Israel has successfully handled flotillas in the past without deaths on either side. This was a **** up and a huge PR boost to those who want the blockade brought down.
Not just that, Israel has also handled this flotila, by its majority, without any casualties.
5 out of those 6 ships have had no casualties at all on them, including no injuries.
The rachel corrie ship was suffering no wounded and no violence at all.
This strongly implies that the only reason for the deads was the violence from the merceneries group.
Your opinion does not sway me I'm afraid. You want me to take your subjective opinion over that of an international agency because...?
I've given the explanation for that right below this line, why did you feel the need to respond to it that way?
There are no industries in Gaza, very few people have any money (courtesy of Hamas and Israel) to buy things with so 80% have to rely on UN aid. (The same UN aid you've repeatedly tried to say is more than enough)
The 80% figure, provided by Amnesty, is implying that 80% of Gazans are depeneding on the aid instead of sponsoring themselves.
That does not mean that they aren't capable of sponsoring themselves.
And if you bothered to read the BBC Q & A on Gaza
(posted yet again here0 you'll see it's not just food that's blockaded but electricity, fuel, sewage out etc.
Electricity is still being provided.
Your article states that "Gaza's electricity supply is made up of 144MW from Israel, 17MW from Egypt and the rest from an EU-run power plant in Gaza which can generate up to 80MW. ".
You're constantly getting the facts wrong.
Firstly it's 15,000 tons (BBC) not 60,000 and I find your argument just as weak as your denial of Gisha's points against the blockade. Wholly subjective.
Are you acting dumb?
15,000 is what Israel provides now, since I was referring to what Gaza was supplied with before the blockade, and since your precious UN claims that what Israel provides is a quarter of what Gaza was provided with, it is safe to assume that the estimated amount would be 60,000 tons.
If I were you, I'd start questioning my own opinions, seeing how many times you keep getting the facts wrong.
You claim my arguments to be weak and that seems to be making the whole of your counter-arguments.
It's pathetic.
Yes, the BBC and other agencies that have reported this must be posting falsehoods too... Your personal subjective opinion is backed only by the Israeli Govt. Moderate Israeli groups (including human rights groups say different)
Frankly IT it is your subjective opinion that is backed only by the radical left.
If you bothered to read my posts on this subject, I've already explained that Hamas has no interest in bringing in Aid.
I didn't suggest that's what you've said, take your own advice and read my posts before responding.
It doesn't serve their purpose. You yourself posted the link once Hamas refused entry to the Aid that the flotilla brought in. I don't know why I have to explain this.
I don't know why you think that you have to explain this.
I have never claimed anything that could be mistaken by a functioning human mind as the statement that you accuse me of making.
If I had made such a stupid and fundamental geographical error, I would agree with you. As I did not – you are either deflecting or only half reading what I say for whatever purpose suits your argument.
Quite dishonest there.
You have been making the ridiculous claim that Hamas is still able to enter Israel freely, using the tunnels.
No tunnels are connecting between Israel and the Gaza Strip, hence your statement is exposed as false.
Your post – you find it. Not my job, however I read it as I read most if not all the links given against my position.
You are accusing me of posting a report, and when I'm saying that I don't know what report you're talking about you're telling me to go and look for it?
How am I supposed to find a report that I can't recall posting?
Clearly even you can see how illogical that request is?
Am I to prove the existence that which I claim is non-existent?
You're way more intelligent than that. If you haven't read my posts properly just say so and I won't bother discussing with you if you intend to make false claims rather than discuss the subject.
I've read your posts in their entireness, I didn't waste those useful minutes from my life reading those comments just so you'd tell me I haven't, because you refuse to see the sense in my arguments.
That doesn't negate my point. The blockade has not stopped the rocket launches
The blockade has never hoped to entirely stop the rocket launchers, but by trying its best it dramatically decreases their amount.
besides which, the rocket launches are more of a psychological weapon than a real weapon.
Tell that to the dozens who've died from them.
A rocket like that filled with nails and metal shards falling 25 meters away from you and your brain is most likely to be all over the place.
The only reason why there are no high casualties is because of the billions of money Israel has invested in security from rockets.
Shelters and sound alarms drop the chances of getting killed by hundreds of percents.
I think this claim, that the rockets are merely psychological weapons and not killing weapons, implies you are already brainwashed by the European media and cannot be reasoned with.
You've taken to a belief that the rockets can't kill anyone, merely because they don't kill many.
A nuke is a weapon that could kill millions of people, shoot it down while it's not endangering anyone, and it will cause no casualties at all.
Does that mean that a nuke is not a real weapon? Abso-****ing-lutely not.
The current blockade is simply an extension of the one started after the Second Intifada of 2000-2001. In 10 years that some form of blockade or restriction has been in place – it hasn't stopped weapons being fired at Israel.
The current blockade has begun in 2005, has became an actual blockade in 2006, and has became a full blockade in 2007.
It is one of the biggest security promoters for the Israeli state and its citizens.
Noted, however that is not reason enough to stop imports of essential goods and food. Anyhow – I'm really certain Israel cares so much about ordinary Gazans that they'd rather see them starve on the absolute minimum than see them exploited by Hamas...
It's most likely to be Israel not wishing to see Hamas getting money that it would use later for the development of rockets and the building of bunkers and tunnels.
Weak argument, compared to the money that Iran must be prepared to send?
Yours is the weak counter-argument my kind sir. These actions make the majority of the income amongst militants from all around the world, not donors.
You've already misread or half read my previous posts
I care not about your delusional statements.
If you think I'm convinced the Gaza tunnels are from Israel into Gaza
No, but I think you are convinced that Hamas militants can enter Israel through tunnels, which is pretty much the same statement is it not?
you've not remembered your own posts and links
You've given no basis to that statement, making it a baseless conclusion.
you've half read the Gisha link obviously
I've replied to the majority of their claims.
why should I spell things out any further for you?
Why should you believe you are spelling out anything for anyone?
Sorry, your own link – not my job to check back on what you say or post.
You can't just say "I think you're the one who posted that document" and then make it a fact that I've posted that document.
I denie posting it, point towards the document if you may and I will offer my apology, else I'd have to simply ignore these ridiculous claims.
I have that Déjà vu feeling regarding giving you links.... the calorific assessment is for the bare minimum above starvation. It's in all the BBC posts on the blockade that I and others have posted. That same assessment is on many other neutral sites like Reuters etc.
Neutral sites such as Reuters that completely neglect your claim that the flotila raid was done in violation of international law, if we're already at it:
WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?
Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.
There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.
"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.
CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?
Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.
"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.
Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.
Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.
The use of force may also have other repercussions.
"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.
"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? | Reuters