[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The main problem with the report is over the nature of the conflict and the status of the territory, which of course leads to the problem of which laws apply.
The secondary problem is the legality of the blockade in the first place, that has been partially recognised by Israel in several of their amendements to the blockade which were violating international law by blocking humanitarian aid.
The report skims over those which is why it is questionable, after all it would legitimise Hamas and their claims wouldn't it.

please quote with the names included, otherwise it becomes terrible confusing

That's why I mentioned especially the pages 45-90. I usually struggle with juristic texts in a foreign language, but this is relative easy to read. A brief summary: Israel does not deny that they have an armed conflict with Hamas. The status is that Gaza is not an occupied territoy anymore, since Israel drew his troops out in 2005. So they have no more de-facto control over Gaza, regardless they accept that the 4th geneva convention is valid (page 47)
They also claim that the nature of the conflict is a complex one, and that there are many different positions, but also accept the fact that they are"bound by international humanitarian law" (p. 49) The humanitarian situation is being handled on the pages 64-90.
We are not talking about a siege here, but about a naval blockade, this is a big difference.
So this report makes sense and is conclusive, many positions and also many jurisdictional decisions are being presented. It is not that Israel is a banana republic, their courts are independent.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I disagree on the second point, special forces were best for what was being attempted.
Plus add a third which came out at the time, in that the raid didn't get the political approval it was supposed to recieve before it was launched.

I still think it was a failure of Israel's intelligence agencies, that they didn't get the fact that the ships had their share of fanatics onboard, who would not give in when hey see military, but rather fight back as a mob. They just didn't calculated in so much resistance. And a situation like this is imo better handled by forces who are experienced in riot control.

About the political approval, I am uncertain what you mean. I can't tell you much about Israel's internal situation and the approval of the people about a situation like this prior to the event.
If you mean the approval of the international community: well, it is often that Israel is painted as the bully, regardless how many measures they do to try to avoid unnecessary (civilian) casualties. Remember the situation in 2008 about the operation Cast Lead. How much you could read in the press about leaflets that the IDF dropped prior to attacks and much you could hear about the phosphorous grenades? Of course you can't avoid civilian casualties, especially in an area like Gaza. However one should recognize IDF's efforts in minimizing these, they do a much better job than many other armies in doing so.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Because it was a propoganda exercise, and it worked far better than they could have hoped.

My question was more of a rhetorical nature: of course was the flotilla a propaganda coup. If they would really want to help, there were many ways that are more effective. I agree, the propaganda effect they got was more than they had dreamt of.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do they?

Well, you didn't state too much of your own opinion yet. I know you want people to think of their own - me either- but it helps a lot to know where your opinion comes from. So what is your take on the whole thing?