At Close Range

by Eric Martin

Apparently, this was self defense:

Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.

Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range, the Guardian said, quoting Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies on Friday. [...]

The autopsy results showed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back, the Guardian said.

A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has U.S. citizenship, was shot five times from less than 45 cm (18 inches) away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, it said.

Two other men were shot four times. Five of those killed were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, the Guardian quoted Buyuk as saying.

In addition to those killed, 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing, he added.

Paintball.

Comments

[Eric Martin]

link? I understood that the IDF "admitted" to taking out the silence in between comments. But the "go back to Auschwitz" and warning to the flotilla was authentic.

Not just silence, but actual words too. And no, the "go back to Auschwitz" was not authentic in that it did not come from the ship that was boarded, or another ship in the flotilla.

link

No, not even specifically speaking. The only boardings I have seen are from Hollywood (no sarcasm intended). But I would guess the next thing to try after trying to board on the side would be by air. That or sinking the ship.

You lack imagination.

link? I haven't seen a video showing the IDF fired first.

If you've seen videos of passengers throwing flash grenades back, and even the notoriously duplicitous IDF does not claim that the flash grenades were the passengers, well then...

We agree on the need to allow necessaries. I'm not convinced that's not happening.

Huh? They are holding back vital medicine, food, fuel and building supplies. They are deliberately destroying the economy. Childhood anemia has skyrocketed to 46%. There is massive malnourishment.

What do you mean?

I don't see any difference (except the degree) between imposing an embargo (e.g. the U.S.'s embargo of Cuba, which in Spanish, is called el bloqueo or blockade) and a blockade.

Completely different. Totally.

The embargo has to do with the US not sending material to Cuba. Cuba can still import that material from anywhere else. Further, the US is not boarding every ship headed to Cuba, removing food, medicine, fuel and building supplies, and then meting it out to Cubans at levels below international standards for what the population requires.

The same would be true of an embargo of the USSR. Or, for that matter, Gaza.

In other words, other than the fact that the Spanish word translates poorly, there really isn't anything similar.

But...yeah.

[Sebastian]

"If Israel were attacked by an armada of ME nations, I have little doubt that Europe and the US would provide direct aid to Israel sufficient to support it (countless US leaders have openly and repeatedly pledged as much). "

Why do you have little doubt? When it actually happened, during the Yom Kippur war, European countries including specifically the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, not only failed to provide direct aid, but they banned US refueling and fly over for support. The ONLY country that provided even that much aid was Portugal through the Azores. This was in a case where it looked very possible that without immediate aid that Israel could be completely finished off.

That is point to point exactly what you hypothesize except for the fact that the European countries actually reacted exactly opposite from what you suspect.

[Sebastian]

Donald, Wikipedia has that exact same data for every year that Gaza has had rockets available. That is where I got the information from and it matches exactly.

The data shows that Hamas has almost perfect control of the rockets. During their ceasefire very few got through. The problem with that observation is that it means that Hamas has almost perfect control of the rockets--so whenever there are rocket attacks, it is virtually certain that Hamas is ok with it.

"It's ridiculous taking an annual average and dividing it by 12--that almost totally masks the effect of the ceasefire."

I wasn't trying to mask the effect of the ceasefire. Quite the opposite. It shows than when Hamas wants war, it sends 50-100 rockets and more than 100 mortar attacks in to Israel every single month that it wants war. Which apparently would be every single month but 4 in the last 48. And it appears that they have been slowing down in response to the blockade--i.e. that fewer rockets are getting into Gaza to be fired at Israel.

[Ugh]

Why do you have little doubt? When it actually happened, during the Yom Kippur war

And that this happened almost 40 years ago changes the calculus...not at all?

I mean, I confess I don't know the exact dynamic in 1973 vis a vis Israel vs. The Non-U.S. world, but it seems to me to be hard to believe that it hasn't shifted significantly in favor of Israel since then.

[Eric Martin]

Why do you have little doubt? When it actually happened, during the Yom Kippur war, European countries including specifically the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, not only failed to provide direct aid, but they banned US refueling and fly over for support. The ONLY country that provided even that much aid was Portugal through the Azores. This was in a case where it looked very possible that without immediate aid that Israel could be completely finished off.

That is point to point exactly what you hypothesize except for the fact that the European countries actually reacted exactly opposite from what you suspect.

Seb, we've already been over this.

You made this point, I responded.

Did you read my response? If so, please move the discussion forward by addressing my rebuttal, otherwise we will continue to remain at square one.

Those events that you cite occurred 40 years ago. They occurred at a time when ties between the US/Europe and Israel were tenuous at best.

Nixon and Kissinger, at that time, decided to throw in with Israel big time. It was the birth of the special relationship between the US and Israel, and we dragged along our European allies.

Over the intervening 40 years, ties between Israel and the US/Europe have grown, to quote myself from upthread, "exponentially."

This has completely changed the game. Thus, the historical incident is not instructive.

