Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Will the same people organising flotillas to Gaza be sailing up the Nile in defence of the 100's of 1000's there being displaced?
If not why not?

Honestly? IMHO its because they're black and African. The general underlying consensus of too many on Africa is "well its africa innit?" Israel is more European and civilised to western eyes. Its more western full stop. Downtown Tel Aviv could be any city in the mediterranean. Its more relevant to most westerners.

Cynical? Moi?

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

memnoch,that doesn't address my point at all.
Why is the Israeli bogey man getting all the attention whilst over the road mass muderers on a whoppingly much bigger scale and enslavers in a so called islamic regime are getting pretty much ignored by the left wing?

@scofflaw I didn't at any point make the post to justify Israel [goodness knows I've condemned them enough in this thread].

But it does mesmerize me as to why a much huger conflict practically next door is comparatively ignored.Where are the priorities?
Will the same people organising flotillas to Gaza be sailing up the Nile in defence of the 100's of 1000's there being displaced?
If not why not?

@wes I have sig's turned off.
Most of them are annoying but I laud your concern.

Activism isn't a tap, though. You don't just measure out x amount of activism, and distribute it according to some formula of outrage - instead, people concentrate on particular issues. At least, everyone other than the SWP do.

Sudan isn't part of the Western World - most people don't feel that they could achieve anything by protesting (although it still happens). There's no Sudanese Embassy in Ireland, and most Irish people have probably never spoken to anyone Sudanese, whereas most of us either know Israelis or Zionists. The very geography is entirely unfamiliar to us, whereas Jerusalem, Israel, Bethlehem, all those names are familiar to us from childhood. There's the crusades, the history of Christianity. Sudan is also a Third World conflict, whereas Israel-Palestine is a First World-Third World pressure point. It's also an eschatological flashpoint - Christian tourists coming to Jerusalem are still regularly overwhelmed by messianic delusions.

I'm going to cut that short - suffice to say that it's a conflict deeply entwined with the West, and particularly the English-speaking world, through history, culture, religion, and geography, and Sudan isn't. It means something quite deep to us, and Sudan doesn't.

And it's also irrelevant, again, to the rights and wrongs of the case. It would make an interesting topic for another thread, although curiously none of the people who have raised it on the existing Israel threads seem to have thought so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

patrickk

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Badly beaten Irish / Palistinian citizen gives his account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUhwELoKWo&feature=player_embedded

Theres a lot of debate on here its very simple the Palestinians are been squeezed to death its all going to change soon,those people who died on ship was not in vain .Israels grip is losing its power .Anywhere people are oppressed by regimes the times are changing in their favour.Shame on the Israeli mass genocide cause .I'm proud to see an irish man fighting the good fight well done to all those join their cause .

@wes

@wes
With respect,you or I don't know each other so it's not credible to be calling my question on darfur here as disingenuous in the extreme.

memnoch wrote:

I personally think it would make a fascinating topic of discussion. But to somehow segue that into this suggestion that the people concerned about X conflict are acting hypocritically or to attack them using this is the ultimate straw man.

It depends on the nature of the attack.
I'd call it a criticism and not an attack as for the most part,I don't have a problem with the flotilla [bar I do believe that to think that there were no people in that flotilla at all at all who weren't expecting trouble and who should have acted like those on the irish boat and sat down is naive].
I do believe the flotilla is highlighting the issue of the blockade.

Now it's time there were a few flotilla's sailing up the Nile.

I do agree with you obviously that a discussion on why one conflict is given more concern than another would be fascinating but I suspect ,it would die after 3 or 4 posts.
I've seen that before here and elsewhere sadly.I don't know why.

Wibbs wrote:

Honestly? IMHO its because they're black and African. The general underlying consensus of too many on Africa is "well its africa innit?" Israel is more European and civilised to western eyes. Its more western full stop. Downtown Tel Aviv could be any city in the mediterranean. Its more relevant to most westerners.

Cynical? Moi?

Pretty much that and what Scofflaw says plus I'd wager the fact that Israel is symbolic of/symbiotic to ,the whole neo con Bushist Iraq war.
Nothing like that to get certain groups energized.
A human tragedy is a human tragedy though and the distinction/widespread ignoring of one over the other pretty much sticks in my craw.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

@wes
With respect,you or I don't know each other so it's not credible to be calling my question on darfur here as disingenuous in the extreme.

He doesn't need to know you - the very terms of your position are disingenuous - even if you're a lovely fellah altogether.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

@wes
With respect,you or I don't know each other so it's not credible to be calling my question on darfur here as disingenuous in the extreme.

Sorry. but the fact that you are bringing this up in a thread about Israel killing activists, tells me all I need to know. This is a well known tactic of obfuscation, and generally the people who bring it up, care little for the cause they are invoking, and if they do care for the cause, then I think using it in this manner is even worse.


**EDIT**
Also, you didn't bother addressing that there is Darfur activism, and to be fair it is not in the news right now, but if the Sudanese government killed a bunch of Western activists, you can be sure it would all over the news, but apparently even the Sudanese government aren't that stupid.

Also, until the murder of the activity's, Gaza was largely out of the media spot light, until Israel did something very stupid again, which is something of a habit for them.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Now it's time there were a few flotilla's sailing up the Nile.

Does Egypt have a proscribed block on aid to Gaza? Nope. It's closed it's border, which it's quite entitled to do, unlike Israel, which has a legal responsibility (as an occupying force until 2005) to provide access for aid, water and energy - unlike Egypt. What happened last time Egypt did allow the border to remain open? They were pressurized by Israel to close it.

I don't approve of Egypt's position in relation to Gaza, but it's in a completely different league in terms of human rights abuse than Israel's actions.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

@wes
With respect,you or I don't know each other so it's not credible to be calling my question on darfur here as disingenuous in the extreme.

That's exactly what it is, as has been pointed out by numerous posters. It's a blatant attempt at dragging the discussion off-topic and even at that it's an intellectually bankrupt one.

Now it's time there were a few flotilla's sailing up the Nile.

So why don't you get one going. As wes has pointed out there are many groups that are trying to address those issues. if you care that much, join one of them and get working on it. But I suspect you won't, because the issue that seems to concern YOU most is that of Israel. Hence you are here, spending your time and energy trying to justify Israel's actions through every disingenuous means available by calling into question the motivations of the aid workers and then declaring them hypocrites because they haven't acted on some issue that you've cherry picked as more important/urgent.

I do agree with you obviously that a discussion on why one conflict is given more concern than another would be fascinating but I suspect ,it would die after 3 or 4 posts.
I've seen that before here and elsewhere sadly.I don't know why.

No one does. It's an intricate subject that I'm sure is worthy of discussion but everyone has different things that make them tick and that rouse their conscience. That is not a justification to try and attack the motivations or character of the aid workers involved in this incident.

A human tragedy is a human tragedy though and the distinction/widespread ignoring of one over the other pretty much sticks in my craw.

Bull****. The only thing that is seeming to stick in your craw is that Israel is being called out for its horrendous behaviour and you're doing everything in your power to try and divert the discussion/responsibility away from it. Through incredibly disingenuous means.

And that is my opinion.

p.s. I'm not going to get into any more off topic nonsense with you about other things around the world.

wes

@ alastair

My reference to the Nile was about the part of it that flows through Sudan.To clarify,I was not referring to Egypt.

Also In fairness Wes would need to know me [and I'll leave it at that] because a few posts in a forum would not indicate where I spend my time or what I believe in.
One thing I don't believe in with debate is the avoidance of awkward dilemma's in a position and this is just one I've raised here.
I think I've said enough,the opponents and proponents are aware of their positions.

wes wrote:

Sorry. but the fact that you are bringing this up in a thread about Israel killing activists, tells me all I need to know. This is a well known tactic of obfuscation, and generally the people who bring it up, care little for the cause they are invoking, and if they do care for the cause, then I think using it in this manner is even worse.

Or it could be that it's just awkward when something like much huger conflicts are mentioned.They cannot be totally ignored in a debate about something similar but smaller.
As Regards what you say about me,you couldn't be further from the truth.
But then this thread is not about me so don't make it about me please.
It is really for another thread.A passing few comments here is all it needed and it's been brought up,minutely and sufficiently discussed,positions explained etc.
I've no desire to go way off topic with it and will limit my contributions to any other points on the central topic that interest me if any.Thank you.

memnoch wrote:

Bull****. The only thing that is seeming to stick in your craw is that Israel is being called out for its horrendous behaviour and you're doing everything in your power to try and divert the discussion/responsibility away from it. Through incredibly disingenuous means.

And that is my opinion.

p.s. I'm not going to get into any more off topic nonsense with you about other things around the world.

I've addressed that accusation above when wes put it.
I'd already said to you a few pages back that making the thread about me is not fair debate.Sometimes similar conflicts do legitimately have to be brought up in conversations,awkward as that may be.
Lets agree to disagree then ,though ironically I suspect we agree on more than we disagree

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Or it could be that it's just awkward when something like much huger conflicts are mentioned.They cannot be totally ignored in a debate about something similar but smaller.

No, its actually a common tactic of obfuscation, as there is nothing stopping you starting a new thread on Darfur.

Deleted User wrote: »

As Regards what you say about me,you couldn't be further from the truth.
But then this thread is not about me so don't make it about me please.
It is really for another thread.A passing few comments here is all it needed and it's been brought up,minutely and sufficiently discussed,positions explained etc.

Ok, fair enough, but all I was talking about was my own impression, considering that this happen a lot in Israel and Palestine threads, were another conflict is brought up, when a new thread could easily be started on the subject.

Also, I did point out a huge difference between the 2 conflicts, Sudan is under UN sanctions Israel is not. Hence, why you have people trying to break Israels siege, as the only other method of breaking it via the UN is impossible due to the US veto.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no desire to go way off topic with it and will limit my contributions to any other points on the central topic that interest me if any.Thank you.

Fair enough.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

@ alastair

My reference to the Nile was about the part of it that flows through Sudan.To clarify,I was not referring to Egypt.

Also In fairness Wes would need to know me [and I'll leave it at that] because a few posts in a forum would not indicate where I spend my time or what I believe in.

Yeah - I'd missed the intent of the Nile thing.

In relation to the 'you don't know me' business - what you're propounding is essentially just another line of 'whatabouttery' - whatever your motivations are, the argument is, by it's very nature, disingenuous. It's designed to shift the argument away to an unrelated matter.

A Dub in Glasgo

I find it funny that BB is doing the same things in this thread that he spent years infracting people for on this forum ie whatabout this whatabout that and trying to sidetrack the thread

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd already said to you a few pages back that making the thread about me is not fair debate.Sometimes similar conflicts do legitimately have to be brought up in conversations,awkward as that may be.
Lets agree to disagree then ,though ironically I suspect we agree on more than we disagree

No what's unfair debate is trying to make this thread about Darfur, or China or any other country on the planet that was not involved in the "ISrael attacks Add Flotilla, at least 2 dead," incident.

I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree. I just refuse to legitimise your disingenuous attempts to smear the aid workers by some convoluted twist of whataboutry nonsense. And if you're prepared to engage in such shallow tactics it leads me to take a seriously dim view of anything else you might have to say on the topic.

gandalf

Another eyewitness account in an interview with Der Spiegel. Swedish Author Henning Mankell on Gaza Convoy Raid.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699101,00.html

He confirms that the Mavi Mamara was the first boat attacked illegally.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

@wes
With respect,you or I don't know each other so it's not credible to be calling my question on darfur here as disingenuous in the extreme.

I don't question your credibility but I will say you should start a thread to discuss something off topic to the current dicussion and that is definitely off-topic.

If you disagree you should look at the past page of posts telling you its off topic and then at least agree the majority disagree with you and start a thread on it if you wish.

Otherwise don't be surprised if a moderator takes action against you for off-topic posting when your post contains content that is not related to the thread.

Why you insist on doing it is beyond me but obviously your not interested in this discussion as you can't make a post relating to it.

Iwasfrozen

alastair wrote: »

Thankfully Israel was able to get in first and break the law (and kill 9 people in the process) in order to stop the activists breaking the law the following morning by bringing aid into territorial waters and not stopping when asked. At least some have their priorities right - heaven forbid Hamas get their hands on pencils and cement. :rolleyes:

Do you have any proof that Israel knew there were no arms on the boat?
I'm presuming you don't.

gandalf

Another interesting article from Der Spiegel today.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699065,00.html

It focuses on the aftermath of the flotilla assault on Israels relations.

It ends with a very interest quote from Dani Ayalon Israel's deputy foreign minister.

At the end of the conversation, Ayalon says something that suggests that the Israelis may in fact have learned something last week: "Perhaps it was a mistake to storm the ships."

I am sure he is saying this more so because of the fall out from the situation and not because the operation in itself was illegal.

Memnoch

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you have any proof that Israel knew there were no arms on the boat?
I'm presuming you don't.

This ground has been covered countless times already. The boats had been checked at every port and finally at Turkey and Cyprus by the authorities. Also the point of the blockade isn't to stop weapons but to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population of gaza.

If the Israelis ever said, we will search for weapons but allow the rest of the aid through, no one would have a problem with that.

The problem is with them arbitrarily deciding what the people of Gaza can and can't have, including ridiculously basic items that have also been listed countless times in this thread.

Iwasfrozen

Memnoch wrote: »

This ground has been covered countless times already. The boats had been checked at every port and finally at Turkey and Cyprus by the authorities. Also the point of the blockade isn't to stop weapons but to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population of gaza.

Israel cannot and should not delegate the responsibility for the maintenance and protection of its own border to another country. No state in the world would, why should Israel.

Memnoch wrote: »

If the Israelis ever said, we will search for weapons but allow the rest of the aid through, no one would have a problem with that.

They did. They negotiated a deal with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs that after the cargo was checked by Israel under the watch of the U.N and Irish officials it would be transported to Gaza.

Memnoch wrote: »

The problem is with them arbitrarily deciding what the people of Gaza can and can't have, including ridiculously basic items that have also been listed countless times in this thread.

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza in 2006 only to have to re-invade in 2008 because Gaza were firing rockets into Israel. There can be no assurance that if Israel were to pull out Hamas wouldn't keep firing rockets.

Heaven forbid in the event of a total Israeli pull out. They would set up an economy and buy more advanced weapons then rockets. For these reasons the blockade must be kept in place.

Memnoch

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel cannot and should not delegate the responsibility for the maintenance and protection of its own border to another country. No state in the world would, why should Israel.

Gaza is not Israeli territory. If the blockade was only about weapons I would have no issue on this. But it clearly is not and has not been. As OH SO IRONICALLY you yourself admit later in the same post.

They did. They negotiated a deal with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs that after the cargo was checked by Israel under the watch of the U.N and Irish officials it would be transported to Gaza.

As far as I'm aware the final decision was still that the only aid that would be transported through would be the aid the Israel deemed appropriate. That's the last quote I read on it from an Israeli source yesterday. If you have something new to link then I'd be happy to take a look at that. Regardless, even if this is the new stance that has been adopted, it only goes to vindicate the flotillas actions and cannot be used retrospectively to condemn it.

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza in 2006 only to have to re-invade in 2008 because Gaza were firing rockets into Israel. There can be no assurance that if Israel were to pull out Hamas wouldn't keep firing rockets.

This isn't about a pull out, this is about the restriction of aid. The issue of occupation is separate and I'm not interested in getting side tracked on this.

They would set up an economy and buy more advanced weapons then rockets. For these reasons the blockade must be kept in place.

Here is the problem. And you admit it yourself. So you're not just opposed to weapons, but the possibility of the Palestinian people becoming self-sufficient, in the fear that they might use this to buy weapons.

Maybe the Israeli economy should be similarly dismantled so that they can't keep getting weapons to kill civilians, aid workers and journalists with. This nonsensical argument cuts both ways.

The Geneva convention on human rights is clear, and by your own admission Israel is in violation of it.

Iwasfrozen

Memnoch wrote: »

Gaza is not Israeli territory. If the blockade was only about weapons I would have no issue on this. But it clearly is not and has not been. As OH SO IRONICALLY you yourself admit later in the same post.

You're right Gaza is no longer a territory of Israel. It hasn't been since Israel pulled out in 2005. Once Israel did pull out Hamas came to power in 2007 and the number of rockets fired into Israel multiplied. The maintenance of the blockade is necessary to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens.

Memnoch wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the final decision was still that the only aid that would be transported through would be the aid the Israel deemed appropriate. That's the last quote I read on it from an Israeli source yesterday. If you have something new to link then I'd be happy to take a look at that. Regardless, even if this is the new stance that has been adopted, it only goes to vindicate the flotillas actions and cannot be used retrospectively to condemn it.

It also shows that the Israelis are prepared to allow aid to enter Gaza as long as said aid travels through the correct procedures. A boat full of hippies can not and should not be allowed to break national law.

Memnoch wrote: »

This isn't about a pull out, this is about the restriction of aid. The issue of occupation is separate and I'm not interested in getting side tracked on this.

The issue of occupation is not seperate. The events are related and meaningful dscussion cannot be achieved unless one looks at all factors.

Memnoch wrote: »

Here is the problem. And you admit it yourself. So you're not just opposed to weapons, but the possibility of the Palestinian people become self-sufficient, in the fear that they might use this to buy weapons.

That is being opposed to weapons.

Memnoch wrote: »

Maybe the Israeli economy should be similarly dismantled so that they can't keep getting weapons to kill civilians, aid workers and journalists with. This nonsensical argument cuts both ways.

Your logic is nonsensical, Israel is a legitimate Sate. Gaza is not.

Memnoch wrote: »

The Geneva convention on human rights is clear, and by your own admission Israel is in violation of it.

I never admitted that.

dvpower

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right Gaza is no longer a territory of Israel. It hasn't been since Israel pulled out in 2005.

Wasn't that an occupation?

That handbag I snatched was my property, until I dumped it down a laneway.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel cannot and should not delegate the responsibility for the maintenance and protection of its own border to another country. No state in the world would, why should Israel..

Nobody is asking them too. They're asking them to stop looking after Gazas borders, which is a different thing entirely.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza in 2006 only to have to re-invade in 2008 because Gaza were firing rockets into Israel. There can be no assurance that if Israel were to pull out Hamas wouldn't keep firing rockets...

Israel has no presence within Gaza at the moment.

alastair

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right Gaza is no longer a territory of Israel. It hasn't been since Israel pulled out in 2005. Once Israel did pull out Hamas came to power in 2007 and the number of rockets fired into Israel multiplied. The maintenance of the blockade is necessary to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens.

You do realise the blockade at issue is a blockade of aid, not of weapons? How exactly does blockading pencil, or pasta, or cement make Israeli citizens safer?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It also shows that the Israelis are prepared to allow aid to enter Gaza as long as said aid travels through the correct procedures. A boat full of hippies can not and should not be allowed to break national law.

Hippies eh? 'Long haired' hippies perchance? I thought they were 'terrorists', on the 'flotilla of hate'. I wish the party line would stand still for a bit. Israel has a legal obligation (as re-iterated once again last week by the security council resolution) to provide access for all aid - not just the bits and pieces (and quantities) it defines as acceptable to Israel. They have an equal right to block any weapons going through - but that isn't the point of debate, now is it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That is being opposed to weapons.

In bizzaro world maybe. The capacity for economic recovery is nothing like weapons (not even the 'sophisticated kind' you find in the kitchen drawer).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never admitted that.

And? The fact still stands.

gandalf

The Iranian Red Crescent has confirmed it plans to send 3 ships with aid at the end of the month.

The iranian red crescent is planning to send humanitarian aid by sea to Gaza in a brazen challenge to Israel's sea blockade of the coastal enclave. The attempt to confront Israel's naval defences could escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, its greatest foe, and trigger a rerun of the bungled raid on a Turkish vessel bound for Gaza last week that left nine activists dead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-prepares-to-confront-israel-with-aid-flotilla-1994124.html

Now this is a serious ramping up of the situation and one that is pushing the envelop to a very dangerous place indeed. A Turkish flotilla is one thing as in reality Turkey and Israel have until recently had very good relations indeed. However Iran a country that has said that it wants to destroy Israel sending ships like this is a direct provocation and one that the International Community has to discourage.

If this does happen then it could be open season in the Mediterranean.

One other thing to note at the end of that article is the absolute hatred that had greeted Haneen Zuabi for taking part in the flotilla. One of the tests of a true democracy is the way it treats those who peacefully criticise it. Given the outright violent hostility to a Facebook page calling for her execution it appears that anyone off message is in extreme danger within Israeli society these days and doesn't bode well for the state of democracy in that country.

