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

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hmm.

 

We've been debating the legality of the blockade and wondering if any international investigation would decide the issue, when one already has. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict issued its report in September 2009, and ruled that the blockade is a war crime.

 

The conditions of life in Gaza, resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government of Israel – as they were presented by its authorized and legitimate representatives - with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.

 

From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/09/15/UNFFMGCReport.pdf

 

Taken from section 13: "The impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the Gaza population and their human rights."

[padren]

Probably not. The quarantine was solely against offensive weapons. At the time, that meant "nukes and long-range missiles." The quarantine also did not last long enough to have a major humanitarian impact on Cuba, since Kennedy achieved his goals diplomatically within two weeks. Thus it wasn't disproportionate, as the Gaza blockade has been.

 

How did they ensure only offensive weapons didn't make it in?

 

Secondarily, both parties are subject to rather disproportionate conditions: How long has the threat of missile attacks on civilians persisted in Israel, or the other terrorist attacks? If a blockade is acceptable temporarily given the grave situation of your civilians living in bunkers, what happens when both persist for years?

 

Again, the legality or justifications for the blockade are entirely aside from the whole conversation. How military operations are carried out, popular or not, is the key issue behind the events on that ship.

 

 

An interesting note from the JFK blockade of Cuba:

Thursday morning at 7:15 a.m. EST, the USS Essex and USS Gearing attempted to intercept the Bucharest but failed to do so. Fairly certain the tanker did not contain any military material, it was allowed through the blockade. Later that day, at 5:43 p.m., the commander of the blockade effort ordered the USS Kennedy to intercept and board the Lebanese freighter Marcula. This took place the next day, and the Marcula was cleared through the blockade after its cargo was checked.

 

So they used their own discernment to decide if the one vessel was a threat, and then boarded a vessel from Lebanon. What if the Lebanese had resisted with arms? That would have been just great for the whole Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How did they ensure only offensive weapons didn't make it in?

 

Secondarily, both parties are subject to rather disproportionate conditions: How long has the threat of missile attacks on civilians persisted in Israel, or the other terrorist attacks? If a blockade is acceptable temporarily given the grave situation of your civilians living in bunkers, what happens when both persist for years?

They checked via inspections. Nuclear missiles are big; you can't hide them in your suitcase. The disproportionality clause in international law regards the disproportionate impact of a blockade upon civilians; in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was no blockade on civilian goods at all. In the case of Israel and Gaza, the blockade bans many civilian goods, which is why it is disproportionate.

 

Again, the legality or justifications for the blockade are entirely aside from the whole conversation. How military operations are carried out, popular or not, is the key issue behind the events on that ship.

Fair enough, but the military operations would not have been necessary if the blockade had been declared illegal and revoked much earlier.

[padren]

Has it been recognized? I don't know exactly how that works.

I am not 100% certain myself, but it has been ongoing for years, it's not some warlord despot hijacking aid and declaring an area "off limits" to justify it.

 

Military actions in general are probably pretty hard to nail down in terms of "recognition" since there are always people who condemn them and call them illegal.

I believe it's recognized by the UN, but again I don't know how that works - I do think it's safe to say it's very clearly internationally established, and Israel is very clear on what it will do and what it expects of vessels attempting to breech it.

I don't think they want to ease the blockade. They want it removed entirely, so they can have unfettered access.

 

Which opens the doors to all kinds of military equipment. However, they are condemning Israel for limiting aid, when it would only be marginally limited (ie, concrete and chocolate) if they agreed to third party inspections.

 

While they condemn Israel for blocking aid, they are intent ending any kind of inspections at all. They are using a disingenuous argument as an emotional appeal, when they should challenge the blockade legally and go after what they actually want.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am not 100% certain myself, but it has been ongoing for years, it's not some warlord despot hijacking aid and declaring an area "off limits" to justify it.

 

Military actions in general are probably pretty hard to nail down in terms of "recognition" since there are always people who condemn them and call them illegal.

I believe it's recognized by the UN, but again I don't know how that works - I do think it's safe to say it's very clearly internationally established, and Israel is very clear on what it will do and what it expects of vessels attempting to breech it.

Hmm. My mom read a Turkish article calling the blockade illegal because it wasn't recognized by the UN.

 

But recognition isn't the only thing you need for legality, of course.

