New video: Flotilla passengers attack Israeli troops

posted at 2:28 pm on May 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the IDF’s blog. Ed already posted video taken from above the ship as Israeli troops rappeled down but this one’s shot from alongside so there’s more detail. Have a look as the Forces of Peace shift into full-on mob mode, dragging the soldiers to the ground before they’re even on the deck and swinging for the fences with huge metal poles. Some of the IDF personnel involved later described it as a “lynching,” which sounded dubious to me at first but not anymore. That’s what it looks like.

“They beat us with metal sticks and knives,” he said. “There was live fire at some point against us.”…

One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and a several were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck, forcing them to jump into the sea to escape.

“They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle,” one of the commandos said. “I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot.”

I’m not sure if he’s referring to a paintball rifle — which, incredibly, some of the troops were armed with in order to avoid a lethal encounter — or the real thing, but according to the Jerusalem Post, the mob managed to wrestle at least two handguns away from the troops. It looks like Ynet’s account, which Ed linked earlier but which you should absolutely read in full, was spot on: The IDF really thought they were facing off with “peace activists” here and didn’t realize their miscalculation until they were on the boat. (See the third clip below for just how badly they misjudged.) The argument from the left is that the raid was illegal because it happened in international waters, but evidently that’s not true either: If a neutral ship is intent on running a blockade after being warned to turn back, the fact that it’s on the high seas isn’t a defense. Apparently Israel was either supposed to let the ships run the blockade, not knowing for sure who or what was on board, or instruct their troops to let the passengers crack their skulls open with lead pipes once they were on the deck in the interests of “dialogue” or something.

The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting as I write this, which is interesting since, to my knowledge, it has yet to meet to condemn the North Korean attack on that South Korean ship that’s had the far east inching towards a war footing for months. Netanyahu has already canceled his scheduled trip to the White House tomorrow, ostensibly because he needs to be back home to deal with the crisis but likely because Obama doesn’t want to be forced into an awkward photo op before all the facts are out. I’m awfully curious to see how the U.S. votes on the inevitable UN condemnation of the raid, as relations between America and Israel are already falling apart over the U.S.’s endorsement of a nuclear-free Middle East. That policy won’t do a lick of good to stop Iran but it will catalyze Muslims opposition to Israel’s arsenal, a master stroke which Richard Fernandez describes thusly: “Like a circular-running torpedo it managed to miss its every intended target — missing North Korea and Iran — while hitting Israel.” Read his whole post, as I think he’s right on about a central irony of Obama’s falling out with Netanyahu. A basic assumption of The One’s foreign policy strategy, at least during the campaign, was that dialogue can reduce international tensions by assuring that isolated states don’t act rashly in desperation. Fernandez’s point: Is further isolating Israel when it’s already desperate over Iran’s nuclear program and Hezbollah’s missile capacity a wise idea? We’re about to find out, I think.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Have you seen anything showing this, or any reports that this happened in this case?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM
are you done with the multiplication table yet ? fractions ? how is Social Studies going ?

runner on June 1, 2010 at 10:15 AM

–I’ll take that as a “no”, you haven’t.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

A blockade is an act of war.
Running a blockade is an act of war.

Sink the damn ships.

barnone on June 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Apparently Israel was either supposed to let the ships run the blockade, not knowing for sure who or what was on board, or instruct their troops to let the passengers crack their skulls open with lead pipes once they were on the deck in the interests of “dialogue” or something.

Which option do you support jimbo3?

Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Israel should be commended for using such restraint with these thugs. North Korea can sink a ship and nobody does a thing about it. Yet, Israel defends a blockade, and gets treated like this. Next time, Israel should sink the ship and blame it on the North Koreans.

ted c on June 1, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Apparently Israel was either supposed to let the ships run the blockade, not knowing for sure who or what was on board, or instruct their troops to let the passengers crack their skulls open with lead pipes once they were on the deck in the interests of “dialogue” or something.
Which option do you support jimbo3?

Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM

–How about “being better prepared with more non-lethal crowd-type control weapons”?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

–How about “being better prepared with more non-lethal crowd-type control weapons”?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

So soldiers/sailors in on a battlefield should bring non-lethal weapons? The blockade runners were committing an act of WAR.

I am pretty sure the Obama team is working on Nerf torpedoes just to please [insult] like you.

barnone on June 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM

–How about “being better prepared with more non-lethal crowd-type control weapons”?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

More paitball guns?

OK!

Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Islam. A peaceful religion. Not a religion of hate.
Unless you are a Jew I guess.

JeffinOrlando on May 31, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Or stand with them.

jackmac on June 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM

–I’ll take that as a “no”, you haven’t.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

you should take it as an FU, antisemite

runner on June 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

you should take it as an FU, antisemite

runner on June 1, 2010 at 11:14 AM

–Ed or Allah, can you please ban runner for that totally baseless, offensive and defamatory comment?

Just for your information, runner, here’s a definition of the term:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it “attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]” in which they reside.[1] A person who practices antisemitism is called an “antisemite.”

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Just checked in to see if the trolls had returned to their holes, but I see they haven’t, lol.

Midas on June 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Jimbo3, you spent much of yesterday downplaying actual video evidence (multiple videos) of what actually did occur, and then turning around and playing up hearsay and propaganda that favored the anti-Israel view of the situation (I see you’re still doing it this morning, with lots of “if this happened” qualifiers, of course).

Since you find ‘antisemite’ to be distasteful, perhaps ‘terrorist sympathizer’ or ‘anti-Israel’ would be preferable?

Midas on June 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Jimbo3, you spent much of yesterday downplaying actual video evidence (multiple videos) of what actually did occur, and then turning around and playing up hearsay and propaganda that favored the anti-Israel view of the situation (I see you’re still doing it this morning, with lots of “if this happened” qualifiers, of course).

Since you find ‘antisemite’ to be distasteful, perhaps ‘terrorist sympathizer’ or ‘anti-Israel’ would be preferable?

Midas on June 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

–The videos don’t show what happened before the boarding, may not show everything that happened after the boarding, and all we’ve generally heard is one side’s version of what happened (because the Israeli embargo on contact by the other side is apparently continuing). How does wanting more information–and looking at videos with some skeptism-make me an anti-Semite, anti-Israel or terrorist sympathizer–unless of course runner or you just want to defame anyone who disagrees with him.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM

By the way, Midas, you might also want to tell everyone that you think Hugh Hewitt is an anti-Semite because he also thinks more facts are needed:

“There is simply no way the United States or the other members of the Council are in a position to know what happened with sufficient detail to allow for such a resolution except for reflexive anti-Israeli sentiment.

–Hugh Hewitt”

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

–How about “being better prepared with more non-lethal crowd-type control weapons”?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

I don’t know what you have in mind. The use of tear-gas or other chemical agents in a confined environment is potentially very dangerous. On a ship especially. Had the Israelis gone that route I’m sure we’d be hearing about “Israel uses chemical weapon against peace activists.”

year_of_the_dingo on June 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Here is some more information.

Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

I got all the info I need. No reason to “wait” for more inforamtion. It is crystal clear what happen and why it happen. I would put down the paint ball guns from now on and let everyone know it.

Brian on June 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Little punk wannabe jihadists

sink the boat and end that faulty DNA

It’s a start

Sonosam on June 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Who’s Organized This??

Reality Check on June 1, 2010 at 1:53 PM

The insanity that I still can’t understand with this type of event is that it takes an intentional ignoring of history and the events before you to jump on the anti-Israeli bandwagon.

Prior to WWI, there was NO PALESTINIAN nation, or any other arab nation in the vicinity of modern Israel for that matter, as the Ottoman empire had consumed those nations for centuries. (Otttoman empire at Wikipedia - Forgive the reference, I don’t have unlimited time and it is sufficient for my discussion.)

During the partioning of the old Ottoman empire, there was some intent to set aside land for the palestinian peoples, particularly if you look at the map on the British Palestine scheme, you see what was planned with Israel and the Transjordan area for the palestinians. Side note, notice, that the area for Transjordan was far larger than the area for Israel.

Now, bear in mind that there was no nation of Israel at that time either, but the efforts of Chaim Weizmann to reestablish Israel also included the Arab people in the region. This is just one example of many. However, if you dig through the agreements, there was never a coherent understanding achieved. This is attributed to a lot of factors, but in the interest of brevity, the conclusion I reach is that the Arab people have NEVER wanted Israel to exist.

The nation of Israel as we all know wasn’t fully established until May 14, 1948, even though efforts had begun decades before. In case anyone has forgotten, the first attack on Israel occurred May 15, 1948. Now if you look at the picture this paints, in the absence of any other information about the cultures involved, it doesn’t paint a picture of Israel the aggressor. If you look at the cultural setting, it doesn’t look good for the prospects of peace. Not on behalf of the Israelis, but on behalf of those who claim connection to Abraham through Ishmael.

