Trending Topics:

Photo of Gaza massacre echoing Guernica is 1 of 4 commemorating horrific day in ‘Time”s year-end list

Media Analysis
on 46 Comments

Last week Time Magazine published its top 100 photographs of the year. The second one is a powerful image by Emanuele Satolli, an Italian photojournalist, of the massacre at the Gaza fence last May 14. It is one of four images commemorating that day and the Gaza protests.

Satolli’s photo was first published on May 14, 2018 by Time and captioned, “As the U.S. opened a new embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, violence erupted just miles away at the Gaza border, where Israeli soldiers clashed with Palestinian protesters like this injured man, who was evacuated by horse cart.” It accompanied an article by Karl Vick, titled “Gaza Border Becomes Scene of Death as U.S. Opens Embassy in Jerusalem.” Vick wrote:

“cameras captured the chaos as Israeli soldiers methodically cut down some 2,700 Palestinians, 60 fatally, as they marched toward the fence that separates Israel from the Gaza Strip.”

In Time’s list of 100 photographs for the year, there were 3 other photos marking the occasion of the embassy opening/massacre at the Great Return March on May 14. The other three are toward the end of the list of 100.

Only one of the four photos is from the embassy. That one is, imho, an incredible photo of Jared Kushner– incredible in the sinister quality of his expression which represents a side to him I have never seen photographed before.

White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner speaks during the dedication ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on May 14. Ronen Zvulun—Reuters” From Time’s list of the 100 top pictures of the year.

There is another photo by Emanuele Satolli, captioned “An injured man rests in a bed at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on May 14.” It’s a good photo but at first glance imho not that classic nor exceptional, which many/most of the other photos in the 100 are. Which, for me, raises the question, why is it included? Then I look at the composition, 40% of the photo is the gold curtain, the other side framed by the pensive brother (most likely, as he looks like the wounded man), the blanket covering the wounded man, the lion stripes (king of the jungle). So this photo represents the thousands maimed by Israel at the Gaza fence, and humanizes them.

Emanuele Satolli, captioned “An injured man rests in a bed at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on May 14. Emanuele Satolli for TIME

The 4th photo representing the event was taken the day after in South Africa.

“A demonstration by members of pro-Palestinian and other civil society groups outside the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg on May 15, one day after dozens of Palestinians were killed along the Israel-Gaza border on the same day the U.S. formally moved its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Gulshan Khan—AFP/Getty Images” From Time’s list of the best 100 fotos of the year.

Andrew Katz, Deputy Director of Photography, at Time, tweeted a thread of 11 photos from the list. The #1 photo on Time’s list is “migrants near the El Chaparral crossing in Tijuana climb the fence“ (arguably the biggest story of the year in the American press), by Pedro Pardo.

Pedro Pardo’s shot of migrants climbing the border fence in Tijuana Mexico, from Time’s list of the top photographs of the year.

Another notable photo was the very last in the entire 100 lineup. “Gene Tabachnick, a friend of the slain brothers David and Cecil Rosenthal, stands near their graves during a burial ceremony in Pittsburgh on Oct. 30.” This is an incredible photo by Salwan Georges.

“Gene Tabachnick, a friend of the slain brothers David and Cecil Rosenthal, stands near their graves during a burial ceremony in Pittsburgh on Oct. 30.” Photo by Salwan Georges for the Washington Post, and included in Time’s 100 best fotos of the year.

There were several other phenomenal photos marking 2018 in the lineup, but the only one I thought even came near Satolli’s in terms of ‘photo of the century’ was Daniele Volpe’s “An abandoned home in the village of San Miguel Los Lotes, near the Guatemalan city of Escuintla, after a June volcanic eruption.”

An abandoned home in the village of San Miguel Los Lotes, near the Guatemalan city of Escuintla, after a June volcanic eruption. Photo by Daniele Volpe, from Time’s top 100 fotos of the year.

One other thing. Time refers in its caption of the horse-drawn cart to a “clash” of Palestinians and Israelis. They should not call it a *clash* when Israel posts 100’s of snipers on a hillside far away to shoot protesters across a fence demanding freedom. Let’s be honest please.

Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

46 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson on December 29, 2018, 4:22 pm

    RE: Time refers in its caption of the horse-drawn cart to a “clash” of Palestinians and Israelis. They should not call it a *clash* when Israel posts 100’s of snipers on a hillside far away to shoot protesters across a fence demanding freedom. Let’s be honest please. ~ Robbins

    SEE: “The Dogs of War: The Next Intifada”, By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 9/03/11

    [EXCERPT] . . . The second (“al-Aqsa”) intifada started after the breakdown of the 2000 Camp David conference and Ariel Sharon’s deliberately provocative “visit” to the Temple Mount. The Palestinians held non-violent mass demonstrations. The army responded with selective killings. A sharpshooter accompanied by an officer would take position in the path of the protest, and the officer would point out selected targets – protesters who looked like “ringleaders”. They were killed.

    This was highly effective. Soon the non-violent demonstrations ceased and were replaced by very violent (“terrorist”) actions. With those the army was back on familiar ground.

    All in all, during the second intifada 4546 Palestinians were killed, of whom 882 were children, as against 1044 Israelis, 716 of them civilians, including 124 children. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-next-intifada/

    • JLewisDickerson on December 29, 2018, 4:23 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Netanyahu: Stupid Like a Fox?” | By Uri Avnery | Antiwar.com | June 13, 2011

      (EXCERPT) . . . Last week, there was a repeat performance. The Palestinians all around Israel have declared June 5 “Naksa” Day, to commemorate the “Setback” of 1967, when Israel spectacularly defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, reinforced by elements from the Iraqi and Saudi armies.

      This time, the Israeli army was prepared. The fence was reinforced and an anti-tank ditch dug in front of it. When the demonstrators tried to reach the fence—again near Majdal Shams—they were shot by sharpshooters. Some 22 were killed, and many dozens were wounded. The Palestinians report that people trying to rescue the wounded and retrieve the dead were also shot and killed.

      No doubt this was a deliberate tactic decided upon in advance by the army command after the Naqba Day fiasco and approved by Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. As was said quite openly, the Palestinians had to be taught a lesson they would not forget, so as to drive any idea of an unarmed mass action out of their minds.

      It is frighteningly reminiscent of events 10 years ago. After the first Intifada, in which stone-throwing youngsters and children won a moral victory that led to the Oslo agreement, our army conducted exercises in anticipation of a second Intifada. This broke out after the political disaster of Camp David, and the army was ready.

      The new Intifada started with mass demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. They were met by specially trained sharpshooters. Next to each sharpshooter stood an officer who pointed out the individuals who were to be shot because they looked like ringleaders: “The guy in the red shirt… Now the boy with the blue trousers…”

      The unarmed uprising broke down and was replaced by suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other “terrorist” acts. With those our army was on familiar ground.

      I suspect very much that we are witnessing much the same thing once more. Again, specially trained sharpshooters are at work, directed by officers. . .

      SOURCE – http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2011/06/12/netanyahu-stupid-like-a-fox/

  2. Kay24 on December 30, 2018, 6:30 am

    What powerful and moving pictures. The one with Kushner is sinister and revealing, and shows despite a baby face, there is evil within.
    Looking back at the year, we see human suffering, and once again we are reminded, that many problems in the world remain unsolved, and for many, the hopelessness and pain continues indefinitely.
    That is the reality. Sad.

    Thank you Annie for sharing.

    • annie on December 30, 2018, 2:15 pm

      i think it’s the most accurate photo of kushner i have ever seen.

      thanks to you kay

  3. Marnie on December 30, 2018, 6:39 am

    @Annie “They should not call it a *clash* when Israel posts 100’s of snipers on a hillside far away to shoot protesters across a fence demanding freedom. Let’s be honest please.” That’s the least we can do.

    “A picture’s worth a thousand words” so the saying goes, but an inaccurate caption goes a long way to destroy the point of the photo in the first place.

