Gaza Flotilla - now what the heck's that all about?
I have a theory, based on no evidence above and beyond my usual jaundiced, cynical and generally horrifying view of human nature[1].
I take as my starting point the following - given the presence of various dodgy Gallowayite Turkish organisations[2] on that ship, and the fact that guns are not difficult to get hold of in Turkey, it seems interesting to me that not a single firearm was apparently found on board that ship. My evidence for this claim is that if there had been, christ knows we'd have heard no end of it.
And from there, I argue that this isn't Cheonan - it's "SADDAM'S WMD!!!!" mark two.
After all, would we have been having anything like this conversation if the Israeli government had opened up its press conference with a photo of its commandoes posing next to a big fuck-off pile of AK47s and RPGs? Course not.
My canny theory about what happened is that the Israelis had convinced themselves that the flotilla were gun-running, didn't bother to check, and acted accordingly, planning roughly the clustereff that actually happened, presuming that the justificatory material would be found after the event. And then it wasn't and oooerr, oh shit. This would also explain why the post facto media strategy (via Henry) was so totally incoherent - it was built around a corpus delicti that didn't arrive.
I never know whether to be relieved or distressed at the seeming fact that the power of Empire is seemingly in the hands of people who aren't up to the job of organising a simple frame-up.[3]
[1]Francois Mitterrand will always be a hero of mine despite his manifold failings, for his answer to an interviewer who once asked him what quality was necessary for success in politics. He considered the question carefully before answering "Bleakness of the soul".
[2]By "Gallowayite" in this context, I mean that IHH basically supports Hamas because they're the existing government of Gazan Palestinians and is thereby prepared to give money to them with no strings attached, something which I personally regard as a stupid thing to do, but let's be specific here. I tend to regard the Israeli government's accusation of IHH having provided anything more to Hamas than the aforementioned NSA cash as poorly sourced and accusations of Al Qaeda links as being actually laughable.
[3]My guess is that coppers are more dangerous enemies than soldiers, because they work together in units for longer and so they instinctively don't grass on each other and they have more institutional knowledge about getting their story straight. Therefore, in most circumstances, a cop can do much worse things to you than a soldier can. Most of the really nasty people of the last century worked for secret[4] police forces, even in military dictatorships.
[4] "Secret" apparently has a particular sense of "unaccountable" which I don't think is in the OED (though I don't have the OED to hand). Very few secret police organisations are "secret" in any normal meaning of the word.
"Secret" apparently has a particular sense of "unaccountable" which I don't think is in the OED
ReplyDeleteThe organisation might be well-known (indeed it needs to be to be truly effective), and the broad outlines of what it does are known, but what it actually does on a day-to-day basis and the fate of its victims are the secrets, perhaps? Nacht und Nebel and all that. And also the difference between the Gestapo's reputation and its actual reality.
(It'd be interesting to see whether 'secret police' predates that delightful invention or not, I think.)
Where did secret police originate? Russian, Prussia, France? Could just be a dodgy translation that caught.
ReplyDeleteThese were special forces, so its possible that they're closer to police than soldiers for your purposes.
On Israel I maintain my theory from the last Lebanese war. They treat their own propaganda as intelligence and act accordingly. Therefore if they argue it has weapons on it, then by God it will have weapons on it. I think some of this rubbed off on the neocons and helps explain Iraq.
Wikipedia referes to a post-1848, Prussian Secret Police, but it's not clear from the article and its solitary reference whether it was a contemporary common name for the Police Union of German States or not.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Secret_Police
There's Conrad's Secret Agent, of course, but I can't remember whether that actually uses 'Secret Police' in it or not.
Surely the "secret" in "secret police" is the same as in "secret service," and means "dealing with secrets"; analogous to "thought police".
ReplyDeleteIIRC I think Peter the Great is generally regarded as having created the world's first secret police, as befits the weak despotism that my A-Level history textbook said Tsarism was.
ReplyDeleteOn the substance of the raid, if anything I think you are giving the Israelis too much credit for forward planning. If they were expecting to find piles of ordnance on the ships, why did their commandos abseil down from helicopters in a way that made them vulnerable to gunfire from below? Were they being (almost literally) hung out as sacrifices? Surely not. Were they betting that the Flotillaites would have guns but not use them to smite the Israelites? Big risk to take.
Other explanations, not mutually exclusive:
1. a bet
2. attempt to impress a girl
3. IDF bonding exercise/stag weekend that got out of hand
Eh, even this explanation -- while not unattractive -- is too convoluted. I think the most plausible scenario is also the simplest: a bunch of twitchy special ops guys went in expecting zero or only token resistance, and when the crew of the ship showed an actual inclination to fight, they did what soldiers are trained to do: shoot at people until they stop fighting.
ReplyDeleteYour point about the relative danger of police to soldier for the average civilian is well-taken, but I think this particular instance was a clear case of politicians sending soldiers to do a policeman's job, and being shocked, shocked etc by the actually entirely predictable result.
The OECD dates it from 1823 but I don't think its entry is very satisfying.
ReplyDelete3 (c) secret police, a police organization operating in secret, spec. one owing allegiance to the state or government and used for political purposes. Also secret policeman.
1823 F. BURNEY Waterloo Jrnl. in Jrnls. & Lett. (1980) VIII. 394 Buonaparte..trusted in the address of that mental diving machine, his secret police, for warding off any hazard. 1863 ‘OUIDA’ Held in Bondage I. x. 233 The world has a trick of serving, like the Swiss Guard and the secret police, whichever side is uppermost and pays them best. 1910 A. BENNETT Clayhanger II. xiv. 257 Some concealed emissary of the Russian secret police. 1938 E. AMBLER Cause for Alarm vii. 119 The Ovra..has become a regularly constituted secret police force. 1973 D. MILLER Chinese Jade Affair xviii. 176 The woes of being a secret policeman during the visits of V.I.P. personalities. 1981 G. PRIESTLAND Priestland's Progress ii. 38 Paul..had begun life as a religious secret policeman commissioned to stamp out the Church.
Ahem, that's the OED, the OECD's opinion I do not know.
ReplyDeleteOkay, the Israelis sent in their Masada unit. So definitely more police, than soldiers. They're usually used for quelling riots in prisons apparently, as well as other "secret" internal security operations. So I guess this is just what they trained to do, but the Israeli government forgot that the outside world is far more tolerant of brutality against Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteThe IDF has a Masada unit? There's a depressing name to have. Mind you, British infantry companies have names like "Somme Company" and "Ypres Company".
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about your theory; soldiers work together in units for long periods as well, and have extensive training in not grassing on each other, derived from e.g. covering up for their mates in front of the CSM after a night on the piss. I think the real nastiness ends up being done by policemen because policemen can generally rely on outgunning their opponents, and so if you're a nasty sadistic type that's where you'll end up.
Geheim in German (as in GEheime STAats POlizei) has the sense of "private" as well as "secret" - hence a German king was advised by a Geheimrat, which exactly translates "privy councillor" and in fact also "privy council". Doing something "im geheimen" could mean doing it in secret or in private. This is why Germans concerned about the police (secret or otherwise) prying into their affairs coined the term "Privatsphäre" in order to force the distinction.
ReplyDeleteSo it's a police force that deals with the private business of the state, which sums up at least part of the role of a classic secret police.
I think D^2's forecasting principle with regard to Israel needs some revision; not only do they always choose the more militaristic of two options, they always choose the more dramatic and visually spectacular of two options.
Theatre, or rather, cinema, is a key factor. They're in a movie only they can see. This explains the rash of bizarre and counterproductive dramas.
This was not the 'Love Boat,'" Netanyahu said in an address to the nation, referring to the vessel boarded by commandos, setting off clashes that led to the deaths of nine activists. "It was a hate boat."
ReplyDeleteBibi goes from the repellent to the ridiculous.
My guess is that coppers are more dangerous enemies than soldiers
ReplyDeleteOf course this is generally agreed in the Marxist tradition too: when the moment comes you can often call on the soldiers not to fire on the workers, but you're wasting your time with the Old Bill.
"Very few secret police organisations are "secret" in any normal meaning of the word."
ReplyDeleteUnder Torrijos? (maybe it was earlier) the Panamanian secret police used to drive around in police cars that had big official seals painted on the doors - seals that actually SAID "Policía Secreta".
It's not only Saddam's WMD mark 2 - it's also Hamas in the UN building mark 100, Kassam rocket in the ambulance mark 1,000, and Qibya mark 1,000,000.
ReplyDeleteAlso worth noting that while there is no doubt that Israel did attack the Gaza flotilla, there is considerable doubt that North Korea attacked the South Korean warship.
ReplyDeletethere is considerable doubt that North Korea attacked the South Korean warship.
ReplyDeleteIs there really.
An actual Gallowayite aboard has an account of the attack.
ReplyDeleteI think your "the Israelis expected to find guns" theory may err in expecting the Israelis to feel the need to justify their actions. As flying rodent put it recently:
"Almost all crime - violent, property-related, financial - is all about opportunism". They do it because they can.
They treat their own propaganda as intelligence and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThe characteristic elected Republican today had come up through the ranks of the movement, and the election slogans are the only things he (or she!) knows. The elected officials who have a little detachment, for example Lugar, Lindsey Graham, and Voinovich, are now called moderates, even though they're still extremely conservative, because they're more or less sane.
(Voinovich is retiring and Graham is under attack.)
>> there is considerable doubt that North Korea attacked the South Korean warship.
ReplyDelete> Is there really.
There can't be, since we read about in all the newspapers. There was even an official investigation. Now we only have to wait for the official Israeli investigation to know what happened on the Gaza flotilla.
Well, who else is going about torpedoing South Korean warships in the Yellow Sea?
ReplyDeleteAnd I will be considerably more impressed by the Israeli investigation if it includes Sweden, France, and China like the one to which you refer.
Japanese businessmen on a bonding weekend? Chinese fishermen? Godzuki? There are many possibilities, you just need to empty your mind...
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting spectacle to see all the jaded skeptics here regurgitating official talking points. The South Koreans themselves are harder to convince. (Link via Wikipedia, which has lots more interesting information.)
ReplyDeleteBelated addendum on non-secret secret police: the Secret Service here in Washington DC go around in black windcheaters with "Secret Service" in huge yellow letters on the back. No-one here but me finds this funny.
ReplyDeleteOn Hamas I guess you do D don't read my links.
ReplyDeleteAre you really as lazy as your friends are?
here.
Some actual data. And follow the links in the post. You like data when you want to pay attention. I have to assume there's some social cost to you for actually having a response. But facts are more important than friendship.
Ignore the last two short paragraphs in the post, they're just opinion.
It's an interesting spectacle to see all the jaded skeptics here regurgitating official talking points. The South Koreans themselves are harder to convince.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to suppose that the South Korean general public is any more likely to be correct than anyone else about this, just because they happen to live closer. Arguments from opinion polls about questions of fact are very silly. I'm not about to listen to a minority of the US public on the question "Is Obama a terrorist Muslim" for example.
And of course from Henry F you link to Ibish, who backs Fatah and Dahlan and the coup attempt. There's a reason Hamas won the election, in fact there are a lot of them.
ReplyDeletehere.
Excuse the single paragraph format. It annoys a lot of people. But at least he knows what he's talking about.
If you want information why don't you ask?
Human shields? Hamas calls people onto rooftops as a dare to warplanes and missiles. Israeli soldiers put guns to people's heads. Who you gonna trust, Henry Farrell and Dahlan {read the last comment-with the links] or a nice Quaker lady who's an editor at the Boston Review and who gets christmas cards from Walid Jumblatt?
The Gerry Adams of Palestine will come from Hamas, you idiots, and you're criticizing Ian Paisley for missing his chance to make peace. You don't pay attention because if you did it would make your friends into paranoid idiots or assholes. Well they are.
News for you: Moshe Arens, former Defense Minister, and noted Israeli hawk, has endorsed a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine. It can be achieved in a matter of months. Israel should formally annex the West Bank and offer the Palestinians citizenship."
No Gaza. But as Haber says. Maybe some optimism. Maybe. Either pay attention or shut up. You're not helping. Like I said about Bertram "He can't be labeled a denialist regarding the Palestinian experience, he just thinks the claims are overstated." Ignore me all you want. As'ad AbuKhalil is really full of himself just like Al Gore so he must be wrong. Damn the facts, friends come first!
Agnotology forever.
> There is no reason to suppose that the South Korean general public is any more likely to be correct than anyone else about this, just because they happen to live closer.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the South Koreans are more likely than you to be familiar with facts associated with the case, but that is not really the point.
The question at hand is not whether the North Koreans are to blame (a point about which I have not made any claims), but whether the North Koreans are obviously to blame (a point which I deny and you assert). Your opinions on the matter are not the product of a consideration of the facts and a decision that the evidence in favor of a North Korean attack is overwhelming. You simply uncritically accept the conventional Western wisdom that the case is obvious. The fact that millions of Koreans, who are (at least) as familiar as you are with the facts, are skeptical shows that your uninformed confidence is the product of indoctrination, not of rational inference.
Your opinions on the matter are not the product of a consideration of the facts and a decision that the evidence in favor of a North Korean attack is overwhelming. You simply uncritically accept the conventional Western wisdom that the case is obvious.
ReplyDeleteHow, exactly, do you know how I formed my opinions about this?
The fact that millions of Koreans, who are (at least) as familiar as you are with the facts, are skeptical shows that your uninformed confidence is the product of indoctrination, not of rational inference.
Not really, no. Millions of Koreans believe all sorts of strange stuff. The minority who think that the sinking was something other than a NK attack may well be the least-informed or least rational of the lot. There's no way of knowing.
The average Korean may well be better-informed than the average non-Korean about this, but the average Korean thinks that the inquiry was correct and North Korea was responsible (76% of the population according to your link). Are they, too, victims of indoctrination?
Actually, if the 27% rule applies to Korea, there are 3% of Koreans who think North Korea did it, but also that Kay Burley is an alien.
ReplyDelete> How, exactly, do you know how I formed my opinions about this?
ReplyDeleteOne liner substance-free obviously-so arguments are not the product of in depth consideration. I notice that by countering with a question you avoided making a specific claim about how you came to have your opinion.
> [T]he average Korean thinks that the inquiry was correct and North Korea was responsible (76% of the population according to your link). Are they, too, victims of indoctrination?
It is very likely that the propaganda in South Korean is as severe as it is in the West. But, again, that is not the point. Those 76% may very well be right. The point is, again, that the validity of the findings of the inquiry is a complex issue that depends on many factors. Therefore different people reach different conclusions. Your way of explaining the differing opinions - i.e., that 1/4 of Koreans are irrational - is much less convincing than the possibility that your data-free confidence is the product of prejudice that at least 1/4 of Koreans do not share.
The subject of the post was Gaza. At this point you're not talking about Korea either, but about yourselves. Considering the number of hit's I've been getting maybe Hamas would still be the more appropriate subject.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll post some more information.
Levy made a couple of excellent observations. Firstly, that "We now have no fewer than three U.S. generals in the region working on this issue-- and none of them is doing anything that would count as de-escalation of the tensions." Secondly, that what he had been learning from his Israeli compatriots was that Hamas had discernibly been trying to target military installations with its rockets, while it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees who had been sending rockets simply into the (populated) general vicinity of the city of Sderot. "Though Hamas," he added, "has not intervened to stop them from doing that."
Daniel Levy was in the Barak Administration.
A liberal Zionist debates a conservative and concedes democracy is too much to ask. Peter Beinart after the piece in the NYRB that's made him a hero to liberals
"I'm not asking Israel to be Utopian. I'm not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I'm not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I'm actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel's security and for its status as a Jewish state."
How about importing South American Indians to Israel as settlers!? We have that too.
"When a delegation of rabbis travelled to Lima to convert a group of South American Indians to Judaism, they added just one condition: come and live with us in Israel."
What can I say. I'm in a bad mood. BP blew up my oil rig. Serves me right for renting the thing to a Scotsman.
Just for laughs.
ReplyDeletePeter Beinart, who admits he's not even asking Israel "to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state." is now a guest blogger at Joshua Marshall's TPM Cafe.
No wonder Henry Farrell trust him on the Jewish Question.
Meanwhile back at the lab, Chris Bertram [once again!] asks the all important question: "Why would anyone feel the need to kick another person in the teeth when they're already standing on their chest?
Really, isn't that enough? Read the comments they're a hoot. And Michael Berube is in on the "agnotology" business. Maybe I should dump my Deepwater stocks and get in the game.
I'm so proud of you all for really digging into the details of unimportant things. I am.