Israel bows to pressure and agrees to ease Gaza blockade

[naomiglover]

The flotilla aid ships accomplished what western governments couldn't. Maybe. We'll see how long Israel will drag its feet.

The aim of the new policy is to permit "civilian products for the civilian population", Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, said. It will include:

• A list of prohibited items to be limited to weapons and material - including "dual-use items" - that could be used in manufacturing arms. All other civilian items will be allowed to enter Gaza.

• Building materials for the Palestinian Authority and UN-approved projects to be allowed in.

• Capacity at crossing points to be increased to allow easier access.

• The policy on the movement of people in and out of Gaza to be "streamlined".

No timetable was issued for the publication of the list of banned items.

The crucial issue of whether commercial goods will be allowed to cross into Gaza to allow the recovery of its crippled economy was not explicitly addressed in the statements. Decisions are still pending, according to an Israeli official. Blair's office insisted that the intention was "to get the private sector going".

Aid agencies have cautioned that concrete implementation of any relaxation of the siege could be hampered by Israeli foot-dragging. "The siege must be ended, not just eased," said UN spokesman Chris Gunness. "Otherwise Israel continues to be in breach of international law."

Link

Edited June 21, 2010 by naomiglover

[GostHacked]

It's a good start. Which should be the focus of this thread.

[Shady]

I think an easing of the blockade is appropriate. Some of materials off-limits were completely unrelated to weapons concerns.

[Guest American Woman]

The fortilla aid ships accomplished what western governments couldn't.

Yes. It's all about the flotilla. If the western governments had never done anything in the past, just this incident alone would have had the effect that it's had. Let's make sure we don't give anyone else any credit, much less "western governments." And of course let's be careful not to give Israel any credit. Let's heap praise on the flotilla, which had only peaceful intentions.

Maybe. We'll see how long Israel will drag its feet.

IF anything comes of this, that is. Then, if it doesn't, of course, no blame can be put on the flotilla. Or Palestine. All blame shall go to western nations and Israel.

And if there is an ease on the blockade and rockets are fired into Israel as a result, at least we know you won't approve, 'even if not many Israelis are killed.'

I must say, I've never seen something that should be perceived by the poster as a good thing presented so negatively.

Edited June 21, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

I think its good too. The blockade is counter productive and only helped Hamas, by giving them a scapegoat for their atrocious management of Gaza and its economy.

I think its also a usefull model for putting political pressure on Israel to change OTHER policies as well. The clash they engineered with the IDF was more savvy and accomplished a lot more than attacks on Israeli civilians living in Israeli proper.

[Shady]

I think its good too. The blockade is counter productive and only helped Hamas

No, the blockade isn't counter productive. But blocking non-weapons related materials is not good policy. The blockade will continue, with good reason.

[Borg]

What will they get in return

Borg

[dre]

Yes. It's all about the flotilla. If the western governments had never done anything in the past, just this incident alone would have had the effect that it's had. Let's make sure we don't give anyone else any credit, much less "western governments." And of course let's be careful not to give Israel any credit. Let's heap praise on the flotilla, which had only peaceful intentions.

IF anything comes of this, that is. Then, if it doesn't, of course, no blame can be put on the flotilla. Or Palestine. All blame shall go to western nations and Israel.

And if there is an ease on the blockade and rockets are fired into Israel as a result, at least we know you won't approve, 'even if not many Israelis are killed.'

I must say, I've never seen something that should be perceived by the poster as a good thing presented so negatively.

Well, Im hoping this is a wakeup call for people in the occupied/blockaded territories, and they will realize that staging clashes like this against military assets is more productive than attacking civilians in Israel. Firing rockets or sending suicide bombers into Israel has accomplished nothing at all. This approach would probably be a lot more productive, and doesnt result in innocent civilians getting killed.

If I was them I would try to engineer hostilities to take the form of lightly armed civilians against the IDF... instead of attacks on Jewish civilians that piss off the whole world and actually generate support for the Israeli position.

You can see how differently the two tactics are viewed by the international community.

Edited June 21, 2010 by dre

[dre]

What will they get in return

Borg

What they might get in return, is this...

If Israeli allows Gazans access to the materials and goods they need to function, and build their economy, then Hamas no longer has a scapegoat to blame for their utter incompetency as an administrative body, and their failure to improve the lives of Gazans.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, Im hoping this is a wakeup call for people in the occupied/blockaded territories, and they will realize that staging clashes like this against military assets is more productive than attacking civilians in Israel. Firing rockets or sending suicide bombers into Israel has accomplished nothing at all. This approach would probably be a lot more productive, and doesnt result in innocent civilians getting killed.

I would agree if the flotilla didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. This mission was only as successful as it was because it pretended to be a "peaceful" mission, which it wasn't. It was very much part of the conflict.

I will wait to see if this is a good thing or not, however. It all depends on what Palestine does when/if the blockade is eased.

I do, however, remember people saying attacking Iraq wasn't a good idea because 'the sanctions were working.' I've brought this up before and no one responded, so I'll bring it up again: why are sanctions a good way to keep Saddam in check, when the sanctions only hurt the civilians, while the blockade isn't a good way to keep Hamas in check because it only hurts the civilians?

Seems to me Israel was following along the actions of the UN sanctions with the blockade.

[naomiglover]

I think an easing of the blockade is appropriate. Some of materials off-limits were completely unrelated to weapons concerns.

Thanks for your honesty.

[dre]

I would agree if the flotilla didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. This mission was only as successful as it was because it pretended to be a "peaceful" mission, which it wasn't. It was very much part of the conflict.

I will wait to see if this is a good thing or not, however. It all depends on what Palestine does when/if the blockade is eased.

I do, however, remember people saying attacking Iraq wasn't a good idea because 'the sanctions were working.' I've brought this up before and no one responded, so I'll bring it up again: why are sanctions a good way to keep Saddam in check, when the sanctions only hurt the civilians, while the blockade isn't a good way to keep Hamas in check because it only hurts the civilians?

Seems to me Israel was following along the actions of the UN sanctions with the blockade.

I would agree if the flotilla didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. This mission was only as successful as it was because it pretended to be a "peaceful" mission, which it wasn't. It was very much part of the conflict.

Of course it was, but thats STILL a good thing and a much smarter method of fighting the blockade/occupation than attacking Israeli civilians. And it reflects a more intelligent and sophisticated approach to resistance, than suicide bombings or crude rockets.

Why does it matter of the flotilla pretended to be something it wasnt? It was a politically savvy operation that achieved success without attacking Israel civilians.

Edited June 21, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Of course it was, but thats STILL a good thing and a much smarter method of fighting the blockade/occupation than attacking Israeli civilians. And it reflects a more intelligent and sophisticated approach to resistance, than suicide bombings or crude rockets.

Of course it's better than blowing up civilians. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. But it wasn't carried out by Hamas or Palestine, so I'm not sure if it'll carry over into their end of things. Just because a ship of activists fought back that way doesn't mean Israel will not be subjected to more of the same from Hamas/Palestine.

Why does it matter of the flotilla pretended to be something it wasnt? It was a politically savvy operation that achieved success without attacking Israel civilians.

So you don't have a problem with deceit? I do. If an organization isn't upfront, if they lie and try to present themselves as something they're not, and a situation as something it's not, they lose my respect and I'm sure not going to believe what they say in the future.

Why not just admit that they intended to fight the blockade instead of making it look as if Israel attacked innocent civilians who were doing nothing but trying to bring aid into Gaza? I don't feel it's right to demonize a nation when it's not deserving. I don't think it's right to set up a nation, and then make false claims when they react to the set-up.

The Israeli soldiers had every right to fight back. They weren't attacking peaceful, innocent civilians, but that's sure not how the activists presented it.

At any rate, I can't help but notice that you didn't have any comment regarding why the UN sanctions were a good way of keeping Iraq/Saddam in check but the Israeli blockade isn't a good way of keeping Palestine/Hamas in check, either.

[naomiglover]

Yes. It's all about the flotilla. If the western governments had never done anything in the past, just this incident alone would have had the effect that it's had.

The western governments did not accomplish putting pressure on Israel to lift or even ease the blockade. The Flotilla accomplished this by bringing international focus on the situation. Not sure why you are rambling on and on and trying to argue something this simple.

[dre]

Of course it's better than blowing up civilians. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. But it wasn't carried out by Hamas or Palestine, so I'm not sure if it'll carry over into their end of things. Just because a ship of activists fought back that way doesn't mean Israel will not be subjected to more of the same from Hamas/Palestine.

So you don't have a problem with deceit? I do. If an organization isn't upfront, if they lie and try to present themselves as something they're not, and a situation as something it's not, they lose my respect and I'm sure not going to believe what they say in the future.