Just as prior attacks by the US on Germany in 1944 are not indicative of how the US would react should Germany be attacked today.

Situations change. The relationship between the US/Europe and Israel has changed dramatically.

[Hogan]

Those events that you cite occurred 40 years ago. They occurred at a time when ties between the US/Europe and Israel were tenuous at best.

And when threats of Arab oil embargoes were more credible than they are now.

[Sebastian]

Ugh, "The Non-U.S. world, but it seems to me to be hard to believe that it hasn't shifted significantly in favor of Israel since then."

Eric "Over the intervening 40 years, ties between Israel and the US/Europe have grown, to quote myself from upthread, 'exponentially.'

This has completely changed the game. Thus, the historical incident is not instructive."

What country in Europe are you specifically talking about?

The UK was much more friendly with Israel in the 1960s and 1970s than it is now. A huge part of early Israeli history is about going from the UK being a major supporter to relying on the US instead.

France, never really very friendly (largely aligned with Lebanon really--though strangely not as hostile to Syria as you would expect for a country aligned with Lebanon).

Spain? I don't see much evidence of 'exponentially' better. Or even noticeably better.

Italy? Germany? None of these countries seem A) much better disposed to Israel than in 1973 nor B) willing to put military force in for them if they were to be 'wiped from the map'.

Which country do you think we are talking about?

Again, it seems like we are only talking about the US. Which is fine, but then say "only the US". Don't bring in all this stuff about the rest of the world.

Now you can argue that the US is enough. But that is an argument with a totally different color to it. That is an argument in which Israeli hypersensitivity makes a lot of sense--because they correctly realize that pretty much no one has their back if the US falters even for a moment.

And I frankly think that Kuwait is non-instructive. Israel does not have oil and is not next to Saudi Arabia. If it hadn't looked like Iraq could sweep into Saudi Arabia next, it would have been a completely different issue so far as Europe was concerned. And Israel is not next to anything with the strategic importance of Saudi Arabian oil.

[Donald Johnson]

"Which apparently would be every single month but 4 in the last 48. And it appears that they have been slowing down in response to the blockade--i.e. that fewer rockets are getting into Gaza to be fired at Israel."

Of course Hamas has control over most of the rocket fire, though not 100 percent control. And the ceasefire ended nearly all of it, except for a literal handful they couldn't stop. That's what the graph shows. So obviously a ceasefire agreement is the way to go if Israel was concerned about rockets, and they could have ended the blockade, but they didn't. Israel broke the ceasefire. They obviously preferred to blockade Gaza and break a ceasefire rather than allow Hamas to gain credibility.

And again, it's not like in all those years before the ceasefire that violence only crossed the border one way. I'm not going to look it up right now, but the Gazans suffered far greater casualties from Israeli fire, on top of the blockade. But that never seems to enter your head or the heads of most American politicians including Obama.

Hamas can't win with you. If they adhere to a ceasefire it means nothing and if they don't adhere to a ceasefire it means they're making war, nevermind what Israel is doing all this time. And for you the blockade "works"--I think it's rather more likely that killing 1400 Palestinians "worked" and Hamas doesn't want another war like that.

[Eric Martin]

Seb,

I'm definitely talking about Germany, Greece, Italy, NATO in general, and even France and the UK.

Greece and Israel participate in joint naval exercises with some regularity now, and Greece's fear of Turkey has pushed it very close to Israel. There is a lot of military cooperation there that wasn't there before.

Italy has made a point of cultivating close ties with its Mediterranean neighbor much more in the past few decades than before.

Germany, as well, has, it seems, overcompensated in some ways and has become close allies with Israel.

Also, back then, France was supplying Israel's opponents with arms. Now, France and Israel are swapping weapons moreso.

But in general, NATO has a much closer relationship with Israel now as opposed to then.

And, in general, the West would be less tolerant of aggression now than then - and would, as Hogan pointed out, have less fear of an oil embargo.

And I frankly think that Kuwait is non-instructive. Israel does not have oil and is not next to Saudi Arabia. If it hadn't looked like Iraq could sweep into Saudi Arabia next, it would have been a completely different issue so far as Europe was concerned. And Israel is not next to anything with the strategic importance of Saudi Arabian oil.

What about the Balkans? Point being, interventionism is more reflexive now to battle aggression - even without direct mooring to vital strategic interests.

Besides, there are serious economic interests in Israel that European countries would not want to see overrun. Nor would the West want to see a collaborative marauding Arab army considering that all that oil is still right there in that same neighborhood.

[Eric Martin]

Correction: I think I have the France arms relationship inverted.

Nevertheless, Wiki disagrees with your take on the trend with the UK - and highlights the closeness of German ties, and India (which we have failed to discuss, but which counts as non-US, obviously):

Foreign relations with United States, Turkey, Germany, the United Kingdom and India are among Israel's strongest. The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, followed by the Soviet Union. The United States may regard Israel as its primary ally in the Middle East, based on "common democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests".[189] Their bilateral relations are multidimensional and the United States is the principal proponent of the Arab-Israeli peace process. U.S. and Israeli views differ on some issues, such as the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and settlements.[190]

India established full diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992 and has fostered a strong military and cultural partnership with the country since then.[191] One study revealed that India was the most pro-Israel nation in the world followed by the United States.[192]

Germany's strong ties with Israel include cooperation on scientific and educational endeavors and the two states remain strong economic and military partners.[193][194] The UK has kept full diplomatic relations with Israel since its formation having had two visits from heads of state in 2007. Relations between the two countries were also made stronger by former prime minister Tony Blair's efforts for a two state resolution. The UK is seen as having a "natural" relationship with Israel on account of the British Mandate of Palestine.[195]

[Sebastian]

"What about the Balkans? Point being, interventionism is more reflexive now to battle aggression - even without direct mooring to vital strategic interests."

Isn't the Balkan intervention generally seen as a mistake by European policymakers or am I just reading too much Guardian/Der Speigel? I've always thought they were relatively mainstream? Are they not?

The wiki article is quoting bland diplomatic language straight from foreign office travel reports [see the source for footnote 195 for example]. I wouldn't rely on those types of reports for a good understanding of overall diplomatic relations except on the very most obvious level (like: The UK has broken diplomatic relations....). I certainly wouldn't rely on it to form an opinion on the likelyhood that they would militarily support Israel in the case of invasion.

And not to beat a dead Yom Kippur horse too much, but note that all of the mentioned countries refused even overflight rights for US support of Israel. They weren't even asked for actual material support. They refused even that small gesture of support for Israel.

[someotherdude]

Hamas is responsible for every attack on Israel, by an upset refugee; like Israel is responsible for every attack settlers commit against their Palestinian neighbors.

[Sebastian]

Your average upset refugee doesn't have rockets to shoot into Israel.

[someotherdude]

And Israel wants’ to keep it that way.

At least you recognize the power dynamic in this context.

You must realize that your average settler can do whatever he likes to your average upset refugee, while protected as a Israeli citizen.

[Hartmut]

Israel wants even more subs from Germany and would prefer that - again - the bill is paid by the German government. I guess the fact that said German government is thinking about letting the buyer also pay this time is an 'hostile' act (preceding the flotilla attack btw). To my knowledge there is no 'serious' discussion about not selling in the first place unlike an earlier occasion about a sale of minesweepers (ships!) to Turkey that was blocked because of Turkish actions against the Kurds (and their feared mountain navy, I presume).

[bc]

Childhood anemia has skyrocketed to 46%. There is massive malnourishment.

Actually I think that was the pregnant women. In children it was 65.5%, coming down from 2007 and 2006.

Cause and effect? India had a rate of
70 percent in 2008.

Closer to home, it looks like anaemia has been a long standing problem in the whole region. And "palestine" has had a problem since at least 1995 . Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Oman etc. are all "severe" and not a single country (including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morroco, Egypt, etc.) are below "moderate" in terms of the problem in young children.

Not saying anaemia isn't a problem, but I'm not sure you can trace it to the blockade.

[Eric Martin]

Cause and effect? India had a rate of
70 percent in 2008.

Yeah, and malnourishment is a huge problem in India, and has been for decades. Not sure that is a comparison that helps your argument.

According to the UN and WHO, the rates have gone up post-blockade.

[bc]

Eric:

According to the UN and WHO, the rates have gone up post-blockade.

What I can find says one researcher thinks it has but is awaiting a new study that was to come out in May. Doesn't look like it has come out yet or what the increase will be.

My point is not that the situation is fine. My point is that high rates of anemia may have nothing to do or little to do with the blockade. If Gaza had comparable rates in 1995 and in 2002 (the surveys I saw) then the blockade is not making it worse. That it is coming down since 2006 may in fact indicate it is getting better (different diet on food aid?). And even if it is increasing, an increase from what it was in 1995 or 2002 to what is reported now isn't significant, IMHO. It's bad and it's always been bad. It's one thing to say "Gee, it's really bad and the blockade keeps us from improving it" vs. "the blockade is causing 60% + anemia rates!!!!!!" Trumpeting anemia increase as an argument against the blockade without more factual support doesn't work IMO.

I don't buy the whole "look at the Roots Restaurant" line either. This article is consistent with what I think it is like in Gaza.

BTW, what do you think about Hamas taking a cut of smuggling? Without a "tax" on smuggling tunnels, what appears to be fairly abundant items in groceries that are apparently out of the price reach of ordinary Gazans would be less expensive.

[Jesurgislac]

BTW, what do you think about Hamas taking a cut of smuggling?

I think this is yet another way for the Israelis to keep Hamas in power and well-funded. After all, without Hamas in power in Gaza, what excuse would the Israelis find for treating Gaza as an internment camp?