Israel. The real reason for the attack

[AnnO'Neemus]

...A nuclear option is not the only one but it is being seriously considered because of an assessment that convential weapons may not do the job. Indeed the Times reported in 2007 that tactical nuclear weapons have been developed specifically for the job

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

"...Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey. Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission..."

Well, one of those routes is no longer on the drawing board.

I remember seeing this thread a couple of nights ago when it was only a couple of pages, and I was waiting for dylans to expand on the theory, but didn't particularly feel the urge to contribute to the thread, didn't have an opinion either way as I've been a bit baffled as to the reason for the attack as well, seems unnecessarily antagonistic.

But then I was watching Euronews a short while ago, and there was a report about how Israelis are being issued with gas masks, I wasn't paying that much attention really, wasn't listening properly from the beginning, I was surfing on the net as well, and I was thinking, well, that's par for the course, really, ramp up the rhetoric about the terrorist threat, it's a retrospective justification for the attack really... I thought they were getting gas masks because the Israeli authorities have been going on about Hamas rocket attacks and how there's also a threat from Hezbollah...

But then Mark Regev popped up. And he started talking about Iran and saying how Israel wants a diplomatic solution... but if a diplomatic solution can't be found, then they'll have to consider other options.

And I thought fuck, they really are spoiling for a fight with Iran, aren't they? Mark Regev is so transparent with his double-speak, if someone asked him 'Are you Mark Regev? I'd expect him to say 'No', I'd be astonished if he said 'Yes', so well versed is he in the art of duplicity, he makes Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson almost look like a rank amateurs.

But then part of me thought, it doesn't make sense... I'd had a quick look at that previous article, and thought why did they attack Turkey, they'd need to fly through Turkish airspace, surely? But if the reports about Diego Garcia are correct, then they could possibly fly there, refuel, then fly up to Iran...

But if that's the case, if they have already pencilled in Diego Garcia, if they don't need Turkish airspace, then it would seem a bit pointless to piss them off, really... why stir up an unnecessary hornets nest?

To those who consider the scenario I have outlined in the OP to be alarmist or unrealistic, I would urge you to read the following very recent news reports. Notice the dates.

On the 14th of march the Herald Scotland published a story that the US was moving hundreds of Bunker busting bombs to the British island of Diego Garcia in preparation of an attack on iran.

Maybe it's like a chess gambit? Sacrificing a pawn? Sacrifice Turkey, get Iran into sabre rattling mode... Iran and Turkey have been doing deals about reprocessing uranium, so there's probably an element of Israel wanting to punish Turkey for that as well, and because Turkey hasn't wanted to press for sanctions...

There's supposed to be a vote coming up this week about sanctions against Iran... and Turkey (which doesn't support sanctions) is a non-permanent member of the UN security council (last year and this year, non-permanent members seem to get two year stints)

Of course this could all be psy ops but in the light of the flotilla attack and Israeli sabre rattling over Syrian sales of ballistic missiles to Hezbollah, I think all the signs are that I am right and we are seeing the groundwork being laid for an attack on Iran.

Tbh, I thought the rhetoric was being ramped up three years ago, I thought that if they were going to do it at all, they were going to do it on George Bush's watch. He had nothing to lose, really.

But now I definitely get the sense that they're ramping up the rhetoric again, especially if that's their timescale, if they reckon that Iran would have nuclear capability by next year. Maybe they thought they wouldn't get away with it on Bush's watch so soon after the WMD fiasco, especially if they were going to be saying that Iran was three years away from maybe being a threat, maybe now they're going to play the Tony Blair 45 minutes away imminent game?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Israel is the Mad Dog of the Middle East.

It's on the road to cultural and economic boycotts and the same status as apartheid South Africa.

 

[London_Calling]

So Israel and Iran have similar, non-compromising strategies . . . .

 

[Spion]

That the attack on the flotilla was the result of a considered and planned decision to kill. They chose to kill and they chose to create this crisis. It wasn't a blunder and it wasn't the actions of "irresponsible protesters"

Naaah, I don't buy it. It was an operation that didn't go according to plan.

Never before had the IDF had to deal with such a large vessel with so many people on it. They thought they'd take control of it easily just by a small show of force or intent, just as had worked on all the other (much smaller) vessels that day. They didn't bargain on getting a right battering and some of their men taken hostage. They responded by showing those on the Mavi Marmara their intent to raise the stakes massively.

I'm not saying the Israelis aren't trying to scupper peace moves or that they're not planning some v loud rattling of sabres in front of Iran. I just think cock-up more convincing than conspiracy on this one.

