Comments on: With latest flotilla, IDF celebrates overcoming passive activists

By: RichardNYC

RichardNYC — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:04:52 +0000

@YOSSI
“One assumes that without those orders, and the presence of no less than an admiral on the scene, the passive activists would have suffered some violence. This, to say it mildly, is not very encouraging.”
—>Damned if you’re Israel…and…damned if you’re Israel. Considering that the IDF behaved the same way towards passengers in the first flotilla (those not on the Mavi Marmara), it doesn’t make sense to assume what “One” has assumed here. Petty, silly thought.

By: Shoded Yam

Shoded Yam — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:06:40 +0000

“The comments about Algiers are almost too funny”
.
You’re easily amused Popeye. Wait till I tell ya’ the one about the penguin with car trouble.
.
I was simply making the assertion that the Algerian analogy utilized by Mr. Gurvitz, was an incorrect one within the context of his piece and then went on to explain why. I had no intentions (nor do I possess the amount of erudition that would be necessary)of serving up a dissertation on the politics of post-war france. Clearly there are others who are so inclined.
.
” They distract from the point at hand which is the ‘bravery’ of the IDF ‘confronting’ unarmed peace activists.”
.
No. What “distracts from the point at hand”, is the ensuing hissy fit on the part of those individuals whose world views are not being properly validated.

By: Mikesailor

Mikesailor — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:18:11 +0000

The comments about Algiers are almost too funny. They distract from the point at hand which is the ‘bravery’ of the IDF ‘confronting’ unarmed peace activists. Actually, from video of this ‘confrontation’ in international waters, it appears that the actions of the IDF were anything but peaceful. Using salt-water firehose cannnons against unarmed small boats is a sure way of overloading the bilge pumps on the vessels and will lead to, at best, unsafe conditions, and at worst, the actual sinking of those vessels. I’m sure any ‘admiral’ of even a small boat would recognize this act of violence for what it was. The act of a coward.
As to the amount of actual violence used, why do Israelis always listen to the IDF rather than the passengers? Why didn’t Israeli media either travel on this ‘historic’ battle akin to Trafalgar? Or better yet, ride along with the flotilla (although it is difficult to call two small boats a flotilla)? How much propaganda can the Israeli public swallow? And why, if Gaza is not occupied can the IDF interfere with shipping? W@hy could they not inspect the boats for contraband, which apparently did not exist, and let the boats proceed to Gaza? The lies told, and swallowed, by and for the ‘true believers’ is truly amazing.

By: Shoded Yam

Shoded Yam — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:33:33 +0000

“…SHODED YAM, you mean that the Free France troops raped and pillaged their way up the Boot of Italy. In fact they were promised “booty” as part of their pay package and this is widely recorded in the historical literature.”
.
While I’ll agree that its not a good idea to use an einsatzgruppen as a rubric for bad behavior, the Algerian and Moroccan troops (spahis, tiralleurs, etc)don’t quite meet the standard of excellence set by our german friends. On the whole they were effective and honorable soldiers. In any event, and whatever their behaviour, it doesn’t ameliorate the debt that was owed to them by the french gov’t.

By: Philos

Philos — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:42:28 +0000

SHODED YAM, you mean that the Free France troops raped and pillaged their way up the Boot of Italy. In fact they were promised “booty” as part of their pay package and this is widely recorded in the historical literature. Unfortunately, France’s role in WW2 whether as Vichy or Free France was neither glorious or honourable. It was an utter disgrace on all accounts.
Having said that I’m pretty sure that the occupation has atrophied the IDF’s capability to fight traditional inter-state wars. Although those are becoming rare birds indeed.

By: Shoded Yam

Shoded Yam — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:56:33 +0000

What rhetoric? I made an assertion based upon what I have read re. the issue. And while not having majored in modern French political culture, I have read extensively on the subject; The Rise & Fall of the Third Republic, the works of Robert Paxton, the aforementioned Walter Lacquer, etc., Enough I would say, to speak upon the subject with a reasonable amount of competence. Speaking of absurdities, the fact that you chose to characterize this as “rhetoric”, following a lengthy resume redolent with such phrases; “as I am french” (as if we wouldn’t know this, since its not like you mention it every second sentence) , and “I studied this in college”, speaks more about your discomfort over someone else stomping around in your supposed area of “expertise”, rather than anything substantive about my remarks or your forte, all the regurgitated chronologies of the Algerian Conflict notwithstanding.

By: Henry Weinstein

Henry Weinstein — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:44:03 +0000

Shoded, why all this rhetoric?
You write something based on something you remember reading somewhere but you don’t remember where it was, and ANYWAY it was about “informal negociations carried out with the FLN, early on in the Algerian conflict”.
“Informal negociations”…
Never a French government offered full French citizenship to native Algerians, not only because the Pied-Noirs were opposed to it, but because it was ABSURD: I mean, France is France, and Algeria is Algeria.
It was a colonial venture, “L’Algérie Française”.
The French people didn’t supported this colonial venture, only their ruling corrupted class.

By: Shoded Yam

Shoded Yam — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:53:54 +0000

“…So a French government offered after WW II full French citizenship to native Muslim Algerians? Never heard of this, never read this, and I’m French”
.
A polemic? possibly. In any event, I’ll reference Walter Lacquer’s; “Europe In Our Time”. I can’t find the excerpt at the moment (or the book, I misplaced it), but I remember reading about informal negotiations carried out with the FLN, early on in the Algerian conflict whereby the idea of full citizenship had been bandied about. From what I gathered, it was rejected out of hand for a number of reasons, one of which was the aforementioned.
.
Clearly, in France like anywhere, there is a huge difference between what the French people actually know (or what they’re being taught) and what its ruling class are telling them.

By: Henry Weinstein

Henry Weinstein — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:16:02 +0000

So a French government offered after WW II full French citizenship to native Muslim Algerians? Never heard of this, never read this, and I’m French, and I studied this period at university in the 80s (and more recently, when I began to try to understand what’s was going on in Israel), Shoded.
I’m not interested in polemic, so I just write what I know, in defense of Yossi’s remark. I mean, I respect you, Shoded. Other points in your comment are valid, but not your main assumption.
.
The parallel Yossi drew with the Pied-Noirs’ lobbying politics and terrorist methods is accurate, and worth to be studied.
The Pied-Noirs – who were not all racists & reactionary, but the majority of them was; European settlers coming from France, Italy, Spain, Malta – were only 1 million (10% of the Algerian population) and they succeeded to bring France (around 50 millions at the time) in a nasty war in Algeria which provoked a civil war in France (most of non-French commenters ignore totally this).
.
La Guerre d’Algérie Digested:
The starter is that European settlers were opposed to any change.
> The Algerians began their fight for independence.
> The French people who was for the independence of Algeria had to fight a nasty war in Algeria to protect the Pied-Noirs, because most of French politicians and the French army supported the Pied-Noirs, “L’Algérie Française”.
> De Gaulle – who was a maverick hated by French ruling class – came to power because France had collapsed in civil war: he succeeded – being Général De Gaulle, the first French Résistant in 1940 – to defeat military the Algerian insurrrection (La Bataille d’Alger was won, ask US Army and IDF if you don’t believe me, ensuring France could rapatriate the Pied-Noirs and all French citizens safely) AND politically the Pied-Noirs and their supporters.
> The French people voted en masse in 1962, in the same referendum, the most important date in recent French history, for the independence of Algeria AND for the direct election of the President de la République, which meant the Président de la République would be elected by the French people and not by the French politicians.
.
The recent history of post-colonial France is far more complex than your comment suggested, Shoded. In France like anywhere, there is a huge difference between the French people and its ruling class.

By: directrob

directrob — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:58:11 +0000

Lets hope we will see no more “truly daring raids on enemy ports and fortified positions”. The more so if the target is Iran …