immediately provide the whole of his rationale.

Wait a sec. - you do not see an alternative beween doing nothing and slaughtering a whole ship full of civilians?
Honestly - that's more than stupid.

And do not even try to claim that this has anything to do with morals. If anything, it's about selfishness - you would rather kill hundreds of people than risking that some of yours get injured. Along with making your nation an international outcast and risking further armed conflict.

Even what the Israelis did now was preferable to that - and they could simply have disabled the maneuverability of the ship, or subdue their attackers with non-lethal methods.

[Darth Hoth]

You do realize that there IS a difference between civilians and soldiers and how they act? And that you are basically advocating the cold-blooded murder of everyone on board of a CIVILIAN vessel where a minority were assholes and fought against soldiers who were basically trying to take command of their ship

If the "civilians" launch an armed attack on my men, as a military commander I will not treat them more nicely than I would enemy troops in uniform. If anything, the opposite. If the crew on the vessel attack with deadly force, they are combatants. Whether some or all of them do it is irrelevant; the crew of a vessel is counted as one unity for purposes like this. If one man opens fire, or just charges a marine with an axe, they are all assumed to be enemies.

Wait a sec. - you do not see an alternative beween doing nothing and slaughtering a whole ship full of civilians?
Honestly - that's more than stupid.

There are alternatives. Did I say otherwise? I just find them less moral.

And do not even try to claim that this has anything to do with morals. If anything, it's about selfishness - you would rather kill hundreds of people than risking that some of yours get injured.

Injured, impaired for life, or killed. Just because their weapons are improvised, that makes them no less deadly. And yes, I would rather see a hundred enemies dead than one of my own men. Risking the lives of my soldiers to save those of enemies is utterly immoral.

Along with making your nation an international outcast and risking further armed conflict.

I stopped repeating this after perhaps the third post, since I thought I had made it clear, but again:

Politically it would be crazy to do any of the things Sheppard or I suggested. From a pragmatic viewpoint, our measures would be a disaster, and it is fortunate that neither of us commanded that expedition. That is a whole other question, as compared to their morality.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And just to confirm that Bibi really is chugging stupid pills:

The Israeli government is threatening to use more force against the next refugee convoy.

'Next time we'll use more force'
Photo by: IDF
'Next time we'll use more force'
By YAAKOV KATZ, AP AND JPOST.COM STAFF
06/01/2010 13:41

Navy prepares for expected arrival of 2 more activist ships.
Talkbacks (18)

Israel will use more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, a top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

"We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war," the officer said. "That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war."


RELATED:
Analysis: Israel's PR machine fails again
Editorial: The rush to judgment

The anonymous comment came the day after the Israeli Navy raided a flotilla of international aid ships headed to the Strip. Nine activists were killed in the raid, and dozens were injured.

The flotilla which arrived late Sunday night was comprised of six ships, and another two ships, including The Rachel Corrie, were expected to attempt to enter Israeli waters in the coming days.



Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza Movement said earlier Tuesday that a cargo boat was already on the way to challenge Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

A second boat carrying about three dozen passengers was expected to join the first, she added.

So the commander of the Israeli Navy has essentially threatened to use Shep tactics on the next two ships.

[Einzige]

Fuck 'em. The next convoy, I've read, is going to be escorted by the Turkish navy. Let the Israelis do something stupid. They'll have whatever happens coming to them. There is blood on their hands.

[Coyote]

The kinds of tactics you (Darth Hoth) and Shep propose might have been the way it was done... many decades ago. But with mass media a new battlefront has been added to the traditional ones of air, land and sea and that is the public opinion front, where these sorts of actions tend to have exactly the opposite effect.

By being so heavy-handed, you may as well just drive a truck to the enemy's gates and unload a crate of ammunition for them and drive away.

[Darth Hoth]

*Sigh* No one reads poor Hoth's posts?

I realize this. Pragmatically, such tactics are both stupid and impossible of actually carrying out.

That makes them no less morally right.

[Tiriol]

You do realize that there IS a difference between civilians and soldiers and how they act? And that you are basically advocating the cold-blooded murder of everyone on board of a CIVILIAN vessel where a minority were assholes and fought against soldiers who were basically trying to take command of their ship

If the "civilians" launch an armed attack on my men, as a military commander I will not treat them more nicely than I would enemy troops in uniform. If anything, the opposite. If the crew on the vessel attack with deadly force, they are combatants. Whether some or all of them do it is irrelevant; the crew of a vessel is counted as one unity for purposes like this. If one man opens fire, or just charges a marine with an axe, they are all assumed to be enemies.[

You clearly don't belong to the field of battle, then, or in any command for that matter. Fortunately you are in neither position for the rest of the world.

