I notice the UN inquiry into the Gaza flotilla seems to have found that what was pretty clearly the case at the time was indeed the case, i.e. the Mavi Marmara was fired on from the air before any of the IDF special forces ever put themselves in harm's way.
BBC Radio 4 news ran the story once that I heard, on PM (which is where I heard it, to be fair) but with dismissively little detail. The inquiry findings were, when I checked, relegated to about 8th place on BBC News's Middle East page, with some irrelevant froth about something Ahmedinejad said getting much higher billing.
Basically this stuff is being trickled out so there's no definitive time at which it becomes a 'story', and the initial Israeli news management position (that scrap of video of unknown provenance, etc - http://www.frumforum.com/no-
Below, edited highlights of a thread on Crooked Timber done from shortly after the events, featuring the concept of 'implausible deniability'. It's basically my contribution, others that address it, and an alternative viewpoint included at the end.
CROOKED TIMBER
Come in Agent Netanyahu, mission almost accomplished
I’m sure I’m not capable of putting the point better than Flying Rodent:
Let’s say you were a cartoonish, Ahmadinejadesque lunatic fixated on destroying Israel. How would you go about achieving your goal?
Read the rest.
{ 390 comments }
05.31.10 at 9:20 pm
Except that this bit
Plus, you’d want to isolate the country from the United States is impossible. Israel can start wars, occupy countries, develop WMDs, attack ships in neutral waters and ignore any international laws it feels are inconvenient. Actually, reading back over that list, perhaps Israel is doing all of this in an attempt to get closer to the US?
06.01.10 at 12:38 am
In short, you’d want to make Israel look like a paranoid, bloodthirsty and extremely belligerent nation of racist freaks, determined to murder fuck out of civilians with total impunity year-in, year-out, so that the entire planet disowns them by, for example, withdrawing their ambassadors and issuing a barrage of denuncations. is shit-scared of these implacably fanatical, highly disciplined and efficient murderers, including btw any dissenting Jews who are tempted to break ranks in any significant, active way.
That’s the game-theoretic reality of it. Setting back diplomacy is great if you like the status quo. Getting international comdemnation functions to up the ante and stimulate solidarity among Israelis and friends of Israel. Any temporary problems are well worth the long-term objective of ensuring that Israel is seen as utterly singleminded, ruthless, and preferably potentially suicidally irrational about it. Projecting that image is the holy grail of adversarial game theory (cf. doomsday machine, Kayser Sozhe, etc.)
At least since the raid on Entebbe, Israeli special forces have looked courageous and invincible – getting some good footage of them blowing away a load of civvies in a clusterfuck operation would be propaganda gold.
Bit of a non-sequitur there. Maybe for those who give a shit about touchy-feely propaganda, such footage is indeed gold. In the realm of hurty-killy propaganda though, the footage doesn’t damage Israel, and in particular it is not evidence that Israeli specials are either uncourageous or vincible. In fact quite the opposite, given that the footage shows some of them taking a beating to provide a modicum of cover for a successful mission to carry out the execution of civilians.
Does anyone seriously want to suggest that the outcome was sufficiently unpredictable for that not to be an accurate description? (The ‘cover’ in question, btw, is implausible deniability – just the kind you want when you are flexing your muscles while maintaining impunity.)
Latest on the dreaded diplomatic ‘crisis’ – I understand the US/UK are on ‘deplorable’ at the moment, ‘regrettable’ is pencilled in for tomorrow, ‘controversial’ by the weekend, should be adjective-free by July.
06.01.10 at 12:43 am
(cf. doomsday machine, Kayser Sozhe, etc.)
The X-Files thread is underneath.
06.01.10 at 12:45 am
OK then mr snobby, try the Sybilline books then
06.01.10 at 10:14 am
Bloix @55 Henley says that Israel chose “militarism.” If you read what seems to have happened, it appears that the reason the Israeli SEALS wound up killing so many people is that they were entirely unprepared to take control.
OK so the probandum is that the killings were unplanned, unexpected, a mistake. So what’s the evidence for that?