Regardless of what you believe about the legitimacy of Israel, it has been an established nation since 1948. As a nation established from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, there is no act of theft or problem that diminishes the Israeli legitimacy that is any different than for Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc. As an established nation, they have the right to defend themselves, from all enemies. This includes attacks from the Gaza strip, which is why there is a blockade. Blockade running is an act of War, and the ship should be on the bottom. The fact that it isn’t shows the great lengths to which Israel will go to prevent deaths, even when it is to their detriment.

Marine_Bio on June 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Jimbo, considering the way you’ve spoken to others and hijacked threads around here, you are in no position to ask for the Ban Hammer for anybody. They had stopped 5 ships before this one without incident. They stop this one and the IDF is attacked. Do you believe that they should have allowed themselves to be lynched?

kingsjester on June 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Jimbo, considering the way you’ve spoken to others and hijacked threads around here, you are in no position to ask for the Ban Hammer for anybody. They had stopped 5 ships before this one without incident. They stop this one and the IDF is attacked. Do you believe that they should have allowed themselves to be lynched?

kingsjester on June 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

–I asked for the ban hammer and meant it. There were no grounds to call me anti-Semitic.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Your stupidity in quoting Hugh on this is palatable. You really aren’t too bright, are you? The UN has ALREADY contemned Israel for this incident. The point is that the UN, which is supposedly the MOST neutral and compromising and peaceful organization on Earth, has issued a verdict before the facts and effectively siding with inhumane terrorist such as Hamas. The point was that an organization like the UN has a DUTY to withhold jumping to conclusion or else it’s just a tool for a political ideology that no one really wants to openly agree. The UN is showing how much it’s just a cover for thugs to run the world in their “view” under the force of the “world’s gun”.

Pathetic.

Sultry Beauty on June 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM

So, you may talk to people and attack Christians anyway you wish, but someone calls you anti-semitic and you want the Hammer dropped? Aren’t you special.

kingsjester on June 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM

So, you may talk to people and attack Christians anyway you wish, but someone calls you anti-semitic and you want the Hammer dropped? Aren’t you special.

kingsjester on June 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Jimbo is just concerned you see? These are serious questions he is asking. Serious questions. Very concerning.

Inanemergencydial on June 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Your stupidity in quoting Hugh on this is palatable. You really aren’t too bright, are you? The UN has ALREADY contemned Israel for this incident. The point is that the UN, which is supposedly the MOST neutral and compromising and peaceful organization on Earth, has issued a verdict before the facts and effectively siding with inhumane terrorist such as Hamas. The point was that an organization like the UN has a DUTY to withhold jumping to conclusion or else it’s just a tool for a political ideology that no one really wants to openly agree. The UN is showing how much it’s just a cover for thugs to run the world in their “view” under the force of the “world’s gun”.

Pathetic.

Sultry Beauty on June 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM

-So you think Hugh Hewitt and me are anti-Semitic because we don’t want to jump to conclusions? Real smart. You’re from California, aren’t you.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM

So, you may talk to people and attack Christians anyway you wish, but someone calls you anti-semitic and you want the Hammer dropped? Aren’t you special.

kingsjester on June 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM

–When have I attacked someone personally for being Christian?

–Oh, and aren’t some of you similarly special when you’ve attacked me and other Lutherans for not being your type of Christians.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Jesus,

Point thou Holy Finger towards that madness and FIX IT! Zap the Middle East!

ProudPalinFan on June 1, 2010 at 5:41 PM

I got a better idea: torpedo ‘em, then blame it on the NORKS.

Virus-X on May 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Or, time to involve a country that does JACK and SQUAT!!!

ProudPalinFan on June 1, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Did I miss the post about the next ship being named the Rachel Corrie? Somebody suggested the Israelis rename their ship the SS Bulldozer.

Blake on June 1, 2010 at 9:24 PM

–I asked for the ban hammer and meant it. There were no grounds to call me anti-Semitic.

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Oh, give it up. No one is getting banned for calling you or anyone else an anti-semite.

Blake on June 1, 2010 at 9:25 PM

–How about “being better prepared with more non-lethal crowd-type control weapons”?

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

How about not running blockades or allowing the search for weapons?

Blake on June 1, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Just for your information, runner, here’s a definition of the term:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it “attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]” in which they reside.[1] A person who practices antisemitism is called an “antisemite.”

Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM

You forgot the 3-Ds which is the form of antisemitism which is most in vogue these days:
The demonization of Israel.
Emmploying double standards against Israel.
And attempting to delegitimize Israel as a nation.

Blake on June 1, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Sorry if this has already been posted, but the IDF has some videos of the battle up on youtube here. The videos show pretty clearly that this was an ambush. And show live fire being used against the IDF troopers.

I hope that the USA stands with Israel on this.

JeffVader on June 2, 2010 at 2:55 AM

Paint ball vs. Stun gun at least?!

Michael Savage summed up the Palestinian PR compared with the foolish one-at-a-time Israeli “force” landing that naturally led to confrontation — but since the pro-Palestinians didn’t actually KILL anyone they mugged, they hold the international-UN PR moral high ground, especially given that the Israelis conducted the raid in international waters instead of within their own coastal waters. The fault for allowing the situation to play out as it did is with the PC Israeli brass/”intelligence”.

He makes a logical argument. From that, only a moron would jump to the conclusion that Savage is antisemitic.

maverick muse on June 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Bill Blizzard on June 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM

Yes, HA does censor comments utilizing passive aggressive means as you noted.

As per referencing this site, it has always been progressively neoconservative (negative connotation taboo) rather than conservative, more so with each shift of personnel.

What most Republicans who consider themselves conservative do not realize is the huge distinction between Constitutional Conservative and Neoconservative agenda and platforms. Eisenhower’s huge government expansion into public works opened the floodgates for federal socialism, and his exit “warning” of the military-industrial-govt. complex was only as effective as Pilot washing his hands of any “guilt”. Nixon via Kissinger opened the gates of economic hell vaulting Red China to the top of the international pyramid scheme. McCain is a prime example of today’s neoconservative–ready to shove all kinds of unconstitutional legislation down our throats, already hampering free political speech, maintaining open borders and amnesty despite his flip-flop rhetoric begging for constituent votes, prohibiting over the counter vitamins, etc.

maverick muse on June 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM

The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters

Bill Blizzard on June 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM

.
Hmmmm, isn’t firing a shot across the bow of a blockade runner standard practice before attempting a boarding? I seem to recall that is what JFK’s US Navy did with Soviet freighters during the Cuban missile crisis?

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

McCain is a prime example of today’s neoconservative–ready to shove all kinds of unconstitutional legislation down our throats, already hampering free political speech, maintaining open borders and amnesty despite his flip-flop rhetoric begging for constituent votes, prohibiting over the counter vitamins, etc.

maverick muse on June 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM

.
McCain a NeoCon?!
I’m sorry but either your identification of John McCain unfounded or you’ve bowdlerized the term Neo-Conservative into meaningless nonsense. Neo-Conservative does not equal Liberal Republican or Moderate Republican for that matter.

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

What most Republicans who consider themselves conservative do not realize is the huge distinction between Constitutional Conservative and Neoconservative agenda and platforms. Eisenhower’s … Nixon via Kissinger
maverick muse on June 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM

.
My lord good fellow! What nonsense! Eisenhower was no Neo-Con and neither were Nixon and Kissenger! Nixon and Kissenger were types of “Traditional Realists”. In fact Neo-Conservative emerged in part as a critique of the ruthlessness of Nixonian and Kissenger’s Traditional Realist foreign policies!

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Eisenhower’s … exit “warning” of the military-industrial-govt. complex was only as effective as Pilot washing his hands of any “guilt”.

maverick muse on June 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM
.
Am I wrong in susspecting that you need to actually READ Eisenhower’s actual speech? Eisenhower was quite clear in that speech. Eisenhower explained that we needed an effective industrial-military complex to defend American in the 20th Century.

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Yes Bill Blizzard it seems as though Hot Air is on the up and up on this one and the Israelis were acting in according with International Law and naval blockade practice. You objected because:

The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters

Bill Blizzard on June 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM

.

However, even Marxists.org explains that during the Cuban Missile Crisis:

On the following day, the National Security Council proclaims to the International community what will happen to ships who do not abide by the U.S. military blockade of Cuba. The first stage is boarding and inspection. Any ships who refuse to be boarded will have a shot fired across their bow. If the ship does not surrender, it will be “crippled” by force.

Cuban History Part 3: The Missile Crisis

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM

McCain a NeoCon?!

I’m sorry but either your identification of John McCain unfounded or you’ve bowdlerized the term Neo-Conservative into meaningless nonsense. Neo-Conservative does not equal Liberal Republican or Moderate Republican for that matter.

Mike OMalley on June 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

A common affliction, and you’ll often see both leftists and paleo-conservatives (the Ron Paul / Pat Buchanan isolationists) using it as a synonym for “Jew”.

Spiny Norman on June 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Bill Blizzard on June 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM

Hahahaha! Linking yourself as a source? Didn’t think you could get crazier than you already were.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4