What is your opinion on the situation in Gaza?
This past Monday, the Israeli military intercepted a humanitarian aid convoy in international waters that was headed to the Gaza Strip with the intention of breaking the Israeli blockade to deliver much-needed supplies to the civilian population. After news broke that the interception turned violent and nine people died as protesters and Israeli troops clashed, gigantic protests erupted worldwide and the Israeli raid was met with international condemnation. While the incident of the Freedom Flotilla was tragic enough, it helps highlight an even greater tragedy: the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip resulting from the Israeli and Egyptian-imposed embargo. Despite the fact that the blockade of the Gaza Strip has been in place for nearly three years -- virtually devastating its civil society with "collective punishment" -- Israeli officials and leading American conservatives have repeatedly denied that a humanitarian crisis is taking place. But the truth is that the embargo is inflicting tremendous suffering on Gaza's civilian population while strengthening the hands of the extremists its meant to target.
~The Progress Report
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 133
A bomb, the battle estimates of the time said we would loose 250,00 American lives and God alone knows hop many Japanese. Was is a nasty business and the only mercy in it is to savagely destroy you enemy and end the damn thing as soon as possible. You may recall that we defeated Nazi Germany and the empire of Japan in four years. The last wars we won. How many American lives have we lost because of "humanitarian" considerations
I see no reason to have boarded the ships in international waters. I think it was a provocation that was unnecessary. Hamas in Gaza has been nurtured and strengthened by Israel's intransigence and belligerence. While I understand that Israel must defend itself, it also seems to be its own worse enemy all too often. IMO
Israel says that Hamas is a terrorist organization
The ships were for humanitarian aid reasons and there were no weapons on board at all which was determined after the fact.
Egypt and Israel together have set up the blockade into Gaza.
Why didn’t Egypt board those ships as the ships needed to be boarded to determine that there were no weapons on board?
Why did the Turks fight the Israelis that came down from the helicopters?
There is a blockade and the Turks knew that why were they trying to run that blockade with ships that were just for humanitarian aid reasons?
Israel and Egypt have been enforcing this blockade since 2007 after Hamas became the controlling force of Palestine in 2006!
Why? Because Hamas was firing hundreds of rockets every year into Israel, killing dozens of people, this has been an attempt by both countries to keep munitions out of Gaza.
The boarding of the flotilla was to verify that there were no munitions aboard....so why didn't the flotilla allow it's cargo to be inspected voluntary?
It is also reported that the flotilla carried an estimated 10 tons of aid, a much needed amount but Israel is reportedly sending 85 tons of aid into Gaza weekly.
Point is they could have gotten the aid through uneventfully if the ships had been willing to subject themselves to inspection...but the people on the flotilla had another agenda and that was to create but another international outrage for Israel to deal with......And Israel, no matter how justified, has provided them with exactly what they wanted.
Israel must and has the right to protect itself from the terrorist's who are Hamas.
It has mostly to do with who is on the receiving end of that terror.
It is valid to frame the situation that way, nearly all of Israels attacks against Palestine has been in self defense. ( I say nearly only because I am not aware of all of the circumstances of every single response)
With a few exceptions, this has been the pattern for many years. The kind of disproportional response describe above has been a hallmark of Palestinian treatment at the hands of Israeli soldiers and settlers for many, many years. Yet who do most Americans view as the "terrorists" in this conflict?
The parallel between the US government treatment of Native Americans in the push West in this country is remarkable. Indians were labels as "terrorist" too when they grew tired of being pushed around and treated as less than human.
How many rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza?
Please do look beyond the headlines! As most of the headlines demonize Israel and ignore the Hamas terrorism.
Therefore Israel actually owns Gaza as well as the West bank because Israel won the 1967 war.
However, Israel needs to do something about that to release the people in those two areas peacefully such that those three states can live a peaceful life
So far no solution at all
And there is no such "law" as:" Based upon international law the winner of a war owns the country that they fought and beat."
You may have confused with a computer game!
After WWI the countries that won that war split up many countries into pieces that made no common sense or tribal sense and that split of countries after WWI as well as the heavy handiness of Germany after WWI was the cause of WWII.
Therefore what the winner of a war does to the loser of that war and the ‘turnover’ to the people does matter. The USA is still in Germany and Japan for no other reason than WWII. And those two countries can’t do anything about that.
To understand a bit better think of what Russia did to France in the 1812 war and Germany in WWII. It would also be good to remember that Germany gave Lenin the train ticket from Switzerland to St Petersburg Russia in WWI to start the Russian revolution so that Germany didn’t need to be concerned of an Eastern front from Russia in WWI.
Wars really are not a good thing at all by the way.
However the Plague killed off half of the population in Europe and it was a wonderful place to live after that as land was available and more industrialization was started because the population was much less and there weren’t all the people to do the peon or slave labor as before the plague.
So most folks think that the Plague which was worse than any war was bad, however the development after that because there was only half the people was great for those folks that survived.
Therefore some events that kill a lot of people benefit those that survive.
The boardings did NOT take place on the open seas, and from the looks of the videos it was most likely self defense.
