The UN's Palmer report on the Israeli boarding of certain Gaza-destined freighters (which resulted in some deaths), was apparently recently leaked to the New York Times. All told it sounds interesting, if a little heavy on politics. I kind of liked the reporters attempt at a summary:
My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.
Considering the history of UN resolutions against the Israeli state - to quote the Israeli UN mission website: The Human Rights Council has, in fact, passed more resolutions against Israel than all other countries –– combined - it was interesting to hear that this report seems partially supportive of the Israelis:
It found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal and appropriate — “a legitimate security measure” — given Hamas’s persistent firing of thousands of rockets from the territory into Israel; that the flotilla acted recklessly in trying to breach the blockade; that the motives of the flotillas organizers raised serious questions; and that the Israeli commandos faced “organized and violent resistance.”
Of course, it also does make highly critical comment - e.g. that the decision to board "was excessive and unreasonable" and "too heavy a response too quickly"
The story does state that the report "calls Israel’s policy on land access to Gaza 'unsustainable.' All told, does that mean that a blockade isn't out of question, but that the Israeli's need a more clear, effective, and efficient system to determine what goods make it in?
The article doesn't really get too much into this but, from other reading I recalled some complaints being made about how the land blockade was implemented. For the moment I'll link to Wikipedia's summary of the blockade implementation and leave you to track down the sources of the article for more details. There are the bans on things like construction materials due to weapons-related concerns, but there also seems to be changing and inconsistent regulations. E.g., to quote one activist cited in a BBC article (which describes the restrictions in more detail): "I certainly don't understand why cinnamon is permitted, but coriander is forbidden."
In part it's maneuvering to pressure the Gazans to give up on Hamas. At least as far as restricting different foods is concerned, it seems likely to cause more problems than it solves. Would easing up on these restrictions reduce the international pressure against Israel substantially? How does the limit on construction materials due to questions as to whether they might be appropriated for weapons use compare?