They were lowered on a rope from a helicopter, one at a time, onto the deck of the ship, where they were immediately set upon by flotilla members. Apparently they expected, for some inane reason, that the flotilla participants would allow them to gather on deck. Why they thought that the flotilla members would be passive and non-violent is completely beyond comprehension. It should have been obvious that there was a great risk that the flotilla members would fight to maintain control of their ship.
The trajectory of the argument has gone awry. The above paragraph is arguing for the mistake’s being very stupid if it had been a mistake. But an extremely stupid mistake is less plausible, not more plausible.
The method seems to be: presuppose the conclusion (it was a mistake), cover up by launching into a different argument (it would be a very stupid mistake), and hope the audience will mistake assent to the latter, easy, point for acceptance of the former, main, one. After all, you definitely make a convincing argument for something or other, and it’s clear what you are trying to argue for, so that must be right then.
In fact the actual conclusion argued for – any mistake would be completely beyond comprehension – not only doesn’t support the mistake thesis but provides good reason to reject it.
This is implausible deniability in action. Meanwhile the dogwhistle sounds loud and clear for the vast majority who can hear it: “fuck with us and we’ll kill you”.
Latest on that diplomatic crisis – er, regret is being expressed. The ‘loss of life’ – not any concrete entity, and not even ‘killing’ – is being condemned. The one-line message from Tel Aviv is, guess what? ‘The mission was not a success.’ Got that? Not a success. (It’s just very lucky that all the deaths were on the Turkey/Hamas/Al-Qaida side.)
06.01.10 at 10:49 am
@75—Tim Wilkinson.
The dogwhistle theory isn’t especially consistent with the facts we have right now. If Israel was trying to send a sotto voce signal of ruthlessness, then why would they A. raid the boat in international waters, rather than waiting for them to enter territorial waters where their shield of deniability would be much stronger and B. conduct the raid in a way that makes their supposedly highly skilled and ruthless killers look like a troupe of hapless incompetents. If you want to convey an image of amoral badassery, releasing video showing your elite soldiers getting harried by a disorganized mob is hardly the way to do it.
Given these inconsistencies, I think we should presume that this debacle, at least at the tactical level, was the product of rank incompetence rather than something more deliberate.
06.01.10 at 12:40 pm
@Tim Wilkinson, 75:
I’ve never tried to board a ship moving at tens of knots in the middle of the night, especially not from a helicopter, so I’m no expert. You seem to think it should be easy to drop a few soldiers down and subdue an angry mob of 60 or so people who hat your and your country without any risk to the lives of those soldiers. Have I interpreted you correctly?
That’s not to suggest that I think the decision to halt the convoy was the correct one[1], just that it must be exceptionally hard to do such a think without loss of life.
[1] although I do actually think that
06.01.10 at 1:10 pm
If Israel was trying to send a sotto voce signal of ruthlessness, then why would they A. raid the boat in international waters, rather than waiting for them to enter territorial waters where their shield of deniability would be much stronger and B. conduct the raid in a way that makes their supposedly highly skilled and ruthless killers look like a troupe of hapless incompetents.
The argument presented is that the image projected was, looked at from vari0us angles: A. ruthless but not deniable enough; B. deniable but not ruthless enough? That’s not a very conclusive argument, is it. Image of ruthlessness/plausibility of denial is pretty much a trade-off, and I’m saying that Israel are willing to go pretty far toward the ruthlessness end of the scale.
Getting the soldiers attacked is enough for a bit of (implausible) deniability. Gunning down a load of civilians gets you the ruthlessness.
The error, if any, might have been in looking incompetent (to the extent that they did). But that’s almost always a cost of deniabilityin less than entirely covert ops (i.e. it’s cock-up rather than conspiracy) – and the aim of projecting ruthlessness means it couldn’t possibly be entirely covert.
(And this appeal to fear of appearing incompetent involves a kind of bootstrapping of the error thesis – it depends on the Israelis having expected those to whom the message is being sent to accept that this was a manifestation of incompetence rather than a deliberate provocation of violence to provide a pretext for massacre.)
In any case, some slight appearance of incompetence is not a big problem. Anyone who might come into contact with the IDF or specials is not going to be thinking about how silly they looked being beaten with sticks. They are going to be thinking about who ended up dead. If a known killer is pointing a gun at you, the fact that it’s a type that tends to jam is not going to figure very highly in your calculations.
we should presume that this debacle, at least at the tactical level, was the product of rank incompetence If you say so. More importantly, we should conclude that the mission, at least at a strategic level, was successful.
It’s pretty simple. Tactical instructions: killing civilians is better than backing down. So never back down and kill civilians in preference to doing so.
Strategic awareness: killing civilians from time to time projects fearsome power. It can be arranged with a modicum of deniability/impunity by issuing the above rules of engagement in whatever informal terms seems appropriate.
In this case, it beggars belief (pace Bloix) that the likelihood of resistance didn’t occur to planners, and thus that the lethal response wasn’t expected to a highish degree, which means this outcome was in the contemplation of those who planned the action and decided to go ahead.
Just seen Tom’s comment: You seem to think it should be easy to drop a few soldiers down and subdue an angry mob of 60 or so people who hat your and your country without any risk to the lives of those soldiers. Have I interpreted you correctly?I think I’ve probably answered your question. Just to be clear: no, I don’t think that. Quite the opposite – I’m saying the cock-up thesis supposes that Israeli planners thought that. I’m pretty sure a blockade could have been maintained without loss of life, though, if it is to be maintained at all.
06.02.10 at 1:15 pm
Bloix: This sort of thing is new. Israel has never paid attention to the collective remonstrations of the international community, but it has not gone out of its way to poke specific allies and potential allies in the eye
Lavon? Liberty? I’ve truncated the quote to exclude ‘for no good reason’ since (1) any such qualification is too susceptible to special pleading to be useful in such a discussion; and further or alternatively (2) I don’t accept that those who planned this latest attack had no good reason. On the contrary I stand by my initial assessment, viz:
The killings were a feature, not a bug. They were intended for generalised intimidatory and deterrent purposes.
The beatings which the, er, elite Special Forces troops dangled themselves into were also expected/planned. That footage was selected as the only bit to be released. The obvious conclusion is that the exlcuded footage was incriminating or at least would vitiate the exculpatory appearance of the footage. It’s hard to see that footage as anything but highly misleading. As pointed out, these are IDF specials, right? That means they are hard as fuck, and very alert to things like a big hostile crowd grabbing the bottom of the rope they are clambering down. I’ve seen some footage of an Israeli soldier in a hospital bed – but no sign of any injuries.
The whole thing is fishy as hell, and there’s little reason to accept the carefully-managed agenda-shaping ‘news’ put out by Israel. It’s bollocks. Specifically, the testimony of stage-managed and unexamined IDF ‘witnesses’ is worthless. The basic facts cannot be ignored, specifically special forces attacking a vessel and shooting a load of civilians dead. Any excuses or justifications for that had better be cast-iron, backed with comprehensive evidence. Not a stage-managed trickle of dubious info.
As regards whether the mission was a failure/a mistake, there are two questions: 1. did it go to plan, and 2. was it a good plan.
1. is not really in question. In any case I answer yes to it: in other words, this is a case of conspiracy rather than cockup, in other words business as usual (many things succeed as planned). It is hard to get a simpler situation in which to mount an assault. As Bloix and Tom have been unable to avoid observing, the tactics used are utterly baffling if viewed as directed toward peaceful ends.
2. is really the topic of the post. Abstracting from questions of subjectivity, and looking at the results with full hindsight, the question is: ‘has it turned out to be a bad plan?’. I say the answer is not obviously yes.
Two main reasons have been adduced for thinking that the plan (public execution with implausible deniability) turned out to be a bad one. First, Egypt has opened the border. I suppose this to be a bad thing from the POV of the Israeli government, though I can’t pretend to understand their strategy in full. But it’s not looking as though that situation will remain the case.
The second and main problem for Israel is pissing off Turkey, who control some oil supplies and had been the only Israeli ally (or non-enemy) in the region. Maybe that will be a problem for Israel, but I wouldn’t bank on it.