The video I saw showed the Israel soldiers rappelling onto the deck of the ship and being beaten with pipes and being pushed overboard, what does the cargo have to do with it?
You can hear the radio exchange and the warning given the flotilla by the Israelis here
The flotilla chose to ignore the warnings and were then boarded.
If I was the one answering the phone when Israel calls for help because they've pissed off all their neighbors, you can bet that call would be disconnected!
We have a very different culture than Mexico, yet we don't try to take them over and march south to conquer Central and South American countries.
I don't see that in the Middle East, ever. They just cling to their ancient hate and fight.
The day comes when the abuser gets the hell knocked out of him.
Personally, I think Israel screwed up by allowing themselves to be baited...yes baited. I think the folks on the flotilla were HOPING Israel would come and be provoked into attacking. Especially the Turkish Islamists on board. They were looking for, hoping for a fight...and they got it. By getting 9 (or 16, depending on whom you believe) people killed, they WON! They got what they wanted...international outrage aimed at Israel. That was the whole purpose of this little exercise, and they pulled it off perfectly.
Notice, I am NOT saying who is right or who is wrong in this. I am not nearly well-enough informed to make that judgment, and with all due respect, neither are any of you, in my opinion. You only know what you have read or heard from MSM, and by now, you should know enough not to believe a f**king thing that they say.
Here is a website that says it all much better than I have tried to say it here.
What the solution is, I just don't know. Just my two cents.
Also, those relative few who do hold the necessary wisdom, are not likely to generate the false aura of Infallibility and Righteous Vindictiveness that they seem to require and enjoy.
Makes a big difference.
The question is who pays them and why, and for what purpose.
They need a country? The resolution Nr. 181 has been denied by almost all Arab countries and now they claim it again.
The blockade made by the Egyptian is, I believe, because of the tunnels and the arms they found.
I lived nearby and I went to see them often. Gaza became worst under Hamas.
First the legality:
According to the Laws of Armed Conflict, a state party to an armed conflict has the right to establish a naval blockade on its enemy's coast for security reasons. A naval blockade means preventing the passage (entry or exit) of all vessels to or from the ports and coastal areas of the enemy, irrespective of the kind of cargo carried by these vessels.
The power to impose a naval blockade is well established under customary international law. It is a common practice, and even the Charter of the United Nations, when enumerating the different actions which can be taken by the Security Council in order to maintain or restore international peace and security, explicitly mentions the naval blockade among these measures (Article 42 of the Charter).
Similarly, Article 7.7.1 of the "Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations", published by the U.S Navy on July 2007 (hereinafter: The US Navy Handbook), explains that:
"Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of enemy nation. While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligernt right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and published and publicized cordon seperationg the enemy from international waters and/or airspace"
International law sets several conditions for a legal naval blockade (these conditions are reflected, for example, in the "San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea" from 1994: hereinafter The San Remo Manual):
Public declaration - a blockade shall be publicly declared and notified to all States that might be affected by its establishment, in particular those states whose vessels are sailing or suppose to be sailing near the relevant area. The declaration shall specify, among other things, the commencement, duration (as far as it is known when the blockade is established) and geographical boundries of the blockade.
Effectiveness - no fictitious blockade shall be established. A State that declares a naval blockade must enforce it in practice. An ineffective blockade whould expire.
Impatiality - a blockade must be applied impartially to vessels of all States (including of those carrying the flag of the State which imposed it).
Access to neutral States - a naval blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
Passage of humanitarian assistance - a naval blockade is imposed for security reasons. Thus, the blockading party must provide for passage of humanitarian assistance for the civilian population of the blockaded area. This obligation is subject to the right of the blockading party to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which the passage is permitted, in order to make sure that no means are transferred to the benefit of the enemy, rather than to the civilian population, and that the humanitarian assistance is distributed under the supervision of a neutral party which prevents the abuse of humanitarian assistance by the enemy.
The naval blockade imposed by the State of Israel on the Gaza strip, which was violated by the vessels participating in the current flotilla, is in conformity with the aforementioned rules of international law:
Public declaraion - on 03.01.2009, during operation "Cast Lead", the State of Israel declared a naval blockade on the Gaza strip, in the distance of 20 miles from the coast. The naval blockade was established for a clear military necessity - to prevent the military strengthening of Hamas by stopping the entry of terrorist elements and the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza strip, an aim supported also by the Security Council Resolution 1860. The establishment of the Naval blockade was published by the ordinary international channels. These publications detailed the geographical boundries of the blockaded area (by coordinates) and emphasized that the naval blockade shall be in force until a further notice. Before the current flotilla had begun, the State of Israel approached the States involved, by diplomatic channels, and the organizers of the flotilla were well aware of the blockade.
Effectiveness - the naval blockade on the Gaza strip has been effectively enforced by the State of Israel since its commencement. Indeed, before it was established, Israel allowed the entry of a vessel carrying humanitarian assistance into Gaza, but since the naval blockade was declared, no vessel was allowed in.
Impartiality - the naval blockade has been enforced on the vessels of all states, with no discrimination.
Access to neutral States - the naval blockade on Gaza has not affected, in any manner, the access of vessels to the ports or coasts of neutral States.
Passage of humanitarian assistance - the State of Israel allowed the passage of humanitarian assistance into the Gaza strip long before the naval blockade had been imposed. This assistance has entered Gaza through the crossing points between Israel and Gaza, subject to security check and in coordination with international organizations working in Gaza. The State of Israel openly declared that it will allow the enty of the humanitarian goods carried by the current flotilla into Gaza, after it is unloaded in Israel, in the port of Ashdod.
In conclusion, the naval blockade imposed by the State of Israel on the Gaza strip is in accordance with international law.
Next , this is what happened:
The naval commandos who participated in Monday's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla have no doubt: They weren't battling "activists" aboard the Mavi Marmara, but trained and prepared fighters.
"Everyone who was there on the ship and saw what they had prepared understands this," said Capt. A., who commanded one boarding party.
The commandos are dismayed by the view that the raid was a fiasco. They think the level of casualties on both sides was very low, given the circumstances, and that other army or police units would have killed or wounded far more passengers.
First Lt. A. was the 13th commando to board the ship. When he arrived, his comrades were already deep in battle.
"The minute I had both feet on the boat, I saw two terrorists beating one of our group with iron bars," he said. "I brought down the first with a blow to the back while protecting my head from the second with my left hand. Then I was hit on the hand with a baton. I took my paintball rifle and fired paintballs at them. In those seconds I got a blow that broke the paintball rifle, so I switched to my pistol."
Unlike his comrades, he never actually fired his pistol, he said; he merely used it to deter attackers. But the commandos who boarded before him had a much harder time. Within two minutes nearly half had been wounded, and some had lost their communications devices.
"At such moments, you don't start thinking," the lieutenant said. "You act reflexively and react instinctively, based on what you have learned. But after a minute or two, control returns. You begin to hear orders again and switch from a tunnel-vision situation back to seeing the situation of the [whole] force."
Despite the impressions of chaos left by the video footage, he added, the commandos actually gained control of the upper deck in about three minutes and began handcuffing the passengers. "But then there was a shout of 'live fire,' and that we had shooting casualties."
The commandos said that the guns fired at them included at least one that was apparently thrown overboard afterward as well as two pistols that were seized other commandos. Most of the nine passenger deaths occurred at this point, as the commandos believed their own lives were in danger.
Once the situation had stabilized - aided by the arrival of reinforcements - the commandos began to treat the wounded. Lt. A., for instance, said he helped with that even though his left hand had been rendered useless by the baton blow.
They then began advancing toward the lower deck and the bridge.
"There was fierce resistance," said Capt. A. "There were hundreds of people on the deck. In my estimation, between 50 and 100 of them were terrorists. There was still live fire being aimed on us, but that stopped at an early stage ... They would jump on us from doors and windows with batons and knives. At this stage, we all stood with guns and fired at anyone coming at us with means or intent [to harm]."
However, he said, the commandos fired "very selectively," and most of the passengers who were shot at that stage were only wounded.
About 10 minutes after leaving the upper deck, they captured the bridge. It was 25 minutes after the boarding began, and the ship was in their hands. Then, doctors and paramedics were brought in to treat the wounded, and the seriously injured were evacuated by helicopter.
The Israeli government released pictures of the weapons, which amounted to some bullet proof vests, some kitchen utensils, a grinder and a rusty old box knife. This was an overreaction by the Israeli government to a heavily publicized (throughout the rest of the world) humanitarian mission.
Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range, the Guardian said, quoting Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies on Friday.
That's the latest.
As for the blockade to be legitimate, the blockade only becomes legitimate when a ship enter the waters of the said country, the ships were in international waters at the time of the attack. however in the light of things mistakes do happen I myself crossed the border of Northern Ireland in to Southern Ireland chasing legitimate IRA targets in the 70s its easily done in the heat of things, and I was caught along with a four others from my unit with all sorts of firearms in the boot of the car and it caused a diplomatic incident. The difference in my case was that my Government owned up to the mistake that we had made, I cannot see for the life of me The Israeli Government owning up to this mistake they never do, they will hope that it will go away.
I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[47]
The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal and the Flotilla Attack Was an Illegal Act of War
By the way where did you read about the autopsy results that you report above? According to what I read the weapons carried by the Israeli Naval commandos did not use nine milimeter bullets.
I don't understand what you mean when you say the deaths resulted from an overeaction by the Israeli government. To the contrary they resulted from an under reaction. The Israelis did clearly did not realize that therre was a organized group on the ship that was planning on violently resisting the Israeli troops. Had they been better prepared perhaps they could have handledit differntly.
It ssys that the dead people were killed by gun shots. I didn't think that was questioned by any one. The question is that the Isrraelis were attacked and shot to defend themselves. This actually seems to be corrobartated by the CNN article. which says "in the early stages of the clashes, his activists captured several Israel commandoes, as well as their weapons, and took them below decks" and that ""The defense of the boat was quite well organized," said Espen Goffeng, a 38-year-old activist from Norway who sailed aboard the Mavi Marmara. "There was a plan to keep soldiers off the boat." Clearly the ISraelis did not go in shooting but did so after some were taken prisoner and others were being beaten with clubs, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM