Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[mooeypoo]

I'm going to sleep soon, but I had to just answer this for a moment -

I haven't actually blamed anyone for the situation. There's a difference between saying an operation is a failure and blaming them for the situation.

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

Why is doing nothing in this particular case not an option?

 

Doing something just seems like taking the bait.

 

Because the risk of allowing explosives and rockets into Gaza is unacceptable.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, so the blockade+Egypt's tunnel-crushing efforts would seem to be an effective way to combat the further weaponization of Gaza. I mean, just my two bits here, and I acknowledge your point, but it seems like they probably wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it was working.

Dunno. There's plenty of open tunnels, and weapons take far less space than significant amounts of aid.

 

Also, I don't think many humanitarian aid organizations are willing to send their goods into Gaza illegally. Hamas would have to purchase the aid itself, and Gaza's economy isn't the greatest.

 

Well I respect your opinion on it, but IMO this is wrong for two reasons -- it's not an accurate sequence of events, and it belies the stated nature of Hamas. But just to skip to the bacon, I agree that Israel will of course have to bring cease fire to the table if it wants cease fire in return.

Indeed.

 

I just think that we all know that the next cease fire will be broken by rockets from Gaza. Again. There's a fundamental problem with the people of that land simply not understanding that violence is not an answer. I think economics has a lot to do with it, and ultimately prosperity is just about the only thing that can drive terrorism out of this world. We just need to get to that point somehow.

According to some of the sources Wikipedia cites, some of the rocket firing was done by groups other than Hamas. They'll have to clamp down pretty hard.

 

Prosperity, incidentally, is not helped by a blockade.

[mooeypoo]

Dunno. There's plenty of open tunnels, and weapons take far less space than significant amounts of aid.

 

Also, I don't think many humanitarian aid organizations are willing to send their goods into Gaza illegally. Hamas would have to purchase the aid itself, and Gaza's economy isn't the greatest.

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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because the risk of allowing explosives and rockets into Gaza is unacceptable.

 

Rockets and explosives are not the only banned material, and Turkish officials said they searched the ships anyway. The Israeli blockade includes cement and construction materials, which are banned because the Gazans might make bunkers.

 

I don't think the raid on the flotilla was conducted purely for security reasons. No, even if the Red Cross put a bunch of aid on a boat and sent it straight for Gaza, Israel would likely demand it go through an Israeli port. Letting some people through the blockade symbolically weakens it, no matter what their intentions. It starts you down a slippery slope.

[Pangloss]

Seems like a good point to me.

[michel123456]

International laws suck.

 

My point is: States must stop behave like States and begin behave like ordinary people. States are wearing guns, are lying, theaving, spying, killing, all things that are forbidden to ordinary people.

_make war illegal, that's my wish. When people make munitions, put them in jail. When people sell weapons, put them in jail. When people (politicians) begin a war, condamn them (both sides). Make a new law obliging the politician who command a war to be incarcerated under the accusation of crime against Humanity. Make a law that obliges the one being attacked to go to jail, under the accusation of crime against Humanity for not being able to resolve a problem peacefully.

 

In the specific case:

_Some politician decided to use the army in order to make an intervention. Who is he? He is partly responsible for the death of 9 (foreign) citizens and injury of tens of others, between them Israelian soldiers.

_Some military (or politician) decided to act out the frontiers of the State. Who is he? He is partly responsible too.

_Some military (or politician) decided to give real munitions to his soldiers. Who is he?

_Some military decided to put his soldiers under a situation where no retreat was possible. If you respect human life, never never never put your own people in such a situation. Who is he?

 

Soldiers and militants are victims of these people. These people have name and address. Who are they? They are drinking their coffee right now, reading quitly the newspapers they don't even pay for, eating belgian chocolate. Other ones are in a coffin, others are crying, others are hating, and others are afraid.

 

When you are in disagreement with your neighbour, what do you do? Do you go and smash his face? That is what Palestininans and Israelians are doing right now. Is it correct? Do they smash correctly using international laws, where it is written how it is legal to smash this way or the other? Is that the question? Don't they understand that both are victims? Don't they understand that other people are laughing to them? That other people decide and make constantly wrong decisions where foukarades suffer and die?

[pioneer]

Israel has the lingering compassion of the world, because the Jews were a victim of a brutal bully during WWII. As a victim, one might expect that they would have more empathy, which many do. But in many ways, many have chosen the way of the bully, doing onto the underdog, what was done onto them; within the limits of international outrage.

 

For example, Nazi Germany pegged the Jews, collectively, as the demon and the source of their social ills. The Nazi's commandeered the land and property of the Jews; sound familiar.

