• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

He was on board a jihadist owned and operated ship, he should have kept better company.

Do you have any evidence to support this theory? Or is the term jihadist coined to every anti-israeli organization? :lol:
 
There is nothing peaceful about running a blockcade and attacking with flash grenades, knives and pipes.

Those are the little details you keep glossing over.

The boats were on a humanitarian mission. Five times Free Gaza arrived in Gaza with small boats and they were allowed entry despite having, according to them, being told they would be killed. I have said all this already. On the next 3 or 4 visits they were not allowed to deliver their aid and, according to them, were severely beaten by the Israelis. According to them it was not being allowed to deliver their items plus the beatings which made them decide to bring a very big cargo and fleet. Of course with Gaza not being allowed to build since the last war, building materials were of prime importance.

My position is the same as it is on all things. When Margaret Thatcher allowed the storming of a plane with hostages on it resulting in deaths, I was appalled. Now that situation was hostages. That was not a peaceful protest. As it happens, this approach did stop the hostage taking.

Israel is applying a similar approach to peaceful protesters. That is the difference.

What happened when Israel stormed the boat is as yet unclear, passengers giving different accounts to the Israelis. However even on boats where there was no violence towards Israeli's, passengers are complaining of beatings and being humiliated and where people have died they have complained that medics on the boat were not allowed to accompany the injured.

This was a peaceful protest met with a pretty violent response.

Israel no doubt was wanting to teach the protesters, just as Thatcher taught Terrorists, that their lives would be in danger if they tried peaceful protest. According to Free Gaza, Israel had told them they would be killed from the very first time they brought a little boat in.

Peaceful protesters are a nuisance to a country. They intend on being a nuisance to that country. However to respond to that in ways that do not respect the lives of the protesters is imo an over reaction. It shows that peaceful protest is not allowed.



Still waiting for you to answer my question:

If aid was the goal why did they ignore both offers by Egypt and Israel to offload their supplies?

Care to answer it this time?

Cassandra has already answered that question and my response was in your response to Casandra's response. I also have already said elsewhere in this thread that there is also a political component to what they are doing, that is to bring the situation of Gaza to the world attention. This they have done. I understand that Israel is allowing clothes in for the first time in three years so they have clearly achieved something, all be it a small amount at the moment.
 
Oh christ cut the crap will you?
What is so crappy about it?
The father is proud of his son that became a martyr, killed after attacking an Israeli soldier.
That's quite sick, and you should see this as well.
Same goes for the three dead Turks that were filmed stating that they wish to become Shahids.
Do you have any evidence to support this theory? Or is the term jihadist coined to every anti-israeli organization? :lol:
IHH is known to have ties to al-Qaeda, the Global Jihad and Hamas, according to the Danish Institute for International Studies.

Anyway Kaya, I'm still waiting for the basing of your claims about two British journalists being killed in the interception.
I thought all of the dead were Turkish? (And one Turkish-origin American)
 
Last edited:
The boats were on a humanitarian mission. Five times Free Gaza arrived in Gaza with small boats and they were allowed entry despite having, according to them, being told they would be killed. I have said all this already. On the next 3 or 4 visits they were not allowed to deliver their aid and, according to them, were severely beaten by the Israelis. According to them it was not being allowed to deliver their items plus the beatings which made them decide to bring a very big cargo and fleet. Of course with Gaza not being allowed to build since the last war, building materials were of prime importance.
According to them being the key word in the above passage.
 
Reading through parts of this thread and other news sources it seems that anti-Zionist feelings have clouded the arguments in a haze of bias. If Israel was viewed in a historical and objective context and if it was treated like any other western country, all this would be much simpler.

But maybe that is just me.

No, it's absolutely not just you.
 
I just read this article Gaza flotilla: Israel accused of ‘sabotaging’ Irish aid ship Rachel Corrie - Telegraph

And one line I really liked is this:

Article said:
Audrey Bomse of the Free Gaza Movement said: “The situation is we lost all contact with the boat.

“We assume this was sabotage by the Israelis."

She went on: “As a result of these threats, we're going to pull Rachel Corrie into a port, add more high-profile people on board, and insist that journalists from around the world also come with us.

I wonder if anyone has tried this hard to free tibet...Or darfur...Or Cuba..ect..

