EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gaza Boat Activists Deny Israeli Story
With a bloody raid on the "Freedom Flotilla," Israel has demonstrated, once again, its willingness to kill innocents in order to sustain its punishing blockade on the Gaza strip, even when doing so raises more and more questions about nuclear-armed Israel's national sanity.
Scholar Norman Finkelstein, author of a new book on Israel's 2008-09 assault on Gaza entitled "This Time We've Gone Too Far," deemed the attack on the six ships in international waters that left nine people dead Monday the actions of a "demented... lunatic state."
According to survivors -- who include a former ambassador, a Nobel laureate and several well-known human rights activists -- the Israeli commandos came heavily armed with explosives and automatic weapons, and some opened fire from the air before landing on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel leading the flotilla.
However, Israeli officials offered a competing narrative of a peaceful initiative that only went wrong because of the physical resistance from activists on the ships. The government's version was that the commandos were armed primarily with paint-ball guns.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also was unapologetic about the lethal assault, claiming that the embargo is justified by fears that military-related items could be smuggled into Gaza.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Netanyahu said, "We will never apologize for defending ourselves," adding: "I'm very proud of what our soldiers did...This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists or peace activists."
Among those offering a contradictory account was Ed Peck, a former U.S. ambassador and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism during the Reagan administration, who was on board the Sfendoni vessel of the Freedom Flotilla.
"The first thing we knew was the sound of footsteps, and my eye lids flicked open, and there they were, heavily armed," said Peck, who was one of the first hostages to be released. "The Israeli government keeps referring to the paint guns, but the paint guns were attached to the automatic weapons and the stun grenades and the pepper spray and the tasers and everything else that these guys carry."
While the Israelis claim they were attacked violently by Al Qaeda and Hamas-connected "terrorists," very few soldiers were wounded, and none died. Israeli officials showed off knives and some home-made weapons that allegedly were used by the Mavi Marmara defenders. No firearms were found on the ships.
Nor was there any military-related "contraband," other than bags of concrete and other building materials, which Israel has banned from Gaza purportedly because "terrorists" might hide in the new buildings. Because of Israel's embargo on construction materials, Gazans have been unable to rebuild following Israel's devastating offensive that killed some 1,400 people and left many of Gaza's 1.5 million people homeless.
While no Israeli commandos died in Monday's raid, nine peace activists were killed, including some with multiple bullet wounds apparently from close range and others due to what seemed like indiscriminate fire.
Sarah Colborne, director of campaigns and operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was on the Mavi Marmara. Later, speaking at a press conference in London, she said unarmed activists were shot by the commandos and that the Israeli attackers ignored calls for medical aid.
"There was live ammunition flying around and I could hear the sounds of the bullets flying and the whirr of the helicopter blades as people were dropped down onto the roof," Colborne said. "Helicopters appeared and gunshots were heard. We then had the first passenger fatally injured... He was shot in the head...It was very clear it was live ammunition."
Huwaida Arraf, chairperson of the Free Gaza Movement, was on another ship, the Challenger 1, as it was attacked by Israeli commandos by air and sea. As she and other activists resisted the takeover solely with their bodies, she watched the attack on the nearby Mavi Marmara. She also said the commandos opened fire from the air.
"I could see the beginnings of the attack on the Turkish ship, the Marmara, because we were traveling almost side by side with it," Arraf said. "I saw the Israeli naval zodiacs approach that ship, I heard explosions which I took to be concussion grenades... and then shooting.
"I don't know if it was rubber-coated bullets, live ammunition, or what kind, but there definitely was shooting coming from the Israelis toward the ship before they even boarded, and then I saw a helicopter overhead."
Arraf and the peace activists who were on Challenger 1 were beaten, tasered, hand-cuffed and locked in a room. They were also threatened with a muzzled guard dog and were searched to remove any telephones and cameras.
For Arraf, the harsh treatment didn't end with the violent seizure of the boat. The fact that she was an organizer with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship made her an interesting target for multiple interrogations. After refusing to answer questions without legal or consul representation, she ended up being one of the first to be released.
