Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza

ludahai · Sep 12, 2011

Demon of Light said:
Don't change your story. The implication of your comments seems to be that the people of Gaza in general are legitimate targets for the imposition of suffering just because some of them voted for Hamas. In essence, because some of them voted for a specific party that you do not like Israel is free to engage in campaigns calculated to cause severe suffering in the general population. Such a position can only be interpreted as a lack of love for the system of democracy, even if you constantly claim to support it. How else should one interpret your suggestion that when people make choices you deem wrong that it is acceptable to make them suffer?

Not changing my story at all. War sucks. The winners of the legislative elections (who then proceded to take administrative power illegally) have engaged in hostilities against Israel. While civilians should not be targeted to the extent possible, it is inevitable that in such a situation, civilians will suffer. If they want to improve their situation, they can stop commiting acts of war against Israel.

American · Sep 12, 2011

What if...? said:
That WOULD be what those you call anti-Israel are and have been objecting to. That Israel doesn't giva a **** what anybody else thinks.

Yes, because when it comes to preserving Israel, Israel does what IT thinks is necessary....not that others think.

Leo · Sep 12, 2011

The nation state of Turkey has every right to protect vessals flying its flag by means of its navy. Particularly if they are not engaged in illegal behaviour.

In order to be considered to be deliberately running the Israeli imposed 'blockade' (more of which later,) the vessals will have to have announced the intention of carrying contraband materials (arms and munitions) to Gaza, and to in fact be carrying such materials.

The Mavi Marmara was demonstrably not doing so. And any future such aid convoys will also doubtless be proven not to do so. The vessals are independently inspected for this purpose.

The San Remo Manual has been quoted in defence of the Israeli actions on the Mavi Marmara. What apologists for the Zionists conveniently omit to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade". The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse. The UN's Goldstone Report found that blockade may even amount to international crimes: "Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country… could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

So a blockade against anything except arms and munitions would, in effect, be illegal under the terms of that document. The attempts by Israel to impose an essentially illegal blockade outside their territorial waters, should be questioned by anyone who values ethical behaviour and the rule of law. That elements of Hamas are acting illegally in sending rockets into Israeli territory, does not alter the legal status of the blockade.

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

Leo said:
The nation state of Turkey has every right to protect vessals flying its flag by means of its navy. Particularly if they are not engaged in illegal behaviour.

In order to be considered to be deliberately running the Israeli imposed 'blockade' (more of which later,) the vessals will have to have announced the intention of carrying contraband materials (arms and munitions) to Gaza, and to in fact be carrying such materials.

An extremely ignorant statement. Israel has no way to tell whether a vessel that did not go through an inspection by Israeli authorities is containing forbidden items or not. The very fact that they make their way to the Gaza Strip while refusing to be inspected is a clear and obvious breach of the blockade. Otherwise what good will a blockade be if a vessel can just pick up weapons and say it's humanitarian aid while making its way to the blockaded port? What you're saying here is pretty much laughable in its level of ignorance.

What apologists for the Zionists

Hah, "apologists for the Zionists", right. Spoken like a true radical propagandist, I bet you're using quotes of Ahmedinejad as well.

conveniently omit to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade". The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse. The UN's Goldstone Report found that blockade may even amount to international crimes: "Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country… could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

Well first of all your precious UN has declared the blockade to be legal so I don't understand where all that confidence in the blockade's illegality coming from, the UN report has even stated that there is no lack of proportionality in the blockade's damage between civilians and Hamas members as the Gazan port is incapable of holding bigger vessels and as such the Gazan economy is completely independent on sea trade. Regardless to defend that indefensible and desperate claim of yours about the blockade being illegal you're quoting the Goldstone report, which by the way is not a UN report, it is a UNHRC report. The UNHRC is a separate body from the UN and even the UN has recognized its anti-Israeli behavior, as well as Israel the US and some of Europe. Furthermore even Goldstone himself had withdrawn himself from the report once he realized it had no connection to reality in its major part, so what good would it do to you to cling to such a report? No good at all.

So a blockade against anything except arms and munitions would, in effect, be illegal under the terms of that document. The attempts by Israel to impose an essentially illegal blockade outside their territorial waters, should be questioned by anyone who values ethical behaviour and the rule of law. That elements of Hamas are acting illegally in sending rockets into Israeli territory, does not alter the legal status of the blockade.

It is the opposite I am afraid, anyone who values ethical behavior and the rule of law would support Israel's right to self-defense against Gazan terrorism and would not call for the withdrawal of its biggest mean of self-defense, the blockade that prevents weapons from reaching Gazan terrorists' hands. He who calls for such withdrawal is also essentially calling of support for terrorism against the Israeli civilians, out of pure hatred for the Israelis and their state.

alexa · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Well first of all your precious UN has declared the blockade to be legal so I don't understand where all that confidence in the blockade's illegality coming from,

While the Palmer report said Israel did have a right to defend herself and said the naval blockade was legal, it did not say the blockade was legal

The report also found the naval blockade of Gaza by Israel legal.

As the occupying power over the Gaza Strip, Israel has the right to determine where and how goods and people should enter the territory it occupies so the maritime blockade as a tactic is legal. The report did not make a ruling on the entire closure regime or blockade on the Gaza strip.

The Palmer report’s finding that the naval blockade is lawful should NOT be interpreted to mean that the entire closure regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip is legal. An excellent analysis of this can be found on the ‘Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement’ website.