Its just interesting thats all...the poor palastian's in gaza are just a tool for condeming a nation that has litterly done all possible actions to keep it's citizens safe and neighbors citizens safe, even at the cost of its own Soldiers ...
 
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

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."

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.

"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? | Reuters
 
Reading through parts of this thread and other news sources it seems that anti-Zionist feelings have clouded the arguments in a haze of bias. If Israel was viewed in a historical and objective context and if it was treated like any other western country, all this would be much simpler.

But maybe that is just me.
Actually, you have tipped your hand and revealed your own fuzzy thinking by using the term, "anti-zionist"- that term, and "anti-semite" are the usual knee jerk calumnies designed to stifle discussion and used by those who have nothing useful to say.

By almost any measure, the Israeli action was giant ****-up that will undermine Israel's interests- even if you believe it was legitimate act.
 
Reading through parts of this thread and other news sources it seems that anti-Zionist feelings have clouded the arguments in a haze of bias. If Israel was viewed in a historical and objective context and if it was treated like any other western country, all this would be much simpler.

But maybe that is just me.

To watch raw footage of this pack of animals lynching that first soldier as he descends and turning around and calling them "humanitarians" is so incredibly Orwellian in nature that it requires an almost unimaginable combination of stupidity and bigotry.

"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
 
Last edited:
Actually, you have tipped your hand and revealed your own fuzzy thinking by using the term, "anti-zionist"- that term, and "anti-semite" are the usual knee jerk calumnies designed to stifle discussion and used by those who have nothing useful to say.

By almost any measure, the Israeli action was giant ****-up that will undermine Israel's interests- even if you believe it was legitimate act.

The Israeli action was completely legitimate, there's no "belief" in there, there are laws and there are rules and those were not violated.
The violent mob's actions are however not legitimate, illegal and repulsive.
 
Actually, you have tipped your hand and revealed your own fuzzy thinking by using the term, "anti-zionist"- that term, and "anti-semite" are the usual knee jerk calumnies designed to stifle discussion and used by those who have nothing useful to say.

By almost any measure, the Israeli action was giant ****-up that will undermine Israel's interests- even if you believe it was legitimate act.

I think the term "antisemitic" covers it pretty well, myeself -- especially when bigoted individuals automatically bring into question the veracity of Jews simply because they are Jews.
 
I think they're referring to the amount of aid inserted into the Gaza Strip by organizations such as the UN before the blockade, not to the amount of goods imported by the Hamas government before the blockade.
And this is still worked out to be less than what is required.
Well yeah it's a blockade we're speaking about, certainly it's going to greatly affect the population within the blockaded territory.
And whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not – it’s a collective punishment of the ordinary Gazans. Hamas gets what it wants through the tunnels, Israel lets in what it decides is the bare minimum and meantime ordinary Gazans are collectively punished by Hamas and the Israeli Govt.
On top of that, Hamas gets weapons through the tunnels – the point of the sea and border blockade does little to prevent Hamas getting weapons through and only the citizens are really affected.
I’ve repeated this umpteen times on this thread.
Once more I'd like a reference to those details about the pre-Blockade Gaza Strip.
I don’t recall you asking me for such before. If you really wanted to – the links to the UN and other food / humanitarian agencies have been posted earlier. I even remember a “save the children” link posted by Alexa to you directly.
That document makes many baseless assumptions.
For example, it states that because Israel enforces movement restriction on civilians from and into the Gaza Strip it means that Israel seeks to place pressure over the Gazan population and decrease their support for the militants.
The real reason is more around the threat of militants imposing as civilians getting into and outside the Gaza Strip.
Sorry but you yourself posted a report / link on Hamas tunnels. You can’t have it both ways - Hamas can get in and out easily and when it wants already – through the tunnels. The only people really blocked are the Gazan population. The blockade is simply for domestic Israeli voting consumption.
-- Clearly the objective of the blockade is to drastically decrease the power of Hamas, whether by the blockage of weapons or by the blockage of supplies for the constructions of bunkers and rockets.
As the pro-Govt posters have helpfully pointed out, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel, the blockade hasn’t stopped this.
The organization claims that Israel has no declared objective - that, once it will be achieved, the blockade could be lifted - and that this somehow causes the blockade to become a collective punishment rather than the cutting of supplies to the terrorist organizations in control of the territory.
Israel did however inform Hamas that the release of the abducted soldier, Gilad Shalit, would result in the immediate lifting of the blockade - sort of a compriomising by Israel.
Besides that it is clear that if Hamas revokes terrorism the blockade would immediately end.
In June 2008, Israel reached a partial ceasefire (tahadiya or "calm") with the Hamas leadership in Gaza, which was mostly respected until November 4, 2008. In exchange for a cessation of armed activity by both sides (not including activities in the West Bank), Israel permitted an approximately 25% increase in the scope of goods permitted to enter Gaza, limited to "humanitarian" goods (food, medicine, some spare parts for infrastructure and generators, animal feed, grocery items, etc.).8 Other harsh restrictions continued, including a total ban on exports and on the movement of people, apart from exceptional humanitarian cases (which themselves have also been restricted).9

The tahadiya brought a more direct admission by Israel of the nature of its closure of Gaza's borders. Whereas the state had previously made nominal claims that its restrictions stemmed from threats to Gaza's crossings10 or fears that goods entering Gaza could be used for military purposes,11 beginning in the summer of 2008 the State of Israel openly created a direct link between political goals vis-à-vis Hamas and rocket fire by militants on the one hand – and blocking the entrance of even basic humanitarian goods for the civilian population on the other. In response to violations of the ceasefire agreement in the form of rocket fire, Israel regularly closes Gaza's crossings, even to the trickle of humanitarian goods that had been permitted to pass. For example, in late September, Israel blocked the passage of humanitarian goods in response to rocket fire and openly cited the closure as a means of pressuring with Hamas leadership, with whom it is negotiating indirectly for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit:
“We are examining the issue, and apparently we will need to reduce the
scope of goods and thus create pressure on the Hamas organization,
which is deliberately failing to take steps to advance the negotiations …"​
said
Deputy Defense Minister M.K. Matan Vilnai”

More recently, beginning with the collapse of a ceasefire agreement on November 4, 2008, Israel closed Gaza's borders almost entirely and even to humanitarian goods, preventing the passage of fuel, food, and other basic items. Public declarations in the media by military officials note an "equation" of closing crossings in direct response to rocket fire. As articulated by Defense Ministry Spokesman Peter Lerner:
"The opening of the crossings will be reviewed on a daily basis and
will be subject to Palestinian militants halting their rocket fire against
southern Israel”​

What they’re saying is that Gilad Shalit was not the original reason for the blockade. Seems the reason is what’s called a “moveable feast” for Israel.

-- Why does Israel then blockade non-necessities?
The Israeli reasoning seems to be that Hamas(As many other insurgent/militants organizations around the world do) takes over the goods that are considered non-necessities, such as fuel for example, and then sells them to the Gazan population at its declared price, gaining all of the money from those goods. You may remember a while back when we were debating about the NATO air strike on the fuel tanks hijacked by a group of Afghan insurgents (The Taliban IIRC).
The reasons why civilians have died in that air strike was that those insurgents were selling the stolen fuel to the civilians.
Basically, those non-necessities, if let in, provide the majority of the regular income for the terrorist organization of Hamas, and by allowing it in Israel allows the continued sponsoring of it by the Gazan population.
That is why the blockade seems to be allowing in only goods that are considered necessities, although from time to time Israel does indeed allow goods such as chocolate in.

Yes I remember that – I agreed the Afghanistan air strike but that was a different case as the fuel had been stolen and the Afghan driver killed by the insurgents.

To agree your scenario - Israel would allow goods in and Hamas kill the distributors and then steal the goods and then while Hamas and Gazan looters were standing around with their stolen property an Israeli air strike would hit them and kill them. I’d support Israel there.

This isn’t the case – as you yourself posted – Israel allowed the cargo in once the ships docked at Ashdod. Besides – I believe the UN would be the distributors. There are also importers who bring in what’s allowed – if Hamas killed them or targeted them the imports would stop entirely and that would solve Israel’s problem – importers would stop and the Gazan citizens would be starved to death.

Your scenario doesn’t fit.