[Skye]

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.

That's ok, thanks for clearing it up though.

 

Because the risk of allowing explosives and rockets into Gaza is unacceptable.

But what is this risk?

 

I’d say in this particular case it’s very low.

 

As a slight diversion, Israel doesn't blockade Lebanon. This isn't because Hezbollah haven't launched rockets from Lebanon, or that Iran is unlikely to try to get weapons to Hezbollah by sea, but mostly because it's just not practical. The risk of Hezbollah being re-armed, and I don’t think this is all that low, is not worth the problems that this would cause. I see this situation, in isolation, as being much the same.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Israel has the lingering compassion of the world, because the Jews were a victim of a brutal bully during WWII. As a victim, one might expect that they would have more empathy, which many do. But in many ways, many have chosen the way of the bully, doing onto the underdog, what was done onto them; within the limits of international outrage.

 

For example, Nazi Germany pegged the Jews, collectively, as the demon and the source of their social ills. The Nazi's commandeered the land and property of the Jews; sound familiar.

Pioneer, are you trolling or do you really think that Nazi Germany and Israel are comparable?

[Iggy]

I just heard a commentator on CNN accusing Israel of piracy and it had me thinking--maritime law must allow for at least some situations where warships are allowed to legally board vessels in international waters even if the ship is flying a legitimate flag.

 

I figured that suspicion of arms smuggling might be that type of exception, but after looking at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea article 110, I see it isn't.

 

Article 110

 

Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
   
   
   1. 
      
   2. the ship is engaged in piracy;
      
      
   3. the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
      
      
   4. the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
      
      
   5. the ship is without nationality; or
      
      
   6. though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
      
      

[*]In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

[*]If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

[*]These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

[*]These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.

 

It appears the boarding would have been legal, or could have been construed as legal, if the Turkish ship were suspected of engaged in piracy, the slave trade, or broadcasting a pirate radio station. Being suspected of supporting terrorism or smuggling arms is apparently not cause enough--which is not to say that I think the suspicion itself would have been valid.

 

Very odd it seems for the Israeli navy not to wait for the crossing.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Iggy
added "navy"

[mooeypoo]

Rockets and explosives are not the only banned material, and Turkish officials said they searched the ships anyway. The Israeli blockade includes cement and construction materials, which are banned because the Gazans might make bunkers.

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.

 

don't think the raid on the flotilla was conducted purely for security reasons. No, even if the Red Cross put a bunch of aid on a boat and sent it straight for Gaza, Israel would likely demand it go through an Israeli port. Letting some people through the blockade symbolically weakens it, no matter what their intentions. It starts you down a slippery slope.

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.

 

But what is this risk?

 

I’d say in this particular case it’s very low

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

Edited June 3, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Israel has the lingering compassion of the world …

 

 

Let's stay on topic, please

[mooeypoo]

As a slight diversion, Israel doesn't blockade Lebanon. This isn't because Hezbollah haven't launched rockets from Lebanon, or that Iran is unlikely to try to get weapons to Hezbollah by sea, but mostly because it's just not practical. The risk of Hezbollah being re-armed, and I don’t think this is all that low, is not worth the problems that this would cause. I see this situation, in isolation, as being much the same.

 

There is a bit more to it, though.

 

First, Lebanon shares land borders with other countries which means Israel *can't* isolate it at all. It's a practical matter. Ships heading towards Hizbullah in a lebanese port *were* intercepted by Israel - two of them if I remember correctly - and they both had huge amounts of explosives and weapons in them. So this is practical impossibility.

 

Second, Lebanon and Gaza are not the same in the aspect that Hizbullah is *not* the lebanese government, and while the Lebanese government is having trouble (to say the least) controlling it, they do *try*. So we're dealing with a terror organization inside a country whose government is at least somewhat cooperative.

 

In Gaza, Hamas *is* the government, and it's *not* cooperative. You can't really compare these two cases.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I figured that suspicion of arms smuggling might be that type of exception, but after looking at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea article 110, I see it isn't.

 

Cute, but this set of laws has nothing to do with blockades. It's not surprising that you won't find the laws related to blockades there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

Well, mostly getting through, apart from various incidents with Hamas and Israel stopping shipments.

 

And they'd very much like to bring far more stuff in.

 

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.

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/me...aid/index.html

 

The Turkish prime minister said Monday that the vessels were inspected before they left port in Turkey to make sure the cargo did not include weapons.

 

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.

 

Not so fast.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-t...0602-wvtb.html

 

Not all of it. Some of it. It remains to be seen if things like cement, which cannot be imported as it is, will be passed on. The flotilla organizers did not want to let Israel decide what could get through because they'd reject the construction materials:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/me...aid/index.html

 

Audrey Bomse, legal advisor to the Free Gaza Movement, told CNN the group did not believe the Israelis would let the cargo into Gaza and that the cargo also included reconstruction aid which Israel does not allow into Gaza

[ecoli]

John Stewart pretty much says it for me: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-june-2-2010-morgan-freeman (plus Morgan Freeman!)

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

Hm, is there some reason for not telling what is being blocked?

 

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.

 

Yup, that fits in with the law

 

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

 

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b)

the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality

, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's a good article in The Times today about the legality of the raid, but I can't find it on their site (I read it on my Kindle). So, here's a quote:

 

Another problem concerns the implementation of the blockade. As internationally notified by Israel, it covers only the 20 nautical-mile sea area awarded to Gaza in the Oslo Accords. The taking of the ships took place about 40 miles out to sea, if not more. So the action is not covered by the blockade, even if legal. Israel argues that the ships were manifestly intending to breach the blockade and could therefore be engaged earlier.

 

But in such cases force can be used only at the very last moment, if at all.

Finally, there is the issue of the extent of force used. Israel claims that its forces had come equipped with non-lethal, crowd-control equipment. When assaulted while boarding, it is argued, they had no choice but to fire live rounds to preserve their lives. But the state mounting the interdiction must still ensure that it can safeguard its personnel through non-lethal means, unless attacked with firearms.

 

The wholesale isolation of the territory, including the naval blockade, has been deemed internantionally unacceptable as a means to ensure Israel's security interests, however legitimate.

 

The imposition of a naval blockade, also against humanitarian shipments, is not proportionate to that aim. Its enforcement beyond the claimed 20-mile zone off the coast of Gaza amounts to a serious infringement of the freedom of the high seas and foreign flag states.

 

The author of the article is a Professor of International Law at Cambridge.

[mooeypoo]

Hm, is there some reason for not telling what is being blocked?

I don't know, and I would like to, too. I am trying to find out by reaching out to Israeli officials. I will post the answer I get when I get it, hopefully soon.

 

Yup, that fits in with the law

 

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

 

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b)

the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality

, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Yeah it's a big problem in Gaza. Here's an article from the UN site about the second theft: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29802&Cr=gaza&Cr1=unrwa

 

BTW, Capn, I am not sure you saw the post by JohnB about the rules of blockades, but since the ships announced they intend to run through it, and there was a large number of ships, the decision to stop them in high seas *is* legal. Also, it was meant to prevent more danger to human life, since stopping six ships 20 miles off the shore would be more dangerous and would likely have involved more civilian boats around and perhaps a need to resort to further actions that could be much worse. The IDF's decision was meant to *avoid* casualties. It backfired because the sixth ship decided to use violence, but the decision to stop the boats 20 miles further into the ocean was meant to prevent casualties, and is in accordance with the maritime laws (look at JohnB's post - I think in the first page, and at the article I posted by Professor Dershowitz -- when I come back from my meeting, if oyu don't find them, I'll repost).

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Not so fast.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-t...0602-wvtb.html

 

This one says that all the aid from one ship was transferred and that Israel says the rest will be transferred too.

 

Not all of it. Some of it. It remains to be seen if things like cement, which cannot be imported as it is, will be passed on. The flotilla organizers did not want to let Israel decide what could get through because they'd reject the construction materials:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/me...aid/index.html

 

Audrey Bomse, legal advisor to the Free Gaza Movement, told CNN the group did not believe the Israelis would let the cargo into Gaza and that the cargo also included reconstruction aid which Israel does not allow into Gaza

 

This one says that one of the leaders of the group that organized the flotilla didn't think Israel would let the cargo into Gaza, not whether they in fact did or not.

 

---

 

Apparently you were right that the aid was not delivered. This one says Hamas stopped the delivery:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/idf-hamas-stops-flotilla-aid-delivered-by-israel/?iref=storysearch

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This one says that all the aid from one ship was transferred and that Israel says the rest will be transferred too.

mooey was suggesting that the entire load of aid had already been delivered, hence me pointing out that only some of it has been.

 

Apparently you were right that the aid was not delivered. This one says Hamas stopped the delivery:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/idf-hamas-stops-flotilla-aid-delivered-by-israel/?iref=storysearch

 

Ick.

 

Palestinian sources said trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid over protests that members of the flotilla were not delivering the materials.

 

Come on. There's a time to make ideological statements and protest your treatment, and that time is not when people are giving you a few thousand tons of humanitarian aid.

[mooeypoo]

mooey was suggesting that the entire load of aid had already been delivered, hence me pointing out that only some of it has been.

You're right, I meant that all of it is going to end up inside Gaza - as far as I'm aware, Israel is not holding anything back but letting it all in, the only obstacle at the moment is organizing how to get those inside Gaza. I should've been more accurate, though, you're right. My point was that Israel states it's not going to prevent the aid from going in, and a lot of it is already inside Gaza.

 

Ick.

Which is partially why it takes so long to send 6 ships worth of supplies into the Gaza strip where UNRWA appears to not be in complete control over where it goes and.. uhm.. how.

 

Come on. There's a time to make ideological statements and protest your treatment, and that time is not when people are giving you a few thousand tons of humanitarian aid.

I have nothing to add to this, other than I agree, and feel quite annoyed for the Palestinian people who *should* be getting these items.

 

~moo

[ewmon]

When Israel delivers any goods to "Gaza", what does that entail? Does it go to the government/Hamas, or corporations or private citizens? Basically, what course of governance has Hamas pursued?

[mooeypoo]

I asked for an official statement, and I got it. Here it is:

 

Statement from COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), Policy of aid into Gaza:

 

The policy of transferring merchandise into the Gaza Strip is implemented in accordance with existing Israeli policy, as determined by the Cabinet’s decision of September 19, 2007, following Hamas’s hostile seizure of the Gaza Strip.

 

The ongoing transfer of goods into Gaza is aimed at providing for the basic needs of the residents of the territories while preventing strengthening Hamas, either militarily or governmentally. Hamas engages in hostile activity against the State of Israel and its citizens and holds an IDF soldier captive without reason or justification.

 

According to the policy, humanitarian products, are delivered on a daily bases to the Strip. Food products are delivered almost without restriction – with the exception of luxury goods, which the average Gazan cannot afford, but which are purchased by the wealthy and corrupt leaders of Hamas. Additionally, hygiene products, medical equipment, medicine and essential infrastructure products (for water, sewage, electricity and communication systems) are transferred into the Gaza Strip. Raw materials, however, are not permitted since they can be used for military purposes, although exceptions have been made for humanitarian needs.

 

The entry of “dual -use” equipment (equipment which, while intended for use by civilian systems, can be exploited by terrorists) has been prevented, with the exception of special humanitarian cases.

 

Requests to transfer goods are received by the Palestinian Civilian Economic Council in Gaza and by the international community. The process of determining the daily entry of goods is made with the Palestinian civilian economic council, and priority is given to the delivery of medical supplies and medication, essential infrastructure equipment and basic products and donations from the international community. The type and range of the remaining goods for any given day are decided by the Palestinian Civilian Economic Council in Gaza.

 

A forum, headed by a senior officer from the Coordination of Government Activity in the Territories and representatives from international organizations meets weekly to review and expedite unique requests. The variety of food products permitted has expanded recently and changes from time to time, with consideration to the changing needs of the Palestinian population. With the help of various international organizations, a large quantity of products for the welfare of children and adolescents (including educational materials, toys and children’s clothing) has entered the Strip.

 

The result of the current policies is that theirs a wide inventory and scale of food products, medical equipment and medications. Any allegations to the contrary are baseless; these facts are well-documented in UN agencies’ official reports.

 

Also, recently, Israel has supported sewage projects in the strip, as a humanitarian gesture for the people of Gaza, in cooperation with the UN and the international community, and in coordination with the Palestinian Authority.

 

The COGAT system employs hundreds of soldiers and civilians with unique and extensive knowledge of the Gaza Strip, and their main duty is to follow and assess the humanitarian situation in the Strip and respond to any problems. Gaza DCO (District Coordinators Office) personnel work continuously to accomplish their mission, despite the many security threats against DCO facilities and crossings. They face serious threats including rocket fire and terrorist attacks, like the one on June 8th 2009 when terrorists attacked next to the Nahal Oz fuel terminal.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Raw materials, however, are not permitted since they can be used for military purposes, although exceptions have been made for humanitarian needs.

 

Ah. And the ships were carrying several thousand tons of cement and construction steel. I wonder if Israel will make an exception.

[mooeypoo]

Ah. And the ships were carrying several thousand tons of cement and construction steel. I wonder if Israel will make an exception.

Are you sure they did? I didn't hear about that.. where did you hear this? I thought that there was a request for cement, but I didn't see anything about the ships themselves having it.