Tell me, how would you react if, as an commander whose troops are occupying or intent on occupying a village, were attacked by some of the villagers who wish to defend themselves? Would you indiscriminately attack EVERY villager?

And no, you can't treat a vessel like a single unit in this case, since there was no overall command structure there outside what the actual crew of the ship had, save perhaps for some organization among the activists.

[Tiriol]

*Sigh* No one reads poor Hoth's posts?

I realize this. Pragmatically, such tactics are both stupid and impossible of actually carrying out.

That makes them no less morally right.

WHAT moral right there is in killing civilians - most of them who are NOT carrying weapons - indiscriminately or at least firing military-grade weaponry at them and claim "self-defense" like you propose to do? Moral right of the strongest? The civilians had it coming because they didn't check beforehand if some of them were more aggressive than the others?

[Einzige]

*Sigh* No one reads poor Hoth's posts?

I realize this. Pragmatically, such tactics are both stupid and impossible of actually carrying out.

That makes them no less morally right.

No, they aren't "Right". In fact, they're almost the pure definition of wrong, the sort of morally reprehensible pap we all have learned to expect from the neo-conservative chickenhawk camp and precisely the same sort of collective judgment that enabled the Holocaust, albeit on a much smaller scale. You advocate the use of overwhelming force -- why? Because it makes you look like a hardass?

Even if the protesters attacked first (a claim I find incredibly dubious), it certainly doesn't justify overwhelming firepower. The Israeli soldiers were cowards and behaved like cowards. Now, if they attack a flotilla guarded by the Turkish navy, they will have earned their cowards deaths.

[Serafina]

Fuck 'em. The next convoy, I've read, is going to be escorted by the Turkish navy. Let the Israelis do something stupid. They'll have whatever happens coming to them. There is blood on their hands.

That would be pretty much my prediction.

And as someone pointed out earlier - if you escalate too fast, shit will blow up. Israel is doing just that right now.

That makes them no less morally right.

Give me the moral justification then.

Hint: "Disproportionate killing" is not a moral response.

[Darth Hoth]

Tell me, how would you react if, as an commander whose troops are occupying or intent on occupying a village, were attacked by some of the villagers who wish to defend themselves? Would you indiscriminately attack EVERY villager?

No.

And no, you can't treat a vessel like a single unit in this case, since there was no overall command structure there outside what the actual crew of the ship had, save perhaps for some organization among the activists.

If it had been, say, a Somali pirate ship (every bit as civilian) and one pirate but not the others started shooting at a boarding party with his AK-47, would you, if you led that party, consider all the pirates enemies or just that one guy?

As long as they are part of the same crew on the same ship, they are counted as one unity. What law is there that establishes otherwise?

WHAT moral right there is in killing civilians - most of them who are NOT carrying weapons - indiscriminately or at least firing military-grade weaponry at them and claim "self-defense" like you propose to do? Moral right of the strongest? The civilians had it coming because they didn't check beforehand if some of them were more aggressive than the others?

The moral imperative of protecting my own men. Protection of the enemy is at the very most a secondary consideration. That they are "civilians" is completely irrelevant when they are combatants actually attempting to kill/murder my men.

[Einzige]

Laws, you legalistic fucktard, have no bearing whatsoever on the ethics (or lack thereof) of a particular action. What you're saying is nothing more than, "Hurf durf! There ain't any laws saying I have to parse the difference between an enemy combatant and a civilian! So let's kill them all and let their God sort them out!"

Fucking. Unbelievable. I'm so glad you sonofabitches were discredited with Iraq. You deserve nothing more.

[Serafina]

The moral imperative of protecting my own men. Protection of the enemy is at the very most a secondary consideration. That they are "civilians" is completely irrelevant when they are combatants actually attempting to kill/murder my men.

See?
That's why you are an immoral asshole.

Civilans are NOT the enemy. Any moral military teaches that to it's soldiers - by the way, for a reason (very bad PR).
You would have tons of other options in that case, none of the threatening either your soldiers or your mission.

Guess you are not only an immoral asshole, but also an idiot.