  4. CigarGod on December 30, 2018, 1:37 pm

    A “Clash” seems properly defined/fine to me.

    clash
    /klaSH/Submit
    noun
    1.
    a violent confrontation.
    “there have been minor clashes with security forces”
    synonyms: confrontation, skirmish, fight, battle, engagement, encounter, conflict
    “clashes between armed gangs”

    verb
    1.
    meet and come into violent conflict.
    “protesters demanding self-rule clashed with police”
    synonyms: fight, skirmish, contend, come to blows, come into conflict; do battle
    “protesters clashed with police”

    • annie on December 30, 2018, 2:26 pm

      cigar god, if you can direct me to any photos where israeli soldiers are shown “clashing” with palestinians in the great return march i’d appreciate a link. the very nature of snipers is that they don’t clash or come in contact, they shoot from a distance. they do not “meet and come” into conflict, they do not come to blows. if police sat on rooftops targeting people in the streets i would not say they clashed. the victim of a sniper had no opportunity to “confront” his killer because the very nature of a wide barrier avoids confrontation.

      so, i respectfully disagree.

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2018, 8:57 pm

        Good point, Annie.

      • annie on December 30, 2018, 9:56 pm

        thnx ;)

    • John O on December 30, 2018, 3:40 pm

      “There were clashes today between X and Y.”

      Passive voice – disguises who who did what to whom.

      “Clashes” – implies both sides are evenly matched and equally to blame.

      That’s how propaganda works.

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2018, 8:59 pm

        I suppose for the general uninformed world, that would be their understanding.

  5. echinococcus on December 31, 2018, 4:37 am

    Clash, smash.

    Of course the Propaganda Times won’t call it what it is, i.e. Deliberate Mass Murder by Genocidal Invaders. Of course it won’t even find “interesting” any of the hundreds of pictures directly representing the massacre. And count on the “Antizionist” liberal press to consider it news when the Propaganda Times camouflage it all by selecting the blandest, blood-free shots.

  6. Ossinev on December 31, 2018, 8:32 am

    The most moral don`t do “clashes”. Can`t risk that precious chosen blood. At best the “clashes” are unplanned as viz the recent farcical wannabe Navy Seals/SAS/SBS “operation” in Gaza dressed as locals inc women when they got a bloody nose. The last real major “clash” was the 2006 Lebanese war when the unbelievably moral had to deal with a serious determined and well armed resistance which were well experienced in “clashing” and then they got a seriously bloody nose which likely has permanently neutered their ability to conduct a conventional boots on the ground war standard “clash”

    It`s all about F16`s , drones , missiles and tank shells and yes snipers none of which involve any form of “clashing”. All very safe and remote. The thought of having to actually do any real live mano a mano fighting aka “clashing” would have them fouling their underwear. No for the chosen it`s all about pressing triggers and buttons from a safe remote distance. And of course if the worst comes to the worst they can always call upon their pet boots on the ground US troops to take care of any nasty dangerous large scale “clashy” bits. Or at least that has been the case to date but who knows now with Mad MAGAlamaniac Donald. He may just decide that Israel along with the rest of the world has been treating Americans as “suckers” and snip the Zio umbi cord.

    • Misterioso on December 31, 2018, 9:52 am

      @Ossinev

      “…and snip the Zio umbi cord.”

      It’s coming!! The anachronistic, thoroughly documented racist/fascistic entity known as “Israel” is a big chunk of doo doo on America’s shoe. It serves absolutely no positive purpose whatsoever for Uncle Sam. Indeed, as is more and more evident, it is an ever increasing geopolitical and financial liability.

      It is blatantly evident that Jewish American Zionist leaders are panicking , especially given the pro-Palestinian stance more and more Jewish American youth are adopting.

      To wit:
      http://www.adammilstein.org/are-we-going-to-allow-the-jewish-people-to-be-divided-and-conquered-from-within/

      “Are We Going to Allow the Jewish People to Be Divided and Conquered From Within?”

      By Adam Milstein, December 27/18

      “The year 2018 has provided a series of reminders that antisemitism, the world’s oldest hatred, is alive and well in our country.

      “On October 11, Jews were massacred in Pittsburgh as they prayed on the Sabbath. It is just the latest in a series of violent attacks that have targeted the Jewish community in recent times, which come not only from the radical right but also from the radical left, and from radical Muslims.

      “The enemies of the Jewish people don’t only physically attack us from the outside. They have also long worked to divide the Jewish people by turning our own against us. For example, a number of Jewish individuals and organizations have become leaders within the BDS movement, which seeks to destroy the Jewish state.

      “Jewish self-hatred did not begin with the BDS movement. Isaiah 49:17 says, ‘Your destroyers and devastators will depart from you.’ History is replete with examples of Jews who hated the Jewish people so vehemently that they dedicated their entire lives to its destruction.

      “Take the new Jewish group IfNotNow, which together with their collaborators Jewish Voice for Peace set its sights on demonizing Birthright Israel – an organization that has helped over 600,000 young Jews from 67 countries connect with their Jewish heritage and with the State of Israel, the homeland [sic] of the Jewish people.

      “Last summer, IfNotNow launched a campaign to harass Birthright participants at JFK and Heathrow airports, and planted saboteurs to infiltrate and disrupt Birthright trips, using these stunts to secure slanted media that demonizes Birthright and its Jewish supporters. In doing so, they sought to erode support for a program that made a transformative impact for hundreds of thousands of young Jews – and to discourage participants from accepting this tremendous life-changing gift.

      “The leaders of IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, who are Jewish themselves, sympathize with Hamas and other terrorist organizations. They present their movement as an anti-occupation group but have never recognized Israel right to exist or the Jewish people right for self-determination.

      “Along the same lines, some media outlets within the Jewish community are now actively working with explicitly anti-Israel – and in some cases anti-Semitic – networks, such as Electronic Intifada and Al Jazeera, to attack and demonize pro-Israel leaders and organizations.

      “It was recently revealed by pro-Israel activist and journalist Noah Pollak that a Forward reporter was using Al Jazeera as a source for a story to smear pro-Israel entities.

      “It’s despicable that one of the United States’ most storied Jewish papers was working to attack pro-Israel leaders and organizations using material obtained from an Al Jazeera espionage operation, overseen by Qatar, the major sponsor of Hamas and the global Muslim Brotherhood.

      “The same newspaper has launched a campaign together with Electronic Intifada and Al-Jazeera to attack the financial supporters of the Canary Mission – a watchdog that compiles public statements and social media posts of anti-Semites and anti-Israel activists who demonize the Jewish state, deny the Holocaust and call for genocide of Jews.

      “In its 2016-2017 year-end report, Israel on Campus Coalition recognized that exposing and discouraging anti-Israel activists through online platforms such as Canary Mission created a strong deterrent against antisemitism and BDS. By publicly documenting the actions of anti-Israel students, these platforms have created a detailed record of the hate and anti-Semitism present on US campuses.

      “Enemies of the Jewish people also recognize the profound impact of Canary Mission. A recent article in the pro-BDS publication, The Intercept, was headlined: ‘It’s Killing the Student Movement: Canary Mission’s Blacklist of Pro-Palestine Activists Is Taking a Toll.’

      “New York Times bestselling author Edwin Black recently wrote that a generation from now, historians will judge the Canary Mission and others who acted to defend against anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bigotry – and those, such as the Forward, who did all they could to frustrate and obstruct those efforts.

      “Our Jewish community contains a multitude of diverse advocates and activists, but our strength lies in our support for each other and for the State of Israel, and the knowledge that justice is on our side. Our enemies know there are no one more credible and eloquent individuals to divide and destroy us than Jews who demonize the State of Israel and portray the IDF – undoubtedly the most moral army in the world – as craven war criminals. If we glorify and support the tactics that these hateful Jewish individuals and organizations practice, or even if we stay silent, will be responsible for their ‘success’.

      “As was demonstrated by the horrific murder of Jews in the Pittsburgh synagogue, our enemies don’t distinguish between us. Jews who support and serve the work of our enemies should not be allowed to continue to divide and self-destruct us from within.

      “The pro-Israel community must stand up to marginalize these bigots and their supporters. If we don’t, history shows that the results could be catastrophic.”