06.02.10 at 1:19 pm
The killings were a feature, not a bug. They were intended for generalised intimidatory and deterrent purposes.
The beatings which the, er, elite Special Forces troops dangled themselves into were also expected/planned.
How on earth can you possibly know this? How about reserving judgement? I can see you might expect that to be the case, but it does make me rather suspicious of your motives.
06.02.10 at 1:34 pm
Tom: as I made quite clear, that is my opinion, based on my assessment of the probabilities in light of the available evidence.
Remaining studiously polite, may I ask what exactly you suspect my motives to be?
06.02.10 at 1:39 pm
@Tim Wilkinson, 221:
I suspect you have a profound dislike of Israel that you have (perhaps validly) developed over many years, and that your response to this incident is not based upon what actually took place but your pre-existing interpretation of what Israel stands for and how it behaves.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. It’s all part of how people understand the world. It’s just that I’m trying to understand this incident itself, so it’s hard for me to untangle what you say about what happened here—events which we can both read about—from what you have internalised from your past experiences—which I have no access to.
06.02.10 at 1:40 pm
Tom, if you’re going to be a troll, at least be an entertaining one for chrissakes. This stuff is just lame.
06.02.10 at 1:42 pm
Yes, the suspected motive please, Tom.
06.02.10 at 1:49 pm
@Tim Wilkinson, 225:
Well I don’t know Tim, that’s something that only you can tell us, but like I said I suspect it comes from having observed the actions of Israel over years or decades and strongly disliking what you’ve seen.
06.02.10 at 2:03 pm
-the suspected motive please
-Well I don’t know, that’s something that only you can tell us
Wow. Just wow.
(Well, not just wow. There is a mildly interesting point of semantics/rhetoric there (commonly seen in connection with ‘terrorist’): ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’ create intensional contexts and are not ordinary modifying adjectives. E.g. an alleged terrorist is not a species of terrorist, but a species of accused person. But I think this fact is often overlooked, at least at a subconscious level.)
06.02.10 at 2:11 pm
@Tim Wilkinson, 237:
What do you expect me to say Tim? The distinction I want to draw is whether your motive for criticism of the incident comes
1. solely from the details of the incident and the situation in Gaza, or 2. from a wider impression of Israel you’ve formed over a longer time.
I’m suspecting 2. That’s fine. I’m not criticising it. Just pointing out that for my understanding of this incident itself your point of view is unlikely to be revealing to me.
06.02.10 at 2:17 pm
Leaving aside the creepy insinuations and back on topic:
For the benefit of the hard of understanding, may I just explain that it appears very likely that the clip of danglers being fed to an angry crowd does not depict the first interaction between the IDF and those on board. It also appears likely that at least one earlier interaction involved unarmed people being shot to death with bullets from a gun.
If that is the case (and my own assessment, from an imperfect epistemic position and drawing on all kinds of background knowledge, is that it very probably is), then the anger or panic of the crowd appears quite understandable, doesn’t it.
06.02.10 at 2:23 pm
@245, Tim:
I fully agree. If perhaps the IDF had already boarded the ship and killed a passenger in cold blood the behaviour of the protesters is warranted.
It’s interesting though, that you and I, in the absense of other information, go out looking for other information to feed our differing preconceptions.
You say it “appears very likely that the clip of danglers being fed to an angry crowd does not depict the first interaction between the IDF and those on board” because of your preconceptions (perhaps valid) about how Israelis behave. I suspect that either it was the first interaction or there was no violence aboard the boat from the IDF before the clip starts.
That’s my preconception, accurately pointed out by sg. Perhaps I’ll be proved wrong.
I know you think I’m a troll but I’m actually genuinely trying to understand the situation. One way I understand is to argue my position to find out where its weaknesses are and where my views need to be changed.
06.02.10 at 2:37 pm
For what it’s worth, we’re arguing intricacies when actually I think we all mostly agree.
