mooeypoo

That's not accurate, though it's mostly true and it absolutely is a good point. In fact, there's a huge outcry in Israel to examine what is blocked and what is let through to allow more items in. However, I have to say, the military *does not* release a list of what is allowed into Gaza - the lists that are available online are inaccurate and are not official. I do agree, however, that the IDF *should* publish what is and isn't allowed in, and that construction materials should get in. There is a problem with supervision - IE, making sure supplies (not just cement, but food, medicine, etc) goes to the people rather than the leaders of the terrorist groups. In fact, Hamas has stolen shipments from UNRWA three times already, causing UNRWA to stop shipments until they get a promise form Hamas this won't happen again. I am not saying htat's a a sufficient reason to stop cement, I'm saying that I thik there should be two actions here - one, making sure the IDF blocks weaponry only, and two, making sure UNRWA and other UN/world organizations are allowed - and ABLE - to supervise that these supplies actually go where they NEED to go, which is the people. Okay, two things here. First, I am not sure you're right about the Red Cross, and this assumption is a bit unfair since neither of us can make this claim without knowing. What we do know, though, is that the Red Cross *is* getting into Gaza through the land passes, and is getting equipment.. so I'm not sure we can be so certain that a Red Cross boat will be treated the same as this flotilla. However, there is anoher point here -- the blockade is there for a reason, whether you agree with it or not. The border passes *and* the place where the equipment is checked is supervised by the UN. All the ship had to do was let someone (again - third party is fine) check the supplies before they go into the Gaza strip. The fact that even after the flotilla was seized the supplies (*all* of them) got into the strip shows that Israel didn't really do this to STOP the supplies, but to check them. Of course there's politics involved, there's politics everywhere, but there's also a lot of safety. The 'slippery slope' isn't *just* about how we look, it's also about the effects on the ground: If we let a few ships through, the next time these ships *WILL* be filled with weapons. We've caught several ships (and Egypt has caught some too) that had a large amount of weapons and explosives in them to see that the Hamas (and Hizbullah and Iran that sends over weapons) are *trying*. This is a dangerous slippery slope here. And I would disagree... which gets us nowhere, really. If it's a matter of calculating odds, then Israel can't be blamed for doing its own calculation of the odds (out of the experience we sadly have with other ships caught) and reaching a conclusion that the risk there are even *some* weapons onboard is high enough to warrant stopping the boats. There's another issue here -- if the IDF would have expected in advance to have to kill people then the calculation might've been different. But the IDF didn't expect it (and we can argue if it should have, that is an argument Israeli citizens now blame the government for - for not anticipating a heavy violent situation), and so the calculation was suitable to what they thought the price will be --- stopping the boat with international outrage. Judging fro the voices out of Israel and INSIDE Israel, I'm pretty sure that if the IDF knew it's going to fall into *such* a violent trap - and have the soldiers look incompetent as well as having civilian casualties at the end - the calculation would be different and the action would be carried out differently. That is *exactly* what Israeli citizens are now enraged about. The ships, however, would be stopped regardless, because the price of letting them in is very high. I am *VERY VERY* hopeful - as are the majority of the Israeli citizens, and, I assume, the entire world - that the next boat that comes to ISrael (and there is another one, declaring, too, its intention to run through the blockade) will be handled in *smarter* way and hence will NOT result in casualties. The boats will be stopped, though. There's another issue here, btw, about a kidnapped Israeli soldier the Hamas is holding - the Red Cross is not allowed to see him (which is against the international treaties) and Israel is worried that Hamas will be able to get him out of the Gaza strip through ships. It will be harder to get him out through the tunnels not quite because of the tunnel itself, but because they lead to inside of Israel and inside of Egypt, both places will have much higher odds of capturing/recovering them if they are in their territories after leaving the tunnels. The option of a ship is *much* better for Hamas, and much much worse for Israel. ~moo

Some humanitarian aid foundations are - quite simply - a front, or they cooperate with not very humanitarian causes. Check "IHH" and see my earlier post about this. They are connected to several terrorist groups and to the attack in LA. On top of that, Iran is heavily involved here, sending weapons to Hamas without Hamas really purchasing anything. The idealogical connection is stronger than money. Okay, seriously, I must sleep... I'm gonna go now... really... I am... nnnnnow... okay now... ok ok.. now. Good night.

I'm going to sleep soon, but I had to just answer this for a moment - This was my mistake, I didn't mean you, I meant the claims that were raised in the thread in general, and I should have been clear on that since I wrote it in a post where I answered you specifically. Sorry about that. I'll answer the rest when I am more awake. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Because the risk of allowing explosives and rockets into Gaza is unacceptable.

Oh.. well, I thought we're interested in facts. The soldiers and video evidence disagree with this eye witness. Of course, we can claim that the soldiers' eyewitness account is unreliable because they are biased, but then we should discard this eyewitness testimony too, because clearly he is biased as well. And the videos show a different picture; a few hours ago I've seen videos from the ship itself (security camera) that showed the crowd onboard the ship preparing to attack the soldiers. That video evidence is in contrast to the eyewitness testimony. We can choose to claim the video evidence is unreliable (...okay..) but then the only claim that's logically left is that we don't know, and there's not enough evidence to make any of this into anything other than rumor. And there is quite a large amount of rumor going around as it is. We either decide we want to try and find the facts and make a judgment based on them, or we decide we don't care about the facts, just rumor that fit our opinion. I prefer to at least try and do the former. ~moo

The point is that someone has to inspect the shipment to make sure it's actual supplies and not weaponary, Capn. If Israel inspects or the UN or Egypt doesn't matter, as long as someone does. - The ships REFUSED to let anyone inspect. As it goes, Israel inspected the goods after seizing the ships and sent *all* the goods into Gaza after inspection. There's no motive here to stop the goods, there's a motivation to inspect them for the safety of the people. Both people. ~moo

You know.. Palestinians occupy two areas - Gaza and the West Bank. We talk about Gaza as if it's strictly the result of Israeli occupation, but let's take a look, for a moment, at the west bank. The main differences between Gaza and the West Bank is (a) Hamas vs. Abu Masen (IE, between "eradicate Israel!" and "I dislike you but let's talk" mentalities), and (b) control of their own area. The city of Ramalla is a new growing IT capital with quite a number of startup companies working with Israelis and with other companies around the arab and western world. The border between Ramalla and Israel is relatively open (I say "relatively" because it's still a border between two state-entities at the moment, and just like US and Mexico share a border that has check points, Israel shares a border with Ramalla with checkpoints). So, let's try to put things in their proper proportion. The situation in Gaza is horrible, but it's not just Israel fault, and it's not just the blockade. The borders with Gaza were open for a long time allowing Gazans to pass through to Israel, and for goods to go in, and the Gazans are still poor; most of the money sent to the PLO was *stolen* by the PLO. Arafat's wife is having the time of her life with luxuries beyond the wet dreams of all of the Gazan peoples combined from the money her and her husband took while he was in power. Blaming one entity is fun and convinient, but history is quite a bit more complicated. This is a cause of much concern in Israel, honestly, that the second part is not taken as importantly as it should be by our government. However, there's absolutely no doubt which of these comes in higher priority, and it's not how we look in the world. Agreed, and the people of Israel are enraged about that. There are calls for an investigation into *how* this was done (not why), which is undoubtedly the wrong way, since lives were lost. You still didn't give us an alternative, though. "Doing nothing" isn't a viable alternative. Agreed. The soldiers are supposed to be equipped for riotters better than police, by the way, since in Israel, they are the ones that usually do this type of thing. However, the unit that usually is involved with riot disperssing is not "Unit 13" (which is an elite commando unit) it is the "border patrol" unit. I am not sure how, realistically, soldiers from these unit could've boarded the ship, but I do agree this should have been at *least* thought of. We wanted to. Thing is - shipments that go INTO Gaza are *NOT* checked. There *are no* checkpoints inside the Gaza dock. None. No UN and no nothing. The IDF asked the ships to stop in ashdod and have the goods inspected *by the UN* with the supervision of the people in the ships. It wasn't even a case where the IDF will check it themselves without anyone supervising -- they offered the ship that a THIRD PARTY checks the goods - either the UN or Egypt - just as long as they're checked for missiles and weapons. The ships refused, so this option is clearly not viable. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Evidence? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedbtw, Capn, this article relates to your first point about the Israeli Commandos (which I agree with for the most part) - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-31/israel-was-right-to-board-the-gaza-flotilla/

As much as I wish to agree with you, the evidence are unclear about that. (a few sad examples: , http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3589842,00.html) But I am REALLY -- seriously -- am hopeful that the majority doesn't want violence. I know for a fact tha majority of arab Israelis (the arab citizens of Israel) want peace, or at least the majority of them do, and the majority of the palestinians in Ramalla (the "west bank") want peace, but those in Gaza... it's not very clear after Hamas came to power. I hope so. I really do. But even if that is the case (and again, having a family there, I promise you, I *want* what you say to be true. I really do) -- -- if the minority is murderous, and the majority does nothing to stop them (out of fear, or not, isn't really very helpful to the people that get blown up or sit in bunkers for weeks), then they sadly will have to suffer because of them. We're not talking about a vocal minority, we're talking about a violent minority that declares its clear intentions of killing as many civilians as they can. Do you prefer we don't stop those because they are a minority? I agree, I just don't see an alternative, and quite honestly, it seems no one has raised a valid one still in this thread. "Do nothing" is not an alternative when it means doing nothing will cause hundreds of Israeli civilians to spend weeks in bunkers because of Qassam attacks on their homes. ~moo

Ignoring, for a moment, the inaccurate depiction of piracy (look at the previous posts about international law), this 'alternative' comes with the price of having -- at a very HIGH risk -- explosives and rockets coming into the hands of people who use them against civilians and prmise to use them against civilians. You would really take that as an alternative...? There were 6 ships coming to shore. The longer the IDF was to wait, the more potential lives were put in danger. Approaching the shore means also getting close to civilian boats (fishing and leisure) and risking even more people. I think you should read the international law again including the maritime blockade laws and who are (and aren't) exempt. Israel acted in accordance to those laws. I need to run, I'll try to answer more of this when I get back later. ~moo

Moved to speculations.

So... now answer to my question about alternatives? I've heard a lot of criticism of what not to do. What, then, was the right thing to do? Anyone?

Sunsphere, can you please use the "Quote" feature when you're answering others? I'm getting confused as to what you're relating as people's original and what is your responses. You can also encapsulate people's original text with which will produce: Thanks.

Yeah, it's a very interesting discussion, but it's not exactly relevant to the particular case here. We can talk about Israel's behavior in Gaza, but the thread's topic is about Israel's behavior regarding the flotilla. Shifting the argument to where Israel is more clearly in the wrong (and I do agree for the most part in the Gaza strip) is a red herring. That said, Israel no longer 'occupies' the Gaza strip; it left it a few years ago, one-sidedly, as a courtesy, hoping it will cause the Gazans and their government to become more independent and talks about peace can ensue. Instead, the Hamas government started firing rockets at Israel - this is what *led* to the necessity - in Israel's eyes - of the blockade. In light of the fact that thousands of civilians are being shot at daily by Hamas rockets ("Qasam" rockets) in Sderot and southern Israel, I'm not too sure what you would suggest Israel do. Do you suggest Israel was to leave things be? Attempts to talk to Hamas has all but failed when Hamas declared they don't care to acknowledge Israel's right to exist - which means they will not discuss peace. What, then, do you offer Israel was to do? Continue to allow tons of explosives and rockets to enter the Gaza strip when these rockets are *used* against Israeli civilians? About 100 trucks of Humanitarian Aid trucks enter the strip EVERY DAY. The idea that Israel blocks those is blatantly false; Israel didn't demand the flotilla be diverted away from the strip in an attempt to prevent humanitarian aid supplies, it demanded the supplies be checked - with the supervision of the flotilla organizers. Instead, the flotilla declared they don't care about supplies, they care about breaching the blockade. Whether you think the blockade is legal or not (and, even if you disagree with Dershowitz, you can at least see the situation isn't as clear cut as it initially sounds) is not relevant to the case at hand; as was said in this thread many times: Either you are a peaceful activist or you intend to use violence. From the videos, the conduct of the flotilla (refusing to answer the requests to stop), and from the equipment found on the sixth ship, and from the declarations of the "activists" on the flotilla itself, it's quite clear the humanitarian aid was low priority -- making a point of "martyrdome" (their words, not mine) was the higher one, and breaching the blockade - apparently, violently - was the top. It's easy to switch from one claim of wrongdoing to another. Israel is *far* from being perfect, and we can find many examples of that, as are the Palestinians. But this particular thread is about the flotilla, and both sides' actions in regards to that. We are all discussing how horrible Israel is, which is fine (Israelis do the same inside Israel, believe it or not, it *is* a democracy for the most part), but we seem to forget that by saying "THIS WAS WRONG!" we should come up with what would've been the RIGHT thing to do. I'm not sure that I see a good alternative in this case, honestly, other than, perhaps, anticipating heavy violent resistence from the sixth ship and stopping it another way. Not sure how that's done at sea, though.. would we really all be "more satisfied" if Israeli navy rammed this ship? I think not. So.. fine.. let's assume Israel was the horrific horrible bad bad evil responder here. What's your alternative? What was it to do instead? ~moo

