Australia's role in the blockade of Iraq was one of our most infamous actions as a country. It directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children a toll that was deemed 'worth it' by the then American secretary of state.

To have helped withhold measles vaccines and cancer drugs along with other essential supplies was insulting to any notion of us as a fair nation. I remember an article in my local paper interviewing a sailor who had returned from duty in the gulf. She was quite proud in relating how she was involved in turning around a ship carrying dates that had been trying to run the blockade. I do have pride in the efforts of our armed forces overseas but this only brought feelings of disgust. It was at least as morally bankrupt as the current blockade of Gaza.

I can not blame the sailor because she was under instruction. However I can express my pride at the bravery of some Australians who were prepared to put themselves in harms way by joining the Gaza Aid flotilla. Indeed one is reported to have been wounded. I like to think that as Australians most of us are generally able to tell the bullies from the victims. The fact that there are those among us who are prepared to attempt to right wrongs such as this blockade should reflect well on all of us.

Custard,
I recommend that you read the Israeli news paper report and analysis
http://www.haaretz.com/ (thanks foxy)

This wasn't anything like what the Aust Navy is doing.
This was a "Cock Up" ( archaic archery term).
Fact the Israelis knew all about this flotilla before it left port.
and there were numerous more reasonable responses that this Unilateral fit of pride by the Israelis.
Frankly, given the afore knowledge their OTT behaviour was/is reprehensible. They breached international law. See the side box in this post.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10208027.stm
it clearly outlines the international law.
The whole thing was to stop enforce their unilateral blockade regardless the fact they knew what was on the ship. There was no WMD.
or expectation of such.
The Aus Navy actions are fundamentally different on multiple grounds.

Israeli’s actions in maintaining the blockade against Gaza and boarding the humanitarian flotilla were unconscionable.

However, in criticising Israeli actions Australia ignores actions of its own.

The Bougainville conflict is not at the forefront of Australian consciousness. Societal and environmental devastation caused by the Panguna mine sparked Bougainville’s flight for independence from Papua New Guinea. Patrol boats maintained by the Australian navy carried out the blockade of the island. Those boats which tried to run the blockade were machine gunned. The UN rapporteur issued a report on the blockade which caused many deaths due to the denial of medication to the people of Bougainville. Australia was condemned by the United Nations as blockades which prevent delivery of medical and other humanitarian aid are illegal.

Mercenary pilots on detached service from the Australian and New Zealand armed forces flew helicopters which helped PNG forces combat the Bougainvilleans.

Ordinarily it is against the law to recruit mercenaries on Australian soil. However, Lionel Bowen, the then attorney-general ruled that the Crimes Act would not apply in the PNG recruitment.

There was even a movie of the action. The following is part of a review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_%E2%80%93_Our_Island_Our_Fight

“Bougainville – Our Island Our Fight is a 1998 documentary film. It was produced and directed by Wayne Coles-Janess.

The film focuses on an indigenous people who fight against a multinational mining company and government forces. The guerrillas hold the belief that they are fighting to defend their independence and the local environment on the island of Bougainville. This film is notable for its unique subject matter, as most Western media has not reported upon the Bougainville conflict.”

"Living with Rebels" by Rosemarie Gillespie tells the story of one brave woman who ran the blockade to bring supplies to the Bougainvilleans.

The big difference between the blockade of Bougainville and the blockade of Gaza is that press coverage of the blockade of Bougainville was almost non-existent, and most Australians are still unaware of the blockade.

As far as I can see the big similarity between the two blockades is that they both stink to high heaven.

david f - yes, Australia's various actions and inactions with respect to Bougainville's efforts to secede from PNG didn't exactly bathe our nation in glory. However, while that might explain some of the Rudd government's lack of official censure of Israel over the flotilla massacre, it has nothing to do with the rightful outrage being expressed by decent ordinary Australians over Israel's appalling overkill. Indeed, had ordinary Australians been more aware of events in Bougainville they would undoubtedly expressed their outrage, but as you say, it received relatively little media coverage in those pre-Internet days.

As it happens, I was one of those who was aware of what was happening, but getting any action outside academic and NGO circles proved to be near impossible. Mind you, it's probably one reason that I feel particularly outraged about the Gaza blockade.

Please, before trying to lecture me on the Rules of War, the relevant Hague Conventions, Part V: The Responsibilities of Neutral Powers and Persons in the Case of War on Land (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp), CH.1, Article 4 reads:

Art. 4.

Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

And again at CH.3, Article 17 reads:

Art. 17: A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality

(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;

(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

In this instance ANYONE who took up arms when legally boarded, is a belligerent and cannot claim neutral status. On top of this, in setting out to run a legal blockade by one combatant against another, between whom a declared State of War exists, they committed a hostile act. You don't have to like it, but the Geneva & Hague Conventions spell out the relevant law, not the BBC.

Turkey has assembled corps of combatants and recruitment centers therefore on it's soil, it is in grave risk of losing its neutrality, which would see massive amounts of arms & support flowing to the Greeks, the Armenians and the Kurds.

As to how the ADF would act differently, pray tell how? The blockade(s) they are running now are ALL in International Waters, the boarding parties are armed with automatic weapons and are willing and able to use them in self-defence.

Custard, I don't think that anybody's blaming the individual Israeli Marines who, after all, were simply defending themselves as they are trained to do. It seems to me that the blame for the muderously disproportionate Israeli response lies squarely with whichever inhumane thugs gave them their orders.