The Jawa Report has had a number of interesting posts on the incident on the Mavi Marmara recently. I thought I would hit a few highlights:
The story is really coming in from the commandos’ point of view now, and at least one of them is being considered for a medal of valor. The story includes much more information about what was happening in the first seconds on board the ship than I’ve seen anywhere else (including details on the shots fired at the commandos and the fact that the attackers were apparently trained and well paid). Naturally, it doesn’t fit the narrative that much of the media has already created, so it’s being brushed aside.
Another interesting bit is a translation of a speech made by the organizer of the flotilla – definitely provides some perspective.
It would be interesting to analyze the progression of the story from the initial reports to the current narrative, and see how the story has changed. How does the narrative actually change as new details come out? Have individual organizations / governments / media outlets actually corrected previous inaccuracies, or have they simply shifted the story and assumed people would catch up? How much of the shift is intentional, and how much unconscious? It would probably make an interesting paper. (In fact, if anyone wants to collaborate on such a paper, let me know!)