Sure, on both sides and in many countries. BTW, regarding blockades in general, imposing a blockade to ensure the security of the people of the state isn't new, and it's not something Israel invented out of the blue. One of the examples is the US blockade on Cuba during the missile crisis. The principle was to make sure missiles do not get into Cuba that made its intentions to use them clear. Same thing happens here, only worse; Hamas fires rockets continously on Israeli *cities*. And we're not talking about settlements inside a disputed area - we're talking actual cities inside the borders of Israel. For 8 years there are rockets on a town called "Sderot" by Hamas - since before they were "elected" government in Gaza. The blockade of Gaza isn't out of some whimsical decision of a power hungry minister - it's to prevent the shipments of missiles and explosives into the gaza strip, missiles and explosives that regularly hurt Israeli civilians. I disagree with the government's policies, but there's a difference between disagreeing with policies and condemning a shitty situation no one has any solution to. The civilians on both sides can't really wait until a solution is found - their security is compromised *now*. What's the solution? I don't know. I hope that a proper government will be elected in Gaza so a proper government in ISrael (not the current one, for sure) will be able to continue the talks taht did start in better days. We thought peace with Jordan is impossible, and yet it happened. We thought peace with Egypt is impossible, and yet it happened. I hope one day there will be peace with Gaza. But until that happens, I don't think my government should compromise on the safety of its citizens. I would assume you wouldn't want your government to compromise on that either. I would HOPE that they do some better planning and executing of these issues, but as we see here, things are not as they immediately seem to be. The situation is much more complex than it seems. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I wasn't talking strictly about you Regarding the legality of the blockade, I think you should read this article in the huffington post - it makes some good points: Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise.

Israel is far from innocent or lacking mistakes. Many countries are like that too, of course, and yet, not many countries are in the same situation of having to defend themselves against an enemy that is so close and so vigilant as to bomb civilian institutions and busses and restaurants. But the examples you give are.. weird. Honestly, if we go back so far as 1967, *I* can give better examples than yours. Agreed. This wasn't a coverup though... it was an act of intelligence warfare. Countries do that all the time, the only difference is that in this case, Israel was caught. If you think Israel is the only country to use forged passports in intelligence acts, you're sorely mistaken. However, I do agree that this is a big ****up. I don't know if this is "a conspiracy", though. Yeah, see, I couldn't find anything about this other than this publication. I've never heard of this publication before, and I can't find anything whatsoever to support this claim other than this article, specifically. Can you bring any corroboration for this? These are not evidenced claims, these are suspicions and allegations, which are unsupported. But seriously, if you want to go so back in time into 1967, I can bring up other instances where Israel was seriously at fault that are much closer to our current days. It's very easy to reduce situations into "the poor good guys" and "the evil bad guys", but reality is rarely like that. The situation in the middle east is far more complicated with fault on both sides, and atrocious acts on both sides. The question, really, is how this can be solved. I can guarantee that the *people* of israel - the majority, at laest - want peace, even when they differ on the route to get it. If only things were that simple, we'd all be happy and rich. And safe. If only. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So is breaching a blockade. BTW, we keep saying "Israel's Blockade" -- the blockade isn't strictly Israel's. It's a joint force blockade enforced by Israel and Egypt for the same reason of terrorist actions in Gaza against both states. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis might seem propagandish, but it sums the situation up, and you can independently verify the claims, if you want. We've seen the majority of the piece in this video already in this thread, it just sums them up in chornological order and brings more information (which, again, you can verify) kus12PL8htQ A bit more about IHH and their ties to Hamas and other organizations *the united states deems as terrorists* (not just Israel): http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Humanitarian-Flotilla-finananced-by-terror-group-95312309.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF02Ak03.html US Treasury dept. warning about "Union of Good" http://treas.gov/press/releases/hp1267.htm http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/article/0ecNdaO5GdfGj?q=Hamas I reiterate my initial claim that we should wait until there is more information before we jump to conclusions about who was right and who was wrong, and about the intentions of the parties involved. ~moo

I'm sorry, but do you have evidence for these cases? I am not sure I know which examples of such blatant cover-ups you're talking about?

there's no apology needed, really, this is a discussion forum and we welcome discussions... I'm just not sure what you're discussing

Just adding some information, here is an official press release from the Consulate General of Israel in New York: On May 31, 2010 the world watched as the aboard a flotilla claiming to to be on a humanitarian mission to Gaza. However their actions never matched their words. Get the insider facts of what really happened in this special edition Israel Line. - Consulate General of Israel in New York *** Flotilla Facts On May 30th, the "Free Gaza Flotilla" left the shores of Cyprus under the guise of delivering humanitarian aid but with the outspoken intention to break international law and break the maritime blockade that is being imposed on Gaza by Egypt and Israel to prevent the deliverance of weapons to Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that has fired over 10,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Despite offers made by Israel and the Gilad Shalit family that the flotilla can dock at the Israeli port city of Ashdod in order for the cargo to be checked and then delivered to the people of Gaza, the organizers chose violence over humanitarian aid. After countless calls to dock the ships in Ashdod were ignored, Israel was forced to impose the blockade, which international law requires them to do (a country can only impose a maritime blockade if they have the means to enforce it). Even after the events that unfolded on May 31st, Israel brought the aid shipment to dock, inspected it, and has already delivered it to the people of Gaza. Click on the links to learn more. Read on to see what happened once Israel was forced to impose the blockade. First Hand Account As news of of casualties aboard the flotilla started to emerge, the reports were quite disturbing. To read a first hand account of what the Israeli commandos were faced with, click here. Video Evidence: Israel Soldiers Attacked on Flotilla The voice of an image speaks louder than a thousand words. View the reality that the Israeli soldiers were faced with once they reached one ship. WARNING: The reality includes intended lynchings with the use of crowbars, metal rods, knifes, an electric saw, and the throwing of an Israeli soldier off the deck, head first. Click to view footage of the attempted lynching on board the flotilla. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, this is from the MFA website as well, regarding the legality of the events: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/Justice_Ministry_HCJ_petitions_Gaza_flotilla_1-Jun-2010.htm

Sure, all scientific theories were *developed* rather than discovered out of thin air. Some scientists took a lifetime to achieve these theories in a level where they were substantiated enough. This is why this is a forum... to exchange ideas and talk. However, in science, ideas need to have some connection to reality otherwise they're irrelevant... I am not sure I get what you're trying to say. ~moo

The IDF didn't expect to handle armed terrorist, they expected to handle a small riot. They didn't want to hurt anyone, which is why the were armed with things that are used for small riots: stun grenades and paintball guns. Their pistols were for "worse case scenario". Sadly, that scenario became reality. Defensive? There are 10 people hitting a soldier with clubs and sticks and knives *before the soldier had time to land on the boat*. That's not defensive. The problem here is looking at the situation and not what people want the situation to represent. Read through JohnB's reply again, he brought up quite a lot of answers to the situation. Again, this is a catastrophe, and there should be heads rolling off whoever was in charge of this. But this isn't a clear cut "evil!!!" vs. "awww poorsies peoplesies" case, like many in the media makes it seem. It's hard trying to be balanced in an emotional situation, but if we want to make actual progress, we need to look at things with all the information from all sides. In reality, there are rarely black-and-white situations. No one's asking you to. ~moo

Yeah, these activists were expecting - and planning - for violence. Look at the stuff that was found: JvS9PXZ3RWM

I'm eeeeevvvveeerrrryyyywheeeerrrreeeee. You know.. I'm not sure it's ambiguous in the original context. If you pluck it OUT of context, then you can make the case that it's unclear, but in the context of the entire chapter, it's fairly clear that the meaning is for both mother and baby. The problem I see with this is more about how you would know if a woman is pregnant before she's showing? 2500 years ago, you wouldn't. So it seems that even in this context, there is some time after conception that the foetus isn't considered valid for 'eye for an eye', no? Oh no no, children aren't property, at least not in the old testament. Job's story is different *entirely* from most of the bible - it's the first time God is all-out to do EVERYTHING against Job. It's a very problematic chapter, too, for obvious reasons. But children are considered important and celeberated - God promised Jacob that his seed will grow 'as the stars int he sky' and all that.. it's a sign of strength and a sign of a big family = big clan, and all that. Collecting the kids as a debt isn't to say kids are worthless, but ON THE CONTRARY -- look how *bad* it was for job, that his *family* was taken from him, that his kids became slaves. He essentially lost his continuity,which is worse than losing his flock of sheep. ~moo

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about.

Not sure I completely agree with this idea, but it's nontheless interesting: http://www.universetoday.com/2010/05/17/is-ball-lightning-just-a-shared-hallucination/

Yes, this, however, is a different discussion than what actually happened on the boat. The discussion whether Gaza should or shouldn't have control over its territory is a complex one, but Israel, so far, is under the vast experience that Hamas - if left to control the access - uses it to deliver weapons and explosives that are directly used to attack Israeli citizens. Israel has asked the international community many times to step up and have a proper customs control on the Gaza shore and on the borders to prevent this, and nothing is done about this. That taken into mind, Israel is taking control over its own safety. We can argue if that's the "proper" way to do it or not, but the bottom line is that this blockade - legal or not - is enforced for a while now. Humanitarian aid *is* getting into Gaza through the legal channels, where the entry points are controlled by the IDF but are supervised, who checks the entering equipment to verify there's no weapons or explosives. They caught countless of those inside 'innocent' vehicles (like ambulances) as well as boxes and shipments marked 'humanitarian aid'. This is about the security of the people of Israel. The international community is excellent in condemning Israel's choices, but is doing absolutely nothing to prevent terrorism on Israel soil against Israeli citizens. Bascule, these aren't soldiers we're talking about. We're takling about explosions inside hotels, and busses, and restaurants. These are acts against *citizens*. Israel at the moment seems to have no choice but to take its security to its own hand. If the flotilla really did have the innocent intentions they claimed to, why not submit to a customs check? This was done before, and the equipment was let in - it happens regularly with regular supplies entering the strip - but since it wasn't anything exciting, the iinternational media tends to ignore things when they're "normal". The people on the flotilla intended to create an international outcry by creating violence. It's quite clear from their actions and their behavior. The argument about what Gaza should and shouldn't control is a different one, and it's much more complex than just "it's their right". If Canada was to regularly bomb the northern part of the USA with guns, rockets and explosives they are getting through the sea, and the Canadian government would refuse to do proper checks, and the international community would be idly sitting on the other side of the world criticizing and doing nothing, would you really think the US would let this go on? At some point, you take your citizens' safety to your own hands. This was not supposed to happen, if things worked safely and by the regulations Israel imposed. Whether or not it has the right to is a different issue; the real issue here is that this flotilla was *not* a peaceful demonstration, it did *not* intend to bring peaceful innocent aid to the strip - it indended to confront the Israeli authorities, create an international mess and show Israel in a negative light. What Israelis are very angry about (at the government) is that the flotilla succeeded. If Israel was to wait a few more miles and caught them inside the territorial water (it wasn't that far off it) things might have been different -- however, still, I suspect, people would claim Israel has no right to stop innocent ships from getting to Gaza -- ignoring evidence that many ships in the past were completely *NOT* innocent even when they pretended to be. The fact the soldiers are trained might be the reason why only 10 were killed and not 30. I don't know if you've seen videos of riots, but it's not very organized and nice as to accommodate trained soldiers. You shoot at a soldier, you expect to be shot back. The difference between trained soldiers and non trained people is that the soldiers miss less. According to the accounts we have so far (and again, I really think we should wait for more reliable information from both sides here) the soldiers attempted to shoot people in the leg when they already decided to shoot live bullets (after being beaten and attacked by a *mob* of people). I didn't say it was justified. In fact, I believe my first post showed quite clearly that's absolutely not my position. ~moo

Israelis (and myself included) are asking the same thing now. There are already demands to investigate the manner and calls for the dismissal of the Minister of security (not sure how you say that name in english). But I think the main issue here is that we really need to wait and see what the actual evidence show. It's too early, people are too emotional, and the accounts are not necessarily trustworthy on *both* sides. ~moo