Another brilliant assessment, I must say, especially your point regarding the lack of understanding between the flotilla crew and Israeli soldiers seems to be the key element in provoking this violent incident. From our discussion I can conclude that:
1) Israeli soldiers should have announced their intention of negotiations from one of their patrol boats.
2) Flotilla crew should not have thrown the Israeli soldier over board since that seems to be the triggering point of the violence.
3) Israelis should have used rubber bullets rather than live ammunition.
4) Flotilla crew should have surrendered peacefully when the firing started to avoid unnecessary confrontation and loss of life.
There was a Pakistani journalist onboard, Mr.Talat, he is one of Pakistan's most distinguished and respected journalists, being a secularist, he also has my respect. According to him, Israeli boats had tagged the flotilla about 3 hours prior to the attack, the ever increasing number of boats moving near the caravan of ships and repeated overhead passes by Israeli choppers convinced those on board the flotilla that an attack was imminent, and so to repel this attack, according to Mr. Talat, the people armed themselves with whatever was at hand anything from flag poles to umbrellas. When the helicopters began dropping Israeli soldiers on board, people attacked them.
He was asked that how come people did not wait to see what the Israeli soldiers were there for, to which he replied, I bet no country would drop armed soldiers from combat helicopters onto a boat to hold negotiations. He says that the fact that the Israeli soldiers came with live rounds locked and loaded proves that they had the intention of a massacre from the beginning, about 20 activists were killed in the incident.
Atleast this is what Talat says.
As ever good friend, your analysis is shockingly detailed and accurate. And for the sake of neutrality of the Swiss colour, I will not insist that you comment on the topic in question. However, I do have some disagreements that I would like to discuss with you, firstly, don't you think that the Israelis should have let the Flotilla reach it's intended destination after a quick check of the contents on board ? This way, the unnecessary bloodshed could have been avoided and Israel's reputation would have also seen some improvement.
Secondly, Israeli customs has the authority to restrict any type of items, be they food or medicine from passing their blockade, what other option do you think should have been made available for the flotilla organizers and what should they have opted for ?
With regard to your statement, yes, many members ask for war while they do not understand the full consequences of armed conflict, not only does it bring unnecessary bloodshed and grief but it sets a country's development back by many years, "a warrior I may be, a warmonger, I am not" and I fully support you on this.
P.S: Jana is not a school girl, she's a journalist !!!!!!!!:s
As a European I can forgive your slight ignorance of the conflict.
The arab states have been waging diplomatic warfare against israel for quite some time- threatening its economy and leadership with boycotts, and promoting demonization of israel in the international media and UN.
So called enlightened states like UAE, Oman and Bahrain are all part of the concerted effort to isolate israel.
UAE is terrorist vacation #1. al qaeda has millions stashed in dubai banks. not to mention all those states resemble apartheid policies, where ethnic minorities and immigrants are subjugated.
less than 20% of UAE's population are actual citizens, the vast majority are immigrants who work as slaves for the dictatorship.
israel cares very little about noise, actions and terrorism is the biggest concern.
an absence of violence in 2010 is not because the muslims have become less homicidal, but rather israel is so damn good as protecting itself.
The dictator's of the Muslim world don't want normalized relations with the Zionists because without the Israel scapegoat card to play, the citizens of the Muslim world will revolt, demand fairness, and probably lynch the dictators.
If Israel didn't exist, the Arabs would need to invent it in order to deflect from their own miseries, failures and regressiveness, and, have someone to scapegoat.
NY times writer Thomas Friedman would mock the Muslims as they obsess about Israel 24/7 while remaining in a7th century cesspool, when Israelis have more technology companies listed on NASDAQ than any other country, except the US.
The Muslim world is also an avid consumer of antisemitism, having eclipsed Europe many decades ago. Why should a Muslim country accept an Israeli state when it asborbs all the hate and rage of the media, the left, UN, etc...
Without Israel, it is likely the world media would spend far more time covering the rights abuses of the Islamic world.
But instead, whenever a Palestinian trips over a rock, BBC calls it genocide - and when 5 christians get decapitated by Arab League-sponsored al-shabaab in Somalia, not even a whimper.
It doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is when people dodge my arguments with buzzwords and talking points. Calling me a raging ultra genocidal Zionist...I'm okay with that, but at least try to respond to my post.
The knee-jerk reactionism is what frustrates me. Israel's muslim enemies simplify the conflict into a zero-sum game where Israel is guilty of original sin and the Arabs/Palestinians are innocent angels.
There is not another country more routinely compared to Nazi Germany. You get used to it after awhile. When I went to university we would have professors paid by the Israeli government telling us to boycott that same government.
Lots of European Jewish immigrants get offended because they're not used to the constant criticism (Europe is "enlightened" after all XD) but you adjust after awhile.
I'm most interested in USA's policies towards Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Europe's relationship with the Muslim world.
There aren't a whole lot of Muslim-majority forums where an Israeli POV is tolerated...but this place seems to be the exception.