The situation in Gaza is terrible. I knew this before yesterday and before I joined this thread. Something must be done ASAP to ameliorate the situation, which includes pressuring Israel and Egypt to open the borders to more aid, and also pressing for a peace process.
What I was really trying to understand with this thread is why there’s so much anti-Israeli sentiment, and only anti-Israeli sentiment.
The whole situation is so messed up [I mean the situation since 1967 or before, not since 2005], yet I’ve heard no condemnation of Egypt, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. I knowthat Monday’s incident was down to Israel, but these very blunt, unsophisticated attacks on Israel seem very unhelpful.
If Israel is collectively punishing, then Egypt must be party to that too right, since they control some of the border? Where’s the outrage at Egypt’s collective punishment of Gaza?That is what I want to understand.
But I haven’t. And I don’t think I will here.
06.02.10 at 2:38 pm
They destroyed the video recorded by other witnesses
How do you know that? You’re jumping to conclusions again, giving Israel the detriment of the doubt, and knee-jerking, again!
06.02.10 at 2:39 pm
What I was really trying to understand with this thread is why there’s so much anti-Israeli sentiment, and only anti-Israeli sentiment.
Because only Israeli forces boarded an aid flotilla and killed ten people. Some things are not that complicated.
06.02.10 at 2:40 pm
@254, sg:
Tom: I suspect that either it was the first interaction or there was no violence aboard the boat from the IDF before the clip starts
sg: Tom, you suspect wrong.
This is a matter of fact, either true or false. If you are telling me I suspect wrong you should be able to provide me with a simple link to a credible source. Please do.
06.02.10 at 2:42 pm
How do I know they destroyed the video?
Are you denying that the IDF jammed communications and confiscated all video recording equipment, telephones, etc when they boarded? Or do you think the IDF was only being careful that none of this got lost, and everything will be handed back intact to the rightful owners/a independent international investigation any day now?
06.02.10 at 2:47 pm
@Ray, 259:
No, you said they destroyed the video. Not disabled communications, not confiscated recordings. Destroyed the video. I’m not saying they didn’t. I’m suggesting that at the time you made that statment you did not have decent evidence that it was true.
Which suggests it was a knee-jerk ant-Israeli comment.
06.02.10 at 2:48 pm
Anyway, bye everyone.
Thanks for being sparring partners. I understand much more about the situation and the middle east in general than I did two days ago.
06.02.10 at 3:18 pm
What I was really trying to understand with this thread is why there’s so much anti-Israeli sentiment, and only anti-Israeli sentiment.
Because this thread is not about the entire Israel/Palestine conflict, but about a specific incident in which (a) Israel initiated the incident and (b) many people on this thread believe Israel was in the wrong in the way they initiated, conducted, and/or attempted to control information regarding the incident.
Certainly, there are many issues related to the conflict in which parties other than Israel are in the wrong, but they’re not the subject of this thread.
06.02.10 at 3:22 pm
I really wonder what planet Tom lives on, and I don’t like to make such a snarky comment, but Israeli brutality toward Palestinians is constant, and well documented by the UN and lots of other international entities. I recently heard that 400 Palestinians have died inside Gaza because of lack of medicine or medical care; (Care; there’s a word for you!) 60% of children in Gaza are malnourished, many are traumatised, (some bear wounds from white phosphorus and even more horrible wounds) unable to go to school. Scholarship winners were not allowed to leave the country to accept them, Israel legalized torture in its jails years ago, and has kept thousands of Palestinian children in them where they can’t be visited by their parents. Throughout their realm, if the Israeli government suspects you may have a relative who has fought to defend his homeland, they just bulldoze your entire home. Or if they want to build an apartheid wall where your house is, they do that, or just bulldoze part of it, along with anyone standing in front of the bulldozer, like Rachel Corrie. Have you not heard of any of these things being documented? There’s lots more, too, Tom, so much so that the burden of proof of anything it says is necessarily on the Israeli government.
06.02.10 at 3:28 pm
Tom, you seemed mighty sure of yourself for someone who obviously didn’t know the first thing about the blockade. Maybe you should withhold judgment of other people’s motives when you know so little about the situation.