 

[Open Sauce]

I'm not saying the Israelis aren't trying to scupper peace moves or that they're not planning some v loud rattling of sabres in front of Iran. I just think cock-up more convincing than conspiracy on this one.

I agree, it is entirely possible to be planning something against Iran regardless of the end result of the flotilla. I don't seen the need to upset Turkey - they would not allow nuclear armed planes to overfly anyway.

Though I don't buy cock-up either, the rhetoric beforehand was there were terrorists on board so it was never going to be a peaceful ending.

See http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/the-flotilla-raid-was-not-bungled-the-idf-detailed-its-violent-strategy-in-advance/

 

[Spion]

See http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/the-flotilla-raid-was-not-bungled-the-idf-detailed-its-violent-strategy-in-advance/

Leaving aside that his whole argument seems to be based on an article in the Israeli equivalient of the Sun, having a contingency plan to use live fire in particular circumstances is not evidence that they'd already taken the decision to shoot.

The blog person goes on to say, "The Israeli Navy could have done what it had in the past and hijacked the aid ships without boarding them, then towed them to shore." In that sentence he links to an article about a vessel with 21 people on board, which is rather different a situation from the 600 on the M Marmara.

Also the article flatly contradicts the blogger's assertion that the Israelis "hijacked the aid ships without boarding them".

Beware sloppy bloggers

 

[Open Sauce]

Leaving aside that his whole argument seems to be based on an article in the Israeli equivalient of the Sun, having a contingency plan to use live fire in particular circumstances is not evidence that they'd already taken the decision to shoot.

The point is that they had been stating in advance they beleived there were weapons and terrorists on board, there was always going to be a violent ending.

We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,” said a high ranking officer. “If terrorists have gotten on the boats or if there is an intention to use hot weapons against our forces, we will use full seriousness and caution. We want to avoid using force but as soon as there will be danger to the life of our forces we will be forced to use live fire as a last resort.


After our fighters take over the boats, OKETZ unit dogs and forces of the IHLM unit corps of engineers will inspect them looking for sabotage materials and fighting tools.

The IDF state in advance, they believe there are terrorists on board with weapons. They fire shots before landing, they abseil from a helicopter one by one armed with nothing but paintball guns - surely this is engineering a situation where there is a "danger of life".

 

[Spion]

The point is that they had been stating in advance they beleived there were weapons and terrorists on board, there was always going to be a violent ending.

The IDF state in advance, they believe there are terrorists on board with weapons. They fire shots before landing, they abseil from a helicopter one by one armed with nothing but paintball guns - surely this is engineering a situation where there is a "danger of life".

Where did they state there were weapons and terrorists on board in advance? It's certainly not in the Ma'ariv article that the blogger bases his argument on

 

[dylans]

Where did they state there were weapons and terrorists on board in advance? It's certainly not in the Ma'ariv article that the blogger bases his argument on

28th May

IDF officials expressed concerns that many of the activists are actually terrorists attempting to transfer arms to Hamas.

Foreign Ministry, IDF, and PR spokespersons are preparing interviews for global news agencies in order to explain Israel's position, mainly that the flotilla serves the terror organization ruling Gaza and not its residents.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3895338,00.html


29th May

THE ISRAELI foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman has reiterated his government’s determination to intercept the eight-ship flotilla gathering off Cyprus to sail to Gaza in a bid to break Israel’s blockade of the coastal strip.

Mr Lieberman dubbed the flotilla carrying parliamentarians, human rights workers and prominent figures as “violent propaganda” against Israel, adding that there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0529/1224271391807.html

Good video here on the reaction of the Israeli public and the propaganda campaign before the attack.

How Israel planned the flotilla attack

"We have very good reason to suspect an act of terrorism from one of the boats" said one senior officer

"It is impossible to know at this stage whether terrorists boarded the ships or whether there is intent to use live ammunition against our forces"

 

[dylans]

Double post oops

 

[ymu]

Where did they state there were weapons and terrorists on board in advance? It's certainly not in the Ma'ariv article that the blogger bases his argument on

Because making such a claim would be so totally out of character for Israel, right?

 

[Spion]

Good video here on the reaction of the Israeli public and the propaganda campaign before the attack.

How Israel planned the flotilla attack

That's more or less the video version of the Max Blumenthal article.

None of which proves there was a definite plan to get on board and shoot a bunch of people from behind.

 

[Spion]

Because making such a claim would be so totally out of character for Israel, right?

They use that kind of language all the time, as you well know. The issue here is whether there was a premeditated plan to shoot a bunch of people on the flotilla.

 

[ymu]

They use that kind of language all the time, as you well know. The issue here is whether there was a premeditated plan to shoot a bunch of people on the flotilla.

They do use that language all the time, yes - which is why I was wondering why you were questioning whether the reports of what they said beforehand were true. A premeditated plan to provoke a crisis in order to kill people is hardly out of character either ... but I agree, that is less clear-cut.

 

[Spion]

They do use that language all the time, yes - which is why I was wondering why you were questioning whether it was true. A premeditated plan to provoke a crisis in order to kill people is hardly out of character either...

No it's not. But to board a ship against tooled up people at night and get people taken hostage in the process doesn't sound like a great plan to me

 

[dylans]

Spion;]That's more or less the video version of the Max Blumenthal article.

I linked to more than that video. There are 3 sources in my post.

None of which proves there was a definite plan to get on board and shoot a bunch of people from behind.

Nevertheless, the evidence that is coming out from those on board the ship and the autopsy reports on the dead suggests that is exactly what they did

 

[Knotted]

Fwiw I agree with Spion. This was a disaster for Israel. The diplomatic breakdown with Turkey especially. But it's also made it impossible for Egypt and Jordan to cover Israel's arse. If Israel is even beginning to think about attacking Iran it needs every friend it can get in the region. The raid was a high risk strategy that backfired. They were planning a brutal commando strike to humiliate and terrorise the activists. But they weren't planning on shooting up a load of people.

Also let's not pretend that Netanyahu is Ben Gurion or Begin. The Israeli government aren't visionaries with long term plans, but just a heap of snouts in the trough. They are playing to their hard right political base.

 

[ymu]

No it's not. But to board a ship against tooled up people at night and get people taken hostage in the process doesn't sound like a great plan to me

Sending a couple of soldiers into Lebanon to get captured and provide an excuse for war doesn't sound like a great plan either. You seem to think Israeli policy generally appears rational to an ordinary moral being.

I don't know how much was cock-up or conspiracy either, but the propaganda stuff beforehand, the reports that they started shooting before they boarded the boat, and the fact that the only one of the six boats where people were shot was full of Muslims makes me think that maybe, just maybe, it was a conspiracy.

 

[Diamond]

I am putting this on it's own thread in order to disentangle it from the childish irritations and trolling that have turned the other thread into a fiasco and to create a space to discuss the consequences of this incident.

Because I have a theory and I would like to present it.

A lot of speculation is buzzing around as to why Israel would slaughter unarmed civilians on the high seas. Was it an over reaction? Was it incompetance? Was it secret intelligence that Al Qaeda had an atom bomb in the hold? Was it to intimade future attempts to confront the blockade?

I think the reason is this.

That the attack on the flotilla was the result of a considered and planned decision to kill. They chose to kill and they chose to create this crisis. It wasn't a blunder and it wasn't the actions of "irresponsible protesters"

Why? First for sure to intimidate future protesters from challenging the blockade but that is only part of the reason. They did it for a much more wide ranging and strategic reason.

They decided to kill in order to sabotage fledgling peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians They wanted to invite international isolation to create a situation which would allow Israel to kill the peace talks, to continue with it's expansionist policies and also to pursue a military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

On the 10th of March the BBC ran an article headlined. First round of Mid-East indirect peace talks completed and the US talked of sending George Mitchell back to the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8670726.stm

These talks had already almost been scuppered by another Israeli tactic. The decision to build settlements in East Jerusalem. But the provocations failed due to Palestinian compromise. Some would say capitulation. This is not what the Israeli's wanted. They wanted the Palestinians to walk. Now they have achieved that goal.


So having failed to prevent peace talks through the blatant provocation of settlement building they needed something else. Let's recall the warning of the US state department just a month ago.


We can now see the contempt to which the Israeli's hold those words.

These talks of course are now dead in the water and, according to this article that was the precisely what this attack was meant to achieve.



They point out that there should be nothing surprising in this cynical creation of crisis by Israel. They have a long record of doing exactly that.
Remember the second Intifada? Remember how and when it started. It was started in 2000 when Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque provoking riots which were dispersed with boodshed. That visit occurred 6 months before Israeli elections and Sharon then stood on a policy of crushing the intifada which he started. It worked and he won.



Likewise in 1996 Israel Shimon Peres launched "grapes of wrath" a 2 week intervention into Lebanon in which over a hundred civilians were killed. However this time it backfired and Peres lost. Guess who won? Yeah, Netanyahuh. In other words, the right profited from the adventure.

