Cockerill's chin wrote:As you have seen the initial soldiers who landed were disarmed. The young man with the head injury was taken below to have wounds tended.
Kidnapping is never an option because:
1. The aim was to highlight the blockade.
2. Kidnapping Israeli soldiers would be immoral and a propoganda gift to an Israeli Government desperate to justify the open air prison around Gaza
3. It would also justify the dehumanization of the all those involved in the struggle for Palestine as militants and animals.
4. It was never achievable. Those who disgracefully took Shilat were fundamentalist/armed militia. If you are going to take four Israeli soldiers you come to the party with more than a slingshot, especially when there are special ops in close proximity and many miles to reach shore.
Your view is embedded in your need to label all those who want to assist Palestine as flawed and aggressive. This is not the case Quartz. These people were stupid to make an amateur stand against the soldiers. The force with which they were met was completely out of line with the resistance offered. Sadly, though, this is not atypical of the aggression demonstrated by the Israeli military on numerous occassions.
The aim was to highlight the blockade but the guys that boarded in Turkey were very different from the people on the boat who had sailed from Europe. To concur with DB10, there were two different grouping on the flotilla.
They were Islamist mercenaries/member of IHH who as I said, had expressed wishes of martyrdom.
For them, and Hamas, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would be worth more than the highlighting of the blockade.
It could have been "justified" by them as a response to the commandos boarding the boat.
As I have shown, these IHH guys had substantially more than a slingshot.
"Israeli Aggression" is just a buzz-phrase that has been bandied about by opponents of Israel. Another one is "Disproportionate force".
That is a whole other discussion.
I also do not categorise all those who assist the Palestinians as aggressive or flawed individuals, because clearly the majority of people on the flotilla were peaceful.
RAM
The current state of Israel is a smaller than the land defined as the Holy Land. The Holy land would consist of the current state of Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights, and a piece of land on the East of the Jordan river, roughly same size and shape as The West Bank.
That bit on the East of the Jordan is actually promised to Jews under prophecy, but not until the Messianic era.
In terms of the the actual size of the Kingdom in Bible times, under Kings David and Solomon, the Kingdom was roughly the same as modern Israel, but also stretched more to the North East into what today is Syria, and more to the North into what today is Lebanon.
I could not find the perfect map online, but hope these four help?
This is a map of modern Israel, clearly showing the disputed areas of Gaza, West Bank and the Golan Heights.
The map on this link gives an idea of the size of Israel.
If you were to draw a horizontal line from Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean sea, to the nearest point of the West Bank, it is just 11 miles.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/map_of_is ... tances.htm
This is a map of roughly what the Holy Land is defined as in the bible, coloured as the green area. Modern Israel's borders are highlighted in a dotted line, which includes Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights inside the dotted line.
This map shows the biblical kingdoms of King David and King Solomon. It includes Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights in green as part of modern Israel.