 

 

Which opens the doors to all kinds of military equipment. However, they are condemning Israel for limiting aid, when it would only be marginally limited (ie, concrete and chocolate) if they agreed to third party inspections.

 

While they condemn Israel for blocking aid, they are intent ending any kind of inspections at all. They are using a disingenuous argument as an emotional appeal, when they should challenge the blockade legally and go after what they actually want.

Gaza has been living with those "marginal" limitations for several years, and those are the limitations that the Goldstone Report declared to be violations of international law.

 

I suspect they chose the direct route they did because they knew a legal challenge would get nowhere without massive international support. They chose the emotional appeal because it would achieve their goals rapidly. So far it's worked brilliantly.

 

You can fault them for slightly dishonest tactics, but you have to admit they've worked brilliantly so far.

[padren]

They checked via inspections. Nuclear missiles are big; you can't hide them in your suitcase. The disproportionality clause in international law regards the disproportionate impact of a blockade upon civilians; in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was no blockade on civilian goods at all. In the case of Israel and Gaza, the blockade bans many civilian goods, which is why it is disproportionate.

Had the crews of those vessels taken a page from the crew of flotilla ship #5 the Cuban Missile Crisis may have turned into a full-blown catastrophe.

 

With regards to the civilian goods, it's been argued that there is clear evidence that civilian equipment is cannibalized for components to make weapons. Within Gaza, they find concrete used for rocket bunkers, wheel chair batteries used for trigger devices - there's only so far you can go when every humanitarian concession is turned into a weapon to kill your citizens.

 

I don't know how chocolate is misused, but the thought terrifies me!

Fair enough, but the military operations would not have been necessary if the blockade had been declared illegal and revoked much earlier.

 

And as soon as it was clear weapons were being shipped in, the blockade would be back up in full force, just with more people dead and everyone a little more jaded.

 

I am personally appalled by the conditions in Gaza. They do get food but it's more of a refuge camp than a population. The economic situation is abysmal, but it will not get better until Israel and the Palestinians can live in peace - anything they build, will get blown up for as long as they are both fighting each other.

 

Like the economic strife, the blockade itself is a symptom, not a cause.

[John Cuthber]

"I do wonder how American armed forces would react to finding journalists embedded with an operation designed to disrupt and circumvent a US Military mission pursuant to national security."

I imagine they are used to it by now. Have you seen the videos from Bin Laden? some of those at least pretend a degree of journalism. In any event, the US often bring their own journalists along. So do the UK's armed forces.

 

 

"but to simply say "In my mind I don't think it's justified" and then ..."

I didn't say that I said "It is unusual that I find a group of American lawyers holding much the same view as I do but it seems to have happened here.

Is there any independent, legally qualified, group who considers the blockade to be legitimate?

If there is then I will be happy to look at the evidence that they submit indicating that the blockade is proportionate.

As far as I am aware, from all I have seen in this thread and elsewhere, no such evidence exists."

 

Do you see the difference?

I cited expert evidence and sought alternative evidence.

 

"This already proves that such third party checks are irrelevant if they are not done by a trusted third party."

Fair point, but who would both sides think of as "trusted"?

 

"I'm pretty sure Saddam considered the entire invasion of Iraq illegal,"

And so did at least one US military/ government official.

It was illegal, (in essence because the attack was by forces who were not under any direct threat and all parties were signatories to the UN agreements on warfare- but that's a whole different thread).

 

What's the point of international law if it gets flouted like this? Shouldn't we hold our own governments to account? Perhaps we can then hold others to account without looking so hypocritical.

 

"It's the frick'n military - when they conduct an operation, they'll point a gun at your head to ensure their operation succeeds, and try not pull the trigger unless they feel they absolutely have to. That's not the Israeli military, that's standard for all military operations."

That's the reason the military should not have been used for this. They are not noted diplomats. Someone suggested earlier that riot police would have been a better choice.

 

 

"

* They refused third party trusted inspection.

* They refused to dock and observe the inspection of goods."

 

There wasn't anyone near who could have acted as a third party (for any definition of "trusted") because they were at sea.

.There wasn't a dock for roughly 80 miles.

 

There's little doubt that part of the reason for this convoy was to provoke a reaction- I doubt the intention was mass suicide.

At best their opponents seem to have played right into their hands.