I’m also afraid your dismissal of Gisha’s case is far too lightweight to convince me otherwise.

In times of peace, a vessel on the high seas may be stopped only either with the permission of its flag state, or on suspicion of international offences such as piracy and slave trading.
During an armed conflict, however, a belligerent state is entitled to blockade enemy ports as a measure of economic warfare.
Historically, such a blockade had to be conducted close to shore. In modern law, however, a blockade may be enforced against neutral vessels on the high seas, where the events on the Marvi Marmara took place.
A belligerent may stop, inspect and divert any vessel it suspects of intending to breach its blockade, which is what Israel says it intended to do.
While a merchant vessel has a right to freedom of navigation on the high seas, it can be intercepted legally when its express intention is to breach a blockade.
The ships that were intercepted by Israel, however, were carrying aid. The law or armed conflict requires that blockading states allow aid through to the civilian population; however, the blockading state may control the channel through which aid is delivered, and that is what Israel has been doing.
The authority to intercept vessels and control aid deliveries, however, is available only in a lawful blockade. To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israel’s legal position is open to question. Times Online

There is no military advantage (as your own link on the Hamas tunnels showed) and the punishment is excessive when you look at the amount of aid required vs what is allowed in.

I also note you haven’t touched all the other elements of the Gisha article…
 
Can I make something clear?
Even thou Israel is a jewish nation it acts as a democracy, which in-itself is a hypocritical statement but we managed to make it work 0-0

We got many laws here that keep tredition, not religon treidition which != religon, i can keep kosher but not cause I believe in a god, but cause my grandpa did and my dad did and they both worked hard to get me here today and one of them went throu the holocust and not keeping some tredition is like a big fu to him...But I dont believe in religon or a god, no no no..

Israel was founded with the need to save the jewish tredition, and it acts just like any other nation on earth, unless protecting your own citizens a jewish thing...I am sorry :roll:
 
I'm afraid Ann Wright isn't up to date - Hamas use cement and steel to build the support structure for their rocket launchers. That's why cement and steel are severely restricted.
Yes, I am sure she is well aware of Israel's rationale for restricting the importation of cement. Does it make sense to you? The rational explanation is that Israel wishes to stop reconstruction because it hopes to deligitimize the Hamas leadership. So the important question is this- is this strategy working? Does violent confrontation with peace activisits advance their goal? Are the people of Gaza- most of whom are not Hamas- more or less likely to vote for peaceful, secular leaders next time around?
 
I think the term "antisemitic" covers it pretty well, myeself -- especially when bigoted individuals automatically bring into question the veracity of Jews simply because they are Jews.

You tipped your hand a long time ago.
If you are referring to something I wrote , I never questioned the veracity of anyone simply because they are Jewish. You obviously have some need to derail debate by tarring people with the ant-semitic brush. Let us know when you have anything to say relating to the actual topic.
 
And whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not – it’s a collective punishment of the ordinary Gazans. Hamas gets what it wants through the tunnels, Israel lets in what it decides is the bare minimum and meantime ordinary Gazans are collectively punished by Hamas and the Israeli Govt.
On top of that, Hamas gets weapons through the tunnels – the point of the sea and border blockade does little to prevent Hamas getting weapons through and only the citizens are really affected.

You refer to the Palistinians in Gaza as ordinary Gazans. Are these ordinary Gazans the people who voted for HAMAS? Ordinary Gazans who elected a terrorist organization as thier leaders? Ordinary Gazans who elected HAMAS, an organization bent on the destruction of the state of Islael and the death of all Jews.
 
Yes, I am sure she is well aware of Israel's rationale for restricting the importation of cement. Does it make sense to you? The rational explanation is that Israel wishes to stop reconstruction because it hopes to deligitimize the Hamas leadership. So the important question is this- is this strategy working? Does violent confrontation with peace activisits advance their goal? Are the people of Gaza- most of whom are not Hamas- more or less likely to vote for peaceful, secular leaders next time around?

I particularly don't think steel and concrete are used only for rebuilding. Hamas can get cement and steel through its tunnels but it is a commodity that it makes sense to block (if the blockade is legal). Ordinary food items are not sensible to be blocked which is one reason i believe the blockade isn't entirely legal.

