Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Selkies

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Israel's reaction was after thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel, including during a time period in which a cease fire was supposed to be in place.

As for the number of dead - I really don't want to get into the whole "appropriate response" issue - it was discussed to death here on boards. Suffice to say that i subscribe to the notion that if someone attacks you you strike back until they are either dead or stop attacking. The number of casualties your enemy suffers along the way is irrelevant. The Israeli government has an obligation to defend Israeli citizens, not Palestinian citizens. I believe that the number of casualties would have been much lower if Hamas didn't do their fighting from within the civilian population, from schools, near UN facilities, mosques, etc.
In addition, the Israelis always showed great restraint in their operations, trying not to harm civilians as much as possible. In such cases, you have to look at other comparative entities - in this case other armies and governments in the world who are involved in a long lasting conflict - The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet, Darfur, etc, have all cost much more in human life and suffering than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yet they seem to get much less attention from the media, human rights groups, the UN, etc.

Your post is very characteristic of an Israeli response (not saying you are Israeli). Just as much as the arguments you face are often characteristic of Palestinians, and what I mean by that is that it's one sided.
I think your argument would be better served if you took in account the cost paid by the Palestinian people rather than simply ignoring their right to live in peace. You don't have to support Hamas to view Palestinians as priceless human beings.

I'm in particular refering to your words indicate you view the collateral damage of war as irrelevant to the Israeli army, also the way you describe the IDF as people who show great restraint when it comes to human life is simply not true. The IDF very rarely receive punishment for killing civilians if it is investigated at all. This is the direct result of an attitude within the Israeli Army like the one you describe with the word irrelevant.

Media attention is certainly ridiculous when you consider the number of conflicts around the world. That it's biased varies from news source to news source. I would say that most of the media focuses on the human aspect, something which its viewers will appreciate, and because the human aspect is more keenly felt in gaza, that's where most of the reporting is centred.

Selkies

droidus wrote: »

'Felt' by whom? Ive already linked to an ultra conservative group trusted by the Israeli government which 'felt' Hamas was doing everything in its power to maintain the ceasefire.

Well the Israeli government, at least we can only assume that since that's what they told everyone when they invaded, and also a large section of the Israeli public, who again are terrified of Hamas.

droidus

So intelligence groups linked to the Israli government felt that Hamas was doing everything in its power to maintain the ceasefire (and Im sure internal Israeli govt documents will bear this out), but somehow the Israeli government felt differently?

I suspect the only 'fear' motivating Israeli actions in Gaza in 08/09 was the fear that they may have to come to some kind of lasting peace and therefore abide by international law and dismantle the settlements.

Selkies

droidus wrote: »

So intelligence groups linked to the Israli government felt that Hamas was doing everything in its power to maintain the ceasefire (and Im sure internal Israeli govt documents will bear this out), but somehow the Israeli government felt differently?

I do not have access to Israeli government documents.
I'm only going on what I've heard from news sources both in Israel and all across the world as well as having spent time in Israel.

What I can say for sure is that the act that sparked the bloodshed was the killing of two Hamas members who had crossed the border into Israel.

From what I've seen in Israel the reaction toward suicide bombers is panic, panic in the short term, shock and panic in the long term. To illustrate this I will let you know that the phone networks go down in Israel after a terrorist attack as people try to contact their loved ones. Please make no mistake I'm not belittling the horrific situation in Gaza but it is worth noting how they react on a personal level to any attack. A fair few of the Israelis I made friends with know people or are people affected by the conflict in terms of injury, death and mental disorders.

droidus wrote: »

I suspect the only 'fear' motivating Israeli actions in Gaza in 08/09 was the fear that they may have to come to some kind of lasting peace and therefore abide by international law and dismantle the settlements.

Yes it is a fear but why would you suspect that to be the only fear they have?

Archie D Bunker

alastair wrote: »

If Israel was prepared to engage in a ceasefire agreement after the Hamas rocket campaign, then it beggers belief that it would suddenly 'react' to that history six months after they had stopped said campaign.

So clearly it's untrue that ''they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets', just as it's untrue that they were reacting to 'two Hamas terrorists try to cross the Israeli border into Israel'. Is there anything else you'd like to suggest that they were 'reacting against'?

Like I've said before - Hamas didn't stop the campaign, they almost stopped it, and there is a great difference between the two.

Hamas have shown in the past that when they want to, they can enforce their will on all other organizations in Gaza. They are not bothered by democratic necessities - as shown during the elections when Fatah members were thrown off high rises and killed in the streets.

The Israelis are not that stupid. They know that if someone fires rockets from Gaza, it is done with Hamas approval, or at least with Hamas turning their heads to the other direction.
Israel suffered thousands of rockets, and what a surprise - they still had rockets fired into Israel even after the cease fire agreement was signed. True - not nearly as many rockets were fired into Israel during the cease fire, but as I've said earlier - even one is more than enough.

Hamas, as always, tried to eat their cake and have it too - have a cease fire, while still keeping up their fight by sporadically firing rockets into Israel. It doesn't matter if Hamas fired those rockets themselves, if they allowed other organizations to do it, or if they just turned a blind eye - the fact is that a ruling elected government couldn't/didn't keep the cease fire agreement it signed and its citizens paid the price.

Here is something to ponder:
Israeli settlers are known for their right winged opinions and some of them are very violent. There are always stories about how these settlers attack, wound and kill Palestinians, ruin their crops and olive trees, etc.
These settlers don't really care what policy the Israeli government dictates - they act according to what their religious/settler leaders tell them.
So, according to your logic, no one should blame the Israeli government for anything these settlers do, right? If a group of them decides to go out tomorrow and murder a dozen Palestinians, no one will blame Israel for that?

Bottom line - an elected government is responsible for everything that happens under its rule. The citizens ruled by that government will always be the ones to suffer the consequences of their government's failures, blunders and foolishness.

BlaasForRafa

alastair wrote: »

There wan't any tunnel or terrorists entering Israel. The IDF went into Gaza to destroy a tunnel in the Gaza side and killed six hamas people in the process.

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

So you just sit there and wait for them to complete the tunnel before taking care of it? No, you take it out as soon as is possible.

Dar

Selkies wrote: »

What I can say for sure is that the act that sparked the bloodshed was the killing of two Hamas members who had crossed the border into Israel.

Actually it was sparked by an Israeli operation targeting a tunnel in Gaza.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

alastair

Selkies wrote: »

What I can say for sure is that the act that sparked the bloodshed was the killing of two Hamas members who had crossed the border into Israel.

Really? Care to provide a link?

Dar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So you just sit there and wait for them to complete the tunnel before taking care of it? No, you take it out as soon as is possible.

Did they try diplomacy first or did they just fire from the hip with the sure knowledge that it would leave the ceasefire in tatters?

Archie D Bunker

Selkies wrote: »

I think your argument would be better served if you took in account the cost paid by the Palestinian people rather than simply ignoring their right to live in peace. You don't have to support Hamas to view Palestinians as priceless human beings.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I feel pity for the Palestinian people. I feel sorry for them and I think they have the same right to live in peace as you and me.
I also believe that most Palestinians (as most Israelis) want nothing more than to live in peace.

You and I differ in what we identify as the reasons for the Palestinian suffering. You blame Israel, and I blame Hamas.

BlaasForRafa

Dar wrote: »

Actually it was sparked by an Israeli operation targeting a tunnel in Gaza.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

The tunnel would have been used to attack or capture IDF personnel, you don't just sit around waiting for a terrorist to do something if you know they are going to do it. It may not be "fair" from the terrorist point of view but the IDF has a right to protect its soldiers.

The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

Selkies

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Like I've said before - Hamas didn't stop the campaign, they almost stopped it, and there is a great difference between the two.

Hamas have shown in the past that when they want to, they can enforce their will on all other organizations in Gaza. They are not bothered by democratic necessities - as shown during the elections when Fatah members were thrown off high rises and killed in the streets.

The Israelis are not that stupid. They know that if someone fires rockets from Gaza, it is done with Hamas approval, or at least with Hamas turning their heads to the other direction.
Israel suffered thousands of rockets, and what a surprise - they still had rockets fired into Israel even after the cease fire agreement was signed. True - not nearly as many rockets were fired into Israel during the cease fire, but as I've said earlier - even one is more than enough.

Hamas, as always, tried to eat their cake and have it too - have a cease fire, while still keeping up their fight by sporadically firing rockets into Israel. It doesn't matter if Hamas fired those rockets themselves, if they allowed other organizations to do it, or if they just turned a blind eye - the fact is that a ruling elected government couldn't/didn't keep the cease fire agreement it signed and its citizens paid the price.

There is no proof that Hamas were involved or allowed rocket attacks, we can only speculate. My speculation is that they may have allowed rockets to be fired. Then again they may not have control over other terrorist groups. How do we find out? Anyone know? Anyone here work for Hamas maybe?

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Here is something to ponder:
Israeli settlers are known for their right winged opinions and some of them are very violent. There are always stories about how these settlers attack, wound and kill Palestinians, ruin their crops and olive trees, etc.
These settlers don't really care what policy the Israeli government dictates - they act according to what their religious/settler leaders tell them.
So, according to your logic, no one should blame the Israeli government for anything these settlers do, right? If a group of them decides to go out tomorrow and murder a dozen Palestinians, no one will blame Israel for that?

You should also check out what punishments are given to those who kill Palestinian civilians, they tend to be less than what's given to Israelis who don't partake in the army due to conscience.
If that isn't an indicator of the Israeli governments attitude toward Palestinian lives than I don't know what is.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Bottom line - an elected government is responsible for everything that happens under its rule. The citizens ruled by that government will always be the ones to suffer the consequences of their government's failures, blunders and foolishness.

Who would you vote for, Hamas or Fatah if you lived in the Gaza strip and why?
Why wasn't there a party that advocated peace with the Israelis?
Do you think the election was recognisable as democracy from the point of view of any other truly democratic nation where the statement "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their People"

Archie D Bunker

Dar wrote: »

Did they try diplomacy first or did they just fire from the hip with the sure knowledge that it would leave the ceasefire in tatters?

I doubt diplomacy would have helped here...

Here is my short version of how things happened:
1. There was a cease fire.
2. The Palestinians still fired a few rockets from time to time ( part of the status quo apparently).
3. The Israelis still fired on a few tunnels from time to time (keeping with the apparent status quo).
4. One day, the Israelis managed to kill a few terrorists in a tunnel.
5. Hamas loses it and goes back to firing rockets.
6. Cease fire over.

Selkies

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Oh, don't get me wrong - I feel pity for the Palestinian people. I feel sorry for them and I think they have the same right to live in peace as you and me.
I also believe that most Palestinians (as most Israelis) want nothing more than to live in peace.

You and I differ in what we identify as the reasons for the Palestinian suffering. You blame Israel, and I blame Hamas.

You make rather serious assumptions about my viewpoint, when in doubt ask questions.

I support peace. I don't think that either the Israelis nor the Palestinians as a whole are responsible for the violence. I believe that both sides have their apologies to make before peace is achievable.

I believe that anyone who believes in some unilateral peace agreement, or believes that the blame can be attached to one side is naive. (Sorry about poisoning the water, allow me to explain further).

These are not simply monsters or idiots without reason or logic, these are human beings with the compulsion to provide safety for themselves and their family, this is always going to be priority one. Both Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority have made gross deceits to their own people to manipulate their fear, this is not because they themselves aren't human but because they are blinded by their own fear and seek any means to be free at the expense of their opponent.
How can a conflict such as this have any innocent party?

I'm glad you think that the lives of Palestinians are important, hopefully that will come out in your future posts more than it has previously.

Dar

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I doubt diplomacy would have helped here...

Here is my short version of how things happened:
1. There was a cease fire.
2. The Palestinians still fired a few rockets from time to time ( part of the status quo apparently).
3. The Israelis still fired on a few tunnels from time to time (keeping with the apparent status quo).
4. One day, the Israelis send an armed force into the Gaza Strip targeting a tunnel they believed Hamas was going to use to attack Israeli forces across the border.
5. Hamas loses it and goes back to firing rockets.
6. Cease fire over.

Corrected. Israel responded to what they perceived to be a potential breach of the ceasefire with a definite breach of the ceasefire.

Selkies

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I doubt diplomacy would have helped here...

Here is my short version of how things happened:
1. There was a cease fire.
2. The Palestinians still fired a few rockets from time to time ( part of the status quo apparently).
3. The Israelis still fired on a few tunnels from time to time (keeping with the apparent status quo).
4. One day, the Israelis managed to kill a few terrorists in a tunnel.
5. Hamas loses it and goes back to firing rockets.
6. Cease fire over.

The status quo wouldn't allow the IDF to respond as they are a unified force where as the Palestinians are perceived as a disorganised rabble

Aside from that +1

alastair

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I doubt diplomacy would have helped here...

Here is my short version of how things happened:
1. There was a cease fire.
2. The Palestinians still fired a few rockets from time to time ( part of the status quo apparently).
3. The Israelis still fired on a few tunnels from time to time (keeping with the apparent status quo).
4. One day, the Israelis managed to kill a few terrorists in a tunnel.
5. Hamas loses it and goes back to firing rockets.
6. Cease fire over.

You are aware that the ceasefire was a diplomatic process, and that it was working? And that Israel chose not to apply a diplomatic process to a tunnel that didn't threaten their border security any time soon? The thing was more than four football pitch lengths away from the border, and outside the Israeli-defined buffer zone in place at the time of the ceasefire.

Dar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The tunnel would have been used to attack or capture IDF personnel, you don't just sit around waiting for a terrorist to do something if you know they are going to do it. It may not be "fair" from the terrorist point of view but the IDF has a right to protect its soldiers.

They didn't have sit around twiddling their thumbs. They could have demanded that Hamas demolish the tunnel and stationed additional troops as contingency. Instead they chose take matters into their own hands and send in the troops, in the sure knowledge that this would leave the ceasefire in tatters.

Archie D Bunker

Selkies wrote: »

You should also check out what punishments are given to those who kill Palestinian civilians, they tend to be less than what's given to Israelis who don't partake in the army due to conscience.
If that isn't an indicator of the Israeli governments attitude toward Palestinian lives than I don't know what is.

I agree with you on this point. Both the Israeli government and Hamas don't really punish anyone going after the enemy against officail government policy.

Selkies wrote: »

Who would you vote for, Hamas or Fatah if you lived in the Gaza strip and why?
Why wasn't there a party that advocated peace with the Israelis?
Do you think the election was recognisable as democracy from the point of view of any other truly democratic nation where the statement "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their People"

If I lived in the Gaza strip, I probably wouldn't bother voting, and focus all my energy on leaving the place:(
That said - If I wanted to fight Israel, I would have voted for Hamas. If I wanted to eventually, slowly, get to a fragile peace agreement (and hopefully, eventually - a real peace agreement), I would have voted for Fatah. Problem is - if I would have voted for Fatah, I would have voted for a corrupt regime.
I have to say, this question got me thinking, and the more I think about it the more it seems to me that the Palestinians had two choices - either elect a government that would rob them blind (Fatah), or elect a government that will keep on fighting Israel (Hamas) but seems to be working to improve the life of the people (at least that's what Hamas was portrayed as at the time). I think the Palestinians were hoping that once Hamas took power they will concentrate on improving life in Gaza, instead of focusing on the war with Israel, and I think that is why Hamas were elected.
****ty options any which way you look at it...

As for the elections themselves - I remember stories about Hamas killing Fatah members, which led me at the time to believe that the elections were not democratic, but since them I've heard several Palestinians (not related to Hamas, I hope) claiming that the elections were democratic, so I'll have to take their word for it.

Scofflaw

We're now well off topic. If non-one has anything further to add in the matter of the flotilla, as opposed to reviewing the entire conflict, perhaps it is coming on time to close this thread?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Selkies

Dar wrote: »

Corrected. Israel responded to what they perceived to be a potential breach of the ceasefire with a definite breach of the ceasefire.

If someone was planning your murder, when do you call in the authorities?
Do you wait until after the murder is attempted or do you call the authorities as soon as you are aware of the crime being committed.

That's the response you would get from the average Israeli in my experience.

In my opinion the two aren't analogous as you are also planning his murder as well. However my opinion doesn't matter, all that matters to the considerations of the Israeli Government is the opinions of the Israeli voters.

You could also say that the rockets were perceived to be breaches of the ceasefire as well as the crossing of the Israeli border by Hamas members.

The actions of Hamas certainly don't show an commitment to peace in the same way that the Israeli actions don't, and why would they when they don't recognise Israel's right to exist.

alastair

Selkies wrote: »

You could also say that the rockets were perceived to be breaches of the ceasefire as well as the crossing of the Israeli border by Hamas members.

...that didn't happen!

Selkies

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I have to say, this question got me thinking

I have to say that my opinion of you went up leaps and bounds.
Not because you agree with me, simply because you are able to change your mind on things, makes you a fantastic person to discuss politics with.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

As for the elections themselves - I remember stories about Hamas killing Fatah members, which led me at the time to believe that the elections were not democratic, but since them I've heard several Palestinians (not related to Hamas, I hope) claiming that the elections were democratic, so I'll have to take their word for it.

Consider what it would be like to be part of a third political faction in Gaza, would you feel safe?
If in order to go for a position in the Palestinian authority you would have to put your life is in severe danger from the other political factions, both of which have their own private army.

Evidence is seen for this by what happened to Fatah members once the election went to Hamas.

A vote between 2 groups armed to the teeth by necessity does not equal democracy as any westerner would understand it.

It's more a Chinese understanding of democracy or freedom.

Dar

Selkies wrote: »

In my opinion the two aren't analogous as you are also planning his murder as well. However my opinion doesn't matter, all that matters to the considerations of the Israeli Government is the opinions of the Israeli voters.

Therein lies one of the biggest obstacles to any peace process. Years of conflict have shifted the boundaries as to what is considered a reasonable response.

Israel provokes Hamas? Launch more rockets!
Hamas provokes Israel? Drop more bombs!

It is because of this that i think Israel reacted with such surprise to the global condemnation of their assault on the flotilla - after all it was a "reasonable" response.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Israel have named Ken O'Keefe as one of the 5 people they suspect of having terrorist ties.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7145681.ece

He's an interesting character but again that article doesn't mention that the activists on the boat felt they were justified in their action as the boat was in International Waters. From what is quoted from O'Keefe they were looking to arrest the assaulting troops. Not exactly the cleverist of actions given the IDF's history.

Agreed about it not being the cleverist actions.
Those on the Irish boat did the right thing and still got their news conference and a raising of the profile of the blockade.
They were also in international waters according to the skipper yesterday.

O'Keefe isn't an activist in the peacefull sense of the word going on his record.Aggitator would be a better description going on his history and who he associates with.
I wonder how many more of his ilk got involved with this flotilla?
It's my belief that ruling out the presence of aggitators on the first boat is naive.
I said that yesterday and I'm saying it again today.
Without them on board,things may have been different.

Again I'm not arguing the point on international waters,I'm running with the futility of the defending the boat approach.

droidus

Back on topic - does anyone know the whereabouts of Caoimhe butterly? She was on the ships and AFAIK she hasnt come home yet...

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed about it not being the cleverist actions.
Those on the Irish boat did the right thing and still got their news conference and a raising of the profile of the blockade.
They were also in international waters according to the skipper yesterday.

O'Keefe isn't an activist in the peacefull sense of the word going on his record.Aggitator would be a better description going on his history and who he associates with.
I wonder how many more of his ilk got involved with this flotilla?
It's my belief that ruling out the presence of aggitators on the first boat is naive.
I said that yesterday and I'm saying it again today.
Without them on board,things may have been different.

Again I'm not arguing the point on international waters,I'm running with the futility of the defending the boat approach.

Let me put it to you like this - Israel wanted something out of the assault, yes? My own view is that they were trying to deal with a PR issue by way of a surgical military strike that would have seen the boats quietly heading to Ashdod under Israeli control, but it's not really relevant - the point is that Israel wanted something out of the assault, something that could be achieved by taking over the flotilla.

Now, what Israel wanted out of the assault was almost certainly not going to be what the flotilla wanted.

Therefore, ideally, the flotilla should prevent Israel from taking over the flotilla.

In that case, if the flotilla can repel attempts to board, then they will have prevented Israel from achieving whatever her goal might be.

While the activists on board the vessel were aware that an assault was about to happen, there's no reason they would have known it was going to be carried out by an elite Israeli army unit - it might have been carried out by ordinary IDF, by armed sailors, whatever, and it might have been carried out with less than lethal force.

Even if carried out by marines / commandos, there's still a chance that if the first attack is beaten off, and the soldiers prevented from taking over the vessel, that a round of military head-scratching will follow, buying time for the flotilla to get further along their route, maybe get information out there.

Now, probably if the activists had known that the assault would be carried out by elite commandos, and that it would involve lethal force by armed soldiers against unarmed civilians, they might not have chosen to try to repel the boarders. If they did not know that - and there's no reason why they should have done - their decision to try to resist the assault was perfectly reasonable, as well as quite legitimate.

The presence or absence of "agitators" is pretty much irrelevant, since the defence couldn't have happened without the assault, and would have been perfectly reasonable whether any "agitators" were on board or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

droidus

Highly relevant wrt the video evidence and the blockade.

Stephen R. Shalom:
But What Could Israel Do?

...Normally, neutrality in the face of contradictory and incomplete information is an admirable trait. But consider the circumstances. One side, the Israeli attackers, surely have video of the entire encounter, but have shown only selected snippets, carefully avoiding the period immediately before the troops landed on board the Mavi Marmara. The other side, those trying to break the blockade, had their cellphones and cameras confiscated (“captured” is how the IDF put it), one of their websites hacked, and limited coverage of events. Despite this asymmetry that ought to make us extremely skeptical of the Israeli version, the clips do seem to show that the Israeli forces fired before they landed — and you can bet the IDF won’t be releasing their complete video for analysis. And as more and more passenger testimony becomes available, and as autopsy results show the victims shot between the eyes at point blank range, the Israeli version is more and more dubious.

But the Times is right that the competing videos don’t provide context — but the context is not just what happened in the few minutes before or after, or even including the probable Israeli attempts to sabotage the ships before they left port. Rather, what’s relevant is the larger political context of the nature of the blockade and of Israel’s ongoing occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Israeli apologists like to claim that no one is starving because of the blockade. This is true of most prisons, but in any event the suffering caused by the blockade is horrendous. There is widespread malnutrition. The agricultural sector is suffocating under the blockade. The number of refugees living in abject poverty in Gaza has tripled since the blockade began. More than 60 per cent of households are currently “food insecure.” For many Gazans, electricity is cut 8-12 hours daily, compared to 6-8 hours prior to January 2010. As the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs put it,

“At the heart of the crisis is the degradation in the living conditions of the population, caused by the erosion of livelihoods and the gradual decline in the state of infrastructure, and the quality of vital services in the areas of health, water and sanitation, and education.”

Israel coyly whines that if only the activists had delivered their humanitarian supplies to the Israeli port of Ashdod, Israeli would have been happy to pass on all the acceptable items to Gaza. But that of course is precisely the problem: for three years Israeli authorities had determined that basic humanitarian supplies were unacceptable. So, for example, on June 1, the World Health Organization renewed its call “to allow for the unimpeded access into the Gaza Strip of life-saving medical supplies, including equipment and medicines, as well as more effective movement of people in and out of the territory for medical training and the repair of devices needed to deliver appropriate healthcare.” The necessary equipment was available — but blocked by Israeli officials from being permitted to enter Gaza.

But what else could Israel do besides the blockade in order to protect its security, asks New York public radio host Brian Lehrer? After all, he says, Hamas is launching rockets from Gaza into Israel.

This view of the situation, however, is the same erroneous view put forward by the Israeli government and its apologists during Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s massive assault on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009.

At that time, Israel and company argued that the murderous attack was necessary because of the rockets that were being fired from Gaza. What they neglected to mention, however, was that starting in mid-June 2008 there had been a truce — a lull — during which time there were zero rockets fired by Hamas and close to zero fired by other Palestinian groups. In the words of an Israeli think-tank connected to the Israeli security establishment, “… Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it.” The truce held until November 4, 2008 when Israel, not Hamas, broke it. Moreover, the Gazans understood the truce to include a lifting of the suffocating Israeli blockade. Israel did loosen the blockade somewhat at the beginning of the lull, but by October deliveries into Gaza were below the inadequate pre-lull level of March 2008. (In March, humanitarian aid groups had warned of a “humanitarian implosion.”) And exports from Gaza — upon which the economy depended — were almost totally prohibited.

The blockade — enforced by Israel and Egypt — was widely denounced by human rights groups (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli organizations Gisha and B’Tselem) UN officials (e.g. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes, the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, Special Rapporteurs John Dugard and Richard Falk), and in two presidential statements of the European Union as collective punishment — because its purpose was to change Hamas’s behavior by punishing the one and a half million civilians of Gaza, the majority of them children. Israeli officials openly boasted that this was their intent, and the fact that exports are prohibited and such things as coriander and notebooks are banned from importation proves that restricting the flow of weapons was not the motivation for the blockade.

After Israel broke the truce on November 4, rocket fire from Gaza and Israeli military strikes were frequent, and the blockade was tightened even further. When the lull was formally due to expire in mid-December, Hamas made its position clear; as Khalid Meshal put it, “When this broken truce neared its end, we expressed our readiness for a new comprehensive truce in return for lifting the blockade.” But Israel wasn’t interested and instead launched Operation Cast Lead, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and destroying much of what was left of Gaza’s economic infrastructure. International, Israeli, and Palestinian human rights groups as well as the Goldstone Report documented that the economic destruction was intentional. “‘Hamas’s civilian infrastructure is a very, very sensitive target,” pointed out Matti Steinberg, a former top adviser to Israel’s domestic security service. “If you want to put pressure on them, this is how.”

Israel’s assault on Gaza was wildly disproportionate, but as the UN’s Special Rapporteur Richard Falk persuasively argued, disproportionality is a secondary consideration. More significant is the fact that the Israeli use of force was not “legally justified at all” given the “circumstances and diplomatic alternatives available.”

On January 8, 2009, the UN Security Council adopted — with 14 affirmative votes and only the United States abstaining — Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire, but also for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment.”

Israel and Egypt, however, maintained the blockade, which was now doubly illegal: first because it constituted collective punishment and second because it violated Resolution 1860.

Following the ceasefire, Hamas again expressed its willingness to establish a truce so long as the blockade was lifted. Similar offers were repeated frequently, for example, in September 2009, but Israel wasn’t interested. And so the blockade continued, with its devastating human consequences.

So the simplest answer to Brian Lehrer’s question of what Israel could do to maintain its security in place of a blockade is that it is precisely the blockade that causes the threats to Israeli security. Without the blockade, there would be no obstacle to negotiating a long-term ceasefire, which would mean the end to rocket fire and other threats to Israel’s legitimate security interests.

But beyond a ceasefire, Israel could also negotiate a broader settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are two obstacles to such a settlement. One of these is not Hamas, for it has long indicated — most recently on May 30 — its willingness to accept a settlement along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative. Hamas says it would not itself recognize Israel, but it also says recognition is not something that political parties do in any case; it’s what states do. Israel-apologists like to quote from some of the intransigence and repulsive anti-Semitism from Hamas’s 1988 Charter, but all serious observers — such as studies written for U.S. Institute of Peace, the Army War College, or the International Crisis Group — have documented that the organization has moved far from its 1988 positions.

So, no, the obstacle to a settlement is not Hamas. The first obstacle is Israel, which seems committed to denying the Palestinians an opportunity for a dignified independent existence. Of course, this can be seen most clearly in the statements of rightwing leaders like Prime Minister Netanyahu and his openly racist foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. But the coalition government ruling Israel today includes the Labor Party, with Ehud Barak holding the Defense portfolio. And the Labor party veteran who serves as President, Shimon Peres, too takes positions — like insisting on Israel’s right to build new settlements anywhere in Jerusalem — that are guaranteed to thwart any chance of peace...

Full article: http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-06-05/stephen-shalom-but-what-could-israel-do/

Nodin

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Oh, don't get me wrong - I feel pity for the Palestinian people. I feel sorry for them and I think they have the same right to live in peace as you and me.
I also believe that most Palestinians (as most Israelis) want nothing more than to live in peace.

You and I differ in what we identify as the reasons for the Palestinian suffering. You blame Israel, and I blame Hamas.

....for the suffering in Gaza now. You can't blame them for what goes elsewhere, presumably.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

While the activists on board the vessel were aware that an assault was about to happen, there's no reason they would have known it was going to be carried out by an elite Israeli army unit - it might have been carried out by ordinary IDF, by armed sailors, whatever, and it might have been carried out with less than lethal force.

Even if carried out by marines / commandos, there's still a chance that if the first attack is beaten off, and the soldiers prevented from taking over the vessel, that a round of military head-scratching will follow, buying time for the flotilla to get further along their route, maybe get information out there.

I don't buy that logic. If anyone knows anything about the IDF, and these "agitators" would surely know a LOT about the IDF, its that if push comes to shove and they are attacked they will use determined force, especially if their comrades are captured or their life is in danger. Taking a chance that the IDF would just give in or fall back in such a circumstance is crazy.

It may have been "brave" or "righteous" in the eyes of the "activists" but attacking the Commandos like that was either stupid or a calculating act of martyrdom.