The international condemnations are already raining down upon Israel, the only nation in the world that is not allowed to defend itself. If we had an American President (that is, one who was primarily concerned with upholding the best interests of the United States), rather than a Post-American President (that is, a doctrinaire socialist internationalist), he would be speaking out strongly in favor of Israel today. Instead, he is more likely to join in the condemnations. "Navy escorts flotilla ships to Ashdod," from the Jerusalem Post, May 31 (thanks to Pamela Geller, who has much more here):
Armed Navy ships escorted boats from the Gaza protest flotilla to Ashdod on Monday afternoon, hours after IDF soldiers and activists clashed in a fatal raid.International activists aboard the ships opened fire on IDF soldiers who boarded the ships to prevent them from breaking the Israeli-imposed sea blockade, the IDF said Monday.
According to the IDF, the international activists "prepared a lynch" for the soldiers who boarded the ships at about 2 a.m. Monday morning after the soldiers called on them to stop, or follow them to the Ashdod Port several hours earlier.
According to IDF reports, at least 15 activists were killed during the ensuing clashes and dozens were wounded. Some of the wounded were evacuated to Israeli hospitals by Air Force helicopters.
Five Navy commandos were also wounded, some of them from gunfire. At least two soldiers were seriously wounded.
In international reactions, Turkey, Sweden and Greece summonsed their Israeli ambassadors for discussions on the violence.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also responded to the clashes, which he called a "slaughter," according to an AFP report.
Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists, according to an IDF report, succeeded in stealing two handguns from soldiers and opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.
Al Jazeera on Monday broadcasted footage from the Gaza flotilla's lead vessel, the Mavi Marmara, showing Israeli Navy commandos boarding the ship. Helicopters could also be seen flying overhead.
"It was like a well-planned lynch," one IDF officer said. "These people were anything but peace activists."...
"activists"
I'm reserving judgment until I have all the facts, but one fact is poignant: The ship on which the violence occurred apparently was a TURKISH vessel with primarily MUSLIM "activists" aboard.
Draw your own conclusions.
Arabic speaking "Peace" activists with knives and bats!
Draw your own conclusions.
Commenters on this story over at the Huffington Post, a well known hangout for Leftists and Palestinian supporters, are going berserk over this story, with over 5,700 comments already posted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/30/israel-attacks-palestinian-aid-flotilla_n_595033.html
Most of the posters vilify Israel from the well known Leftist anti-Semitic perspective we all have come to know and love. There are a few supporters of Israel trying to inject some rationality into the debate, but we could use some help. Anyone so inclined, drop on over, set up an account if you don't have one, and lend a hand.
"Remember Khybar!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
Here's the real story behind this 'humanitarian' flotilla:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176936
Stories were leaked by the government to the press about the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), the Turkish organization that is behind the flotilla, described as a “radical Islamic organization” that was outlawed by Israel in 2008 for allegedly serving as a major component in Hamas’s global fund-raising machine.
Same old tricks by their 'charities' for Jihad.
Don't just leave comments at the blogs.
Every one of us should by now have written a brief, polite and friendly letter to the Israeli Ambassador in our respective countries, letting Israel know that we Islamosavvy citizens fully comprehend the impossible situation in which the IDF soldiers were placed, that we are impressed by the astonishingly *low number* of fatalities that ensued in the melee as those greatly-outnumbered soldiers brought a howling lynch-mob of hundreds under control, and that - unlike our assorted clueless governments and journalists - we feel no sympathy whatever for jihadist gangsters and their deluded Useful Idiot human shields.
Writing and sending such a letter - as well as reading and absorbing the unfolding coverage of this event via the 'Jerusalem Post' - is what has kept me away from the discussion here, for most of the time since the story first broke.
"Peace activists".
Yeah, sure.
Translation #1 - JIHADISTS.
Translation #2, related - JANISSARIES OF JIHAD, those who enable, applaud and assist jihad or place no barrier in its way.
Time to remind ourselves what, precisely, is meant by 'peace' in the Orwellian vocabulary of Islam.
See the 'Islamic Dictionary for Infidels'.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html
From that interesting essay by one 'Wolfgang Bruno':
'"Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia.
'The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.
'Bassam Tibi explains:
"First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them.
'The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to the entire world," explained Tibi.
'"This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought, a concept developed by Immanuel Kant," an 18th-century philosopher.
'"Similarly, when Muslims and the Western heirs of the Enlightenment speak of tolerance they have different things in mind.
'“In Islamic terminology, this term implies abiding non-Islamic monotheists, such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, as second-class believers. They are 'dhimmi,' a protected but politically immature minority."
'According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview.
'Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace."'
And more, as Bruno again cites Tibi:
'According to Tibi,
"world peace, the final stage of the da'wa (call to embrace Islam), is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace.
'The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.
“Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad.
“Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists.
"Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it.
"In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.
"Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of "temporary")."'...
And Bruno continues, a little later on:
'Since subjugation to Islam alone can bring peace, Muslims consider themselves to be "spreading peace" when they raid, maim and kill from Europe to Central Asia.'...
And at the end, Bruno offers a few preliminary 'definitions':
'Peace: "Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia, and the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to cover the entire world.
'The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.
'Since it is the will of Allah that Islam will rule the entire planet,
'entering non-Muslim lands to subjugate the population and wipe out their corrupt, infidel culture
'is not seen by Muslims as "waging war," but as spreading peace." ...END QUOTES FROM BRUNO AND TIBI.
*Now* I think we can see why the lynch mob upon that Turkish ship, swarming Israeli soldiers and attacking with knives, metal bars, and rocks, could describe themselves, and be described by other Muslims, without the least trace of irony, as 'peace activists'.
**All** jihadis, given the special Islamspeak definition of 'peace', are 'peace activists'.
Strange that these "jihadists" failed to bring guns and had to steal them from the IDF. Strange that if it's true they are bringing weapons for Hamas, as opposed to their claim of bringing food to starving children, that they weren't able to get their hands on real weapons when the IDF approached them and peacefully jammed their communications.
I see 'Jon' didn't bother to read what I posted above, on the subject of the special Islamspeak meaning of 'peace'.