Indo-Israel: News and Discussion

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 03 Jun 2010 14:35

Carl_T wrote:No, Greece and Turkey have improved relations and Greece isn't in shape to be fighting wars for nobody. Turkey has pledged to defend Iran, so Turkey may attack Israel, but I don't think NATO is entitled to participate if Turkey attacks first.

War can be externally funded. Turkish attack of Israel will lead to devastation of the region. Turkey has spend last 25 years of peace and total EU support to build itself what it is now. If it attacks Israel, I dont know if anything will change for Israel, but one thing is sure that turkey will break, If turkey breaks, Greece will attack Cyprus and try to take it over. US will not help Turkey and F-16's will end up being useless junk with kill switch. Israel has learned its lessons since 2006 hezbollah conflict and will not repeat any past mistakes. Turkey is needlessly involving itself in a soverign interest of Israel. Only UN should step in to matter and deal with the blockade situation.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 03 Jun 2010 16:41

Details emerge of bloodshed aboard Gaza-bound ship
By MATTI FRIEDMAN (AP) – 13 hours ago

JERUSALEM — At 4:30 a.m. from her perch on the bridge of a passenger ship in the Mediterranean Sea, Hanin Zoabi saw the first lights of fast-approaching Israeli gunships and helicopters. Norman Paech awoke to the sound of explosions.
Minutes later, an Israeli commando, sent to take over the ship in what was expected to be a quick and easy operation, found himself lying on a lower deck, beaten and pulling a knife out of his stomach.

Israel's decision to stop the protest boats by sending troops to commandeer them seems to have been based on the assumption — based on past experience and the activists' own statements — that none of the passengers would fight.
The soldiers practiced several scenarios, but none involved serious resistance, Israeli defense officials said.
The situation spiraled out of control when dozens of activists converged on the top deck and attacked the soldiers, clubbing them down as the troops rappelled from a helicopter onto the ship one by one.

On May 26-27, teams of commandos from the navy's elite and secretive Flotilla 13 unit began rehearsing for the operation off Israel's coast, according to Israeli defense officials.

According to commandos interviewed by The Associated Press, the troops were expecting little resistance and had exchanged their usual assault rifles for paintball guns.
"It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," one soldier said, speaking on condition of anonymity under military regulations. The soldiers said they had loaded pistols to use only in the event of an emergency.

But a video released by the military showed a group of several dozen men waiting for the Israelis.
The edited footage showed soldiers descending from the Black Hawk into a crowd of men with sticks and clubs. Three or four activists overpowered each soldier as he landed, beating each one to the deck, where they were surrounded by more men with sticks. One soldier was tossed over the side onto a lower deck.
"When I landed on the other deck I felt that someone had stabbed me in the stomach. I pulled the knife out of my stomach," the soldier, identified only as Captain R., told Israeli Channel 10 TV from his hospital bed. One commando said several of his comrades jumped into the water to save themselves.

With men down and believing their lives were in danger, the Israeli commandos say they requested permission to use live fire. This was granted about 4:50 a.m., 20 minutes after the operation began. The Israelis pulled out their pistols and began to shoot.
In the ensuing melee, two activists succeeded in wresting two pistols away from the troops and shot two soldiers, according to the Israeli military and hospital officials. Israel says both activists were shot dead.

But those on the ship had no chance against armed and highly trained troops, and by 5 a.m., the ship was under the commandos' control.
Nine activists were dead, most of them Turks, according to the Israeli military. Dozens were wounded, along with seven soldiers. Paech said casualties were brought into a makeshift field hospital on one of the lower decks; footage from the activists showed passengers in orange life jackets treating the wounded.
Israeli officers later displayed slingshots, knives and truncheons they said were found on the ship as evidence of organized resistance. Defense officials also say some activists had military-style gear such as bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles and carried large sums of cash.

Clearly,This mission is a complete disaster. Faulty intelligence, Pathetic assumptions, Hopeless fall back plan
Its so Un-Israeli.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 03 Jun 2010 20:19

Actually I am surprised to see how Turkey, with a 99% muslim population is secular like India. It is also a part of NATO. I think Turkey found out that they were not going to enter EU because they are a muslim state ... so they realized that they can neither call themselves european nor middle eastern. When the Europeans refused to include Turkey in EU... Turkey decided its time to join the other side... the Arab League.

I agree. This, in part, explains Turkey's unusual involvement. EU never wanted Turkey to be part of the union and the recent turmoil in the Eurozone, made Turkey believe that they will never be part of the EU!! This incident also proves the drift within Turkey to take the state towards Islamic beliefs and shed the secular makeup is strengthening. The "birds of a feather" finally decided to flock together...