The interrogators "forced me into a police van, literally, by pulling me up by my hair and my hands and feet and beating me," she said. "They drove me out of the port, stopped the car at some point - I'm not sure where because I was a little bit disoriented after being punched in the face and the jaw - and then they just opened the door and threw me out of the van."
Peck, the former U.S. ambassador and counter-terrorism adviser, said he asked Israeli officials who were processing him for deportation why he was being deported, given that he had not violated any Israeli law. He was told that he had illegally entered Israel.
"I said 'Well, now, wait. Our ship was taken by armed commandos. I was brought here at gun point against my will, and you call that illegally entering Israel?'"
Israel and its defenders maintain that the high-seas raid was justified on the grounds of Israeli national security.
But Richard Falk, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, said Israel's action at sea, in international waters, was "as clear a violation of international humanitarian law, international law of the seas, and international criminal law, as we're likely to see in the early part of the twenty-first century."
Falk said the United States might also be implicated. "We are certainly morally and politically implicit and responsible in these kinds of Israeli tactics and undertakings," said Falk, but he added, "the political will is lacking at the governmental level and at the international institutional level to provide that kind of protection" to the people aboard ships headed to Gaza.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a Law of the Sea expert, made similar points about the clear illegality of the attack in international waters and observed, too, that Turkey, as a NATO member, has the right to turn to other NATO nations, including the United States, and invoke collective defense.
"I must be plain - nobody wants or expects military action against Israel. But there is an uneasy recognition that in theory that ought to be on the table, and that NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey," Murray wrote.
Yet, the strength of international law is only as powerful as major world powers allow. As investigative reporter and human rights activist Allan Nairn said, "The problem is not just one of stopping Israel's crimes, but of stopping Washington from authorizing them and exporting worldwide a U.S. version of 'rule of law' that legalizes official killings of civilians."
"In this attack on the civilian aid ship," Nairn said, "Israel is not violating U.S. doctrine; Israel is implementing it. This is what the U.S. would have done, and what the U.S. does every day in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan directly, and indirectly in dozens of other countries, where it backs armies and paramilitaries that use these procedures."
The additional fact that Israel has an estimated 200 or more nuclear warheads worries author Norman Finkelstein.
"If this is the kind of decision-making that they make after a week of intensive deliberation against a humanitarian convoy, to launch an armed commando raid in the dead of night in international waters, then what kind of action may they take in the midst of a full-fledged war, with missiles flying toward Tel Aviv, is very scary.
"I honestly don't believe that people are giving serious consideration to the fact that things are rapidly getting out of control."
Meanwhile, despite the deadly brutality of the raid on the "Freedom Flotilla," Arraf said she and her colleagues are committed to breaking the Gaza blockade, and will not be intimidated.
"We will definitely continue in our efforts to break this illegal blockade and to continue campaigning until the occupation as a whole has ended, and then there is a system here in the Middle East, in what's known as Israel/Palestine that treats people equally and does not discriminate against people based on race, religion or ethnicity.
"That's the kind of future that we're campaigning and fighting for, and we won't rest until we realize that."
Dennis Bernstein and Jesse Strauss based this report primarily on interviews done for "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. You can get in touch with the authors at dbernstein@igc.org and jstrauss@riseup.net.
This article appeared originally at Consortiumnews.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



33 Comments so far
Show AllIn an otherwise well written article, I believe that the authors err when they state that "nobody wants or expects military action against Israel." But they do follow that up by acknowledging that "NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey." That statement then begs the question of why NATO is not then vigorously defending the Palestinians from the oppressive tactics of the Israelis.
The authors didn't write "nobody wants or expects military action against Israel." It was quoted from an article by former UK diplomat Craig Murray, who, being a career diplomat, likes to tone things down.
Who knows what he really thinks.
Clovis
You are absolutely correct that it was Craig Murray and not the authors of the article who uttered those words. But my error should not take anything away from what I had written.
Erroll said: "why NATO is not then vigorously defending the Palestinians from the oppressive tactics of the Israelis?"
Because the Palestinians are not members of NATO, Turkey is. NATO has a treaty obligation to defend its members from attack by non-members and it would be on the hook if requested to assist or defend by Turkey.
One suspects that the reason that Palestine is not a member of NATO is because that organization does recognize Palestine as being a free and independent sovereign state which Israel can then use as a reason to say that the idea of an independent Palestine is bogus because Palestine is, according to Israel, part of their state and not officially recognized by the UN. Any reason, apparently, on the part of the Israelis not to grant freedom and independence to the Palestinians.
Is NATO obliged to defend one of its members if that member has aggressively attacked another country, and deliberately started a war, inviting attacks against itself? I don't think so. If Turkey decides to go to war against Israel, despite there clearly being no threat to Turkey from Israel in any way, then Turkey is on its own. There was no justification for Turkey's sending armed individuals to attack Israel; it was clearly a violation of international law. Disguising a military maneuver as a "peace" and "aid" effort doesn't fool anyone, and just makes it more reprehensible. (And it certainly makes the Turks look like cowards.) Americans support Israel and human rights, as do all decent people, and do not want their tax dollars or armed forces engaged in defending Islamic extremists and anti-semites.
mikep, You don't seem to understand that a flagged vessel in international waters is national territory and that is a basic principle of international law. Tukey was attacked. All the world understands that except Israel and their American ditto heads. Your apparent cluelessness in the face of overwhelming evidence and almost universal opinion is symtomatic of the sort of self-deception, if not lunacy, that is engendered by overweening self-righteousness, religious fanaticism and racism. Tony Vodvarka
Oh he understands. He knows full well that this was not an attack by Turkey against Israel. He is simply repeating the Israeli Governments talking points which are already treated with ridicule worldwide.
Oh, so many erroneous assumptions in this comment. Where to start?
"If Turkey decides to go to war against Israel, despite there clearly being no threat to Turkey from Israel in any way, then Turkey is on its own."
Nobody wants to see any type of military actions between erstwhile allies Turkey and Israel. Turkey is not a threat to Israel, Israel is not a threat to Turkey but Israeli commandos did murder several Turkish (and one Turkish/American) nationals. I believe Turkey's got a legitimate gripe.
"There was no justification for Turkey's sending armed individuals to attack Israel;"
Turkey did not send "armed individuals to attach Israel." The flotilla activists had no arms except items normally found aboard a sea-going vessel. To portray this in any other way is a specious lie.
".. it was clearly a violation of international law."
The commandos attacking a non-military Turkish vessel in international waters is viewed by many as a violation of international law.
"Disguising a military maneuver as a "peace" and "aid" effort doesn't fool anyone, and just makes it more reprehensible. (And it certainly makes the Turks look like cowards.)"
You are the one who has been fooled. The mission of the Free Gaza flotilla was to break the illegal blockade of Gaza, to bring the world's attention to the plight of the Gazans, and to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. At least it succeeded on the first two points. The world is indeed watching.
"Americans support Israel and human rights, as do all decent people, and do not want their tax dollars or armed forces engaged in defending Islamic extremists and anti-semites."
Yes, many Americans support Israel and human rights, including Gazans' human rights. One does not have to be for Palestinians and against Israelis, one can be both and recognize both the Palestinians and the Israelis to live in peace. That you portray criticism of the Israeli army and it's government's actions against the people of Palestine as anti-semitism is stupid and you are truly diluting the term "anti-semitism." Don't cry wolf too many times because if real anti-semitism becomes a threat, who will listen?
I am American, I do not now nor have I ever supported the war in Iraq and I stand firmly against my government's actions and yet I am not an anti-American.
You appear to be highly misinformed, misled or perhaps you are just a cynical propaganda catapultist.
Angel D: Astute rebuttal, thanks.
And if you decide to rephrase your closing paragraph as a multiple choice, don't forget to include "all of the above". ;)
Actually, guys and gals, what you don't realize is that mikep was testing his new stand-up comedy routine on us.
Easy on the kool-aid mikep: "sending armed individuals to attack Israel"--now you've either been reading too much Israeli propaganda or smoking too much funny stuff. Think this through for a minute: if your mission was to arm yourself to attack Israel, and you could assume that Israeli commandos would be armed to the teeth, would you bring...a chair, a saw, or a pipe to defend yourself against automatic weapons and stun guns?
Turkey was "violating international law"? I think you have that backwards: international law frowns on piracy--whether Israeli or Somali. A Turkish ship was sailing in international waters to Gaza (which, by the way, is not Israeli territory so the claim to be defending its territory is another Israeli lie). It wanted to break an illegal blockade and deliver humanitarian supplies. It was attacked by Israeli pirates (or death squads, whichever) and nine unarmed people were killed--or, executed, judging by the types of wounds they suffered. International law favors the humanitarians.
"Military maneuver"? Well, if the peace activists were disguised navy personnel, they sure fooled all the checkpoint guards they had to pass through before leaving Turkey.
And finally--yes, Americans support human rights; and we certainly do not want our tax dollars going to an apartheid bully of a state that conceals its nuclear weapons program, threatens both states and civilians anywhere and everywhere in the world, and keeps 1.5 million people in an open-air prison called Gaza (why open air? So that the people have no buildings to hide in when the gutless Israelis decide to go on another "fish in a barrel" shooting rampage).
Bottom line: the Israeli military, now more than 30% right-wing orthodox Jews and rabid Arab haters, has become a hit squad no better than the Honduran or Guatemalen death squads. It ignores international and humanitarian laws, executes civilians, and is given a hero's welcome by the racist junta in Jerusalem and the deluded Israeli citizens who believe they are made safer by their government's blood policies. That's what US tax dollars really pay for.
"The additional fact that Israel has an estimated 200 or more nuclear warheads worries author Norman Finkelstein."
He ain't the only one. One suspects that the diversion of attention from recent proposals for a nuke-free Middle East isn't entirely unwelcome by those who planned the very aggressive tactics to be used in the attack on the flotilla.
As might be expected, Israel has already denounced the UN resolution by members of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty calling for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East as "hypocritical" and said it would not participate. There are, however, despite unbending support in public, a few small signs that USA Incorporated itself is increasingly concerned with their prior contributions to Israel's nuclear arsenal and its threatening potential for disrupting certain aspects of their own broader geopolitical strategies.
It's one of those many situations where the imperial masters may have given birth to a monster whose own agenda diverges increasingly over time and eventually gets beyond control of its creators. Arming monsters with the ability to evolve and act upon independent thoughts and ambitions does become worrisome, especially paranoid monsters.
Well said, RV.
The Finkelstein quote jumped out at me as well. We need to view these increasingly belligerent and cruel actions by Israel with increasing concern. That said, I am uncertain about the Frankenstein analogy. Given the corporate fascist media's response to this event, it almost appears that they are pushing the monster out the door to do further damage. To what ends? I have to wonder how many Jews and Christians there are in this corporate fascist empire who are holding the levers of power and who unequivocally believe in the "chosen" goodness of the Jewish race. A self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon?
Jews don't talk about the armegeddon mythology. It is a "Christian" concept in contemporary terms.
In fact, the belief within Judaism is that we, the people, need to create a Just and Peaceful world *before* a messiah comes. Humans need to become 'worthy' of that event.
However, many Israelis and Jews have their own self fulfilling prophecy and psychologies. And the two come together in a symbiosis, as you have theorized.
I too believe that israel is encouraged to push the envelope. More and more. It isn't a rogue state as far as the u.s. empire is concerned. It does what Dick Cheney dreams about...... They are like the missions who go out further and find out just how far you can go.........Before..........
Everyone believes that the enemy of my enemy is my freind. Very malevolent and idiotic philosophy.
>>Everyone believes that the enemy of my enemy is my freind. Very malevolent and idiotic philosophy.
Even to get to that point, you have to buy into the assumption that Islam is my enemy. I should do this based on 9/11? They don't let their women pimp themselves for crack or become porn stars? Is this why they are my enemy? This thing is like an onion you peel and the layers give way to rotting stinking filth at the core.
Hopefully the voices like Finkelstein's ring louder and clearer. Is there a Luther amongst the Jews? Right now, I don't see any cracks in the foundation.
I have written on this myself.
"When Do We Stop Sitting Shiva For the Holocaust?" Electronic Intifada. A couple years ago. Written originally for a jewish audience on Yom Kippur. It wasn't my best writing, but i wanted it done at that time.
Anyway. I think Jesus was the Jewish Martin Luther. Sans the violence and mania. And fairytales that destroyed his intention and message.
But i think the answer actually lies with the brilliant little story, preJewish, found in Job. A process of evolution and confronting one's own dissonance.
All religions have outlived their sustainability. Time for a radical shift or its all over. Authoritarianism is at the core of all of it.
"even to get to that point...." I assumed that goes without saying. Doesn't it?
If you are seeking someone to grapple with over that point, you haven't read my posts over the past......However long we've been posting here.
Peace.
No. I am not looking to grapple with you at all. I appreciate the time you have taken to help educate me on some of these issues, both today and in the past. The complexity of this situation overwhelms me at times and thus the reference to the onion layers. As for modern religions, I think I have to agree with you. Paradoxically, I feel a great need for spirituality in a world that seems like it has gone stark raving mad at times.
Lefty, i agree.
Spirituality, in my opinion, is really the opposite of 'religion'.
Religion is that authoritarian organizational dressed up crowd control. Spiritual is really about seeing the larger picture and connecting on deeper levels. With nature and ourselves and each other.
We are each a particular, unique expression of the Universal. Again, i am not being so original. But it is my truth.
I am always very open to and happy to share my insights. And i am glad to have been of some help. These issues are all very spiritual in nature. There won't be political answers which are in the same box as the problems. But you know this already, don't you?
We need to deal with the unsustainable beliefs we take as truths. Our organized religions are the temples of these beliefs. I can't state this strongly enough. Especially at this moment in time.
I think that article i mentioned would be of interest to you. Honestly. I could have gone much further, but had to edit myself.
rita
Thank you for the article. It demonstrates a level of introspection rarely seen in the human mind. We would be wise to follow your lead.
Thank you so much, ctr-l. I mean it.
I think that some of the CD posters should meet for a ......meeting. To discuss these kinds of things. Really. It could be done.
rita
Nata has no obligation to defend Gaza but it does have an obligation to
defend Both Turkey and the US, both Nato members. The US suffered an
act of piracy and an act of war at the hands of the Israeli's A
US citizen was also murdered by the Israeli's The question is,
what is President Pussy going to do about it??
With apologies for repetition, it may be worth pointing out once again that not all repercussions for the Western alliance are necessarily reflected in "official" positions, let alone any overt military response.
Craig Murray, a 20-year senior officer of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, suggests that NATO HQ in Brussels is today a very unhappy place. Nobody wants or expects direct military action against Israel, but there is an uneasy recognition that in theory that ought to be on the table and that NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey as a member state. He asks (rhetorically or not): "But what kind of mutual support organisation is NATO when members must make decades long commitments, at huge expense and some loss of life, to support the Unted States, but cannot make even a gesture to support Turkey when Turkey is attacked by a non-member?"
I leave the last word to one of the senior NATO officers: "Nobody but the Americans doubts the US position on the Gaza attack is wrong and insensitve. But everyone already quietly thought the same about wider American policy. This incident has allowed people to start saying that now privately to each other."
REF: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25596.htm
Evening Fred,
Hats off to you for coming up with the best name for Obummer I've heard since the schmuck was elected!
President pussy!
LOL baby!
While it's intriguing, so to speak, to contemplate Turkey calling for NATO support per its treaty, we already know how well the more powerful nations abide by signed treaties and international agreements - only when they bloody well feel like it. Who's going to enforce anything, space aliens? G-d? It becomes clearer every day that the PTB are untruthful, unreliable, and sometimes downright dangerous for the planet. We do, however, have one thing going for us; we have six billion little 'aces in the hole' that could really turn things around.
It is important to note, however, that alliances like NATO that are based on treaties are, themselves, founded and bound together by mutually agreed legal obligations. A nation that undermines fundamental rule of law foundations not only undermines its own alliances, it also destroys any underlying confidence in itself that would be absolutely essential to future agreements it might seek where its own interests are at stake.
On the other hand, USA Incorporated has never been famous for farsighted enlightenment, nor for any astute avoidance of unintended consequences detrimental to its own wellbeing. I can't quite decide whether that's good or bad.
Even the New York Times seems to be reporting now that the Israeli commandos opened fire before being attacked, or even boarding the ship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/world/europe
/05reconstruct.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
Days of Planning Led to Flotilla’s Hour of Chaos
ISTANBUL — It was just getting light when the Turkish boat, packed with 546 activists, descended into chaos, and Mahmut Koskun, a Turkish doctor on board, was in the middle of it.
The crack of an Israeli sound grenade and a hail of rubber bullets from above were supposed to disperse activists, but instead set them in motion. And when three Israeli commandos slid down ropes out of helicopters to take over the ship, a crowd set upon them.
“They ran at them without pause or hesitation,” Dr. Koskun recalled.
One soldier was stabbed and two were beaten. From that moment on, the attempted takeover turned into an armed assault, with angry Israeli commandos opening fire. Within an hour, the commandos had taken control of the ship, and nine Turks, including one who also had American citizenship, were dead.
It's likely few saw this link to a fisrt hand account by a first class journalist, not some NY Times hacks, http://www.smh.com.au/world/prayers-tear-gas-and-terror-20100603-x7ew.html
For those interested in what Craig Murray has to say on his very informative blog, they can go there, http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.html
His top item:
"The Rachel Corrie has now been illegally boarded by the Israeli military in international waters.
"As usual the BBC's immediate reaction is simply to retail Israeli propaganda. The Rachel Corrie has been boarded "with the full compliance of the crew", BBC News tells us. That is almost certainly not true, unless you count without violent resistance as "full compliance".
"If that were true, you might wonder why Israel had jammed - again contrary to maritime law - all the Rachel Corrie's communications with the outside world, and why they are still jammed. The BBC did not mention that."
I admit I'm not a fan of Twitter, and have found supposed "live updates via Twitter" regarding the status of the "Rachel Corrie" to be dismally uninformative.
Not surprisingly, local news in the Philly PA area hasn't even mentioned it.
It remains to be seen whether the "Corrie" passengers and crew are indeed "compliant", or simply not resisting violently.
Apart from jamming live communications, I'm very interested to learn whether the IDF stormtroopers steal the activists' personal communications and recording devices and the rest of their personal effects this time, too.
Twitter is pretty damn useful. A great source of information and breaking news if you follow the right people.
One of my tweets to Glenn Greenwald was retweeted by him...then by John Cusack, who follows Greenwald. It was an interesting experience to get lots of praise and some dumb criticism for one of my thoughts.
Some really good posts here...thanks Angel D. for your cool retort.
I want to play devil's advocate here for a second but before I do I will state my credentials so as not to be accused as a shill or shrill or whatever the word is that is a favorite of CDers.
Grew up Left wing socialist Zionist, kibbutz oriented movement. Ideologically influenced by A.D. Gordon-who,100 years ago,wrote of his visions of Jews and Palestinians living peacefully together.
Does anyone out there sense an aspect of "letting the darker skinned Muslims take the front seat" --and therefore suffer the deadly repercussions--in the fine line between peaceful civil disobedience and active resistance?
I still am asking the question as to why the deadly events occurred on only one of the six boats, and why this one.(Besides the obvious heated tensions between Israel and Turkey since the Gaza invasion).