 

Israel overreacted and has managed to make Hamas look like "the poor underdog" while looking like bullies themselves (and, just to be clear, I think both sides are pretty much as bad as each other).

 

I wonder which side planned that.

[padren]

I suspect they chose the direct route they did because they knew a legal challenge would get nowhere without massive international support. They chose the emotional appeal because it would achieve their goals rapidly. So far it's worked brilliantly.

 

You can fault them for slightly dishonest tactics, but you have to admit they've worked brilliantly so far.

 

With blood on their hands, that they refuse to accept as by their hand.

 

I fault them for the dishonesty but could look past it, and I would even somewhat respect a statement such as "We forced the Israelis to choose to let us past or shoot us dead, because as long as we can we will fight this injustice by any means necessary." where they are honest about their motives.

 

Otherwise, it's like trying to "suicide by cop" by targeting a specific cop you don't like so he can be blamed for shooting you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I imagine they are used to it by now. Have you seen the videos from Bin Laden? some of those at least pretend a degree of journalism. In any event, the US often bring their own journalists along. So do the UK's armed forces.

I have not seen journalists embedded with Bin Laden or other hostiles engaged in active combat with US troops.

 

I'm not talking about "embedded friendlies" but journalists embedded with hostile opposing forces.

I didn't say that I said "It is unusual that I find a group of American lawyers holding much the same view as I do but it seems to have happened here.

Is there any independent, legally qualified, group who considers the blockade to be legitimate?

You did, but I didn't see the relevance. I am not aware of any group specifically that would meet all your criteria for independence with regards to the Israeli blockade, nor have I looked as I don't see the relevance to the military engagement.

What I have seen mostly, is people disagreeing on whether Israel had the right to board where they did, or if they needed to wait until they were within 20 miles. Some evidence suggests they had the right up to 50 miles.

 

What I haven't seen however, is anyone claiming that Israel did not have a blockade or that any of the vessels were treated unfairly due to being unaware of the conditions of the blockade.

If there is then I will be happy to look at the evidence that they submit indicating that the blockade is proportionate.

As far as I am aware, from all I have seen in this thread and elsewhere, no such evidence exists."

 

Do you see the difference?

I cited expert evidence and sought alternative evidence.

Again, I don't see the relevance. Any body of experts determining that any given US action is illegal, would not change the fact that a decision to engage those US troops with hostile force would be met with lethal force.

 

When you choose to engage a military with hostile force, the results are pretty much as to be expected. A battlefield is no place to decide legality.

"This already proves that such third party checks are irrelevant if they are not done by a trusted third party."

Fair point, but who would both sides think of as "trusted"?

They were invited to participate personally in the inspections, so they would all be conducted with both parties present. Aside from that, I think the UN could help setup a set of inspectors that are satisfactory to both parties, if such a discussion could even happen given the flotilla's organizer's hostility towards any form of negotiations with Israel.

"I'm pretty sure Saddam considered the entire invasion of Iraq illegal,"

And so did at least one US military/ government official.

It was illegal, (in essence because the attack was by forces who were not under any direct threat and all parties were signatories to the UN agreements on warfare- but that's a whole different thread).

 

What's the point of international law if it gets flouted like this? Shouldn't we hold our own governments to account? Perhaps we can then hold others to account without looking so hypocritical.

Indeed. I agree entirely. However, "peace protesters" that then choose to engage with hostility towards US troops would not be such a remedy.

"It's the frick'n military - when they conduct an operation, they'll point a gun at your head to ensure their operation succeeds, and try not pull the trigger unless they feel they absolutely have to. That's not the Israeli military, that's standard for all military operations."

That's the reason the military should not have been used for this. They are not noted diplomats. Someone suggested earlier that riot police would have been a better choice.

They have to enforce this blockade and sink vessels that risk breaching the blockade if necessary. The riot police would have been useful in this instance when boarding the one out of six ships that were intent on resisting with force.

They were not on hand for this maneuver, which may be an oversight on the Israeli's side but the old saying "you go to war with the army you've got" applies, and they used what they had on hand to try to deal with the flotilla without loss of life.

 

"

* They refused third party trusted inspection.

* They refused to dock and observe the inspection of goods."

 

There wasn't anyone near who could have acted as a third party (for any definition of "trusted") because they were at sea.

.There wasn't a dock for roughly 80 miles.

They didn't have to be. They could have easily complied and gone to the port they were directed to where they would have been allowed to observe the inspections themselves.

 

They only have themselves to blame for being 80 miles from any other port, just as they are responsible for their own actions in refusing all radio contact and proceeding to break through a military blockade.

There's little doubt that part of the reason for this convoy was to provoke a reaction- I doubt the intention was mass suicide.

At best their opponents seem to have played right into their hands.

 

Israel overreacted and has managed to make Hamas look like "the poor underdog" while looking like bullies themselves (and, just to be clear, I think both sides are pretty much as bad as each other).

 

I wonder which side planned that.

 

I thought the issue is Israel under-reacted by failing to recognize the threat posed by the fifth ship. Had they known beforehand how hostile the crew would be, they could have just disabled the vessel's propellers and towed it to shore, or used a larger boarding party that would not be overwhelmed and forced to respond with lethal force.

 

Again, the Israelis are entirely honest: they have a well known established military blockade, and the use of lethal force is authorized if necessary to enforce it. Anyone challenging the blockade is aware of this. They may not like it, they may find it unwarranted or unjustified or even punitively cruel - but they are honest about their stance and that is what is important to keeping unnecessary loss of life from occurring in situations like this. Knowing their honest stance means it can be criticized and debated, and even changed.

 

The flotilla was dishonest, posing as "peaceful protesters" (which implies the use of passive resistance when boarded or subdued) and then being outright hostile and aggressively attacked the IDF as they boarded.

 

This dishonesty is the whole reason there was loss of life at all. And yes - I agree it played right into Hamas' plans, and given that the Israelis are the ones who erringly took them at face value and had it blow up in their face, I am pretty confident it was the activists' plan to trigger this event all along.

[Mr Skeptic]

The flotilla was dishonest, posing as "peaceful protesters" (which implies the use of passive resistance when boarded or subdued) and then being outright hostile and aggressively attacked the IDF as they boarded.

 

I'm not entirely convinced of that either. Sure, this if planned worked brilliantly for putting the spotlight on the blockade and the plight of the Gaza strip. Yes, at the cost of some deaths but journalists and their readers need that blood.

 

However, the folks on that ship seemed to have been under the impression that they were being fired upon, before being boarded. This is not entirely baseless as one of the Israelis said he fired warning shots (presumably up in the air but at night all you see is the flash). Also, some of the news stories say that the Israelis warned to turn away or they would be confronted with lethal force (which is false as shown by recordings, but may have been confused by people on the ship and not just journalists). So they could have thought that they would be attacked and decided to go down with a fight (as stupid as that may be). All it takes is a small percentage of paranoid folks.

[padren]

I'm not entirely convinced of that either. Sure, this if planned worked brilliantly for putting the spotlight on the blockade and the plight of the Gaza strip. Yes, at the cost of some deaths but journalists and their readers need that blood.

 

However, the folks on that ship seemed to have been under the impression that they were being fired upon, before being boarded. This is not entirely baseless as one of the Israelis said he fired warning shots (presumably up in the air but at night all you see is the flash). Also, some of the news stories say that the Israelis warned to turn away or they would be confronted with lethal force (which is false as shown by recordings, but may have been confused by people on the ship and not just journalists). So they could have thought that they would be attacked and decided to go down with a fight (as stupid as that may be). All it takes is a small percentage of paranoid folks.

 

I think this is a very possible cause of the whole mishandled affair. I should revise my comments to reflect that I have not "concluded" it was they were "looking for a fight" and to condemn them as such would be premature - I can give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

 

I still think it is unlikely the Israelis were looking for a fight though - they certainly weren't prepared for one, and if they look for one they are one country on Earth we can probably can agree knows how to prepare for a fight.

The use of warning shots (if that did occur, I am not sure where that information came from but it seems reasonable) was probably a really bad idea at night as well. I think though the overall blame in my mind would still go to the flotilla - if they had no intention of resisting, they should have been more clear and responded by radio.

 

The Irish vessel that pushed the blockade and was redirected peacefully following this whole ordeal was able to bypass all the "suspicious intentions" on both sides by negotiating via radio and keeping the lines of communication open.

The fact there was a "fog of war" aspect to this engagement really lies with the failure of the flotilla to keep the mines of communication open, which the Israelis attempted many times throughout the night.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-eases-blockade-by-letting-in-extra-food-items-1996142.html

 

Israel has eased its regime for food imports to Gaza, allowing foods like a range of herbs, biscuits, jam, potato crisps, packaged hummus and canned fruits which had been banned from entering the territory from Israel for three years.

 

But the relaxation – which also allows in razors – fell far short of the much wider lifting of the economic blockade which has been increasingly urged by the international community since last week's lethal naval commando raid on a pro-Palestinian aid flotilla.

 

Biscuits and potato chips were banned items?

[mooeypoo]

This shows the intention what the Mavi Marmara itself (the ONLY ship to be violent):

 

The only ship that was violent was not carrying any aid. Of the seven ships which announced their intentions to break Israel’s legal maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, six were redirected without incident. The one vessel, Turkish-operated Mavi Marmara, was the only ship in the flotilla which ambushed Israeli soldiers. Over the past 10 days, it has been obvious that the dozens of “peace activists” came ready and eager for a violent skirmish and were thus anything but peace loving individuals.

 

After contents of the ship were unloaded, it has been discovered that the Mavi Marmara did not contain a single ounce of aid. Not one box of food or medicine for the people of Gaza. Out of 7 ships, only 4 were actually bringing goods with them. As the largest boat in the Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara was loaded with thugs sent by the terrorist-affiliated Turkish organization IHH. While most on board the Mavi Marmara were not violent, those who did not want to fight the Israelis were sent to the lower levels of the ship, leaving the area where Israeli soldiers landed composed entirely of fighters. The aid from the 4 freighters carrying goods has been inspected for contraband and was brought to the Kerem Shalom border crossing with Gaza.

Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/10/no-aid-found-on-turkish-vessel-mavi-marmara/

 

There was *no* humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara. Out of the 7 ships, this ship - the only one to be violent - was the only one to carry no aid. "Peaceful aid workers" with no aid, and no peaceful intentions.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

btw, Capn, this might answer your chips question:

In response to Israel allowing the sending of nonessential aid including chips and candy, Hamas declared they would not allow the Palestinians they “govern” access to snacks. “We have three factories that make carbonated drinks. They say they want to allow in potato chips, but we have factories that produce more than enough to meet Gaza’s needs,” said Ziyad al-Zaza, economic and trade minister in Hamas’s Gaza-based government. While they refer to the aid coming in as “the first course,” what they are waiting for is “the main course,” meaning cement and iron. According to Robert Gates, America’s Secretary for Defense, “Construction materials haven’t gone for housing, they’ve gone for bunkers.”

 

Same source.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

After contents of the ship were unloaded, it has been discovered that the Mavi Marmara did not contain a single ounce of aid. Not one box of food or medicine for the people of Gaza. Out of 7 ships, only 4 were actually bringing goods with them. As the largest boat in the Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara was loaded with thugs sent by the terrorist-affiliated Turkish organization IHH. While most on board the Mavi Marmara were not violent, those who did not want to fight the Israelis were sent to the lower levels of the ship, leaving the area where Israeli soldiers landed composed entirely of fighters. The aid from the 4 freighters carrying goods has been inspected for contraband and was brought to the Kerem Shalom border crossing with Gaza.

Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/10/no-aid-found-on-turkish-vessel-mavi-marmara/

 

There was *no* humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara. Out of the 7 ships, this ship - the only one to be violent - was the only one to carry no aid. "Peaceful aid workers" with no aid, and no peaceful intentions.

Uh, according to your source, only four of the ships had goods with them, not six out of the seven.

 

Regardless, I'm not surprised they did a crappy job being actual humanitarians. It's a political shot more than anything.

 

btw, Capn, this might answer your chips question:

In response to Israel allowing the sending of nonessential aid including chips and candy, Hamas declared they would not allow the Palestinians they “govern” access to snacks. “We have three factories that make carbonated drinks. They say they want to allow in potato chips, but we have factories that produce more than enough to meet Gaza’s needs,” said Ziyad al-Zaza, economic and trade minister in Hamas’s Gaza-based government. While they refer to the aid coming in as “the first course,” what they are waiting for is “the main course,” meaning cement and iron. According to Robert Gates, America’s Secretary for Defense, “Construction materials haven’t gone for housing, they’ve gone for bunkers.”

 

Same source.

 

That doesn't justify Israel's original blockade of potato chips, it merely means Hamas is stupid.

 

The Israeli ambassador to the US was on the Colbert Report recently and stated the chips and snacks weren't allowed in because Israel didn't feel obligated to "provide" the Palestinians with them. But that's not the point; Israel doesn't have to buy crates of Pringles for the Gazans, they just have to let the Gazans purchase their own Pringles and have them shipped in.

 

So if Israel didn't feel obligated to "provide" them, even if the Gazans would pay with their own money, it sounds more like Israel didn't feel obligated to let them have snacks. Why not? Collective punishment?

[Pangloss]

This is the image referred to earlier in the thread regarding Reuters:

 

[Externet]

It may be Hollywood, it may not. Am not into those subjects, but there is this :

 

http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3423928

 

And I do not understand the language, and I do not care.

[mooeypoo]

It may be Hollywood, it may not. Am not into those subjects, but there is this :

 

http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3423928

 

And I do not understand the language, and I do not care.

If you're posting in a thread about a certain subject, you should care about context.

 

This video is in Hebrew, it's from 2009, and it shows weaponry from a ship that wanted to get into Gaza. It's not Hollywood. It's the real deal, those are containers from a ship headed into Gaza. They're not really saying anything in the video, just background noises.

 

This *IS NOT* part of the flotilla.

 

It can show why Israel is worried about letting ships get into the strip without proper check, but it's not showing what the flotilla was carrying.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Incidentally, I'm glad to see productive work being done. Here's a column by the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7149459.ece

 

Israel rightly boasts a fine education system and world-class universities; next door, many children are denied basic schooling. Why? Because the conflict has led to the destruction of many school buildings, and the blockade denies Gaza the bricks and cement it needs to rebuild them or to replace the ruins that litter the countryside. The blockade hurts ordinary people, prevents reconstruction and fuels radicalism.

 

That is why I am seeking to reopen the crossings into Gaza, permanently, for humanitarian aid, commercial goods and civilians to and from Gaza. This is what the United Nations Security Council and the European Union have demanded; it is also what Israel agreed with the Palestinian Authority in 2005. On my trip to Gaza I bought some fabulous handicrafts made by remarkable women who have overcome daunting conditions; I want an end to the ban that prevents their world-class rugs and scarves and ornaments being sold and enjoyed around the world.

 

Today I shall chair a meeting of the 27 Foreign Ministers of the European Union. We shall examine a practical plan to allow the people of Gaza to bring in what they need. Instead of a list of a very restricted number of products, there should be a short, agreed list of prohibited goods about which Israel has legitimate security concerns. The European Union has trained staff on the ground who could help to implement this at Gaza’s border, letting permitted goods through and keeping banned goods out.

 

There's more in the article. Good to see people making an effort.

[padren]

There's more in the article. Good to see people making an effort.

 

The idea of building schools in Gaza actually scares me to be honest. The last thing I want to see is Hamas or any terrorists looking around, seeing the one shiny new building (the school) and saying "oh, of course, we can setup in there" during a conflict.

 

I think some elements of the equation need to change before we can expect to see different results from the same actions. Hamas has a habit of using anything anywhere if it helps attack Israelis, and even uses human shields.

 

 

I really really would love to see schools in Gaza but I want to to be possible first because the odds of it going tragically are just too high.

[mooeypoo]

The idea of building schools in Gaza actually scares me to be honest. The last thing I want to see is Hamas or any terrorists looking around, seeing the one shiny new building (the school) and saying "oh, of course, we can setup in there" during a conflict.

Sadly, they do do that

(example from 2009:

and example from 2007: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2275121/hamas_shoot_mortars_from_gaza_school/)

 

But, honestly, in this instance I don't think this reason is strong enough to *prevent* schools from being built. Israel (and the rest of the world, frankly) should fight against Hamas' abuse of civilian places, but something should also be done about the situation in Gaza. One of the causes of this mutual distrust between paestinians and israelis is the education, and I really would like to see the education system in Gaza improved.

 

Again, I look at the west bank for reference - their education system is a hundredfold better than in Gaza, an in some instances comparable to many of the western countries - and there's (a) much more cooperation on both sides, (b) much better economy in the palestinian authority's areas and © much more desire for talks and peace.

 

In this instance, I think that building a school surpasses the worry of Hamas abusing it. Hamas will abuse all civilian places, including people's houses; that doesn't mean people shouldn't have houses, it just means we should work harder to pressure Hamas to stop doing that.

 

I think some elements of the equation need to change before we can expect to see different results from the same actions. Hamas has a habit of using anything anywhere if it helps attack Israelis, and even uses human shields.

I do agree with that part. I wish I knew how we can change those elements, though.

 

I really really would love to see schools in Gaza but I want to to be possible first because the odds of it going tragically are just too high.

I'm not sure. Last time they did use the schools as their rocket grounds, but the schools were MOSTLY evacuated (Israeli army took the time to throw pamphlets from helicopters warning the civilians that an attack is coming, giving them time to evacuate schools and big civilian gathering places and stay home).

 

I would like to see schools in Gaza. I am more concerned about who will teach in those schools (Hamas' lead teachers will only make things worse, I'm sure we can agree on that). But quite honestly, we have to start SOMEWHERE. I am all for security, and sometimes security (for both sides), sadly, comes on the expense of many things (on both sides), but I think that it shouldn't come on any expense.

 

I wish the UN had better representation and much more presence in Gaza to oversee that those schools and civilian locations are being built and used for actual civilian needs rather than terrorist agenda. That might solve a lot of the problems in Gaza.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is an interesting article from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR):

Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (36)

 

In the aftermath of the Free Gaza flotilla incident, Turkey is the most popular regional country, but Hamas’s popularity remains unchanged while Salam Fayyad and his government gain greater public support

 

These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 10 and 13 June 2010. The poll was conducted few days after the Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla. It is worth noting also that the PA government of Salam Fayyad announced the cancellation of the local elections during the conduct of the poll. Total size of the sample is 1270 adults interviewed face to face in 127 randomly selected locations. Margin of error is 3%. This press release covers domestic Palestinian issues; issues related to the peace process and Israeli-Palestinian relations will be covered in a separate joint Palestinian-Israeli press release and later in our detailed report on the poll. For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email

pcpsr@pcpsr.org

.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p36epressrelease.html

 

I didn't read the entire document yet, I read most of it, but it's very interesting to see some of the reactions on the Palestinian side to the flotilla incident and to the entire situation.

 

I keep reading about mixed reactions on the Israeli side (people, not government) but if you want, I can try and find if there was a proper poll conducted on the Israeli side as well, so maybe we can get a bit of a clearer picture on how both peoples reacted to it.

 

Anyways, this is an interesting read.

Edited June 16, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Peron]

 

We all know that the entire West Bank region is under heavy occupation,( with IDF soldiers being called Isreali Occupation forces, by the Palatines.)

 

Closures have severely hindered health services in Gaza. During the period October to December 2007, the World Health Organization has confirmed the deaths of 20 patients, including 5 children. Between 2007-2008, 120 people in Gaza died because they were not allowed to access medical treatment.

 

The Israeli Government's cut in the flow of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip has also been called collective punishment of the civilian population, which would be a violation of Israel’s obligations under the laws of war. Starting February 7, 2008, the Israeli Government reduced the electricity it sells directly to Gaza. This follows the ruling of Israel’s High Court of Justice’s decision, which held, with respect to the amount of industrial fuel supplied to Gaza, that, “The clarification that we made indicates that the supply of industrial diesel fuel to the Gaza Strip in the winter months of last year was comparable to the amount that the Respondents now undertake to allow into the Gaza Strip. This fact also indicates that the amount is reasonable and sufficient to meet the vital humanitarian needs in the Gaza Strip.” The Jerusalem Post argued that Palestinians had killed two Israelis in the process of delivering fuel to the Nahal Oz fuel depot.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

 

All in all, it's America's responsibility to control Isreals actions against the Palastines. It is the United States that gives money to the Isreali government to stay afloat.

We have to end the violence and a military occupation is no way to do it, take a page from AVATAR.

[mooeypoo]

 

We all know that the entire West Bank region is under heavy occupation,( with IDF soldiers being called Isreali Occupation forces, by the Palatines.)

"We all know"? The Israeli Army is out of the west bank, Peron. Israel has left Hebron almost 10 years ago, and Ramallah is self-governed. The problem at the moment is about how to control and sort out the borders and the autonomous identity of the Palestinian Authority.

 

There's a barrier being built to *separate* Israel from the Palestinian Authority - this barrier is under a lot of scrutiny because of the way it's built and the places it goes through, but the fact is, Israel army is no longer inside the west bank. Control was given to the Palestinian Authority in their territories. The remaining arguments (and there are a lot of those, of course) are about issues of territories and control and the details of, hopefully, sustainable peace. There are no Israeli soldiers occupying the west bank.

 

We've ran this thread well in the past many many pages because most of us care for facts rather than ground-breaking emotional statements. We don't all know. We check.

 

We have to end the violence and a military occupation is no way to do it, take a page from AVATAR.

Yes, because when dealing with reality, there's nothing better than to refer to a fantastical work of science fiction.

 

If you've read any of my posts in this thread you can see that I have absolutely no problems criticizing Israel and its actions, but I would like to do that realistically, looking at *both* sides of the issue.

 

And finally, Peron, the red herring about Israel's supposed occupation of the west bank has nothing to do with the subject of this debate, which is the "aid flotilla" attempting to break a blockade.

 

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There are no check points INSIDE THE WEST BANK. Israel doesn't deal with the internal dealings of the west bank as long as they are not passing the border into Israel.

 

The fact that there is an argument about where the line/border should go doesn't mean that Israeli soldiers are occupying the poor palestinians in their homes. That's simply false.

 

The palestinians have THEIR OWN security foces in the west bank:

Palestinian Security Forces Reflect Promise of Future State - http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Palestinian-Security-Forces-Reflect-Promise-of-Future-State-91698699.html

 

U.S. giving Palestinian security forces top-level training - http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-giving-palestinian-security-forces-top-level-training-1.273762

[Peron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8366433.stm

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/033/2004

 

The United nations and Amnesty International appose demolitions in the west bank region.

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/007/2007

 

Israel is engaging in collective punishment and this goes against the Geneva convention, which states that "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

 

(http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038?OpenDocument)

 

The UN actually stated that razing buildings is a theft of Palestine land, which I stated in previous post as being illegal.

 

We must address the root causes to fix the problem. Their is a reason why the Palestines are so angry. It is a occupation, Israel controls the imports and exports, they threat the Palestinians like dare I say, rats. It looks more and more like Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians the oppressed, but I don't think thats entirely so, I think that Israel acts in the good of it's country, but they can go over the top.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, that's fine, Peron, but there's a difference between the arguments above and claiming that "We all know" the Israeli military oppresses the west bank palestinians right after a video that is out of context (do you even know where it was taken? Did you notice the soldier had a *red* clip? do you know this means he had no live ammo, but rather crowd-dispersal means - either rubber or paintballs? did you notice there was a riot? do you that this is not "inside the strip" but rather at the border?).

 

I'm far from defending all of Israel's actions, but let's at least try to keep things properly argued.

 

The arguments you're bringing in have nothing to do with the debate of this thread. They are a total red herring. At the very least, though, bring them in proper context.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, that's fine, Peron, but there's a difference between the arguments above and claiming that "We all know" the Israeli military oppresses the west bank palestinians right after a video that is out of context (do you even know where it was taken? Did you notice the soldier had a *red* clip? do you know this means he had no live ammo, but rather crowd-dispersal means - either rubber or paintballs? did you notice there was a riot? do you that this is not "inside the strip" but rather at the border?).

Interesting. On a side note, what's with the extra-long gun barrels? Something to make the crowd control ammunition work correctly?

[Peron]

Yes, that's fine, Peron, but there's a difference between the arguments above and claiming that "We all know" the Israeli military oppresses the west bank palestinians right after a video that is out of context (do you even know where it was taken? Did you notice the soldier had a *red* clip? do you know this means he had no live ammo, but rather crowd-dispersal means - either rubber or paintballs? did you notice there was a riot? do you that this is not "inside the strip" but rather at the border?).

 

I'm far from defending all of Israel's actions, but let's at least try to keep things properly argued.

 

The arguments you're bringing in have nothing to do with the debate of this thread. They are a total red herring. At the very least, though, bring them in proper context.

 

I did realize that they were rubber bullets. It's irrelevant that they were using rubber bullets or not, the truth is that Israel has caused a great deal of distress with their actions against the terrorists their and they will employ "collective punishment" to deal with problems that they caused. Israel is engaged in illegal activity that needs to be dealt with, this is why the Palestinians are angry and this is why they protest.