Again in 2006, after years of border incursions and provocations the Israeli's used the excuse of the capture of 2 soldiers who were deliberately sent over the border, to create an excuse to justify a widespread invasion of Lebanon in which 1500 Lebanese were killed a million displaced and the countries infrastructure badly damaged.

This was a deliberate attempt to scupper peace and allow Israel to continue and intensify a policy of expansion and settlement. This was a deliberate policy to allow them to pursue an attack on Iran. With, and this is key, the blessing of the United States.

The Israeli's care less about so called "international isolation" why should they? they have the USA and Obama has proved himself every bit as amenable as Presidents before him.

One final thing. Has anyone noticed how quiet Iran has been over this? Anyone know why? I think I have the answer and I will post it tomorrow.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19526

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19483

If you really believe that, you're a categorical fool.

 

[Diamond]

Why does the left always tend towards conspiracy theories?

Especially when history suggests that:

a) there have been relatively few conspiracies

and

b) they are rarely successful.

 

[Spion]

Sending a couple of soldiers into Lebanon to get captured and provide an excuse for war doesn't sound like a great plan either. You seem to think Israeli policy generally appears rational to an ordinary moral being.

No. I'm just going on available evidence and an assessment of what happened.

Got any evidence on the Leb hostages being the intended plan?

I don't know how much was cock-up or conspiracy either, but the propaganda stuff beforehand, the reports that they started shooting before they boarded the boat, and the fact that the only one of the six boats where people were shot was full of Muslims

AFAIK it was the only time they have had to deal with a boat that contained more than 20-30 people. There were 600 on board the M Marmara - not only greater numbers but also more likely to be able to muster a good number of people to physically resist. AFAIK, that has never been possible before. I think the IDF thought they could get what they wanted by intimidating those on board just like they had done every other time. But this time, for the reasons I've just outlined, things turned out different, things went wrong, they got a beating and they responded with deadly force

 

[Diamond]

The reason that they believed that they had to take the Mavi Mamara in the fashion that they did was because they apparently failed to sabotage the engine while it was docked in Cyprus.

With all the other boats they had constructed some kind of device that allowed them to essentially switch off the transmission to the propellers and attached that while they were in port.

 

[dylans]

Why does the left always tend towards conspiracy theories?

Especially when history suggests that:

a) there have been relatively few conspiracies

and

b) they are rarely successful.

What conspiracy? They went onto a ship and shot people. Hardly planting explosives in the twin towers is it?

Painting this as a conspiracy just serves as a smear

Was Sharon's visit to the Dome of the Rock a conspiracy?

Was Israel sending 2 soldiers across the Lebanese border in 2006, a conspiracy?

I wouldn't label them conspiracies. But they both happened.

 

[butchersapron]

The reason that they believed that they had to take the Mavi Mamara in the fashion that they did was because they apparently failed to sabotage the engine while it was docked in Cyprus.

With all the other boats they had constructed some kind of device that allowed them to essentially switch off the transmission to the propellers and attached that while they were in port.

This is not a 'reason'. There's no explanatory power there at all. I think dylans is miles off but he's at least offered motivations for why things happened rather than saying they happened because other things happened - i.e he looks at why things happened rather than just describing what happened with no critical interrogation of them.

 

[Diamond]

This is not a 'reason'. There's no explanatory power there at all.

What does this mean?

 

[Diamond]

What conspiracy? They went onto a ship and shot people. Hardly planting explosives in the twin towers is it?

Painting this as a conspiracy just serves as a smear

Was Sharon's visit to the Dome of the Rock a conspiracy?

Was Israel sending 2 soldiers across the Lebanese border in 2006, a conspiracy?

I wouldn't label them conspiracies. But they both happened.

This after your OP...

How disingenuous can you get?

The motives you ascribe, the situation that you imagine, the chronology that you imply, every part of it is conspiratorial.

 

[butchersapron]

What does this mean?

It means that you simply described what happened, you didn't look at why they happened.

 

[Diamond]

It means that you simply described what happened, you didn't look at why they happened.

I don't have to formulate some profound reinterpretation of any event whenever I come across some crackpot conspiracy theory to do with it.

In fact, if that was the norm, it'd be almost impossible to have any kind of rational debate.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't have to formulate some profound reinterpretation of any event whenever I come across some crackpot conspiracy theory to do with it.

In fact, if that was the norm, it'd be almost impossible to have any kind of rational debate.

I wasn't referring to dylans' theory but your complacent 'reason' i.e the actual events.

 

[Diamond]

I wasn't referring to dylans' theory but your complacent 'reason' i.e the actual events.

"complacent 'reason'".

I mean, come on, you're not even presenting an argument at this point.