JB Globe

The thing is, Israel has taken "war making purposes" to mean anything that benefits Hamas. Thus baby toys which are imported commercially to be sold, would support Hamas' war-making purposes because the merchant would generate income, which would then be taxed, which would then be given to Hamas, who would then use it to buy rockets. Once you realize how far Israel is taking their "punishment of Hamas" you begin to realize it's really punishment against all Gazans. After all, it's not as if potatoes are WMDs, so why were they banned? You and I both know that if the flotilla docked in Israel they would have never let the convoy continue on land - the deputy foreign minister accused the organizers of being in league with al-qaeda. I don't think they'd allow them to dock in Israel, period, much less offload their supplies and take them to Gaza if they make that kind of false but inflammatory accusation. The people on that ship were aspiring "martyrs" and set out to do precisely what they did. The actions of the people on board the Marmara aren't excusable, but then again when you don't employ standard procedure, you get unwanted results. Standard naval procedure for overtaking a boat is: hail the vessel to stop --> fire warning shot across bow --> block ship's path with another vessel ---> shoot and disable propeller via zodiac, frogman, or canon ----> instruct crew to clear the decks, use water canons to clear if necessary ---> lock crew below deck and take over the bridge, tow the vessel into port Frankly I'm having a hard time understanding why people in Israel seem to be able to be more critical of the tactics used by the IDF in this incident than many posters on this board.

What does this have to do with the incident? This seems like pretty clear trolling to me. Should everyone ignore you for the remainder of this post? Are you incapable of staying on-topic? Or is your purpose here just to try and piss people off, rather than discuss the issue at hand?

So you're saying Israelis don't have the right to criticize their own military on their conduct? wtf? Israel has mandatory service - almost all Israelis serve in the military - they have more of a right to criticize their strategy in this incident than you do to criticize them for speaking up. Honestly, the amount of blind allegiance you have to the neo-con/fundamentalist position in Israel eclipses that of the vast majority of Israelis. I mean, even neo-con Israelis aren't happy about this incident.

But then the aid would have never gotten through, because Egypt is going along with the blockade as well for two reasons - it doesn't like Hamas, and it doesn't want to loose the US economic aid it receives. You know as well as I do there was no way that aid was getting through on land - Israel or Egypt would not have allowed a land aid convoy organized by a human rights organization critical of the blockade to get to Gaza. After all, Israel accused the organizers of being affiliated with Al Qaeda (false) - you're telling me you honestly think that Israel would let them dock in Israel and deliver the aid by land? Either you're naive or you're being completely disingenuous.

Actually, beyond deciding ahead of time that they wouldn't seek a diplomatic solution to the Flotilla vs Blockade conundrum and would use force, I'd argue that the IDF did little preparation for the actual incident. The whole thing seems like it came together last-minute, hence the sloppy initial statements from the deputy foreign minister where he accused the organizers of being in-league with Al-Qaeda. It was pathetic. Israelis are pretty angry about how sloppily this was all done.

Not really. There is no allegation from the IDF that the boats picked up supplies en-route, and considering they were probably being monitored on satellite and drone cameras the entire trip, they would've posted the video by now, but they haven't. They seem to be insinuating that they had illegal cargo from their point of departure, which for the lead ship where the incident occurred, was Turkey - this is a slam at Turkey, which is a military ally of Israel and part of the reason why Turkey is so upset - it's implying that Turkish officials let a ship go that was containing illegal cargo such as weapons knowing it was going to Gaza. And for the record, Turkey is about as anti-Hamas as Israel is. And for that time-period from the departure until the incident we have the record of the journalists on board, Al-Jazeera for example had a camera man and/or a journalist on-duty 24/7 during the trip. If another boat approached and unloaded supplies, it would've been pretty obvious to them. Additionally - there is absolutely no need to smuggle weapons into Gaza by sea - it's far cheaper and easier to do it via the tunnels on the border between Egypt and Israel. In fact, according to a recent This American Life podcast I listened to, one tunnel owner has taken to shipping weapons OUT of Gaza because there's too much supply and he can get a good price in Egypt. Israel is fully aware of all of this, however this raid on the boats wasn't about if they had or didn't have weapons - it was because Bibi's government needs to keep being brutal and dumb if it wants to please it's base and stay in power. And for that base collectively punishing Gazans is something they want. Trusting journalists more than militaries is always a safe bet. Especially when that military is the IDF - it's foolish to take what they say at face value, given their history. We have a pretty good idea of what happened PRIOR to the incident at this point, due to the hourly reports coming off the ship. What's in-question is specifics of the commando raid on the Marmara. The only thing we do know about the incident is that the IDF didn't follow standard procedure - and for the record, even Israelis are pissed off about that, so the question is if they can be self-critical to that degree, why is it so hard for you to do so? After all, they have a lot more invested in the whole incident.

Hamas is a different animal, unfortunately.

Again, they were banned items. ie - potatoes were banned until December 2009. My point is why would you ban foods like potatoes if not to punish civilians? This is a blockade against ordinary Gazans, not against Hamas.

Those goods were banned goods, however. Meaning that for about two and a half years, potatoes were considered such a security threat that they were banned in Gaza until this past December. What does banning potatoes have to do with hurting Hamas? Nothing. It has everything to do with punishing civilians, which is illegal. But of course, we don't want to talk about that, because you really don't have anything to legitimize this policy of Israel's. Instead you'll spend your time trying to discredit my sources. Your realize that the ends don't justify the means in this case? If the policy is illegal and immoral, it doesn't matter what kind of PR campaign you run - people eventually side with justice and compassion.

Because I still don't know what happened, and neither do you, except to say that standard procedure was not followed by the Israeli Navy. And I refuse to make up my mind about what happened until I ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. All I said is that the reporter's accounts conflict with the IDF, and I juxtaposed with that the fact that the IDF should not be considered a trustworthy source considering specific incidents in the past where they've blatantly lied about military operations (ie - white phosphorous) Apparently you're playing dumb. I asked you to provide an example of a ship containing media and elected members of parliament that was cleared by customs at it's point of origin and sailing non-stop to it's destination that was later found to contain illegal cargo. You failed. The part about the media & MP's was key - because they're watchdogs that would have witnessed the boat stopping and then being boarded by people from another boat who were carrying new cargo inside, but according to the reports that were coming off the ship, this didn't happen. Face it - this boat was clean.

That list was from an Israeli court document obtained by the BBC. Either admit the list was legit or never use the BBC as a source of anything again. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?

Well, in the West Bank town of Budrus they learned that non-violent protests can succeed in getting you what you want and had the route of the security fence changed so that Israel wouldn't confiscate their olive grove, and as a result the PA has thrown their support behind such movements for the first time. The growing appeal of non-violence is the reason why Ghandi's grandson was in the WB a few days ago, and why MLK III is set to arrive later this week.

That's exactly what the link says. These items were banned until the date listed. Meaning that, for example - shoes were banned until this past March, yes, shoes. And dangerous items such as coriander are still banned. Israel is responding to the damning criticism of this blockade by letting in a few more items at a time. It would probably make more sense to just end the blockade entirely, but that of course doesn't play well to the religious fundamentalists and neo-cons that support Bibi's government.

With media and elected members of parliament on board and sailing non-stop? I'm not aware of any such incident - are you? Illegal blockade . . . You forgot to mention that it's illegal. I shouldn't have to explain this one to you, but apparently I do. I am not a source - I am simply an individual quoting from sources, which include so far: - Al-Jazeera English, which had a reporter on board the lead ship - The largest daily paper in Israel - The Toronto Star - BBC - Reuters - The Telegraph If you have an issue with the facts I've presented so far - let's have a go shall we? Tell me which ones are wrong and we'll debate them. Otherwise, stop being a hack and using personal attacks - it makes your argument look weak, and puts you close to troll-territory. And I don't respond to trolls.

You're making personal attacks rather than debating. If you're going to behave like this, don't act all shocked when people call you a troll.

Off-topic.

While it looks like there was some violence, I think you have to be an absolute fool to take the IDF's word on all of the facts of the incident, considering that misinformation is an actual policy of their media-relations wing. ie - the whole denial that the IDF was using white phosphorous during the Gaza war, then admitting it only once video surfaced of them blatantly using it. Even if the IDF is right about the actions of the crew once the troops boarded, that would only justify their response to those actions - it would not justify the act of stopping the ship in the first place, if in-fact Israel is not occupying Gaza, as it claims - it has no right to stop ships that do not go through their territorial waters and have been confirmed to not be smuggling anything illegal. This was a lose-lose situation for Israel, precisely because their policy of punishing Gazan civilians is illegal and immoral.

No, says international law. So specific in fact, that when you look at a list of banned items that were revealed in a court challenge recently, it becomes clear this is about punishing Gazans in general, and not Hamas. The only supplies that get through consistently via humanitarian aid agencies are staple grains and basic medicine (ie - bandages) - but even those have been refused if the supplier is commercial. Some of the banned items that have been stopped no matter if the supplier is humanitarian or commercial: Toilet Paper, Soap, Canned Tuna, Potatoes, Olives, Rubbish Bins, Sesame Seeds, Fruit, diapers, etc The blockade isn't about punishing Hamas - it's about punishing all Gazans. Except Hamas isn't at war with Israel. But that's beside the point - either Israel is lying when it claims it's withdrawn from Gaza - or it's breaking international law by conducting military operations in/around territorial waters that aren't their own to enforce their own policy of collective punishment of civilians. So you thought it would be a good idea to compare Israel to a rampant human rights abuser? You do realize that the Sri Lankan Army murders civilians, such as newspaper editors that criticize it's operations, right? Not exactly a great outfit for the IDF to aspire to.

But there would be no convoy if Israel didn't engage in collective punishment in Gaza, which is illegal under international law, and let humanitarian aid into Gaza. It seems as though you have no problem with Israel flouting international law, but you do have a problem with people who organize to call attention to this fact. In short, it's not the wrong-doers who are wrong, it's the people who point their finger at the wrong-doers. In that sense, it was MLK's fault that civil rights protestors had dogs and water canons used on them. After all, if he didn't organize the march, none of that would have happened. Never mind that the state forced people to march because it was violating their human rights . . . Same principle - you should apply it across the board if you don't want to be a hypocrite.

The thing is, this was humanitarian aid destined for civilians. Things like food, water purifying equipment, medical supplies, etc. It was not economic/military aid being given to Hamas. It's standard international practice to continue giving aid to civilians who need it for survival even if say, the UN has condemned the regime they live under. To blockade humanitarian aid is actually illegal under international law because it is collective punishment - which is what Israel has been doing since the start of the Gaza blockade. Actually, if Israel has supposedly disengaged from Gaza and is not occupying it as it claims it has, than it has no jurisdiction over what ships can or can't enter it's waters. By taking this action, Israel is demonstrating that they are still occupying Gaza by enforcing Israeli policy on ships that were only entering Gazan waters. And practically speaking, if the ships had docked at an Israeli port they would have never had been allowed into Gaza, period, because that would have broken Israel's policy of collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population. Exactly - the blockade wanted to get aid to Gaza, and fail that, illustrate that the IDF will use brute force to prevent humanitarian aid from getting to Gaza. That's the beauty of non-violent protest, it's a win-win as long as you keep your resolve.

This is NOT playing well in Israel either. A columnist for Israel's biggest daily has called for Defense Minister Ehud Barak to resign, and calls the incident a "regional disaster" He notes the standard operating procedure of disabling a ship bound to break a blockade that apparently Israel did not follow. Also, he claims that imposing a naval blockade on Gaza is beyond the limits of Israel's power.

Actually it's totally relevant - the ships were cleared by customs and proceeded to Gaza. There were media and EU MPs present the entire trip, At this point we don't know exactly what happened, let's not assume we know who got aggressive first at this point, all we have are conflicting reports from reporters and IDF officials. As opposed to what? If the IDF said it, it must have happened argument? Frankly I tend to believe reporters over the accounts of any government that has been known to engage in the kind of disinformation campaigns that Israel is known for. Remember the whole "we are absolutely NOT using White Phosphorous! . . . Okay, so maybe we are using it." during the Gaza War? Face it, the IDF is not a trustworthy source.

Like I've said numerous times before, when you assume the role of occupier, you enter into a relationship that slowly transforms you from whatever nation you once were, into a monstrous version of your former self. Key facts of this incident: 1 - The convoy was inspected and cleared by the customs officials at each of the ports of origin for the ships. These ships are almost entirely from European countries and Turkey as well - which is a military ally of Israel (they were due to hold a joint exercise together this weekend, which has now been cancelled because of this incident.) 2 - The incident took place in international waters. 3 - White flags were raised prior to Israeli commandos boarding the ships. 4 - Reporters on board the ships reported no incidents of crews or activists carrying or firing any kind of weapon. Update: the IDF is now saying in a news conference that the commandos who stormed the lead ship, Mavi Marmara faced gunfire and knives - this happened to be the ship that Al-Jazeera English had a reporter and camera team on-board, who reported to the contrary that there was no guns or knives among the crew and activists. This was the ship that was carrying several EU members of parliament, Holocaust survivors, a Catholic Archbishop, among others. Update: The Israeli deputy foreign minister is now saying that the organizers are linked to Hamas and Al-Qaeda . . . I think they're clutching for straws if they're trying to make an Al-Qaeda connection, that's quite sad. Frankly I think there will be many more of these kinds of incidents so long as the occupation continues and the Neo-con/Fundamentalist alliance continues to control Israeli politics. Of course, this will see a slow and steady degradation of support for the Israeli government, both from non-Jews, and Jews as well. This is an incredibly stupid move on Israel's part - it looks like it will seriously harm it's relations with Turkey - their PM has called the actions "state terrorism" - and for the record, Israel greatly needs Turkey's help in dealing with Lebanon & Syria, as they're both on the same page with those nations. It plays terribly PR-wise - even during the Gaza war I didn't see the comments sections of any Canadian/International news so overwhelmingly against the Israeli position. Personally I believe that Bibi Netanyahu is simply playing to his base on this and not caring about the international reaction, because he's betting that through Israeli lobby groups in Washington and now Harper's hard-on for Israel that he'll always have the minimum level of support from key international countries so that they never are forced into following international law.

From: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053113252437484.html Al Jazeera English has been following this story since the beginning, and had reporters on board filing stories from the flotilla, I figured they'd be better informed at this point than other outlets which are coming late to the story only after the incident.

I'll admit Israel treats Muslims better than any other Arab state treats Jews, but it still treats Muslims far worse pretty much any other Western nation, and while I'm glad that the courts acknowledge this, I'm saddened that the Israeli public either ignores this or in some cases justifies it. Some major issues: - Over 90% of land in Israel is publicly owned, and can only be leased, however laws forbid non-Jews from leasing public land. - The government regularly leaves Arab communities in Israel out of national economic and social programs and policies - Building permits for Arab homes and businesses are denied at a much higher rate than their Jewish counterparts, Yet, they make up a hugely disproportionate chunk of Israel's poor and unemployed. If Israel is going to cast itself as a progressive, liberal, Western democracy - than I'm going to hold it to the same standards that I hold other similar nations. And by those standards, Israel's treatment of it's Arab citizens is at the bottom of the barrel for Western nations. To be clear - my analysis was strictly referring to the founding of Israel versus the founding of most colonial states - I only mentioned South Africa because I was studying it at the time. It was you who made this leap that I stated that Israel is an apartheid state. Although I will say that if the status quo continues in the region, Israel will come to look increasingly like an apartheid state based on the fact than in a decade there will be more people subject to Israeli law than there are people who can vote in Israeli elections - I'm thinking of the West Bank here.