Why not just admit that they intended to fight the blockade instead of making it look as if Israel attacked innocent civilians who were doing nothing but trying to bring aid into Gaza? I don't feel it's right to demonize a nation when it's not deserving. I don't think it's right to set up a nation, and then make false claims when they react to the set-up.

The Israeli soldiers had every right to fight back. They weren't attacking peaceful, innocent civilians, but that's sure not how the activists presented it.

At any rate, I can't help but notice that you didn't have any comment regarding why the UN sanctions were a good way of keeping Iraq/Saddam in check but the Israeli blockade isn't a good way of keeping Palestine/Hamas in check, either.

Of course it's better than blowing up civilians. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. But it wasn't carried out by Hamas or Palestine, so I'm not sure if it'll carry over into their end of things. Just because a ship of activists fought back that way doesn't mean Israel will not be subjected to more of the same from Hamas/Palestine.

Thats true, its hard to tell if they will learn from this or not. I HOPE they do though.

So you don't have a problem with deceit? I do. If an organization isn't upfront, if they lie and try to present themselves as something they're not, and a situation as something it's not, they lose my respect and I'm sure not going to believe what they say in the future.

Why not just admit that they intended to fight the blockade instead of making it look as if Israel attacked innocent civilians who were doing nothing but trying to bring aid into Gaza? I don't feel it's right to demonize a nation when it's not deserving. I don't think it's right to set up a nation, and then make false claims when they react to the set-up.

NO SIDE OF ANY ARMED CONFLICT HAS EVER BEEN HONEST IN HISTORY. Propoganda and spin is part of both war and politics in ALL CASES by ALL PARTIES.

I wouldnt trust either side in this conflict as far as I can PISS, so honesty isnt really one of the things I expect or look for.

The Israeli soldiers had every right to fight back. They weren't attacking peaceful, innocent civilians, but that's sure not how the activists presented it.

Yup the people aboard the ship had the right to resist being boarded, and the soldiers had the right to defend themselves from the use of force.

At any rate, I can't help but notice that you didn't have any comment regarding why the UN sanctions were a good way of keeping Iraq/Saddam in check but the Israeli blockade isn't a good way of keeping Palestine/Hamas in check, either.

The reason I didnt comment on that is because it doesnt apply to me. I never would have supported a blockade of Iraq that deprived the civilian population of ordinary household goods, medicines, etc.

Why not just admit that they intended to fight the blockade instead of making it look as if Israel attacked innocent civilians who were doing nothing but trying to bring aid into Gaza? I don't feel it's right to demonize a nation when it's not deserving. I don't think it's right to set up a nation, and then make false claims when they react to the set-up.

This aint highschool A-dub! Welcome to the mid-east conflict. Both sides are in a never ending propoganda and global public relations war, and deciet is a core aspect of it by both sides. I admire your predospition for honesty but these people are NOT like you.

Edited June 21, 2010 by dre

[scribblet]

What will they get in return

Borg

More rocket attacks !!

[Guest American Woman]

rambling

Oh my. I see someone got the thesaurus out ...... "rambling" instead of "babbling." Good for you, naomiglover.

Edited June 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Thats true, its hard to tell if they will learn from this or not. I HOPE they do though.

I can't imagine why they would. It's not as if Israel hasn't talked about lifting/easing the blockade in the past, before this incident, and from what I've read, the result has been rocket attacks. From what I'm reading regarding this latest news by Israel, Hamas still isn't satisfied, and it doesn't sound as if they are going to do anything different.

NO SIDE OF ANY ARMED CONFLICT HAS EVER BEEN HONEST IN HISTORY. Propoganda and spin is part of both war and politics in ALL CASES by ALL PARTIES.

I'm not so sure that's true, but if it is, no one outside the conflict can really know anything. There's spin, I'm sure, and propaganda. And then there's outright lying, such as the accusation that the bulldozer purposely ran over Rachel Corrie. That's beyond "spin" and "propaganda," it's an outright lie; and it was purposely presented that way. I see this situation as no different. They set Israel up, and then proclaimed something that was an outright lie. If someone is going to demonize someone else based on lies, I have no respect. And I don't care if "everyone does it." Which I'm not sure is true.

I wouldnt trust either side in this conflict as far as I can PISS, so honesty isnt really one of the things I expect or look for.

So if you don't believe anything either side says, how do you know anything about what's going on? Who do you think is being honest about it?

Yup the people aboard the ship had the right to resist being boarded, and the soldiers had the right to defend themselves from the use of force.

Yes, the soldiers did have the right to defend themselves, yet it would appear as if most of the world doesn't think so. As I said, Israel was set up to be demonized, and a large portion of the world fell for it.

By choosing their right to resist being boarded, the activists chose to be part of the conflict as active players; as fighters. They weren't on a 'peaceful mission,' and they really lost the right to be considered merely citizens when they used weapons/engaged in violence against the Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army did not attack a ship of peaceful citizens as is being portrayed to the world.

The reason I didnt comment on that is because it doesnt apply to me. I never would have supported a blockade of Iraq that deprived the civilian population of ordinary household goods, medicines, etc.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you didn't support the sanctions against Iraq or are you saying you supported them, but you don't think the Iraqi people suffered under them?

This aint highschool A-dub! Welcome to the mid-east conflict. Both sides are in a never ending propoganda and global public relations war, and deciet is a core aspect of it by both sides. I admire your predospition for honesty but these people are NOT like you.

If support is gained only through deceit, if that's the only way they can get support, doesn't say much for their cause. Seems to me it would have been more honorable to say they believed the blockade was wrong, and as such, they weren't going to be stopped by it and would do whatever it takes to get through it. But of course then the world wouldn't have seen "innocent, peaceful civilians" getting killed, and Israel wouldn't have appeared to be the devil incarnate. If that makes people feel good, making Israel come across that way when they have a legitimate cause, then I personally have a low opinion of them. And the rest of the world should too. And I stand by that belief.

[dre]

I can't imagine why they would. It's not as if Israel hasn't talked about lifting/easing the blockade in the past, before this incident, and from what I've read, the result has been rocket attacks. From what I'm reading regarding this latest news by Israel, Hamas still isn't satisfied, and it doesn't sound as if they are going to do anything different.

I'm not so sure that's true, but if it is, no one outside the conflict can really know anything. There's spin, I'm sure, and propaganda. And then there's outright lying, such as the accusation that the bulldozer purposely ran over Rachel Corrie. That's beyond "spin" and "propaganda," it's an outright lie; and it was purposely presented that way. I see this situation as no different. They set Israel up, and then proclaimed something that was an outright lie. If someone is going to demonize someone else based on lies, I have no respect. And I don't care if "everyone does it." Which I'm not sure is true.

So if you don't believe anything either side says, how do you know anything about what's going on? Who do you think is being honest about it?

Yes, the soldiers did have the right to defend themselves, yet it would appear as if most of the world doesn't think so. As I said, Israel was set up to be demonized, and a large portion of the world fell for it.

By choosing their right to resist being boarded, the activists chose to be part of the conflict as active players; as fighters. They weren't on a 'peaceful mission,' and they really lost the right to be considered merely citizens when they used weapons/engaged in violence against the Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army did not attack a ship of peaceful citizens as is being portrayed to the world.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you didn't support the sanctions against Iraq or are you saying you supported them, but you don't think the Iraqi people suffered under them?

If support is gained only through deceit, if that's the only way they can get support, doesn't say much for their cause. Seems to me it would have been more honorable to say they believed the blockade was wrong, and as such, they weren't going to be stopped by it and would do whatever it takes to get through it. But of course then the world wouldn't have seen "innocent, peaceful civilians" getting killed, and Israel wouldn't have appeared to be the devil incarnate. If that makes people feel good, making Israel come across that way when they have a legitimate cause, then I personally have a low opinion of them. And the rest of the world should too. And I stand by that belief.

I'm not so sure that's true, but if it is, no one outside the conflict can really know anything.

Its definately true, and it IS often very hard to get an idea of what goes on as a result.

So if you don't believe anything either side says, how do you know anything about what's going on? Who do you think is being honest about it?

I listen to both sides lies, mix in whatever limited empirical facts might be available, and do my best to figure out what happened. In this case for example, the video of the protesters preparing for a confrontation came out, as did Israels admission it had doctored tapes. I also look at whos actively trying to hide stuff. In this case it came out that neither side was honest, but we still in the end were able to get a decent idea of the facts.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you didn't support the sanctions against Iraq or are you saying you supported them, but you don't think the Iraqi people suffered under them?

Im saying I didnt support elements of the sanctions against Iraq and I dont support elements of the blockade against Israel either. Sanctions should be carefully designed to harm the civilian population as little as possible and that wasnt done in either case. In any case its a poor comparison because the Israeli blockade was a lot more harsh and comprehensive than sanctions against Iraq.

If that makes people feel good, making Israel come across that way when they have a legitimate cause, then I personally have a low opinion of them. And the rest of the world should too. And I stand by that belief.

Define legitimate cause. They were running a blockade that ammounted to collective punishment. A blockade that not only stopped weapons from being brought into Gaza but lots of household items, food, and medicine as well, and it blocked commercial EXPORTS to boot. They deserved to be exposed in the way they were and I could care less if they got set up. Theyve definately done theyre share of setting up others.

Yes, the soldiers did have the right to defend themselves, yet it would appear as if most of the world doesn't think so. As I said, Israel was set up to be demonized, and a large portion of the world fell for it.

Who fell for it? What nations believed that the IDF just went down there and shot a bunch of peacefull protesters? I sure didnt think that. This thing was obvious from the get go. It was a political statement, and attempt to raise awareness of the blockade.

I think there was a miscalculation as well... the people on the ship probably thought there would at most be a minor skirmish. If they wanted to go to war with the IDF on that boat, why didnt they have AK47's? It wouldnt have been that hard to arm themselves properly.

If support is gained only through deceit, if that's the only way they can get support, doesn't say much for their cause.

Like I said. These people are in a conflict in which a key component is trying to get world opinion on their side. Both sides are perfectly fine with dishonesty and both sides have been caught in it lots of times.

Edited June 22, 2010 by dre

[myata]

If support is gained only through deceit, if that's the only way they can get support, doesn't say much for their cause. Seems to me it would have been more honorable to say they believed the blockade was wrong, and as such, they weren't going to be stopped by it and would do whatever it takes to get through it.

Don't you just feel what they need to be blamed for being attacked and shot, and find any (however unlikely or patently false) justification for that? Yes they had the full legitimate right to challenge the illegal blockade, rather than waiting indefinitely for it to be eased either by Israel's benevolence or (non existent or ineffectual?) Western influence. And yes, they said as much (that they were going to challenge any attempt to stop them) which is evidenced in this very forum. And yes, they had the full right to such resistence as much as american nationals or any other people would were they boarded in high seas by heavily armed intruders.

But of course then the world wouldn't have seen "innocent, peaceful civilians" getting killed, and Israel wouldn't have appeared to be the devil incarnate.

Whether Israel's actions were illegitimate assault, or were in excess of legitimate self defense, or were completely justifiable should be a subject for objective and independent enquiry. In the absense of such all we have is facts: nine dead civilians and eyewitness accounts some of which btw were played by the media.

If that makes people feel good, making Israel come across that way when they have a legitimate cause, then I personally have a low opinion of them. And the rest of the world should too. And I stand by that belief.

Of course you can believe anything, that you can't substantiate it with any rational argument is the point though. I believe so I do and my belief is all the justification I need for what I do. No, "the rest of the world" is in no way obligated to share your beliefs but you could try objective, impartial and fair view of the events for a change. That approach could actually result in finding some common understanding with other people, as opposed to expecting them to do what you think they should be according to your belief - and making do it by force, if they resist.

Edited June 22, 2010 by myata

[eyeball]

I would agree if the flotilla didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. This mission was only as successful as it was because it pretended to be a "peaceful" mission, which it wasn't. It was very much part of the conflict.

Of course it was part of the conflict, whoever pretended it wasn't? Isn't this what critics of Palestine want to see, it's freedom fighters engaging armed soldiers instead of terrorists against innocent civilians?

I think it's all very David and Goliath myself.

[GostHacked]

This thread could have been a positive one considering the ease of the blockade by Israel, and I thought some posters here would be happy about it.

Sad.

[M.Dancer]

This thread could have been a positive one considering the ease of the blockade by Israel, and I thought some posters here would be happy about it.

Sad.

I'm sure if the intraweb existed in 1938...there would be many happy and sad over the Munich Agreement...in other words, declarations are fine...it's the results that determine happiness or sadness..

[GostHacked]

I'm sure if the intraweb existed in 1938...there would be many happy and sad over the Munich Agreement...in other words, declarations are fine...it's the results that determine happiness or sadness..

It's a start, and I am content with that at this time. It will never be enough for some people, but we got to start somewhere.

[naomiglover]

I've read, the result has been rocket attacks. From what I'm reading regarding this latest news by Israel, Hamas still isn't satisfied, and it doesn't sound as if they are going to do anything different.

You want the Gazans to be satisfied that they can finally eat in the prison Israel has created? How nice of you.