Well, June is off to an exciting start, but it isn't the kind of excitement that I like. On May 31st, the Israelis landed commandos onto a ship that was carrying terrorist agitators to Gaza. The commandos were dragged off by a mob and ferociously beaten and stabbed. Some of the soldiers had to jump overboard to avoid being taken hostage. One of them apparently had to do that after his belly had been slashed open and his guts deliberately pulled out. After seeing the pacifists' uncut Cultures of Resistance video that they thought would be the clincher that would convince the world that Israel is lying when they tell their side of the story, I am convinced that the Israelis are telling the truth.
Israelis are shocked that their military sent soldiers to board a ship in such a vulnerable manner as one by one by rope from a helicopter, and also outside their territorial waters where Israel would be subjected to the world's censure, but where should they have intercepted it? Should they have done it when the navy was within range of Gaza so that the Hamas could do a little target practice with them?
Israel, God has had His angels working on your behalf. You should send Ms. Iana Lee, who smuggled that film off the ship (though she is not what I meant when I referred to angels), a big bouquet of flowers. She did you a huge favour. Dictionaries also owe a little debt to some of the Mavi Marmara's passengers; they have given new meaning to the word "pacifist".
I thought that it was interesting that, right at the start of the video, long before any Israeli boats showed up, a guy in a black toque picked up a heap of heavy, white chains from off a lifejacket locker and deposited them on the deck beside the railing. Wut war them thar chains fer, ennyway? And why did he toss them down near the railing? And why did they look like they were a convenient length for swinging? I bet it would really hurt if someone got knocked in the head with one; mebbe even knock 'em out cold.
Oh, wait a minute. I saw a video that the Israelis apparently faked, and the pro-pacifist commentator mocked the idea that someone would swing a chain at the Israeli soldiers in the boat, as if it could do them any harm from that distance. Ya think it was mebbe a threat of what they could look forward to, if they boarded the ship?
When the counter is at 1:05, a man with his left hand covered chuckles as he sets something down beside the railing. Being able to stop the video is handy. He has set a long, white pipe down there on the deck. It wasn't sitting there before when he was standing by the railing, and there is a bit of a break in the video, so someone must have been going around handing out pipes. A second later, I can see a white pipe being held by someone a little further along the deck to the man's right. You can get a really clear view of the pipe on the deck by the railing just after the guy with the blue sleeves who has a pouch on his hip, and wearing a sock on his left hand, looks at a cell phone that is offered to him for his view. Tsk tsk. The Israelis haven't even arrived yet, but weapons are being prepared for their reception.
I thought it was very strange that so many men were walking about with one hand covered. I wondered if they were covering a tattoo that would identify them as belonging to a terrorist group. Since I first posted this article, though, I have learned that tattoos are taboo for Muslims, unless they are sure that they will be purified by fire before they enter Paradise. Here is an interesting link on the topic of ISLAMIC TATTOOS, which are sometimes worn on the arms, shoulders, or hands by military personnel and ex–military personnel.
It is possible that the men were wearing gloves only because they were expecting to have to toss tear gas cannisters into the sea, but if they were not intending to be violent, there is no reason why the Israelis would have to throw tear gas cannisters in the first place. Some of the passengers were wearing gloves or socks on one of their hands long before the Israelis showed up, even while they were sleeping.
Seeing as the pacifists were expecting the Israelis to use tear gas, I am surprised that all of the people on deck were not wearing gloves, so that all of them could pitch in and toss the cannisters into the sea. I am also surprised that the ones who were wearing a glove or sock, did not have them on both hands, in case a cannister fell to either their right or left side. Would one not grab it with either hand, instead of only the hand they use most of the time? Funny thing, though, some of the men seemed to not be wearing their hand covering on the hand they used the most. Also, I wonder how well a sock can protect a hand from heat, especially when the thumb is cut out. When you view the video, just for fun, you might want to take note of all the guys who are wearing a glove on one hand to see how many of them there are, but be careful that you don't count the same person more than once.
Pacifism sure has changed since the hippie days when people staged sit–ins against nukes. Probably nobody would have died if everyone had sat down right away when the Israelis showed up, like in the olden days when pacifists knew what pacifism meant. I guess pacifism means two different things to Israelis and their enemies. Like how a cocktail can mean to one person an alcoholic drink and to another a home–made bomb.
