June 1, 2010
"Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game."
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game."
--The Rolling Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil”Is it so hard to guess the name? Is it so difficult to understand the nature of the game? Apparently so.
"Israeli assault complicates efforts to improve relationship with
And so the blame is placed. Yet why should either claim be true? After all, neither the
Hamas has oppressed the people of the Gaza Strip, murdered Palestinian Authority supporters in hospitals and thrown them off roofs; driven the Christians out; taken relief supplies for its own soldiers; launched a war on Israel in December 2008 that caused avoidable death and destruction; used civilians as human shields and mosques for ammunition dumps; indoctrinated children to be suicide bombers; are putting women into a Taliban-like situation; and repeatedly announces its antisemitic views and intention to wipe out Israel and massacre its people.
For some, none of this makes any difference though--to be fair--the media they get information from may not have presented these facts. For those on the left, Hamas should be considered as a fascist organization which they passionately oppose. For those sympathetic to human rights or women's rights, or many other good causes, Hamas should be anathema.
What should be paramount, then, is an international determination to overthrow the Hamas regime. After all, while it had earlier come in first in elections, it staged a coup and overthrew what was perceived as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority. To do such a thing would-to paraphrase the Carnegie report-reduce regional tensions and aid the peace process lead to an independent Palestinian state. Yet this rather obvious idea simply does not seem to have occurred to any Western government or elite.
So instead there is a policy, albeit an eroding one, of isolating Hamas and denying it at least some supplies and money, demanding that it accept the idea of real peace with
In the face of this very profound and essential wrongness, precisely what measures
Then there is the confrontation itself.
It is unlikely that the clash between Israeli forces and revolutionary Islamists on a Turkish vessel carrying Hamas supporters and supplies to
Everything I've written above would, in many circles, be considered shocking. Yet it is all obviously demonstrably true and profoundly valid for the conduct of international affairs. If any North American or European country had done the same thing as
Why does the Israel-Palestinian conflict continue? The Palestinians. If the Palestinians stopped fighting there would be peace; if
Why were people killed in the sea off of
Oh, by the way, the Turkish group that organized this operation and had a large presence on the ship where the soldiers were attacked also has had ties with al-Qaida and has been designated as a global terrorst group by the U.S. government. Indeed, in the past this group was found to be involved in dispatching terrorists to a number of countries, including involvement in a terror attack in the
There is also emerging evidence that interrogation of those captured on the ship shows that 40 to 60 men were organized in military-style units. They have no papers of identification, had a lot of money and some were equipped with night vision equipment and bullet-proof vests.
In other words, numerous Western institution are cheering--or at least being fooled--by an allegedly humanitarian action of "peace activists" run by an organization that supported the September 11 attacks on the
Of course, this isn't the first time a revolutionary movement has deliberately sacrificed people for a perceived benefit to the cause. Indeed, Hamas does that all the time. But it might perhaps be the first time it has fooled so many people. Or, perhaps I should see the second, given international reactions to the 2008-2009 war in the Gaza Strip. And the more successfully Hamas (and Hizballah) uses such tactics, the more people they will get killed in their pursuit of international sympathy and support.
Recognition of these facts is necessary for democratic societies that intend to survive. And yet that is not at all what is happening.
Now events have gone one step further. In order to pursue their goals, Hamas wants to escape from its isolation and win international support for both its regime over
This might be expected to bother a lot of people, especially in the West, especially on the left, especially among intellectuals who benefit from living in free societies. And yet that's not necessarily true either.
As part of its effort, Hamas supporters organized a six-ship convoy to bring supplies to the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip has always been a poor area, even compared to the
Hamas has now ruled the Gaza Strip for about five years. Yet it has preferred continued war with
Yet who is blamed for the status of that area today?
The blockade has definitely had a downward effect on living standards in the Gaza Strip. And of course there are two blockades since Egypt's government, which doesn't want Hamas's close associates, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to seize power and execute is leaders, also maintains an embargo.
But there is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. That can be easily proven.
And of course if Hamas were to change its policy in real terms there would be no blockade at all.
The purpose of this flotilla was not, of course, to help the Gazans but to get publicity for ending the blockade altogether, strengthening Hamas, and hitting at
A state of war exists between
And the longer Hamas rules there the more they will suffer. It is only a matter of time until Hamas engages in a new war. Indeed, the sympathy for Hamas and the buying of its lies about
After all, if its strategy is working why should Hamas change it? And if Hamas believes that it can win world opinion to be against
And so there was no way that
But such problems are also in the nature of the strange war faced upon
Then there are decisions presented as mistakes by false or inaccurate arguments. For example, take the argument that
Indeed, the most important thing about a blockade is that it must be effective to be accepted by others. Once
The organizers were quite clear that this is the first round of a plan for regular shipments to
Did the Israeli authorities underestimate the chance of violence? Well, they were 83.3 percent, that is, five-sixths, right. Five of the six ships surrendered peacefully, the ones with most or all of the well-meaning "peace activists," and were taken into port. Only one resisted, the one with the radical Islamists who want a Hamas victory and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Israelis, not peace. Two guns were grabbed from soldiers as they were beaten and knifed. In all, seven Israeli servicemen were stabbed, shot or injured--virtually the entire initial force--showing the battle was hardly one-sided. Here is an account by the commander of the boarding team who was stabbed.
(One day we will know how many of the casualties were armed with knives or shot by their "colleagues," not Israeli soldiers. Will that detail be widely disseminated?)
Again, some of those on the ships were no doubt full of well-intentioned humanitarians. But they were engaged in an evil and dangerous cause. Besides, they weren't the ones determined to attack. Those directing the operation were revolutionaries intent on supporting their Hamas comrades. The atmosphere among the Islamists is demonstrated by their televised talk of martyrdom and jihad, their open statements that they were supporting Hamas.
Al-Jazira television broadcast their chanting slogans about a new "Khaibar" and the return of "Muhammad's army," reference to the massacre of the Jews in seventh-century
There are, then, two main ways to see these events. One is of a group of humanitarians who just wanted to help people and were mistreated by evil
The other is the perspective offered here, of the attempted manipulation of international public opinion by a combination of those intent on evil and those who don't recognize the nature of its game.
Which one better explains these events, and what went before them, and what will come after? Given the facts, there can't be much doubt that allying with and assisting Hamas, the closest thing to a fascist ideology and genocidal program in today's world, is not a great moral act. If you want to have sympathy for the devil, so to speak, at least know who you are helping.
There is a statement attributed to the British political philosopher Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Burke supported
Actually, what Burke wrote is even more apt for the present day, in which democracies are threatened by a tidal wave of lies, hate, and dictatorship: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Here are the live radio signals from the Israeli forces on board the ship indicating they are under attack by armed assailants.
Here is video where you can see soldiers being attacked as they come down the ropes.
Video from above of soldiers being attacked. [Note this is not an official site and the poster has added material of his own before and after not related to the video.]
Here is a report by the main Danish international affairs' research center using Turkish sources to show the sponsoring group was an armed group preparing for terrorist attacks.
Pictures of weapons. The guns were confiscated and taken away before these pictures were taken.
The Turkish group IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), which was the main organizer, is a member of the Union of the Good, which has been designated as a global terrorist group by the