      Adam Milstein is an Israeli-American philanthropist. He can be reached at [email protected]

      Original Article was published in the Jerusalem Post

      • Mooser on January 2, 2019, 2:25 pm

        “The pro-Israel community must stand up to marginalize these bigots and their supporters. If we don’t, history shows that the results could be catastrophic.”

        Yup, percentage matters more than people.

  7. Jackdaw on January 1, 2019, 12:19 pm

    Guernica, where a German bomber squadron indiscriminately bombed a defenceless Spanish town on ‘market day’.

    Contrast Guernica with Gaza, where thousands of demonstrators, some armed, try to destroy or sabotage the security fence and invade Israel.

    • Talkback on January 1, 2019, 12:51 pm

      So what is the difference to Germany when Israel indiscriminately boms the defenceless Gaza strip or shells it with artillery? More than 14,000 shells alone in 2006?

      And what’s the difference to Germans erecting security fences on territory which is outside of the borders in which they declared statehood?

      And what’s the difference from Germans expelling Jews and preventing them to return? Did they also use the word “invasion” to justify it?

      Did Jews “invade” Palestine? Did the Palestine have the right to epell, injure or kill them, too? For “security” reasons? Or “military necessety” which was the Nazis justification for their atrocities?

      • Jackdaw on January 2, 2019, 1:09 am

        The difference, and I know it is too subtle for you, is that the IDF intends to shoot hostile targets, while Hamas shoots their rockets indiscriminately at defenceless civilian targets.

        So in every sense, Hamas is the equivalent of the Nazi Condor Legion.

        *not gonna sink in*

      • Jackdaw on January 2, 2019, 1:14 am

        “Did Jews “invade” Palestine? Did the Palestine have the right to epell, injure or kill them, too ”

        No the Jews did not invade Palestine, they were invited by the League of Nations to settle their and build a ‘national home’.

        And lest anyone here forget, the Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jewish immigrants first. Vicious, bloody attacks in 1920, 1921 and 1929, and, there is no lie you can tell here big enough to cover up those facts.

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 8:49 am

        Jackdaw: “No the Jews did not invade Palestine, they were invited by the League of Nations to settle their and build a ‘national home’.”

        So it was an invasion, because it was without the consent of the people of Palestine.

        Jackdaw: “And lest anyone here forget, the Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jewish immigrants first. Vicious, bloody attacks in 1920, 1921 and 1929, and, there is no lie you can tell here big enough to cover up those facts.”

        No need to. If Palestine had not been under de facto British occupation I’m sure that Palestinians would have reacted the same way as Israel reacts to anyone who wants to cross the borders without consent and permission. Or do you think that they will react like Jews, when Palestinians tried in 1948 and kill them on the spot?

        How would Israel react, if infiltrators or invaders (aka “settlers”) declared that they want to take over the land?

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 9:17 am

        Jackdaw: “The difference, and I know it is too subtle for you, is that the IDF intends to shoot hostile targets, …”

        Yes, it is to subtle for me to understand how the sopisticatedly equipped terrorist wing of the Apartheid Junta can seriously claim that they intend to shoot hostile targets in densely populated areas with weaponry that cannot even discriminate between hostile targets and civilians. Especially when the latter raise white flags. The numbers of killed or injured civilians speaks volumes. So does its Dahiya Doctrine which applies disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations.

        WATCH: Whole Gaza neighborhood destroyed in an hour
        https://972mag.com/watch-civilians-have-no-safe-place-to-go-in-gaza/94518/

        Are you deluded or deliberately lying, Jackdaw?

        “… while Hamas shoots their rockets indiscriminately at defenceless civilian targets.”

        Does Hamas have the right, too, to shoot rockets at towns when they claim that they are intending to shoot “hostile targets”? For example combatants or reservists or those with other ties to the army or goverment? And military or political leaders, etc.?

      • eljay on January 2, 2019, 9:54 am

        || Jackdaw: … the IDF intends to shoot hostile targets, while Hamas shoots their rockets indiscriminately at defenceless civilian targets. … ||

        I agree with you 100% that the Palestinians should be equipped with same high-tech weaponry as Israel so that they, too, can shoot with precision any and all targets they deem to be hostile.

      • Jackdaw on January 2, 2019, 10:40 am

        ” If Palestine had not been under de facto British occupation “.

        I am not going to argue with an irredentist.

      • oldgeezer on January 2, 2019, 12:08 pm

        @jockstrap

        “The difference, and I know it is too subtle for you, is that the IDF intends to shoot hostile targets, while Hamas shoots their rockets indiscriminately at defenceless civilian targets. ”

        I would laugh out loud if that wasn’t so sick. There is no evidence that supports your, and Israel’s claim. There are piles of bodies and rubble from destroyed residences that provides evidence to show the opposite to be the case.

        You deviants can repeat that claim as loudly and frequently as you wish. It’s a flat out lie.

        Hamas is more comparable to the resistance against the nazis. The GoI have behaved in a wanton and criminal fashion for decades. It’s supporters are accomplices in the murder of women, children, the infirm, the old. A truly vile and immoral group of thugs.

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 12:29 pm

        Jackdaw: “I am not going to argue with an irredentist.”

        Says the Zionist of all people. ROFL.

        Do you actually know what that word means? Look into the declaration of your beloved Apartheid Junta where it says: “We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel.”

        That is irredentism.

        Palestine under mandate was de jure under British occupation until the mandate and during the mandate under de facto occupation, because they didn’t choose GB to be Palestine’s mandatory. To make such a statement has nothing to do with irredentism.

        But I guess you just found another stupid way to admit that – as usual – you didn’t even have any arguments to begin with and also were to afraid to answer questions.

      • Mooser on January 2, 2019, 3:00 pm

        “I am not going to argue with an irredentist.”

        Why? Because they are always looking down in the mouth?

      • RoHa on January 3, 2019, 12:30 am

        “they were invited by the League of Nations to settle their and build a ‘national home’.”

        Frock coats and wing collars notwithstanding, the LON did not have the moral right to invite European Jews to settle and build in Palestine.

        “And lest anyone here forget, the Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jewish immigrants first.”

        Since the “immigrants” had made it clear that they had not intention of assimilating, but rather intended set up a separate society and then take the country away from the Arabs of Palestine, attacks against them were understandable self-defence.

        But I recall reading that, before 1920, armed Jews drove Arab tenant farmers off land the Jews had bought.

    • John O on January 1, 2019, 1:29 pm

      @Pheasant

      SS Patria, where Haganah terrorists indiscriminately killed 267 people – most of them Jewish refugees from occupied Europe – on 25 Novemeber 1940. Set the pattern, it seems.

      • Talkback on January 1, 2019, 2:43 pm

        Nope. The Haganah only wanted to disable the ship to prevent these refugees from being deported to Mauritius, because they lacked entry permits. But it miscalculated the effects of the explosion and its investigators came to the conclusion that the structure of the ship was in poor condition.

      • John O on January 1, 2019, 4:10 pm

        @Talkback

        So what? They planted a bomb. 267 people died. And all you have to say is the equivalent of Michael Caine’s line in “The Italian Job” – “You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.” Utterly pathetic.

      • Jackdaw on January 2, 2019, 1:00 am

        John, are you an outright liar, or what?

        A bomb was planted on the SS Patria in order to disable it, to prevent the British from deporting Jews who fled Nazi Germany. Nor was the Haganah a terrorist organisation in 1940.

        The sinking was an accident. The bombers misjudged the force of the explosion.

        Don’t come to Mondoweiss and spread lies.

      • Jackdaw on January 2, 2019, 10:42 am

        @John0

        What’s utterly pathetic is that you can’t man up and admit your mistake.

        I’m not going to argue with a coward like John0.

      • echinococcus on January 2, 2019, 11:08 am

        “The Haganah only wanted to disable the ship to prevent these refugees from being deported to Mauritius, because they lacked entry permits”

        The idea being that becoming refugees in Mauritius was a fate worse than death.

      • Mooser on January 2, 2019, 12:19 pm

        “I am not going to argue with an irredentist.” “Jackdaw”

        Only Zionism can garauntee painless irredentistry!