06.02.10 at 4:07 pm
I really wonder what planet Tom lives on
It’s called “the United States.” If you limit your news intake to “mainstream” US sources, “Everybody just has it in for poor little Israel” is every bit as plausible as “They hate us for our freedom.”
They’re two sides of the same coin, really.
06.04.10 at 5:35 pm
More on-topic link with accounts from the passengers on the ship, detailing horrendous abuses by IDF soldiers. … for anyone is still following this thread
06.05.10 at 2:23 pm
No, no-one is even following the original story. Hacks are not really trying to get useful interviews with witnesses; there has been no timeline that I know of. Conversation has turned to Belgium and Canada, or Turkey and the EU, or Israel and the Eurovision Song Contest, or the World Cup, or whatever by now.
The Israelis did well – they got their story out quickly with an arresting visual image, while suppressing alternative accounts long enough for the first draft of history to have been written.
The Western press and officialdom are not seriously questioning the routine-stop-meets-armed-thugs-with-regrettable-consequences line. The international law business will peter out – no-one imagines it will have any legal consequences anyway, the UNSC is set up in such a way that both the substantive content and the enforcement of international law is largely under political control, so no-one takes legal opinions seriously anyway.
The issue of what exactly actually happened has been kicked into the long grass, pending this independent inquiry run by, er, the Israeli state – maybe a bit like the Liberty inquiries (or countless other official inquiries). A cock-up theory is now entrenched, and people will gradually become less willing to assert conspiracy, or argue the toss over the nuances of quasi- (semi-, institutionalised-, silent-, self-deceiving-, routine-, etc) conspiracy, as the details fade from memory and the official version becomes ossified, to be quietly solemnised in a few years when the independent inquiry clears all Israeli personnel and officials of any culpability.
Utterly predictable, unless you insist on trying to understand this incident itself [in terms of] events which we can…read about — [in isolation from] what you have internalised from your past experiences, of course, in which case the video clip, the informational headstart and the assured performances of the Israeli propaganda machine will probably have done their job in maintaining the doubt and claiming the benefit of it in the all-important first few days.
06.05.10 at 5:46 pm
Tim Wilkinson:
Only for certain values of ‘no-one’
06.06.10 at 4:39 pm
The Israelis did well – they got their story out quickly with an arresting visual image, while suppressing alternative accounts long enough for the first draft of history to have been written.
A side comment – this is one of those irritating off-made assertions that Just Ain’t So. No, they didn’t do well – in fact most of the civilized world detests what this horrible little state has become (in fact, a few people even predicted this; kudos to them.)
This is like the narrative that ‘X is a genius’ for various propaganda values: no, Karl Rove is not a genius, he has a compliant and corporate-owned media apparatus to get his messaging out. No, the Israelis didn’t do well – they had a compliant and corporate-owned media to get their message out. And so on and so forth.
06.06.10 at 5:46 pm
Very clever of Israel to send out the pictures of their crack commandos being disarmed and thrown overboard by unarmed protesters.
06.06.10 at 6:37 pm
It’s interesting to watch how the anti-semitism distorts people’s views of reality. In the real world, Israel is stronger than ever, has more global support than ever, and is more secure than ever. People all around the world were truly shocked at the actions of the extremists. The people on the boats did Israel a great service by publicizing the dangers of anti-semitism, and making it clear, once and for all, that these are not “peaceful” protesters in any way, but very violent right-wing extremists there for the purpose of attacking and killing Jews. This very definitely strengthened Israel. A great deal. Note that global investment in Israel is way up in recent years. It will continue to grow, as more and more people stand up to do the right thing.
Israel doesn’t have a thing to worry about. But I feel sorry for the anti-semites. They are breaking all kinds of laws, and are digging a deep hole for themselves. A lot of them are going to face civil suits and end up in prison. But live and learn. But they are so narcissistic and self-centered they can’t even see that everyone is laughing at them. They even publicly post their views on the internet, not realizing that hate crimes are not permissible by law, and that by publicly posting their opinions they are creating evidence that can be used in a court of law.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment