Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

[Ziggy Stardust]

My turn to state my English was quite understandable. I'm not going to address a post that is irrelevant to mine.

 

[Merkinball]

To everyone who thinks this is a good article, the entire piece is predicated on this passage:

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked. - Article

There's nothing cool or intelligent about this analysis. It is a one sided depiction that ignores numerous complexities and realities that surround aid to the Gaza strip. There was absolutely nothing logical about avoiding a confrontation with this flotilla, regardless of whether they were trying to provoke an attack or not. Israel strictly monitors aid into and out of this area specifically because there is a deep rich history of aid groups using their position to supply Hamas with weapons and materials to make bombs. There would be nothing logical about allowing the flotilla to continue to go towards Gaza and complete its mission. If the flotilla was hostile towards Israel when violating Israeli maritime law, then is there no a logical reason to assume that they may be aiding the Palestinians in a nefarious way as well? This whole section of the piece breaks down when parsed against the reality of the situation that Israel faces. There is nothing well thought out or honest about the piece.

 

[Hehehe]

Stratfor! I used to read that site 10+ years ago.. It was my main source of geopolitical commentary until the site went semi-pay a little while after 9/11.

Is this a teaser article, given us for free as bait, to lure us into paying for a subscription? Or does stratfor give up free articles every once in a while? I don't have time to check right now, if anyone knows let me know.

As for the flotilla, Israel lost geopolitical points, yadda yadda, etc.

Stratfor gives a few articles a week for free. If you go to the site and scroll down there's two articles, one geopolitical weekly and security weekly article, both free. If you wish to read older free articles, click a country and look for the green radar symbol or the red AK symbol.

There's nothing cool or intelligent about this analysis. It is a one sided depiction that ignores numerous complexities and realities that surround aid to the Gaza strip.

So both the pro-Israeli side and the pro-flotilla side hate this analysis? It might just be perfect.

 

[warpus]

There's nothing cool or intelligent about this analysis. It is a one sided depiction that ignores numerous complexities and realities that surround aid to the Gaza strip. There was absolutely nothing logical about avoiding a confrontation with this flotilla, regardless of whether they were trying to provoke an attack or not. Israel strictly monitors aid into and out of this area specifically because there is a deep rich history of aid groups using their position to supply Hamas with weapons and materials to make bombs. There would be nothing logical about allowing the flotilla to continue to go towards Gaza and complete its mission. If the flotilla was hostile towards Israel when violating Israeli maritime law, then is there no a logical reason to assume that they may be aiding the Palestinians in a nefarious way as well? This whole section of the piece breaks down when parsed against the reality of the situation that Israel faces. There is nothing well thought out or honest about the piece.

It's a matter of what would have been lost if they didn't react so violenty, and what was lost now that they did. You have to consider both, and the article did.

 

[JtheJackal]

The article is very good. What Israel and even the Palestenian activsts seem to fail to realize is Israel looks bad from Israel's description of the event.

Israel is utterly and completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with the Palestenians falling into this trap to make them look bad and then wonder why everyone is looking at them like they are bad guys. Every action they take to make thier country safe weakens and endangers it even more and its absurd that it continues. Its about time Israel starts weakening terror groups and politicans who use anti-Israel rhetoric for thier political gain in ways that don't give thier enemies the edge.

 

[Abaddon]

Fair enough Zigyg, walk away from something you can't answer.

Do you wish me to go back over any of your posts?

 

[LightFang]

That article was a steaming pile of not very good. Unless you've already decided the rights and wrongs of the incident and are interested in how Israel might best lie it's way out of the controversy. In all fairness, the author is pretty up front about this.

Care to explain? When you cited, "It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not...," how does that portray bias? The author is saying that he thinks it would be wise of Israel portrayed the flotilla as an extremist plot. Is that lying? He doesn't know for sure, or maybe he doesn't want to make a value judgment just yet--"whether extremist or not," he goes on to say.

I don't think this article made moral judgments about "right" or "wrong". I think you need to take a step back and read it again. But that's just what I think. If you think the article was biased, I'd love to have a discussion about it (that's what this thread's for!)

Good article. The author's views don't match my own and I don't agree with everything said, but I agree with his analysis of the potential outcomes, and, more importantly, why those are potential outcomes.

Shame this thread just seems to be about people getting caught up in the details of the incident.

Yeah, I feel like there hasn't been enough talk of the big picture in this thread. But oh well, maybe we can change that. "Be the change you wish to be" and stuff.

I'd say the article can be summarised as follows:

The irrelevant tl;dr was to punish those who didn't read the entire thing and also to make you do a double-take and maybe laugh a little.

Stratfor! I used to read that site 10+ years ago.. It was my main source of geopolitical commentary until the site went semi-pay a little while after 9/11.

Is this a teaser article, given us for free as bait, to lure us into paying for a subscription? Or does stratfor give up free articles every once in a while? I don't have time to check right now, if anyone knows let me know.

As for the flotilla, Israel lost geopolitical points, yadda yadda, etc.

I don't really know! I was linked this article by a friend and I had to show everybody here. Geopolitics is pretty interesting stuff and I feel like maybe we've lost some of that nuance. So it was very good to see a site like this that engaged in (from what I could tell) pretty damn good analysis of the situation.

So both the pro-Israeli side and the pro-flotilla side hate this analysis? It might just be perfect.

 

[warpus]

Yeah Stratfor was always really good at analyzing geopolitical stuff. Too bad it went pay, it used to be 100% free.

Hehehe says above that the site is now partially free - there are a couple articles each week you can read in full.

 

[emzie]

So both the pro-Israeli side and the pro-flotilla side hate this analysis? It might just be perfect.

Indeed. It's like the old adage of journalism: if you're getting complaints from the left and the right about bias, you wrote a good piece.

Merkin, the article was about the political spin as an outcome from the clash. It has little to do with who was right and who was wrong during the clash. It hits at my main thought: Israel was profoundly stupid to be baited into reacting like this. If a search / stop was legal, if the blockade is legal is irrelevant.

The article is excellent. Cool, dispassionate analyses of the situation are exactly what's needed. Sadly, as many of the comments in this thread demonstrate, most people are unwilling to engage with argument that doesn't cast such matters in moral terms. After all, it's much more satisfying to cast your own righteous judgement than it is to engage in sober discussion of what's really going on. And, thus, public opinion around the world plays its part in preventing any workable solution from being reached, by continually feeding the invidious game of moral manipulation played by the hatemongers on either side.

Yes. What this forum needs is moderators who will crack a whip to keep a thread on topic every once in a while. There's clearly a thread to argue the action, this thread is to discuss the outcome, which has (sadly) very little to do with what actually happened.

Please, people who are debating the rightness or wrongness of the actual incident, please stop. There are threads for that. Make your own thread if not. Please keep this one on track, for it's a very good article and it's a very interesting debate.

 

[illram]

I think the article brings up an interesting discussion. In an AP article yesterday a spokesman for the NGO said that the flotilla was not primarily about humanitarian aid, it was about breaking the blockade. I was thinking about exactly what this article was talking about after I read that quote yesterday .

I agree with the basic analysis of the article that Israel was basically faced with a Hobson's choice--allow the flotilla to go through and appear to have caved, or take the flotilla and risk bloodshed. Taking the flotilla appears to have caused the predictable media outcome regardless of the details. Even if the boat had bats and lead pipes and scissors(?), all the headlines took the basic angle of "people killed after Israeli Commandos storm aid flotilla*."

Israel appears to have taken the long-view and hoped that the short term hit is necessary to maintain the status quo. Status quo being Israeli control of everything going in and out of Gaza and the destruction of Hamas. (And the marginalization of any organized Palestinian resistance altogether.)

*Or as a Fark headline called it, an "AIDS Tortilla."

 

[emzie]

I don't think Israel anticipated the resistance they were met with, nor the loss of life. If you compare the choices of letting the convoy through and stopping the flotilla with no violence, the choice is easy (from Israel's prospective). Had the raid been conducted without people dying, there would have been outcry yes, but their long term stance of controlling Gaza would have been secured.

Their choice took an unforeseen turn and it blew up in their face. Which is what I keep going back to, dot your Is and cross your Ts in case something does go wrong, you have a much better story to spin.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you wish me to go back over any of your posts?

I'm not sure, up to you. I would however advice when you do, to read the content. You seem to be attributing quite a few arguments to me I never make or even imply and not say anything about what I actually write. And what I wrote wasn't that dramatic, so I'm also a bit puzzled about the rants when you replied to me.

Or, to be more succinct: Que?

 

[Arwon]

Seven idiots in the cabinet - from Haaretz.

This time, it was all foreseeable. Even this newspaper warned in advance about the possibility of defeat in victory. As preparations for the big sea confrontation proceeded, it became increasingly clear that it would end badly.

After all, the troops were being prepared by seven idiots and their subordinates - people who cannot see beyond the ends of their noses.


We are periodically told that Israel has never had a forum of leading ministers so businesslike and thorough; even Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman displays insight and responsibility at meetings, says Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

And who will attest to Barak's own talents and judgment? Perhaps those soldiers who never returned from battle? Seven ministers versus seven ships - not aircraft carriers, or even destroyers, but small boats, laden with hundreds of people. Not all are righteous, but neither are they terrorists. But suddenly, without warning, this barely seaworthy flotilla became a threatening armada.

Before the battle of Trafalgar, Admiral Horatio Nelson, like the Allied commanders before D-Day, understood that their country's fates hung in the balance. It's enough to make you despair when thinking about our leaders: For them, every day is D-Day. So what will happen when total war actually breaks out here?

And it's disturbing to think about our army, which trips every time it is ordered to march. And don't believe their promises that next time will be different. There are always plenty of excuses, but judged by the results, it's always the same old disaster.

Elite units are supposed to know how to take over a ship without sinking the state, how to overcome passengers wielding clubs and knives without sowing death, how to keep two pistols and a rifle from being wrested from them.

But a physical confrontation should never have been allowed to develop to begin with. If this was indeed a "political/media provocation," we should never have let ourselves become entangled in it.

Had we simply let the flotilla reach Gaza - an option that was proposed - a cry of victory would indeed have erupted from the other side, but it would have died out in a day or two. But the Israel of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Barak, of ministers Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Eli Yishai and even Dan Meridor, is vying with Hamas and Hezbollah over who can produce the most resounding demonstrations of strength - which amount to nothing but humiliating evidence of weakness.

How did we so become so devoid of confidence in our ends that we instead put our trust in ways and means that dead-end on every passing ship? Had only we at least not dropped the soldiers one by one straight into the angry mob.

What ought to come next is a demand for a probe, but it seems pointless. Stupidity knows no bounds, and it is a ministerial prerogative. And what is boundless is also unfathomable.

So the septet will persist in its evil ways, endangering us more than any ship could, for madness will rule us. That gang in Jerusalem will insist on drowning us again and again, for there is no courage to change even after all the disasters.

And we will continue to fear our leaders - as if we didn't have enough to fear in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

[Formaldehyde]

We wont know the full repecussions of this for some time yet, but the fact that the videos exist and are being published are going to do a lot to defuse the allegations of 'cruel and bloodthirsty' Israelis hungry for blood.

At least as long as they are shown in their currently highly edited form, instead of showing the Israelis brutally killing a dozen people while wounding many more. I wonder why they aren't providing that portion of the recording...

But that doesn't really matter. There would be those who would try to spin what happened to show that Israel had no choice but to kill and maim with impunity no matter what actually occurred.

And good thing the raid was apparently deliberately performed at night to limit the negative exposure, not to mention all the protestors' evidence seems to have been confiscated.

The article is very good. What Israel and even the Palestenian activsts seem to fail to realize is Israel looks bad from Israel's description of the event.

I think they realize that quite well. The only people who seem to think the Israeli video gave them a license to kill are the Israelis and their typical defenders who don't seem to care what atrocities they regularly commit.

 

[MobBoss]

At least as long as they are shown in their currently highly edited form, instead of showing the Israelis brutally murdering a dozen innocent people while wounding many more. But that doesn't really matter. There would be those who would try to spin this to show that Israel had no choice but to kill and maim with impunity no matter what actually happened.

I like how you call killing someone in self-defense (and it was self-defense) as 'brutally murdering' someone. I remind you that those commandos were intially armed with lethal paint-ball guns for crowd dispersal. When the lethality of those paintball guns didnt really get the job done, and those commandos got overhwelmed, then pistols were pulled, a couple of which were taken away from the boarders and used against them in turn.

The only spin here is yours. The video shows the story. I wouldve thought a youtube fan like yourself been more appreciative of its use here. Apparently not.

Good thing the raid was at night to limit the negative exposure, and all the protestors' evidence which showed what actually occurred was apparently confiscated.

Actually the main video the press is using appears to be from the aspect of a humanitarian taking the film footage and then was confiscated afterwards. As to it being at night, it plainly shows more than enough illumination to see precisely whats happening.

I mean really. All one has to do is see the video in question and realize what you are saying here doesnt reflect whats on the video. At all.

I think they realize that quite well. The only people who seem to think the Israeli video gave them a license to kill are the Israelis and their all-too-typical defenders no matter what atrocities they commit.

If they were as bloodthirsty as you alleged...with a 'license to kill' as you say, wouldnt you have expected far more than just 9 or 10 dead? I mean there were hundreds on that boat...why werent they all just slaughtered and ditched over the side to cover it all up? Wouldnt it be hugely out of character for such 'bloodthirsty' villians to render medical aid to the wounded?

 

[JollyRoger]

I like how you call killing someone in self-defense (and it was self-defense) as 'brutally murdering' someone.

The Israelis were the initial aggressors. The people on board were acting in self-defense and defense of property. The murderers were killing to "defend" the initial aggressors.

If I were to break into your home and you started beating me with a bat, my accomplice that shoots you to "defend" me would rightly be considered a murderer.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I remind you that those commandos were intially armed with lethal paint-ball guns for crowd dispersal.

That is certainly not what the initial reports stated. And it's certainly not what their innocent victims would assume would be the case. Now is it?

And we don't even know if it's true or not. We just have the word of known liars who are clearly trying to do damage control after the fact.

I mean really. All one has to do is see the video in question and realize what you are saying here doesnt reflect whats on the video. At all.

I see innocent people trying to defend themselves from midnight "commandos" who are seemingly willing to do anything to protect themselves, who then apparently executed anybody who tried to stand in their way.

Where is the unedited version? Why aren't we allowed to see the Israelis killing a dozen people and wounding many more with "paint balls"?

 

[Joecoolyo]

That is certainly not what the initial reports stated. And it's certainly not what their innocent victims would assume would be the case. Now is it?

And we don't even know if it's true or not. We just have the word of known liars who are clearly trying to do damage control after the fact.

Aaaaaaand there goes your argument.

 

[GinandTonic]

Or we have the pictures of the commandos, distributed by the IDF where one of them clearly has a suppressed Uzi. He'ld be the one the guys with the capisum paint ball guns are all trying to get behind, and who'ld blame them.

 

[luiz]

Is anyone really naive enough to actually believe that the flotilla was about aiding Palestinians and not provoking Israel? Are people not aware that there are legal ways to send aid to Gaza?

This whole episode just goes to show how Israel is mistreated by the international intelligentsia. Of course they had to board the ships - how could they be sure there were no weapons hid among the humanitarian cargo? It's not like that's a new strategy to smuggle weapons. And of course they would respond with violence if they were met with violence.

And this whole talk about "international waters" is BS. The flotilla was headed for Gaza, as they admit, and Israel made it clear they would not allow them to continue. Who cares if they were boarded on international waters?