        “I’m not going to argue with a coward like…” “Jackdaw”

        All the stages. From here to infirmity.

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 1:00 pm

        John O: “So what? They planted a bomb. 267 people died. And all you have to say is the equivalent of Michael Caine’s line in “The Italian Job” – “You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.” Utterly pathetic.”

        The intention was not to indiscriminately kill civilians, but to prevent the ship from deporting Jewish refugees to Mauritius.

        ecchi: “The idea being that becoming refugees in Mauritius was a fate worse than death.”

        The idea being that trying to prevent the ship from leaving to Mauritius was a better fate than doing nothing to stop it.

      • John O on January 2, 2019, 1:08 pm

        The Patria bombing seems to touch some raw nerves. Saying the ship was in poor condition is like saying PANAM 103 was Boeing’s fault for not building a 747 strong enough to withstand a bomb in the hold. Planting a bomb on a vessel full of civilians is an act of terrorism. That it was not supposed to kill them (if that is even true) is irrelevant. It was no more an accident than derailing a train or blowing up a hotel lobby.

      • John O on January 2, 2019, 2:01 pm

        @Talkback “The idea being that trying to prevent the ship from leaving to Mauritius was a better fate than doing nothing to stop it.”

        Why? Mauritius was a safe haven in 1940 (although threatened by Japanese advances later in the war). Palestine was in a war zone, with Britain fighting Italy and Vichy France in neighbouring countries. Yes, I do mean Vichy France – the fighting between British and french forces being one of those bits of the war nobody likes to talk about (but see Colin Smith: England’s Last War with France).

      • annie on January 2, 2019, 2:35 pm

        i think you’re (mostly*)all wrong.

        The Yiddish daily the Morning Journal summarized the incident as follows:

        “[After the British deportation orders] the Haganah General Staff took a decision at which their leaders shuddered. The decision was not to permit the Patria to leave Jaffa. The English must be given to understand that Jews could not be driven away from their own country [sic]. The Patria must be blown up. The decision was conveyed to Haganah members on the Patria and in the hush of night, preparations had begun for the execution of the tragic act. On Sunday, November 26, 1940, the passengers were informed by the English that they were being returned to sea. The Jews remained silent, save for a whisper from a man to man to go “up the deck, all up the deck.” Apparently, the signal did not reach everybody, for many hundreds remained below—never to see the light again. Suddenly an explosion was heard and a panic ensued. . . . It was a hellish scene; people jumped into the water, children were tossed into the waves; agonizing cries tore into the heavens. The number of victims was officially placed at 276. The survivors were permitted by the High Commissioner to land.

        if this is to be believed, and it’s quite logical, the Haganah knew there would be a risk (who would not think they were risking lives from planting a bomb on packed ship), but the risk of lives was worth it. not merely to prevent the deportation. it was a calculated risky operation that the loss of at least a few lives (the idea one could blast a hole in the side of a packed ship w/no risk of life is absurd) was worth teaching the british a lesson, that they needed to “understand that Jews could not be driven away”.

        and at what cost? with almost 2k refugees on board would 1% make it worth it? 3% make it worth it? 5% make it worth it? 10%? what about 20%?

        someone stop me when you think this kind of calculated risk becomes immoral. grab the smelling salts after the nasty deed is done and say “we just wanted to stop the deportations” and we feel so bad about all those deaths but they got the job done didn’t they? i think anyone can fairly assume there’d be more survivors than victims. but the thinking was sometimes lives need to be sacrificed to win a war and the haganah and irgun as well were quite willing to take that risk to achieve their aims. not a risk to their own lives, but that of refugees. and they accomplished their mission with an over 85% success rate. the whispering part of the operation didn’t work out as successfully as they had planned, also predictable. but someone determined it was worth the risk. and had they not had a whispering campaign, survivors wouldn’t have remembered it. unless that article from the yiddish press was a total fabrication.

        *john being the exception

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 4:14 pm

        Annie: “if this is to be believed, and it’s quite logical, the Haganah knew there would be a risk (who would not think they were risking lives from planting a bomb on packed ship), but the risk of lives was worth it.”