You refer to the Palistinians in Gaza as ordinary Gazans. Are these ordinary Gazans the people who voted for HAMAS? Ordinary Gazans who elected a terrorist organization as thier leaders? Ordinary Gazans who elected HAMAS, an organization bent on the destruction of the state of Islael and the death of all Jews.

You know, someone (possibly Apocalypse) posted a link a while ago in this thread claiming that Hamas overthrew the legitimate Govt - I didn't query him then.

One thing I'm surprised about by the pro-Israeli Govt posters here is the apparent confliction between many of their posts against those of us who've had queries with the blockade and the legality of the IDF raids. I'll check back and maybe ask whoever posted that link (about 10-20 pages ago) whether Hamas was legitimately voted in or whether they overthrew a previous Govt.

Then I'll give you my own opinion - however whether an electorate decides to vote in a contraceptive device / a goat / a politician or a terrorist is up to the constitution of said electorate.

Might I ask whether you think the Gazans elected a Govt? Leaders? Because some of the pro-raid people have said the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Gaza is not a state.
 
I am beginning to think that the only way to shut up all of this bull is to have Canadians and/or Mexicans send thousands of rockets in the U.S. Then when the U.S. blockades, let's see your reaction.

Oh wait, I forgot, it is perfectly ok to allow your citizens to be bombed incessantly.
 
You tipped your hand a long time ago.
If you are referring to something I wrote , I never questioned the veracity of anyone simply because they are Jewish. You obviously have some need to derail debate by tarring people with the ant-semitic brush. Let us know when you have anything to say relating to the actual topic.

Actually, you tipped yours and you continue to tip it.

Heck, you just called the violent thugs who lynched the first Jew onboard their ship "peace activists".

If that is your version of peace, I'd hate to see what qualifies as war.
 
I am beginning to think that the only way to shut up all of this bull is to have Canadians and/or Mexicans send thousands of rockets in the U.S. Then when the U.S. blockades, let's see your reaction.

Oh wait, I forgot, it is perfectly ok to allow your citizens to be bombed incessantly.

THere you go, Joe, with your knee jerk calumnies designed to stifle legitimate debate about the hypothetical Canadians in question.

They are obviously just peace activists involved in humanitarian gestures, and how DARE you indicate their desire to kill isn't the most virtuous thing you have ever seen in your life. No American in such a scenario would be capable of holding a valid view rejecting the attempted threats against their life, because dammit, they are Americans and can't be trusted. Americans are sneaky bastards always working behind the scenes manipulating others to do their bidding, they are loyal only to themselves, and their point of view couldn't possibly be valid because they are Americans. Since everybody hates them, they must be worthy of hatred, and so it is our DUTY to support any of those who wish to kill them no matter what they do.
 
Actually, you tipped yours and you continue to tip it.

Heck, you just called the violent thugs who lynched the first Jew onboard their ship "peace activists".

If that is your version of peace, I'd hate to see what qualifies as war.

Tell me do you also accuse anyone who criticizes Obama as being a "racist"? Is Richard Falk an anti-semite? Chompsky? Amy Goodman? You make those kind of slurs because it is your crutch. It is easier than actually debating and discussing. Funny, because the Israelis in this thread generally don't feel the need to use that particular deception.

Clearly most of the people on the flotilla were unarmed and peaceful. There were individuals on the Turkish ship willing to engage the soldiers. The I.D.F. chose to employ a show of force. The I.D.F. fell for the provocation trap, hook line and sinker. They are losing the propaganda war. They killed a boy not much older than my son and if you think that image will advance Israel's interests, you are seriously self-deluded. The I.D.F were either fools or incompetent.
 
Do you have any evidence to support this theory? Or is the term jihadist coined to every anti-israeli organization? :lol:

3 of the Crew members dreamed of martyrdom:


Media reports in Ankara on Wednesday revealed that three out of the four Turkish citizens that were killed during the raid declared their wishes to become shahids (martyrs). Another Dutch report claimed a Dutch activist, who was arrested by the IDF is suspected of being a senior Hamas operative.

3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom' - Israel News, Ynetnews
The IHH clearly funds and supports global jihadists:

IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in the past, even global jihad elements.
IHH - a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation.

It was the IHH which owned and operated this vessel along with two of the others involved in the flotilla:

Comoros MV Mavi Marmara

Further information: MV Mavi Marmara

The Mavi Marmara ("Blue Marmara") is a Comoros-flagged passenger ship,[51][52] which was formerly owned and operated by Istanbul Fast Ferries Co. Inc., in the Sea of Marmara.[53] It was purchased especially for the trip to Gaza by the İHH.

It left the Anatolian port of Antalya on 22 May 2010 to rendezvous with the flotilla heading to Gaza, along with the Gazze and Defne Y.[54] It carried 581 activists, around 400 of whom were Turkish.[55]

Turkey Gazze

The Gazze ("Gaza") is a Turkish-flagged cargo vessel owned and operated by the Turkish Islamic charity IHH.[56] Its cargo consisted of 2,104 tons of cement, 600 tons of construction steel, and 50 tons of tiles.[37] It also carried 13 Turkish crew members and 5 activists.[56] It left Antalya on 22 May to rendezvous with the flotilla, along with the Mavi Marmara and Defne Y.[54]

Kiribati Defne Y

The Kiribati-flagged Defne Y ("Laurel Y") is a cargo ship owned and operated by the Turkish Islamic charity IHH.[57] It carried a mixed cargo of goods including 150 tons of iron, 98 power units, 50 precast homes, 16 units of children's playground equipment and various items of specialist medical equipment.[57] There were 23 crew and 7 activists on board.[56] It left Antalya on 22 May to rendezvous with the flotilla, along with the Mavi Marmara and Gazze.[54]

Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's the crew of the ship chanting jihadist battle cries against the Jews:

 
Tell me do you also accuse anyone who criticizes Obama as being a "racist"? Is Richard Falk an anti-semite? Chompsky? Amy Goodman? You make those kind of slurs because it is your crutch. It is easier than actually debating and discussing. Funny, because the Israelis in this thread generally don't feel the need to use that particular deception.

Clearly most of the people on the flotilla were unarmed and peaceful. There were individuals on the Turkish ship willing to engage the soldiers. The I.D.F. chose to employ a show of force. The I.D.F. fell for the provocation trap, hook line and sinker. They are losing the propaganda war. They killed a boy not much older than my son and if you think that image will advance Israel's interests, you are seriously self-deluded. The I.D.F were either fools or incompetent.

Ofcorse not everyone was in on this...they fooled people into thinking this was actually a peace fleet...Also Israel has no intrests..which is something rare, Israel does not go invading other nations for their oil...We only have the " protecting the nation" part of the army, we dont really have intrests so far...When we occupy a nation with our actual army ( and occupy does not == being sent her cause no one in the world wanted to accept jews go figure) ( aka go read some history ^^ )

also dont give me that " the kid was killed" Give me one war in the history of all wars where a kid was not killed, please I am waiting..
the fact Israel has the lest civilian casualties in their wars ( during the modern era) should say something :roll:
 
Tell me do you also accuse anyone who criticizes Obama as being a "racist"? Is Richard Falk an anti-semite? Chompsky? Amy Goodman? You make those kind of slurs because it is your crutch. It is easier than actually debating and discussing. Funny, because the Israelis in this thread generally don't feel the need to use that particular deception.

Clearly most of the people on the flotilla were unarmed and peaceful. There were individuals on the Turkish ship willing to engage the soldiers. The I.D.F. chose to employ a show of force. The I.D.F. fell for the provocation trap, hook line and sinker. They are losing the propaganda war. They killed a boy not much older than my son and if you think that image will advance Israel's interests, you are seriously self-deluded. The I.D.F were either fools or incompetent.

I refer to antisemitism when it is being expressed, such as these claims that Jews are biased and so their views are invalid.

As to your fantasy, there is video showing quite clearly what actually happened. The first Israeli down the ladder was attacked savagely by a large contingent prepared for exactly such an attack. It was brutal, it was repulsive, and the natural HUMAN reaction is one of complete revulsion. Those who have so overcome what should be a natural human reaction to actually SUPPORT this disgusting display -- calling them "humanitarians", "peace activists" and other disgusting inversions of reality -- do so for a reason.

That reason is patently obvious, even if few dare mention the true source.
 
Back
Top Bottom