The Israelis did not expect that they would have to encounter such ferocity, seeing as the participants in the convoy claimed to be pacifists. They took paintball guns with them, in the bright hope that these were the only weapons they would need to use to quell the passengers, if they resisted their escort to Ashdod. The smuggled video showed that the Israelis in the boats that came alongside used paintball guns. Part of the film showed a big, red splotch high on a wall that the passengers thought was blood at first. It looked really lurid when I first saw it and thought it was blood that had gushed out of someone, dripping from a hatch, but then one of the journalists on board identified it as paint from a paintball gun.
It is interesting that a photo of this is shown on the New York Times website, with no explanation accompanying it that identifies it as paint. The picture was actually a frame in a short version of the video, and the short version included the part where a couple of guys said it was blood, but it did not include the scene where the journalist identified the red substance as paint. Hmmm. Does the New York Times want people to think that the Israelis are brutal savages? Most people probably won't watch the uncut version because it goes on for a long time showing boring stuff. Boring that is, if you aren't paying attention to the little details.
When I saw that the Israelis were using red paint in their paintball guns, I thought, "Come on, guys; what are you thinking of? Red paint when you want to demonstrate that you aren't bent on taking lives? You should have used green, or blue, or whatever, but not something that can be mistaken for blood later on in a video, and make everything look like more of a horror story than what it really was."
As the red paint was below the deck where the commandoes landed and discovered before the helicopter arrived, I surmised that the paintball was fired from a boat that was travelling alongside the ship. That was when I started to take more of an interest in the video, wondering what else I could discover from its little details. Here is the link for the SMUGGLED FILM.
If you move the counter to 36:06, just shortly after the Israeli boats arrive and start firing at the ship, you will see that they are firing paintballs. It looks like one of them hits the man in the black and white T–shirt who walks in front of the camera. He stoops over; he must have gotten hit in the gut. If he had been hit by a bullet, the guy with the camera might have kept his camera on him, instead of swinging it over the side to record the big, bad Israelis in their little boats.
I think that the Israelis must have seen through their observation drones that the pacifists were preparing to fight them with chains and pipes and fired those paintballs as a warning that everyone should go inside and keep out of trouble.
Red paint can be seen on the deck further down. The camera swings back and the guy who was hit with the paintball can be seen beyond the hoist that lowers a lifeboat; he is still on his feet by the railing. None of the people at this point seem to be in a big panic, though paintballs are being fired at them. Someone advises them to go inside, but it's so dangerous that plenty of people opt to stay outside on the deck.
A skinny guy in a white sweater runs over to the railing and lobs something at the boat running alongside. That seems rather an aggressive thing for a pacifist to do; the Israelis haven't even boarded the ship, yet.
Right after the camera moves on from recording the guy in the white sweater lobbing something at the boat, quite a number of men can been seen near the railing holding metal pipes. It is easier to note them if you stop the video at several intervals.
At 38:15, we see the red something that has dripped down from high on a wall, which we know is paint. Now a man can be seen walking towards the camera from behind a gate and he is holding a pipe, though no soldiers have boarded the ship as yet. He is wearing dark pants.
A minute later, the tawny–haired reporter with the Van Dyke beard identifies the red stain on the wall in English as being from a paintball, and then he switches over to what sounds like French. Wait a bit and you will see a man in beige pants behind the reporter, and he, too, is holding a pipe, though no soldiers have boarded as yet. Another guy with another pipe comes up the stairs to join him. His pants are grey. We are not seeing the same person over and over. There sure are a lot of "pacifists" walking around with pipes, though the ship has not been boarded at this point.
Where were they getting the pipes from? I didn't see anything that looked like the fixtures on the ship were being torn apart to supply these weapons, but I learned later that cutting disks were brought aboard the ship, and by the time the captain saw that the railings were being cut for weapons, the deed had already been done. The captain said that the cutting tool was not part of the equipment of his ship.
The helicopter now arrives and the French–speaking reporter moves around to get a camera shot. Soldiers can be seen rappelling down at 41:21. A guy stands on the deck below with his pipe raised in readiness. Just a little further along the deck, slingshots are already being fired. It looks very peaceful; the slingers seem to be quite relaxed.
