What's to investigate? We know what happened to the Gaza flotilla. - By Shmuel Rosner - Slate Magazine [mbc]

What's to investigate? We know what happened to the Gaza flotilla. - By Shmuel Rosner - Slate Magazine

Malcolm Calder
When the news first broke, I immediately predicted that an a certain "meme" would become widespread, an an important basis of the Israeli self-justification: ==> the Claim that they were attacked or threatened, and did violence only in self-defense. It seemed such an easy prediction, based on the historical character of the self-justifications accompanying the Israeli State's long record of vastly disproportionate violence.

That my prediction was exactly accurate doesn't mean that the Israeli claim is false, it means only that the Claim provides no information about the facts, since it would be the same in either case.

Mr. Rosner presents the Claim as utterly uncontroversial -- so much, that an investigation into its contents would be pointless. In support, he cites the videos released by the IDF, which don't establish the facts claimed of them -- BUT NOT THE LIVE ONBOARD FOOTAGE (al Jazeera) that presents a very different picture: THAT ISRAELI TROOPS HAD BEEN ATTACKING THE BOAT FROM A DISTANCE (sound grenades, gas, maybe bullets), AND HAD KILLED AT LEAST ONE (maybe two) BEFORE THEY ATTEMPTED TO BOARD THE BOAT.

The very existence of a credible counter-story, contrary to the official Israeli/IDF one, is the demolition of Mr. Rosen's credibility. If he were trying to do journalism (even serious opionion-writing) and not Israeli propaganda, he would have HAD to allow for the possibility of facts unknown to him (if not simply ignored by him) calling the official Israeli version into question (assuming he wasn't present on-scene, but simply presenting one side's official view, without other perspectives).

That he did not account for the possibility of a version of events contrary to the official Israeli justification can only mean this: he was not interested. This article of his is plainly an attempt to prejudicially close our minds against that possibility, too. It's the work of a propagandist, not a journalist.

Shame! Shame!! Shame on Slate, for printing this!!!
Today, 9:49:00 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Liked by
Daniel Lindsay
[This user is an administrator] Michael Gassner
The anti-semitism in these comments is sad. The US would never tolerate the attacks that Israel is expected to tolerate. "Bleeding heart" anti-semites cry about disproportionate use of force. There is no such thing, when it comes to protecting your existence.
Today, 9:58:21 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
[This user is an administrator] stewart reubens
Wow, there is so much hate in the comments for the State of Israel.
You guys need to be honest and come out with it.
You despise Israel. You wish it didn't exist. While you are at, it, throw the world's Jews in the same basket and eradicate them as well. the world would be a better place without them. They killed Christ anyway.

Then, admit that even though this is what you think, you cant say it as your hypocritical liberal values don't allow for it.

By the way, I have news for you. We Jews aren't going anywhere. We have outlived many other countries who have wanted to exterminate us. This trend will continue.
Today, 9:47:39 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
[This user is an administrator] Malcolm Calder
Nothing personal, Steward Reubens, but your assumptions are baloney. They may be correct in the case of some particular individuals, but they are are not directed toward particular individuals -- and as categorical "analyses" or "judgjents", they are wrong. I suggest that the best way to promote honesty is to practice it, and that you should "come out with it" wrt your own motivations before suggesting that practice to others -- to me, for example.

I speak for myself. Contrary to your claim, I don't despise "Israel" -- Israel is far too complex and multifaceted a set of phenomena to have any easy opinion about.

For example, I find the social-psychological implications of insular Jewish identity fascinating, in light of the historical and religious/mythological context.) Generally, I find the development and dynamics of tribalistic thinking/attitudes -- manifested across the world and throughout history (and prehistory) very interesting -- the various ways we develop, maintain, justify and act upon loyaites, e.g.

But it's not all above-the-neck intellectuality. In the world one lives in, the moral implications are real and serious. Tribalism can very easily be hugely dysfunctional, and often is. The BEHAVIOR of the Jewish State vis-a-vis the Palestinian people is what I despise.

I don't care whether there is or isn't a Jewish state. If the Jews want a state, fine, let them have one. BUT IF THE PALESTINIANS WANT A STATE -- more importantly, if they want autonomy (and what people doesn't?) -- THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE ONE.

So, to be clear: what I despise is that the State of Israel comes up with no end of excuses for blocking Palestinian autonomy. Violently.

Damn right, I despise that!

Any questions?