An Arab Israeli member of parliament accused colleagues of conducting a "witch-hunt" before a panel voted to strip her of parliamentary privileges for taking part in the flotilla aimed at breaching Israel's sea blockade of Gaza.

The Knesset's House Committee voted seven to one in favour of stripping Haneen Zuabi, a member of the opposition Balad party, of parliamentary privileges including the right to a diplomatic passport and legal financial support.

The move, which must be approved by the Knesset, is likely to erode further already fragile relations with Israel's Arab community who took Israeli citizenship in 1948. Right-wing politicians have used the flotilla incident to renew their attack on Arab politicians perceived as disloyal to the Jewish State.

Ms Zuabi, 41, joined hundreds of protesters aboard the Mavi Marmara, one of six vessels loaded with humanitarian aid that tried to breach the Israeli-led blockade of Gaza last week. In a botched assault of the ship, Israeli commandos killed nine of the activists and drew global condemnation.

Ms Zuabi's participation in the protest drew intense anger in Israel. She was pushed, poked and jostled by colleagues in the Knesset last week and a Facebook page calling for her execution soon attracted thousands of followers. Interior Minister Eli Yishai has called on the Attorney General to strip Ms Zuabi of her Israeli citizenship.

wes

gandalf wrote: »

One other thing to note at the end of that article is the absolute hatred that had greeted Haneen Zuabi for taking part in the flotilla. One of the tests of a true democracy is the way it treats those who peacefully criticise it. Given the outright violent hostility to a Facebook page calling for her execution it appears that anyone off message is in extreme danger within Israeli society these days and doesn't bode well for the state of democracy in that country.

Found this video via Tukun Olam blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRf0aB3BNEY&feature=player_embedded
The video shows Haneen Zuabi very nearly being attacked by other MKs, and various threats made against her.

The Tikun Olam blog goes into more detail:
Near-Lynching of Israeli Palestinian Knesset Member in Knesset (the Sequel)

You can see for yourself the treatment described in the independent article. Truly horrible stuff.

droidus

This Israeli blog is an excellent source of up to date news on the flotilla:

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/

gandalf

droidus wrote: »

This Israeli blog is an excellent source of up to date news on the flotilla:

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/

Thanks for that.

Interesting photo linked on that site. It appears that a protester is assaulting this Israeli commando with a tissue paper.



Funny that wasn't shown on the video of Sophisticated Weapons by the IDF?

droidus

Yeah, a whole series of photos showing Israeli soldiers being medically treated by the terrorist activists were released to the Turkish press last week. As noam from that blog speculates:

Turkish paper Hurriyet published pictures of captive IDF soldiers inside the Mavi Marmara (see them here) during the Israeli raid on the ship. IDF spokesperson already declared that “this is clear proof of Israel’s repeated claims, that the boat was carrying mercenaries, whose sole purpose was to kill the soldiers.” But to me these pictures raise even more questions. It seems that the people on the Mavi Marmara actually kept the soldiers alive – rather than “lynch” them, as Israel claims. This might also explain why the battle against unarmed civilians took so long: Could it be that the nine casualties weren’t just the result of an attempt to protect the life of the soldiers at the moment they were attacked, but rather the outcome of a violent rescue operation?

Since the Gilad Shalit kidnapping, there is a standing order in Israel not to let any IDF soldier to be captured alive, even if it means risking his own life – let alone the life of the people around him.

Another thought: could it be that the bullet injuries few IDF soldiers suffered occurred during this rescue attempt? Maybe it was IDF shots that caused them?

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Interesting photo linked on that site. It appears that a protester is assaulting this Israeli commando with a tissue paper.



Funny that wasn't shown on the video of Sophisticated Weapons by the IDF?

One of the other disturbing things about that picture is this comment on the captured IDF commandos:

According to a report from Al-Jessira (quoted here in Ynet), the third soldier didn’t escape; IDF commandos broke into the room he was held in and shot the passengers surrounding him.

That raises the disturbing possibility that some of those who were shot were doing the sort of thing shown in the picture. Of course, that's purely speculative.

cordially,
Scofflaw