Gaza or Paradise!
Looking back on the Israeli boarding of the Turkish-flagged ship Marmara on May 31 in which soldiers were injured (some seriously), nine Turks were killed and Israel was condemned around the world, some questions persist:
1. Why weren't the militants aboard the Marmara armed with guns?
Everyone aboard knew that the ship was running an Israeli blockade, and was likely to be boarded by soldiers. Yet the defenders of the vessel used nothing more lethal than sticks and knives; you would find more firepower in the typical Milwaukee bar any Saturday night than on the Marmara. Why didn't the militants pick up firearms in Cyprus before sailing?
One possibility is that the group sponsoring the flotilla, the so-called Humanitarian Relief Foundation ( or IHH, the Turkish acronym) banned firearms because enforcing the blockade on an unarmed ship would maximize the outrage aimed at Israel . It is also possible that the men who attacked the Israeli commandos sought martyrdom (shahida) by dying in jihad against Israel. They were either going to Gaza or Paradise, and the most fanatic Muslims prefer the latter destination. Perhaps they learned that one can harm Israel more by provoking its defenders to slaughter unarmed people than by killing Israelis with bombs or bullets. In the court of world sentiment, the former activity elicits sympathy for the Arab cause, while the latter elicits sympathy for Israel.
2. What were IDF leaders thinking?
On Jan. 3, 2002, IDF ships captured the Karinne A, a vessel loaded with arms for the Palestine Authority, without firing a single shot. Faced with overwhelming force and taken by surprise, the crew surrendered without resistance. There were no casualties, and no international repercussions.
This time the IDF chose to board the Marmara from a helicopter. If any man on deck were armed with so much as a rifle, he could have picked-off the soldiers one-by-one as they descended; worse yet, a single rocket fired from the deck could have destroyed the helicopter and killed everyone on it. By the grace of God, no one on the ship had any of these weapons, so the IDF was spared a massacre. But the IDF strategy was based upon the presumption of no resistance at all, and that was a mistake that could have had tragic consequences.
When the US blockaded Cuba in October, 1962, American naval commanders were determined to disable any Soviet ship that crossed the blockade line by firing a single shot into its rudder underwater. Blockading ships have also fired warning shots over the bow of any vessel trying to run the blockade, and then sinking any that were not deterred. Israel could have easily sunk the Marmara without endangering its own soldiers at all, but chose the far more risky course of boarding it from a helicopter. I have yet to hear any nation praise the Jewish state for showing admirable restraint by not firing on the Marmara, and thereby endangering its own soldiers rather than the passengers and crew of the hostile vessel. Don't hold your breath.
3. Has Turkey gone Islamic?
Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, has cancelled joint military exercises with the Jewish state and withdrawn its ambassador. The decision of the Turkish government to allow the IHH Flotilla to sail from the Turkish ports on Cyprus precipitated the entire crisis, which Ankara now blames entirely on Israel.
As a member of NATO, Turkey is aligned with the United States. Yet Ankara refused to allow American and allied forces to use Turkish territory for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today Turkey is governed by the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which has ties to IHH, which in turn has ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists . Although Turkey had been hosting talks between Israel and Syria, its support of the pro-Hamas blockade runners has negated its role as a neutral party to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unfortunately, Turkey today must be viewed as in the camp of Iran, Syria , Hezbollah and Hamas. (1) This is a serious loss for both Israel and the United States, whose influence in Ankara is low and falling.
The angry mobs in Istanbul chanting hate-Israel slogans indicate that the policies of Prime Minister Recip Erdogan are popular in the Turkish street. But how do they sit with Turkey's military leaders? It was a military commander named Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) that seized power in 1923 and turned the nation into a secular pro-western country. His successors have deposed several elected governments in an effort to prevent the nation from sliding into an Iran-style Islamic republic. If Ergodan over-plays his hand and makes a total break with the US and NATO, he risks another military takeover.
As this is written, plans are underway for another Gaza-bound flotilla, and diplomats are working to prevent another lethal confrontation. Israel has proposed that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza, and allow non-military cargoes to proceed, but Hamas insists that "the aid must arrive complete." (2) Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Benny Avni in the NY Post, June 2, 2010.
(2) NY Times, June 4, 2010.
1. Why weren't the militants aboard the Marmara armed with guns?
Everyone aboard knew that the ship was running an Israeli blockade, and was likely to be boarded by soldiers. Yet the defenders of the vessel used nothing more lethal than sticks and knives; you would find more firepower in the typical Milwaukee bar any Saturday night than on the Marmara. Why didn't the militants pick up firearms in Cyprus before sailing?
One possibility is that the group sponsoring the flotilla, the so-called Humanitarian Relief Foundation ( or IHH, the Turkish acronym) banned firearms because enforcing the blockade on an unarmed ship would maximize the outrage aimed at Israel . It is also possible that the men who attacked the Israeli commandos sought martyrdom (shahida) by dying in jihad against Israel. They were either going to Gaza or Paradise, and the most fanatic Muslims prefer the latter destination. Perhaps they learned that one can harm Israel more by provoking its defenders to slaughter unarmed people than by killing Israelis with bombs or bullets. In the court of world sentiment, the former activity elicits sympathy for the Arab cause, while the latter elicits sympathy for Israel.
2. What were IDF leaders thinking?
On Jan. 3, 2002, IDF ships captured the Karinne A, a vessel loaded with arms for the Palestine Authority, without firing a single shot. Faced with overwhelming force and taken by surprise, the crew surrendered without resistance. There were no casualties, and no international repercussions.
This time the IDF chose to board the Marmara from a helicopter. If any man on deck were armed with so much as a rifle, he could have picked-off the soldiers one-by-one as they descended; worse yet, a single rocket fired from the deck could have destroyed the helicopter and killed everyone on it. By the grace of God, no one on the ship had any of these weapons, so the IDF was spared a massacre. But the IDF strategy was based upon the presumption of no resistance at all, and that was a mistake that could have had tragic consequences.
When the US blockaded Cuba in October, 1962, American naval commanders were determined to disable any Soviet ship that crossed the blockade line by firing a single shot into its rudder underwater. Blockading ships have also fired warning shots over the bow of any vessel trying to run the blockade, and then sinking any that were not deterred. Israel could have easily sunk the Marmara without endangering its own soldiers at all, but chose the far more risky course of boarding it from a helicopter. I have yet to hear any nation praise the Jewish state for showing admirable restraint by not firing on the Marmara, and thereby endangering its own soldiers rather than the passengers and crew of the hostile vessel. Don't hold your breath.
3. Has Turkey gone Islamic?
Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, has cancelled joint military exercises with the Jewish state and withdrawn its ambassador. The decision of the Turkish government to allow the IHH Flotilla to sail from the Turkish ports on Cyprus precipitated the entire crisis, which Ankara now blames entirely on Israel.
As a member of NATO, Turkey is aligned with the United States. Yet Ankara refused to allow American and allied forces to use Turkish territory for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today Turkey is governed by the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which has ties to IHH, which in turn has ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists . Although Turkey had been hosting talks between Israel and Syria, its support of the pro-Hamas blockade runners has negated its role as a neutral party to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unfortunately, Turkey today must be viewed as in the camp of Iran, Syria , Hezbollah and Hamas. (1) This is a serious loss for both Israel and the United States, whose influence in Ankara is low and falling.
The angry mobs in Istanbul chanting hate-Israel slogans indicate that the policies of Prime Minister Recip Erdogan are popular in the Turkish street. But how do they sit with Turkey's military leaders? It was a military commander named Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) that seized power in 1923 and turned the nation into a secular pro-western country. His successors have deposed several elected governments in an effort to prevent the nation from sliding into an Iran-style Islamic republic. If Ergodan over-plays his hand and makes a total break with the US and NATO, he risks another military takeover.
As this is written, plans are underway for another Gaza-bound flotilla, and diplomats are working to prevent another lethal confrontation. Israel has proposed that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza, and allow non-military cargoes to proceed, but Hamas insists that "the aid must arrive complete." (2) Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Benny Avni in the NY Post, June 2, 2010.
(2) NY Times, June 4, 2010.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:13 AM
1 Comments:
Gerry, two things:
(1) Some of the DID have guns -- Netanyahu's specifically stated in his statement that one soldier had been shot in the stomach, and another shot in the knee;
(2) The principle difference between the Karine-A incident and this one is that this is no longer 2002 -- something the differencde between anti-Semitic excesses in Germany in 1930 and in 1938. The rules of the game are now very, very different.
Avi
Post a Comment
<< Home