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Jun 2010 21:11

IMO Turkey should continue the Islamization, it is very much a legitimate part of the political discourse there. Being a 400% secular nation was basically self denial for the past 60 years. As long as Turkey stays a democratic nation and has political debate over the right direction for the nation, Islamization is normal. Just like secularism was a reaction against the perceived backwardness of the Ottoman Era, this is also a normal reaction to the previous regime.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Jun 2010 21:38

where are the supporters of this peaceful group now??

Turkey is learning from the turds next door to play both sides

it will follow the Turds down the drain if it persists

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 03 Jun 2010 22:11

del....

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 03 Jun 2010 22:52

Rahul Shukla wrote:New aid ship heads for Gaza, days after flotilla raid (CNN)

The Rachel Corrie, a ship named for an American activist killed in Gaza several years ago, was planning to arrive in Gaza late Friday or early Saturday.

Irish aid ship delays voyage to Gaza (CNN)

An Irish-owned aid ship headed for Gaza is delaying its voyage for a while to get equipped with video capabilities and satellite transmission to record what is happening at any given moment on the vessel, a Free Gaza Movement activist told CNN.

Israel was offering to unload it in its Ashdod port, screen the material and then deliver it to Gaza,... That was the same deal rejected by the flotilla of six ships bound for Gaza before Israeli commandos raided one of them Monday.

The Israel Defense Forces Military Advocate General -- the body that ensures that the rule of law is upheld within the military -- said in a report that the interception of the Gaza flotilla was legal under international law.

The body said that international law allows for a country to stop a vessel in international waters if it attempts to breach a naval blockade -- even before such a blockade is actually breached. "If it resists capture and refuses to stop, after prior warning, it may be attacked," the MAG said.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 03 Jun 2010 23:34

Why are the Ukstanis and oorepeans suddenly so pro Paki and pro-palestine. Dont these oorpeans have anything better to do? these are guys are ganging up on Israel. The one secular country populated by the religion of peace is showing its true colors.

munna · Post by **munna** » 03 Jun 2010 23:41

bhavani wrote:Why are the Ukstanis and oorepeans suddenly so pro Paki and pro-palestine. Dont these oorpeans have anything better to do? these are guys are ganging up on Israel. The one secular country populated by the religion of peace is showing its true colors.

One really interesting angle is that it is a deliberate attempt to muddy waters and threaten other major powers with destabilization in case Oiropistani economy is not rescued. The smart alecs are actually trying to create a schism between Israel and Khan when there exists some bad blood between Jerusalem and DC. Dekhi Jayegi

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 03 Jun 2010 23:45

bhavani wrote:Why are the Ukstanis and oorepeans suddenly so pro Paki and pro-palestine. Dont these oorpeans have anything better to do? these are guys are ganging up on Israel. The one secular country populated by the religion of peace is showing its true colors.

They are not doing suddenly and they are consistent. Two reasons:
(1) these are very jingoistically religious and hence at heart may be anti-semetic
(2) large vote banks of Muslims in these countries too

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Jun 2010 23:51

Anti-semitism isn't the reason. The Right in most western nations isn't anti-semitic anymore. The left is probably unsympathetic towards jews but I don't know about anti semitic. The major Europeans are all run by the Right now, and I think when push comes to shove, they will back Israel.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 03 Jun 2010 23:55

Muppalla wrote:
bhavani wrote:Why are the Ukstanis and oorepeans suddenly so pro Paki and pro-palestine. Dont these oorpeans have anything better to do? these are guys are ganging up on Israel. The one secular country populated by the religion of peace is showing its true colors.
They are not doing suddenly and they are consistent. Two reasons:
(1) these are very jingoistically religious and hence at heart may be anti-semetic
(2) large vote banks of Muslims in these countries too

I don't know about the rest of Europe but the Average Abdul in the UK cares a fig about religion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2010 23:56

After WWII Nazi atrocities, its not Politically correct to be anti-Semitic in Europe. However ~ 65 years after the Holocaust, Europeans think they can revert back to their old hatreds but are careful to disguise it as self representation rights.
Especially if they are right wingers. And not caring a fig about religion is fashionable nowadays.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jun 2010 00:00

I don't think it is correct to assume that there is innate anti-semitism today in the right just because there was 100 years ago. These days the Right has a new religious enemy and find common ground with the Jews. Furthermore some members of the Right truly like the Jews and openly talk about a JudeoChristian culture - like Jean Marie Le Pen.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jun 2010 00:01

Carl_T wrote:Anti-semitism isn't the reason. The Right in most western nations isn't anti-semitic anymore. The left is probably unsympathetic towards jews but I don't know about anti semitic. The major Europeans are all run by the Right now, and I think when push comes to shove, they will back Israel.

the ultra left like RAF used to be openly anti-semitic.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jun 2010 00:14

Who says anti-semitism is only about religion? it is partly so, because early Christianity was in competition with Judaism for the Judaic legacy. So the living continuation of the "ancestor" was an obstacle for supreme religious authority. Then they wanted to distance themselves from the activist-political-radical-militant Jews against Roman authority. Then Constantine recast and reconstructed "Christianity" as a Roman imperial tool - which also needed to find Jews as the "evil". Then the western or Gothic Christians needed to cast Jews as "evil" because of suspected connections to eastern Byzantine church.

Anti-semitism is as much about religion as it is about racial conjectures. Almost all the known atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis were tried out in one form or another (within limits of historical state capacities) in Europe and a leading light for this had been England. It was first in England that Jews were required to mark themselves out publicly by symbols as Jews - under a certain king.

Many in the Left find it normal to take up an anti-Israel position. Partly because of the Russian heritage, especially under Stalin, (who kept Jewish origin advisors or confidantes - but still took many measure showing his inherent anti-Semitism) and perhaps because of the vilification against Trotsky (original surname Bronstein) that "mother Church" of communism carried out. Early Marxists had an obsession with New Testamental memes, which they used to illustrate the "apocryphal" and "apocalyptic" vision of a proletarian revolution, but they never use explicitly Judaic ones.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jun 2010 00:18

Since antisemitism existed from a few hundred years ago due to casting Jews as "evil", therefore the Europeans today are secretly antisemitic and only bound by guilt, but otherwise hate Jews,.... We shouldn't look at the opinions expressed by the people today living in the nations in question.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jun 2010 00:21

The history of casting Jews as evil is as old as the Roman empire of first century CE.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jun 2010 00:47

brihaspati wrote:The history of casting Jews as evil is as old as the Roman empire of first century CE.

I think this is about whether the Jews are cast as evil today, not whether they were evil 2000 years ago.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2010 01:06

Carl_T, Can you rephrase the last post as it appears that it is your statement unless one follows the whole series. It will avoid flames.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2010 01:16

From Wiki on King Richard I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I

Richard I was officially crowned duke on 20 July 1189 and king in Westminster Abbey on 3 September 1189.[43] When he was crowned, Richard barred all Jews and women from the ceremony, but some Jewish leaders arrived to present gifts for the new king.[44] According to Ralph of Diceto, Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged the Jews, then flung them out of court.[45] When a rumour spread that Richard had ordered all Jews to be killed, the people of London began a massacre.[45] Many Jews were beaten to death, robbed, and burned alive.[45] Many Jewish homes were burned down, and several Jews were forcibly baptised.[45] Some sought sanctuary in the Tower of London, and others managed to escape. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, one of the most learned of the age.[46] Roger of Howeden, in his Gesta Regis Ricardi, claimed that the rioting was started by the jealous and bigoted citizens, and that Richard punished the perpetrators, allowing a forcibly converted Jew to return to his native religion. Archbishop of Canterbury Baldwin of Exeter reacted by remarking, "If the King is not God's man, he had better be the devil's," a reference to the supposedly infernal blood[47] in the House of Anjou.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 04 Jun 2010 01:19

In the Middle east, the Islamic counter reaction takes couple of hundred of years but finally comes in as a rolling thunder and wipes out all opposition good or bad to it.

The Mameluke counteroffensive happened hundreds of years after the first and second crusades is a ponter to this. The late Hafez Asad repeatedly referred to the 84 year rule of crusaders over Jeruselam as an analogy to Israel's 54 year existence and continue dogged resistance to achieve Pan arab success.

Secondly, the Turks are going native not just beacuz they were denied entry into EU but also becuz they see juicier fruits to their east. They see the collapse of the USSR as a vacuum in turkestan as a god send opportunity to resume Enver Pasha's pan turkic movement crushed by the bolsheviks in the 1920s. Note that Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan.

The Arabs get control over ME, Turks get Central Asia and Caucasus. The net losers will be Rus and the Iranians. No reason why the west will lose sleep over this.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jun 2010 01:56

Paul wrote:In the Middle east, the Islamic counter reaction takes couple of hundred of years but finally comes in as a rolling thunder and wipes out all opposition good or bad to it.

The Mameluke counteroffensive happened hundreds of years after the first and second crusades is a ponter to this. The late Hafez Asad repeatedly referred to the 84 year rule of crusaders over Jeruselam as an analogy to Israel's 54 year existence and continue dogged resistance to achieve Pan arab success.

Paul can you plz give me some links to these history. I am still learning

munna · Post by **munna** » 04 Jun 2010 01:59

Paul wrote: Secondly, the Turks are going native not just beacuz they were denied entry into EU but also becuz they see juicier fruits to their east. They see the collapse of the USSR as a vacuum in turkestan as a god send opportunity to resume Enver Pasha's pan turkic movement crushed by the bolsheviks in the 1920s. Note that Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan.

Books or links saar. Please(I need to know more about this bit)!

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 04 Jun 2010 02:08

Munna, Please look up keywords: Basmachi revolt, Enver Pasha, Pan-Turanism, Pan-Turkic etc. in Wiki and Google.

Acharya - The anecdote about Asad is in a book. I will see if I can look it up. For the the counter-reaction, you can look at the trends from the first crusades to the Mameluke period in Egypt under Sultan Baybars. The Ottoman period comes in later.

BTW...Sultan Baybars did all the heavy lifting vis a vis the crusaders but the credit is given to Saladin by western historians.

Sort of like Rommel's escapades in WWII given prominence while all the real dogged fighting was under Kesselring, Manstein, Model, and Kleist.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jun 2010 02:46

ramana wrote:After WWII Nazi atrocities, its not Politically correct to be anti-Semitic in Europe. However ~ 65 years after the Holocaust, Europeans think they can revert back to their old hatreds but are careful to disguise it as self representation rights.
Especially if they are right wingers. And not caring a fig about religion is fashionable nowadays.

Nonsense, the Islamist-aligned Left are openly anti-semitic.

Where do you see these mobs protesting the murder of 46 South Korean sailors recently?
It's because the ones who pulled the trigger aren't from a reviled ethnic group, like the Jews.

Meanwhile, Israel's blockade enforcement goes unintentionally awry, and everyone is baying for their blood.

Let's look at the recent Turkish film-making masterpiece, Valley of the Wolves:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 50402.html

This movie was an absolute hit in Turkey, the self-proclaimed most modern of Muslim nations.
Old habits die hard.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 04 Jun 2010 03:19

I agree Sanjay,

The left in US and Oorope are big supporters of palestine and heavily believe this whole talk of Israelis being bad and the perpetrators of crime on palestinians. Recently a school in Ukistan asked the jewish students to leave in order to not to offend the students from the religion of peace on an occasion.

The turks recently have been increasingly aligining themselves with thier biraders from ME.

The only true allies that Israel is left with are the right wingers in US. Ombaba is like a cat on the wall and he can jump any way.

paul thank you for a great insight.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jun 2010 05:22

Paul wrote: Secondly, the Turks are going native not just beacuz they were denied entry into EU but also becuz they see juicier fruits to their east. They see the collapse of the USSR as a vacuum in turkestan as a god send opportunity to resume Enver Pasha's pan turkic movement crushed by the bolsheviks in the 1920s. Note that Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan.

The Arabs get control over ME, Turks get Central Asia and Caucasus. The net losers will be Rus and the Iranians. No reason why the west will lose sleep over this.

Nah, I don't think the Chinese will let in new competitors into the Central Asian theater, which is near their soft flank. Shanghai-Five will see to that. The Turks have no borders with these people, and so they can't really project their power inside there. If India can't do it, then certainly the Turks can't, ancestral linguistic ties notwithstanding. I don't think even the Shiite Iranians will want to see another contender for a piece of the Central Asian pie.

The Turkish empire was heavily truncated after their losing bets in WW1, and they'd have to export their own Caliphate-led Islamic revolution in order to gain it back. Otherwise, the independent nations of the Islamic world are perfectly free to forge their own relationships for personal profit, while Turkey would gain nothing. The thing is that Erdogan's Islamist party care little for their national interest, just like the Iranian Ayatollah's next door, and only care about Islamic causes. As with the Shah of Iran, it was only Turkey's secular military who have kept the neighbors at bay, and the rise of Islamists to power in Ankara will only encourage the neighbors to sharpen their knives. Unlike Iran and other Islamist-focused countries, Turkey has no oil to buffer any foreign policy reveries.

If an Islamist-led Turkey were to make serious moves to undermine US regional lynchpins such as KSA, then the US would move decisively against them. And yet, Turkey's recent stunt with Iran on the nuclear front gives hints of that. Oh well, then let Turkey reap some trouble from the Kurds as a foretaste of what could happen to it. Islamism may not save Turkey from breakup.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jun 2010 07:25

The history of transformation of the revealed traditions is the history of empires. Most of the inspiration for empire building appear in communities that are not much productive in knowledge/technology terms themselves, but who are located on the major trade routes that carry continental level economic exchanges. Ambitious among them, see the potential in transforming an ideology that can help them mobilize to impose greater control over this flow and preferably the hotspots also.

The Jews opted out of the empire game early, perhaps because of factional experiences and therefore thinking of non-kin communities as unreliable. So that after this stage of national evolution, they became much more strictly endogamous and ceased proselytizing or converting to any significant level. However with the Islamists, one can easily see that the main centres of Islamic ambitions are exactly those which had empire ambitions also in pre-Islamic periods. The Qureshyi Mecca that produced the founding fathers of Islam are not exceptions in this regard, since the area had been at the periphery of major empires as well as quite close to major trade routes. The Nabateans and Sabateans lined the Red Sea trade routes right into the Arabain Sea as well as the trade routes connecting the Mediterranean to the CAR and India overland.

The two other ambitious Islamic centres are Anatolia-Syria, and Iran-Persia. Perhaps Afghanistan-Pakistan satisfies the criteria of being on the trade route while not being that productive themselves. Each of these centres thought that their imprial ambitions could be spurred and supported if they could use the universalist pretensions of Islam to justify imposing their regional rule on other territories under Islam.

But at the same time this universalism poses an unsolvable dilemma. Paul mentions the belated but all-sweeping reaction. I would like to add that the reaction in fact is a much more complex phenomenon that is both the source of strength as well as the downfall of Islamists. The reaction is actually a cover for other regions within the reach of Islam to rush in in the name of Islam and impose their own regional imperial ambition on an area that has been weakened in fighting with the non-Musilm.

You can see this in noting that the cases that fit Paul's description are all by Islamic armies led or core formed from regions external to the place they ultimately come to fight the "infidel" and clear the land of "kufr". Arabs are primarily interested in the riches of the Persian empire, and Egypt. Saladin was a Kurd prancing around in Egypt, Palestine. Mameluks were essentially Central Asians first enslaved and employed as soldiers in the early Caliphate. Seljuk Turks swept all the way from around the Pamirs, finsihing off the northern reaches of Ghaznavids, and ultimately expanding to form modern Turkey.

This is the reason in apparent century level gaps in the cause and reaction. It is not really a reaction, but an opportunistic use of Islamic universalism by regional ambitions to impose imperial extraction of profits from larger regions. However such imperial ambitions also impose a huge drain - economically, intellectually and ideologically - especially because the Muslims are mostly confined to areas which are not that highly productive. Over time, the new imperialist sucks the regional economy dry - and keeps other Islamic regions under constant subversion and suspicion - because it knows that other regions could try to emulate its successful strategy.

This is why in each corner of the islamic world we find the ambition to pose as the centre of the Caliphate - be it Pakis, or Turkey or KSA or Iran. The more Islam expands the more we will see proliferation of that internal conflict. It is the universalist claims of Islamism that generates regionalism within Islam and which fuels further Jihad.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 04 Jun 2010 14:36

x post

shyamd wrote:Okay, since the Israeli side has been heavily posted. Lets see what the activists themselves have to say. Here's one from an Omani Journalist for Gulf News on board the ship. By the way, if anyone doesn't like something that is said, you can contact the journalist directly via twitter and ask them any questions you have - Don't know if IDF will do that.

From tear gas to bullets: Gunshots shattered call to prayer
Everyone was crouching … I could hear louder bangs, see bright lights and hear helicopters, Gulf News reporter Abbas Al Latawi recounts flotilla attack horror
By Abbas Al Latawi, Staff reporter Published: 00:00 June 4, 2010

"Going to get some sleep. Action continues in a couple of hours. Hope we still have internet access."
That was one of my last few posts on Twitter before the partially successful Israeli media blackout on the Mavi Marmara, the biggest passenger ship on the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza which came under an Israeli attack that killed nine people.
The events since then have been a different experience for every person on the ship. As all reporters have been compiling their eyewitness accounts, here is my account of what happened.
After sending my last blog entry and twitter post, I changed into jeans and decided to take about two hours of sleep before the action started. I woke up at around 4.30am with the simultaneous sounds of bangs and the call to prayers, the azzan. Opening my eyes, I asked an Egyptian man beside me: "Are they attacking?" "Yes!" he said.
I rushed up to the press room, where everyone was crouching. I prepared my camera and went out to the deck, where I could hear louder bangs, see bright lights and hear helicopters. Small Israeli speedboats were just meters away from me, flashing their lights at everyone in view. I kept trying to get out of the light, afraid of being exposed enough to be targeted. I lifted my camera as I filmed the boat so they would know that I was a journalist, but then decided that filming them was perhaps as likely to get me shot.
Struggling to keep my shirt from flying off because of the wind that was being whipped up by the helicopter propellers, I was reminded that I did not have my life jacket on, having taken it off to go to sleep. When smoke started appearing, an activist handed me a handful of cut onions to smell, saying it would help in resisting the tear gas. I had no idea about the trick but continued sniffing on onion from one hand as I held my camera in the other.
I saw some impressively effective resistance. Men tasked with guarding the boat had resorted to using hosepipes to push trained Israeli commandos that were trying to climb the ship. Some were thrown into the sea by the pressure of the pipes. The pipes also briefly pushed away Israeli navy speedboats that had been firing tear gas canitsers and smoke bombs.
Other guards used any kind of makeshift weapon to defend themselves and their ship. Some used iron rods that once made the railing on the ships while others used sling shots and chairs.
Those activists who had gas masks on were tasked with picking up smoke bombs and tear gas canisters and throwing them off board or back at the Israeli speedboats. That method, too, prolonged the battle and led to the commandos' use of more serious weapons.
I then decided that I was standing too close to the speedboats for my own safety, and decided to assess the situation inside. That is where I learned that two Israeli soldiers had been disarmed and held captive.
I felt a sense of euphoria upon realising how big a news story this would be, but then had a sense of reality and realised that events on the boat had taken a horrible turn.
Angry activists
As I saw angry activists drag one of the Israeli soldiers down the stairs and punch him, I lost my journalistic objectivity and found myself urging the activist to stop hitting the soldier. Seeing the anger in the activist's eyes, I thought that he would kill him. I had images of the wars that Israel has waged over its captive soldiers, and the number of people that have died as a result of them. My thought was that if an Israeli soldier was to die on that ship, the entire flotilla would be bombed until it sank.
That was, of course, before I saw the bloodshed. The activists' anger was suddenly put in context when I saw a number of people carrying a dying man down the stairs. His face was unrecognisable, covered in blood. He was apparently one of the first to go down, after an Israeli gun targeted the centre of his forehead from a helicopter, spilling his brains into the hands of another activist who was trying to look after him.
Upon seeing his body I felt nauseous and had to take a step back and walk into the press room nearby. The Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset, Haneen Zoubi, walked into the press room, where everyone was ducking to avoid the windows as Israeli guns kept firing. Haneen had been on the deck outside where the battles were ongoing.
"What's going on outside?" I asked?
"What's going on? War is going on," she said.
I took a few deep breathes and went back to get some footage on my tiny HD camera. Still indoors, I remained by the staircase where, by now, the organisers of the flotilla had pushed aside activists and forbade them to hurt the soldiers. I took a few steps down to film the other captive soldier, struggling to keep my balance with so much blood under my feet. He stood in a corner being attended by two medics onboard, in shock, crying. (Oh God! These Israeli soldiers who were attacked were being tended to by medics. - Bad PR once again. Can't release that footage)
It was surreal. I knew that that soldier could destroy the entire flotilla, and thought I would get some close up footage of him. I took my camera as close as possible to his face and asked his name twice. He was too traumatised to answer. I could see fear of death in his eyes. He was petrified. Then I heard women screaming. "They are coming!"
The Israelis had taken control of the upper deck and were moving to the lower floors. Their target was the press room, where most of us had been causing the bad PR that Israel had been getting. I was right next to the press room and had to rush down to one floor below as the commanders started coming down.
I left my backpack in the press room with my passport, two of my three phones, my laptop, my still camera, watch, car and home keys, wallet, press accreditation, and a lot of cash. As the Israelis took over the press room, I had a feeling I was never going to get any of that back.
Blood from the injured ran in the stairwell of ship
Vessel was 74 nautical miles from Gaza when attacked
By Abbas Al Lawat, Staff ReporterPublished: 00:00 June 3, 2010
Israeli Navy troops storming the Mavi Marmara. The aid workers managed to keep Israeli soldiers off the ship for at least half an hour - using hosepipes and sticks to beat off a trained army. Image Credit: AFP
It was just before dawn prayers when smoke bombs were hurled onto the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the Freedom Flotilla carrying 700 humanitarian aid workers, journalists and diplomats.
Israeli forces first attacked the ship 74 nautical miles from Gaza — this is six miles from the extended Israeli zone.
The Mavi Marmara had defence teams in place, which donned gas masks and white gloves and promptly threw the smoke bombs off the deck into the sea.
The ship had altered its course slightly, in an attempt to buy more time, trying to ensure that any attack would be in daylight, when all were awake.
In the first of three attacks, the Israeli forces used paint pellet guns with paintballs mixed with glass.
They were repelled by the defence teams on deck, who used hosepipes to blast soldiers from the sides of the ship, after they tried to board from speedboats. Makeshift weapons were fashioned from items laying on the deck — as there were absolutely no weapons on board at all when the army attacked.
Rubber bullets
Chaos reined, with aid workers, defence teams and journalists running around on the deck in life jackets, trying to find out what was happening.
Helicopters overhead dipped, producing strong winds, which whipped up the sea.
In the second attack on the ship carrying aid to Gaza, the army used rubber bullets, which began to injure those on board.
A soldier landed on the deck and was overpowered by the teams, who threw his gun into the sea. He and another soldier were taken below deck, slightly injured in the scuffle. One sat in a corner, shivering, crying, refusing to speak when asked his name.
The organisers of the flotilla, the IHH, made an announcement, asking the teams to back off — once people saw blood flowing they became more aggressive. Blood from the injured ran in the stairwell, causing people to slip.
It was in the third attack that injuries turned to deaths. Four were killed in this third attempt to overpower the ship, with some bleeding to death from their injuries. Each round of attack was increasingly severe.
After live rounds started being fired, the ship gave in to surrender. Another announcement was made — in both English and Hebrew, that the ship had surrendered, it would no longer resist and that the Israelis had control. It also appealed for medical help for the injured.
An Israeli soldier held a one-year-old boy in one arm, gun in the other, and ordered the captain to take the ship to Ashdod. Organisers tried to make a deal with the army — their unharmed soldiers in return for the child, but the soldier simply repeated the same order.
Appeal
Four deaths turned into 16 by the time medical aid was provided — one and a half hours later. The hostages were lined up, sitting tightly on sofas and beds. Israeli soldiers kept their weapons trained on them, pointing them directly at their foreheads if they moved.
Haneen Zoubi, a member of the Knesset, wrote an appeal for medical aid on a piece of cardboard, and marched straight up to the Israeli soldiers, to no avail.
The aid workers managed to keep Israeli soldiers off the ship for at least half an hour — using hosepipes and sticks to beat off a trained army.
UN rights council: Probe gets go-ahead
The UN Human Rights Council yesterday adopted a resolution setting up an independent international probe into Israel's interception of Gaza-bound ships. The resolution, which also condemned Israel's "outrageous attack," was adopted after a vote, with 32 countries voting in favour, three against, and eight abstentions.
It "decides to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian aid and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance."
The text also decides to "authorise the president of the council to appoint members of this independent international fact finding system."
— With inputs from AFP
Israel's flotilla attack came in three phases
There were absolutely no weapons aboard the Mavi Marmara as Israel claims, says Gulf News reporter Abbas Al Lawati who was witness to the carnage on aid ship to Gaza
By Abbas Al Lawati, Staff ReporterPublished: 15:00 June 2, 2010

Amman: A red laser dot appeared on his head, and seconds later he was shot dead. A member of the organisers rushed to his aid, only to have the man's brains spill out onto his hands.
This was the first death in the deadly attack on the Mavi Marmara — lead ship in the Freedom Flotilla carrying 700 aid workers, journalists and diplomats.
Israeli forces first attacked the ship 74 nautical miles from Gaza — six miles from the extended Israeli zone.
Israeli troops attacked the boat in three stages. The first attack came during dawn prayers when smoke bombs were thrown on deck. These were thrown overboard by the defence teams on board the ship.
Read special coverage of Freedom Flotilla
The Mavi Marmara tried to alter its course so that any further attack would occur during daylight, but the Israelis persisted and boarded the ship. They used paintball guns on passengers — the ammunition mixed with glass.
Israeli troops tried to board the ship from speedboats and the defence teams used hose pipes to prevent soldiers from boarding the vessel.
Makeshift weapons were fashioned from items lying on the deck, but there were absolutely no weapons on board the ship, as Israel claims. As chaos and panic swept the boat the Israelis began stage two, using rubber bullets. Once blood started flowing, anger mounted against the Israelis.
Gulf News statement on the Israeli attack
In the third attack, the injuries turned to deaths. Four people were killed instantly while 12 others bled to death. Finally, the captain surrendered and agreed to take the Mavi Marmara to the Israeli port city of Ashdod after an Israeli soldier pointed a gun at a one-year-old Turkish child.
— Abbas Al Lawati has been freed. He left Amman, Jordan, for Muscat, Oman, and was scheduled to arrive late last night.
Couple of points from press articles since the incident.
Point Number 1 - Weapons could have been attempted to brought in.
Reply: Really, would Hamas, Iran or now Turkey really use a public event to bring in weapons, especially with so many VIPs on board (MEPs. Knesset members, Press and others etc) I am sure they would love to be associated with terrorists. Weapons would have been stopped by Turkish Customs anyway.

Point Number 2- Initial news reports said a cache of pistols were found. Now proven untrue.

Point number 3 - There were millions of dollars on board. If this was true, the Israeli's would have been the first to show it.

Point 4 - These activists were there to cause trouble - No they were there to symbolically and peacefully breach the illegal blockade (which anyhow affects only the common person). UN themselves say Israel allows only a fraction of aid that should be coming in - just shows the mean intent of Israel. So what does your average Gaza suicide terrorist use for equipment - well rockets are made from home made stuff - bits of steel etc. The bombs themselves are made from household stuff like soap. So whats the point of this blockade? And, believe it or not the top guys from the state department have already met with certain Hamas bigwigs, its only a matter of time before they are accepted as a legitimate democratically elected government of Gaza.

Also, I wonder why IDF confiscated press laptops, camera's and cell phones. Perhaps, if these are released, we can see what the others saw from inside the ship and what went on from the other PoV

----------
Sanjay M, the attempted coup by secularist Turkish Army guys really screwed israel over. That was the end of pro-israeli's in the turkish army. Israeli backing was suspected in that apparently.

Just some food for thought.

I find it interesting how some people think that being anti-zionist means anti jewish. I think thats exactly what Israeli's want you to think, despite the fact that all the intellectuals come out and say that it has nothing to do with judaism but zionism.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 04 Jun 2010 15:02

I hope Turkey becomes another Pakistan, only with a much larger economy & more capable military. Once that happens, the theater of action wrt Islam shifts to Oirope proper, we can then sit back with popcorn & watch the action unfold as the Oiropeans whine & howl with blood thirsty mullahs at their doorsteps. Specially with UKstan & Francistan having enough RoPers to ignite the fireworks. I so hope this becomes a reality.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 04 Jun 2010 17:12

Turkey going pure was long overdue.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 04 Jun 2010 19:42

- shyamd

I think anti Zionism is anti semitism if you only criticise Israel but don't apply the same criticism to everyone else.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 04 Jun 2010 22:22

India should snap all ties with Israel, demand Muslim groups

'We demand an end to the trade and military ties between India and Israel. We should not buy Israeli arms and ammunition neither should we trade anything with the terrorist state,' said Mujtaba Farooqi, secretary of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

Nearly 1,000 people joined the protest march that started from India Gate and headed towards the Israeli embassy on Aurangzeb Rpad. The protesters were, however, stopped at the neighbouring Shahjahan Road by police.

The protesters demanded that India snap all ties with Israel, terming it a 'terrorist state'.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 04 Jun 2010 22:33

I'd like to believe that we're a smarter nation now which knows it's own intrests rather than taking a moral high ground. Israel's defence relationship with India has bought us a lot of good and we'd do well to keep put of the controversial stuff.

I was very surprised to see an official statement from MEA though, they would have done well to just shut up.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 04 Jun 2010 23:13

Carl_T wrote:- shyamd

I think anti Zionism is anti semitism if you only criticise Israel but don't apply the same criticism to everyone else.

Carl_T could you explain a bit more please? TIA

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 05 Jun 2010 00:29

The protesters demanded that India snap all ties with Israel, terming it a 'terrorist state'.

I missed where they demanded the same for Pakistan.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 05 Jun 2010 01:18

The only hope of peace in CAR region is Russian orthodoxy. If the christian population in russia doesnt increase rapidly as compared to the increase in its muslim population
we can only sit and watch russia turning a pureland even before oirope.
when this happens we will witness extinction of israel by ravaging islamic armies with all possible weapons and thousands of nukes.
For israel ,russia is the key for survival .
If free russia falls to mullahs ,no one can prevent a second holocaust . Only russia can hold clergy domination in CAR.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Jun 2010 02:30

shyamd wrote:
Carl_T wrote:- shyamd

I think anti Zionism is anti semitism if you only criticise Israel but don't apply the same criticism to everyone else.
Carl_T could you explain a bit more please? TIA

Yea, I like to hear that one too.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 05 Jun 2010 02:51

Acharya:

In case anyone missed the point, his reception hall was dominated by a large painting depicting the Arab armies under Saladin defeating the Crusaders during the battle of Hittin in 1187, a not-so-subtle reminder that he considered present circumstances temporary.

"Even in his bitterness toward Israel, he retained a certain wry humor about their conflicting views, and he seemed to derive great patience from his obvious sense of history," President Jimmy Carter wrote in "The Blood of Abraham," a 1985 study of the region.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/ ... asadd3.htm

Capsule Appraisals: "In conference with the Israelis, Kissinger contrasted Sadat and Assad: 'Sadat has a fixed determination to overcome obstacles and move toward peace. He makes big moves and breaks impasses. With Assad, each issue when you get to it becomes major, and you have to bargain over every point. It's so time consuming! Sadat makes command decisions. Assad had his lieutenants there, and I had to convince them too.' In describing Assad, Kissinger was also describing the Israelis to themselves."

He was Zia's grand daddy in nego style....