        I can’t rule out that they did risk innocent lives, as that wouldn’t be unusual for Zionists, even when risking Jewish lives, but I still think that they just miscalculated the effects of the bomb. A small bomb can have impact enough to damage a ship enough to make the decision that the ship can’t or only shouldn’t leave the harbor without risking any life.

      • Talkback on January 2, 2019, 4:18 pm

        John O: “Why?”

        THEY thought it was a better fate to stay in Palestine. THEY didn’t think that going to Mauritius was worse than death.

      • John O on January 2, 2019, 5:21 pm

        @Talkcrap ” A small bomb can have impact enough to damage a ship enough to make the decision that the ship can’t or only shouldn’t leave the harbor without risking any life.”

        And you are an expert on the physics of explosive devices, how?

      • John O on January 2, 2019, 5:26 pm

        @Talkcrap “THEY thought it was a better fate to stay in Palestine. THEY didn’t think that going to Mauritius was worse than death.”

        Who is “they”? The people on the ship? Who asked them? Israel covered up the bombing for years, saying it was an act of Masada-like mass suicide, rather than admit that the terrorists who did the deed were so careless of the lives of the people they claimed they were representing.

      • Talkback on January 3, 2019, 3:45 am

        John O: “@Talkcrap”

        Jackdaw level.

        John O: “And you are an expert on the physics of explosive devices, how?”

        Are you? There are many cases in which explosions have a contentrated impact.

        John O: “Who is “they”?”

        The ones that decided to plant the bomb.

        John O: “Israel covered up the bombing for years, saying it was an act of Masada-like mass suicide, rather than admit that the terrorists who did the deed were so careless of the lives of the people they claimed they were representing.”

        I agree. But not in the case of the SS Patria. The operative who planted the bomb wrote:
        “There was never any intent to cause the ship to sink. The British would have used this against the Jewish population and show it as an act of sabotage against the war effort”.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster

        But this discussion goes nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine and since you started to call me “Talkcrap” it’s obvious, that your arguments won’t get better. To the contrary.

      • John O on January 3, 2019, 2:10 pm

        @Talkback

        I refer you to annie’s post on 2 January. The terrorists clearly knew there was a high risk of causing casualties and deaths among the refugees on board the Patria – not to mention the trauma inflicted on civilians who had just escaped from Nazi-occupied Europe. But the end – teaching the British (who were busy fighting Nazism and fascism at the time) not to mess with the Jews of Palestine – was clearly felt to justify the means.

      • Talkback on January 3, 2019, 2:56 pm

        John O: “I refer you to annie’s post on 2 January. The terrorists clearly knew there was a high risk of causing casualties and deaths among the refugees on board the Patria …”

        The Haganah were terrorists. But this was not a terrorist act. And nothing in Annie’s quote indicates that they knew, or even “clearly” knew that there was a “high risk” of causing casualties and deaths in the sense that they accepted this or that it was in their interest.

        The first bomb failed, so they brought a bigger bomb to tear a hole in the hull which unfortunately was big enough to make the ship sink. But they simply wanted to disable the ship. Neither sink it, nor injure or kill anyone. Just to gain time to press Britain to rescind the deportation order.

        Why is it important to you to turn this into something else? There are so many other more convincing and proven cases which you can select from to make your point. Don’t rely on speculations.

    • annie on January 2, 2019, 2:49 pm

      jack, for clarities sake — just to understand my thinking — have you googled guernica lately? i asked because if you try (go ahead) all the top references are not to the event, but to the art that followed. picasso’s guernica. i was critiquing the art, the photograph. that’s how spectacular i think it is.

      as for israel’s crimes, their targeted killings of defenseless people who pose no threat to them at quite a distance, deliberately using ammunition designed to permanently maim in such a way that determines an outcome that does not ever properly heal (butterfly bullets that spin off in explosion inside limbs at impact), i could really care less about your moralizing. but no, i wasn’t making any comparisons to the crimes when i made the reference, but to the art that ensued.

Leave a Reply