More people can be seen walking around with pipes in their hands. One of them has his face covered with a red scarf and another has his face covered with a brown scarf. Why? If these pacifists aren't doing anything they shouldn't be doing, why are they covering their faces now? The men were not covering their faces earlier. Hey, that reminds me; there was a comment on another video about how the Israeli soldiers were concealing their faces. I noticed on this video that all of the Israeli soldiers did not wear masks.
Do you think that maybe some of the soldiers wore masks because they are Special Forces kind of guys who don't want to be recognized, so that Israel's best soldiers will not be assassinated when they are walking around off duty? I wonder if any of those pacifists who were wearing masks were …? Oh, no, that could not be. The flotilla was intended to be a peaceful protest, after all.
At 43:39, an injured man is carried down a stairwell. A guy in a red jacket who sounds like an American holds up a file of papers in plastic sleeves that show photos of what he says are all the passengers on Challenger 2. He says that it came from the Israelis. This indicates that an Israeli soldier has been injured seriously enough that they could get these papers off of him, and this is only scant minutes after the soldiers landed.
The man in the red jacket pulled the papers out of his back pocket before the wounded guy was carried down the stairs, so this means that the soldier they were taken from was wounded before this guy. Considering how soon this happened after the soldiers started rappelling down the rope from the helicopter, it sounds like the first wounded soldier hardly had time to take a breath of air, never mind get a chance to say anything, before he was pounced on.
Yeah, that fits with what the Israelis say about how their commando leader was the first one down the rope, and that he was immediately swarmed and knifed, thrown down on a lower deck, dragged into a room where he was stripped down to his trousers, the wound in his belly widened with a knife, his entrails pulled out, then forced to his feet and dragged outside for his men to see in that condition so that they would be demoralized. The leader managed to break free and jump over the side of the ship, with his guts hanging out, and get picked up by the guys in the boat.
A bit of a deal is made about the papers, as if it is astonishing that the Israelis should have some intelligence on the passengers and be on the lookout for those whom they considered to be trouble. One guy asks if his picture is on there. The guy in the red jacket holds the papers up to be photographed. Only the first page has photos of some (not all) of the passengers on Challenger 1 and 2, and the other pages have a few photos of passengers on the other ships. The back page shows photos of the ships. The guy in the red jacket seems a bit excitable about this big piece of evidence that the Israelis are underhanded because they did a bit of research on their expected visitors and targeted some of them either for questioning or simply to be wary of them when they encountered them. The pacifists called it a "death list". I wonder if any of the deceased were on the list? If they were among the people who swarmed the soldiers, then the Israelis rightly identified them as trouble–makers rather than pacifists.
Later when I listened again to an interview with Iana Lee, she said that she saw the papers and concluded that they pinpointed people whom the Israelis must be careful to not harm, as they were Europeans and one was an archbishop; there would be an outcry in their countries, but that meant that all the rest of the passengers were fair game. Tsk, tsk, Ms. Lee. This woman testified to the U.N. about what "really" happened on that ship, yet she says that the people on that list were Europeans? Well, some of them were anyway, but the name Ahmet doesn't sound very European to me, unless he is an immigrant. If one puts the video onto high definition (the control is at the bottom right of the screen), some of the pictures can be seen fairly clearly and some of the names are legible. It would be interesting to Google the names.
So, in Iana Lee's view, it was a survivor list? Well, it is good to know that the Israelis didn't intend to do anything bad to Ahmet, but come on. Are we really to believe that the Israelis intended to make a bloodbath of this flotilla? The whole world is watching to see what happens to that flotilla and the Israelis intended to give them something to get riled up about? And they intended to leave survivors who could testify about what happened? Nobody else on the other ships were killed, and a vast majority of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara survived, though the Israelis gained the upper hand in the conflict.
It seems to me that having a list of people of interest is a normal thing any government would do in the same situation. I am not saying that it is right, but it is prudent and there probably is not a government in the world who can cast the first stone at Israel for doing this.
The guy in the red jacket tucks the papers back in his pocket and starts down the stairs. Then he notices that another wounded soldier is being brought through the stairwell. Well isn't this just really nice of the pacifists, lending a hand like that with the Israeli soldiers, but I have to wonder, do the Israelis want their wounded to be carted off down into the ship where they can't see what is happening with them, and would they not prefer to be allowed to tend to their wounded themselves? Maybe the pacifists figured that the soldiers were too busy fighting for their lives to spare any time to look after their wounded. A guy in a black hat is walking by up the stairwell, with a white chain hanging around his neck.
Once these soldiers are carted down the stairwell, they are seen no more on the video, though the camera shows the wounded passengers getting tended. Why would the pacifists not want the world to see how humanely they treated those soldiers and tried to help them in their need? Red jacket confirms that two soldiers bleeding and wounded were hauled below decks. I wonder if he knew what the "medics" were doing to them?
Next we see wounded passengers being attended to. One has a bleeding arm. A man on the floor has been wounded in the leg. They probably were shot, but I wonder why they were not killed? Israel sends an elite commando team to board the ship. Those guys are perfectly capable of hitting their targets. It could be that they each were too busy trying to fight off four or five attackers who swarmed them as soon as they hit the deck to take proper aim with their guns, or maybe they just wanted to disable their attackers rather than kill them.
Another passenger is carried down the stairs and he is very seriously injured. A guy holding a blue pipe helps to carry him. More guys with pipes are hanging around downstairs. The man with the camera moves outside where some of the passengers are saying their prayers. The soldiers could not have been all that threatening if those guys felt comfortable enough to take time–out for prayers. They don't look like they think that they are about to die.
One of them picks up his baton to get back to work. His weapon of choice is not simply a pipe. It has a rubber grip on it. You can get a good close view of it where it is lying near the gas mask in the foreground while the guy says his prayers. Now why would a "pacifist" bring something like that on board?
The other guy finishes his prayer, picks up a green bottle, and leaves. Off to the right is a man who is shown early in the video, placing his pipe by the railing, getting it ready for battle; he can be seen holding it now as he loafs about. This scene with the prayers kind of contradicts an implication that was made in one of the interviews I watched, that all the praying that went on board this ship indicated that the participants had peaceful dispositions.
Another seriously injured man is carried down the stairwell. Shots are heard, but there are a lot of guys milling around on the deck, just looking curious, rather than scared, so it might not be the Israelis who are firing the shots at that time.
The camera moves into the computer room where some sensible people are crouched under tables and among chairs, staying out of trouble. It goes back out to the hallway where it is announced that, "They're coming." Obviously, the passengers are referring to the soldiers.
Men line the stairwell. The camera pans some more injured people and then heads up the stair. An old guy in a dark jacket is headed downstairs and looks like he is doing something with a knife. Making it sharper? Cutting something? It makes a snick kind of sound, whatever he is doing. It was really hard to stop the video to see. The counter was at 50:20 when I got my best view.
The person with the camera heads further up the stairs and we see pacifists along the stairwell and grouped around the door to the deck, pipes held in readiness. One guy has a very thick chain. Oh yeah, there's the old guy in the dark jacket now. I can clearly see that he is indeed holding a knife and it's a big, whacking one. Why would a pacifist bring something like that aboard the ship? He is using it to open a package. The way he is swiping away at it, he could do himself an injury or anyone walking by. It would have been easier and safer to use scissors.
It's kind of funny, but most of the men do not look like how I imagine pacifists to look. A lot of them look quite rugged and there isn't anything peaceful about them. I can't help but wonder how these peace–loving guys, who had to work hard to dredge up the will to use violence against the Israelis, would respond if their wives discarded their veils and wore sleeveless tops and skirts up to their knees? I'm not talking about anything that looks risqué, just something that is comfortable in hot weather and also recognizes the right of any human to show their face and hair, if they choose to do so. Or what would they do if they found out that their sister was dating an American who was not a Muslim? Or if their daughter refused to marry some ugly, obnoxious guy that they have picked out for them?
Some of the men bang their pipes against the walls in an eager way. I guess boys will be boys, even if they are pacifists. It definitely looks like this is one of those male bonding times. Someone starts up a war cry and others pick it up. One man offers his helmet to a youngster in a gas mask (and holding a thick, wooden stick), who is standing behind him on the stairwell. The youngster refuses his kind offer. It is the only helmet I have seen; I wonder why the pacifists did not think that they would be a handy item to be wearing in their encounters with the big, bully Israelis? Could it be that, except for this one guy, they really did not expect the Israelis to be bent on using violence against them? The guy with the helmet holds it up to the camera and brandishes his pipe while saying something that sounds brave and determined.
A young fellow on the landing is wearing a hooded jacket with a camouflage print, though it also has a wide portion of white on it. Camouflage prints are an interesting choice of clothing for a pacifist. I never buy anything with camouflage print on it because I hate the association with war. I saw this guy in the hooded camouflage jacket earlier in the video, at around 48:51, just behind the wounded man being carried away. He was holding his blue pole and it looked like he had a big smear of blood on his pants. I wondered if that could be from engaging in battle with the Israelis, but it eventually occurred to me that it could have come from carrying someone who was wounded. Seeing as blood on his pants would prove nothing, I was just about to give up when I finally saw that it was something red that was strapped to the inside of his right thigh. Some kind of baton? Why would a pacifist bring something like that on board?
I can see that the door the men are anticipating an attack to come through is not locked, as one would expect, if they were merely trying to defend themselves. Should they not rather have barricaded it somehow? Just filled that stairwell with big pieces of furniture that could not easily be pulled through the little door to clear it away? What about using some bags of cement that they were carrying to relieve the suffering of the people in Gaza? Oh wait a minute; I remember hearing that there were no relief supplies on the Mavi Marmara. The door swings at 52:10. The camera goes back downstairs, as it seems that the Israelis are taking too long to get there. I wonder what's holding them up?
The camera zeroes in on a man with a chest injury who is wearing a burgundy shirt and a pair of close–fitting gloves. It looks like his heart has stopped, as someone is trying to do CPR on him. The camera pans another injured man, a young guy wearing camouflage trousers and a T–shirt that says www.ihh.org on it.
The camera moves outside again on deck. Men stand around holding pipes while a voice issues an order through a megaphone. A man in a black, short–sleeved top with white horizontal stripes stands at the left, holding what looks like it could be a knife, and it ain't no butter knife. It's too long for that.
Finally, a close–up of an Israeli soldier, and it doesn't look like he is kicking anyone's butt. He has a fire hose aimed at a man who is wearing some kind of protective vest, but it isn't a life jacket. Could this be one of the ceramic vests that the Israelis said was part of the equipment of the men who attacked them before their feet hit the deck? The pacifist is big, bushy, and burly, and looks surly, in a subdued kind of way. He appears to be holding an ax or a thick wooden stick in his right hand. I thought it was interesting that the short video skipped over this scene, which does not depict Israeli soldiers behaving like they are crazed with blood lust.
Another interesting thing is that this big, burly guy in the black vest is seen near the beginning of the film. You can get a pretty clear look at his vest, particularly if you change the pixel settings on the video to high definition. When the video is stopped around 13:53, the vest is hanging open. When you stop the video around 47:34, this man is coming up the stairs heading to the upper deck, and his vest is zipped shut. Also, he is holding a white pole in his right hand, and it looks like he could be holding an ax in his left hand. Maybe it is just an ax handle. He also is wearing a gas mask, but the short pants indicate that it is the same man as was in the other two scenes.
Now what about this hose? Why was the fire hose on the deck? The deck is damp, but it does not look drenched, as if the hose had been turned on the passengers, nor are the passengers walking about in wet clothes. Ha! The anti–Israeli propaganda purports that the video of the boat where the pacifists are throwing stuff and waving pipes and spraying water from fire hoses into it was staged and doctored up. They thought it was a good joke that the Israelis on board the boat were huddled together, as if the Israeli navy was afraid of being hosed.
The first thing that I thought of when I saw the video, without the sarcastic comments, is that if you pour enough water into a boat, you can sink it. If a little, old lady who is not prone to violence can figure that out, why wouldn't a bunch of aggressive men think of it? Well, it looks like they did.
Or could the Israelis really be that diabolical that they would take the time to plow through a bunch of pipe waving, knife carrying, chain swinging, ax wielding pacifists to scatter the fire hoses about, because they saw right away that the activists were so peaceful that they were going to have to make a film afterwards to show that they started attacking them before they came on board, and the fire hoses on the deck would make it more credible? Nah. If you go to 37:37, you will see that the fire hoses were pulled out before the boats got right alongside the ship, though the hoses are still flat because the water wasn't turned on yet. You can also see the hose on the deck just after 47:34 where the camera has moved past the guy in the black vest. That hose had been used by then, but not by the Israelis. They had not reached that part of the ship, yet.
It is odd how the pacifists standing around with their pipes don't seem to be frightened of the Israeli terrorists, even though one of them is holding a weapon. Okay, so it's just a fire hose, but that water can really sting when it's turned on full force. They haven't put their pipes down yet, and don't seem scared to move around when they are feeling restless or bored. My understanding of terrorists is that they are so brutal that they would never tolerate even for an instant letting someone retain something that they could use against them as a weapon. It looks to me like all the Israelis intended was to exercise riot control at the most, a mere police action, as they said, rather than launch a military attack against what they thought would be a non–aggressive protest.
It doesn't look like the armed pacifists were overrun by the Israeli military in that part of the ship; there seems to be only one of them holding them all at bay. Somebody must have been praying for that guy. The pacifists on this ship don't seem to be the kind of people I would want to have standing outside my door, protesting something.
Now here comes a really badly injured guy being carried on a stretcher. The person with the camera wants to make really sure that they get a picture of that, to show how brutal the Israelis were. They are bringing him down from the upper deck and one of the men carrying him has a scarf wrapped around his face. What was that injured guy doing up there? Waving a butter knife at the Israelis and they shot him because they don't like it when people try to butter them up?
What is with this business about butter knives, you might ask. I saw a parody on Youtube where some guy mockingly displayed the cutlery in his kitchen drawer to make a point about how harmless the pacifists were. The pacifists' own video shows that they had on board the weapons that the Israelis said they found, and they weren't forks, spoons, and butter knives. The blades they carried could do some serious damage (and they did), because they were used against men who were prepared to only shoot paintballs, rather than have to defend their lives. After seeing on this video that the passengers were indeed armed with chains, slingshots, knives, and pipes, and after seeing that protective vest, as well, I am totally convinced that the Israelis are also telling the truth about the spent bullet casings they found on the ship (not the kind of bullets they use) and that the captain told them that the passengers who were using guns threw them into the sea.
Another injured guy is hauled down from the top deck. The man in the black vest is herded off, but allowed to turn back briefly to inquire about the condition of his injured friend. Then the little Israeli boats move in closer at about 57:54. I can see a grappling hook raised in the lead boat. Something from the ship is tossed towards the boat even at this stage.
Iana Lee, who smuggled this video off the ship, commented on a newscast about how underhanded it was of the Israelis to board them at night, under cover of darkness, so the world would not see what they were doing. I thought I had heard someone else say they arrived around 4 p.m. and it seemed to me that it did not take long for dawn to fully come after the Israelis arrived, so I decided to check this out. The cool thing is that because I had to look so closely for a watch or a clock, I noticed some important details that I had missed the first two times that I watched the video, and when I decided to check into the gloves, because it was so peculiar that so many men were wearing either a sock or a glove on one hand, I noticed many more important details.
Iana said the Israelis arrived at 11 p.m.. Near the beginning of the video, a guy lying on a bench looks at his watch and says that he is not scared, yet, as it is too early for the Israelis to intercept them. He thought they would not come before 6 a.m. It was very hard to find a watch to zero in on because not very many people were wearing watches, but I finally found one at about 30:32 when some men were at prayers. It looked to me like the watch said it was either 2:15 or 3:10. This was before the Israelis arrived.
Going through the video that third time, I paid more attention when the camera panned a handsome, young, bearded guy with a shaved head as he stood at the railing, looking like a noble, young lion as he gazed at lights that were not too distant. Lights from shore or ships? I could not tell.
I stopped the video at the 16:15 mark, or thereabouts, and turned the audio up to listen in on a very interesting conversation. I heard one of the men standing at the rail ask the young lion what was happening, what he and the guys he was with were planning to do. He asked him what he thought would happen if the Israelis used helicopters to board them. The young lion said something about chucking them off. Chuck the Israelis off the ship? He went on to say, "These guys are not like us, come from the easy life, come on a boat to Gaza. They're always ready for these things." That sounds more like he's talking about commandos than pacifists. The first guy says, "So they're ready to fight, huh?" The young lion replied, "Whatever happens."
At the end of the video, when the Israeli boats are getting nearer, a woman is sanctimoniously shouting through a megaphone to the Israelis, asking them to not use violence because the people on board are civilians. Man! What nerve. Some of those guys were openly preparing weapons before the Israelis arrived and set foot on board the ship. Whoever was behind that camera saw it and overheard the noble, young lion discussing how there were some aboard who were ready to fight. I think he also expected it to be a melee, if that is what he meant when he said near the beginning of his conversation that it would be all over the ship.
In regards to the slingshots that the "pacifists" used, an anti–Israeli commentator said they thought it was appropriate as they considered themselves to be little Davids coming against Israel's Goliath. Right. Little Israel, that has just about the whole world demanding that it sit still so that it will be easier for the Arabs to slaughter them, is cast in the role of Goliath.
Why would people who claim to be pacifists have slingshots aboard that ship, never mind all the knives that were collected? As the IDF said, the terrorists on board opted for dual purpose weapons rather than a full assault with guns, so that they could maintain the fiction that they had no intention of being aggressive. Slingshots can be used to harrass and disorient soldiers, giving a terrorist the opportunity to use a knife to kill, particularly when the soldiers are being dropped onto a ship one by one from a helicopter because they think that they are dealing with only pacifists. I don't think that the Israelis will let themselves be played for suckers like that again.
Many of the passengers onboard probably had no intention of using violence against the Israelis and refrained accordingly, but were used as dupes to provide cover for the trouble makers who launched themselves at the soldiers when they boarded the ship. It seems that there were factions who wanted to use the convoy to create an international incident that would make Israel look bad.
If they truly were all pacifists, then why did they resist when the Israelis boarded the ship? They knew there was a blockade and that Israel would defend it. One would hope that they were not quite so unrealistic as to think that if they showed up in a ship that Israel would say, "Oh, you want to go to Gaza? Sure we'll let you through, just because you're here showing the world that you think we should not have this blockade."
Why the shock that they were intercepted in international waters? Whatever the Jews' detractors might say about them, they can't realistically say that they are generally stupid. If there is any trait that stands out about the Jews throughout the centuries, it is that a lot of them tend to be brilliant. They have contributed much to Science, and not just as guinea pigs for cruel medical experiments at Auschwitz, after the whole world closed their doors to Jewish refugees seeking asylum from the Nazi nightmare.
Considering what happened to them during World War II, I can't blame them for wanting their own country where they can take a stand and fight for their lives when their enemies try to destroy them. The Jews have made a great many valuable discoveries and useful inventions, so why would the pacifists not figure out that they were dealing with clever people who would know to intercept the convoy where they would be out of range of weaponry in Gaza?
Realistically, the pacifists could expect to be intercepted at a safe distance from Gaza and escorted to Ashdod. It wasn't like the Israelis swooped down on them when they were taking a little pleasure cruise in the Caribbean, minding their own business, or even when they were sailing by Greece with the stated intention of breaking a blockade that Israel has instituted for its safety because Gaza is a terrorist stronghold. The convoy was approaching Israel and it was obvious that it had no intention of turning back.
These so–called impartial, pacifist journalists think that by making a big fuss about how they were intercepted in international waters, everyone should be convinced that the Israelis are monsters. The Israelis are simply a desperate people who are fighting for a homeland that their ancestors (at least a remnant of them) occupied continuously for three thousand years, even when it was overrun by invading, imperialistic armies.
Now the pacifists are whining that it was naive of them to think that the Israelis would treat them humanely, instead of swooping down on them in the dark hours of the night so that the world would not see what brutes they intended to be. Oh boo hoo. Are they really so unintelligent that they would not credit the Israelis with having the brains to halt their progress and do it when they had somewhat of an advantage? If they were naive about anything, it was about how their mission could be used as a cover for aggressive, anti–Israeli factions to create an incident that could be manipulated to make the Israelis look bad in the eyes of the world, so that nobody will support the Israelis when they are ready to launch a full–scale attack against them.
Why would any of the purportedly pacifist passengers feel that they needed to attack the soldiers when they boarded? Considering all the advance hoopla about how they were there for a peaceful demonstration, and how many journalists and people with cameras were on board that ship, it seems unlikely that the Israelis intended to get outrageously aggressive. Seeing their buddies getting stabbed, shot, and beaten, though, changed their direction. It is tragic that nine people died, but I have strong doubts that the people who died were innocent victims. I just can't see soldiers, who knew that the world was watching to see how they would behave in this incident, wantonly killing passengers who had not made any aggressive moves towards them.
Where were all these conscientious, courageous pacifists when Saddam Hussein was committing genocide against the Kurds? Why didn't they march on Baghdad and demand that he stop what he was doing? Why don't they have protest marches against Arab nations whose "justice" systems permit atrocities against women who try to break away from their oppressive strictures?
Do any of the Arab nations care about being compassionate to innocent Israeli civilians when they engage in war? Did they let food supplies have safe passage through to the Jerusalem when they launched war on Israel right after it achieved statehood? Or did they try to starve the Jews? They also violently massacred desperately needed medical personnel who were headed to Mt. Scopus Hospital with desperately needed medical supplies. If the Arab nations have compassion, then why didn't they let the peaceful Arabs who fled Israel because they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire of Islamic aggression immigrate to their countries, instead of sitting for decades in refugee camps?
I think the pacifists prefer to protest against Israel's attempts to defend itself because they know that Israel is a lot less likely to shoot them down than those Arab nations. They are like schoolkids ganging up on nerdy, little Isadore to pick on him and leaving the big, irrational bullies with the unibrows alone because they carry knives and like to use them on the slightest excuse. It is a lot easier to march on a nation to rant about what one feels is a righteous cause, when dealing with a nation whose hands have been tied by the power nations of the world. They know that the world will jump on Israel if it mistreats them even slightly.
The passengers have been released and they've gone home feeling good about themselves because they stood up for what they considered to be right. If they were dealing with Arabs instead of Israelis, they might not have been allowed to go home so easily, if at all. They'd all probably be held as hostages in some dark, stinking prison, wishing for a commando raid to come to their rescue, like the one at Entebbe.
The United States has withdrawn their support of Israel, and I have no doubt that God has accordingly withdrawn legions of angels that were protecting the United States. The Bible says that God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. Israel is teetering on the brink of war; we need to pray for Israel that they will experience miracles of protection and provision more than they ever have before.
Most of what is reported in the news is heavily slanted to favour the Palestinian cause. If you want to know more accurately what is going on, listen to what a prophet named SCOTT HOLTZ has to say about this on his Rivers in the Desert website. Scott and his wife Dalit actually live in Israel and they are closely connected to military sources. Scott admits that the Israeli military disseminates misinformation from time to time as a protective measure, but I am sure that the anti–Israelis do, too, as an aggressive measure. They have certainly given us a sample of it in the matter of the Mavi Marmara. It is hoped that as a born–again Christian, if Scott can not tell us certain items of information for security reasons, at least he will not lie.
If you watch this clip of THE LANDING, you will see that the soldiers were viciously attacked by the passengers as each one boarded the ship. They had to fight back to defend their lives. On one interview, a question was raised as to why the landing appeared to be happening in the daytime when it actually occurred at night, implying that the Israelis staged this video. It was not a question that was pursued very far because it is obvious that video can be lightened to give a clearer view of the activity, and Iana Lee admitted this herself. Was this question raised to plant a little seed of doubt about the Israelis' integrity? Why mention it at all, seeing as there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the video appears to be so light?
What a lot of people don't know is that Israel supplies Gaza with food, water, and electricity, but Gaza repeatedly refuses to stop sending rockets into Israel's territory. Israel offered to let the ships dock at Ashdod so that they could check the cargo to make sure that weapons were not being transported, and then to transport legitimate supplies from there to Gaza, but the flotilla refused to comply. They went there looking to make trouble. The supplies the flotilla contributed were far less than what Israel transports into Gaza in a day, and medical supplies contributed by the flotilla were outdated. It sounds to me that carrying supplies was just window dressing for a political action that aimed to make Israel look bad.
I am grieved about the American government's pressure on Israel to give up their territory and their attempts to make Israel do things that will effectively tie Israel's hands against defending themselves, which would enable their enemies to murder them without resistance. I am grieved about the American government's withdrawal of support for that nation. Though I am a Gentile, I have a particular love for Israel because my Saviour was born of that race, and I also love Americans, who are my neighbours as I am a Canadian. I am very sorry that America, who has been teetering on the brink of disaster for several decades now, has removed its safety net by setting itself against Israel. By virtue of its support for Israel, in spite of America's increasing ungodliness, it probably escaped an untold number of disasters. May God have mercy on America.
Copyright © 2010, Lanny Townsend
Page modified by Lanny Townsend on June 4, 2010
Scripture references on this website are closely paraphrased from e–Sword's King James Bible.