Palmer Report Did Not Find Gaza Blockade Legal, Despite Media Headlines | Human Rights Now - Amnesty International USA Blog

Link to Gisha Gisha's response to Palmer Report

see also

Myths and Facts on the Palmer Report | Gaza Gateway | Facts and Analysis about the Crossings

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

alexa said:
While the Palmer report said Israel did have a right to defend herself and said the naval blockade was legal, it did not say the blockade was legal

I'll remind you that the land blockade does no longer block items that aren't weapons and ammunition from entering the Gaza Strip since Israel has eased it back in a few months ago. It also limits items that can be used as weapons by Gazan militants but that's about it, thus if we were saying it was legal before it now there is pretty much no question at all as to its legality.

However all that is irrelevant as we were not talking about the land blockade, we were talking about the naval blockade, which the UN deemed as legal as you said.

Leo · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
An extremely ignorant statement.

Hah, "apologists for the Zionists", right. Spoken like a true radical propagandist, I bet you're using quotes of Ahmedinejad as well.

It is the opposite I am afraid, anyone who values ethical behavior and the rule of law would support Israel's right to self-defense against Gazan terrorism and would not call for the withdrawal of its biggest mean of self-defense, the blockade that prevents weapons from reaching Gazan terrorists' hands. He who calls for such withdrawal is also essentially calling of support for terrorism against the Israeli civilians, out of pure hatred for the Israelis and their state.

The multiple ad-hominems in your response negate any possibility of meaningful discourse with you. Thank you for your input.

alexa · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
I'll remind you that the land blockade does no longer block items that aren't weapons and ammunition from entering the Gaza Strip since Israel has eased it back in a few months ago. It also limits items that can be used as weapons by Gazan militants but that's about it, thus if we were saying it was legal before it now there is pretty much no question at all as to its legality.

However all that is irrelevant as we were not talking about the land blockade, we were talking about the naval blockade, which the UN deemed as legal as you said.

It has seemed to have been perceived as a blanket thumbs up for the blockade and this is not so. Indeed it was only accessed as legal as Israel has had problems with people importing rockets. Obviously the MM had been searched prior to leaving and found not to have weapons. Here is what Gisha says

Myth: The commission determined that Israel’s closure of Gaza is legal.
Fact: The commission determined that Israel’s naval blockade is legal. The commission argued that an assessment of the legality of the naval blockade can be conducted independently of the question of the legality of the overall closure policy. We disagree with this assessment and believe that restrictions on movement, whether by land, sea or air, constitute a single policy, the components of which cannot be reviewed independently. The legality of the overall closure policy was left as an open question by the panel, however, a recommendation was made to Israel that it continue easing restrictions on movement “with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population” in Gaza (par. 156).

Myths and Facts on the Palmer Report | Gaza Gateway | Facts and Analysis about the Crossings

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

alexa said:
It has seemed to have been perceived as a blanket thumbs up for the blockade and this is not so.

It has deemed the naval blockade to be legal and legitimate, what else do we have to talk about here? Carry on.

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

Leo said:
The multiple ad-hominems in your response negate any possibility of meaningful discourse with you. Thank you for your input.

Terrible, terrible excuse.
There is no justification to the ignorance you were projecting in the previous comment.
If you do not wish to back that up it is only because you too realize that.

Regardless, your previous comment is in violation of forum rules since it includes the use of flaming terms.

Leo · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Regardless, your previous comment is in violation of forum rules since it includes the use of flaming terms.

Report these phantom violations. Does my face look bothered? :2wave:

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

Leo said:
Report these phantom violations. Does my face look bothered? :2wave:

I can't see your face, what kind of question is that?
I didn't report your comment because I thought merely alerting you of this forum's rules would suffice as you are not a regular here so to say.
Next time you're going to post such ridiculous claims here be prepared to back them up, even if you don't like the answer that you get. I think I've done well to point out all of the wrongs in your comment in a simple and understandable manner. Otherwise you simply make it appear as if you've never planned to back them up to begin with.

PeteEU · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
An extremely ignorant statement. Israel has no way to tell whether a vessel that did not go through an inspection by Israeli authorities is containing forbidden items or not. The very fact that they make their way to the Gaza Strip while refusing to be inspected is a clear and obvious breach of the blockade. Otherwise what good will a blockade be if a vessel can just pick up weapons and say it's humanitarian aid while making its way to the blockaded port? What you're saying here is pretty much laughable in its level of ignorance.

And this statement is arrogant. Israeli authorities could inspect all the ships it wants... once they are in their own ****ing waters.

Well first of all your precious UN has declared the blockade to be legal so I don't understand where all that confidence in the blockade's illegality coming from, the UN report has even stated that there is no lack of proportionality in the blockade's damage between civilians and Hamas members as the Gazan port is incapable of holding bigger vessels and as such the Gazan economy is completely independent on sea trade. Regardless to defend that indefensible and desperate claim of yours about the blockade being illegal you're quoting the Goldstone report, which by the way is not a UN report, it is a UNHRC report. The UNHRC is a separate body from the UN and even the UN has recognized its anti-Israeli behavior, as well as Israel the US and some of Europe. Furthermore even Goldstone himself had withdrawn himself from the report once he realized it had no connection to reality in its major part, so what good would it do to you to cling to such a report? No good at all.

Goldstone withdrew himself from the report after massive preasure from American Jewish organisations and from Israel it self... they played "but you are a Jew" card. Like it or not he defended the report for a long time and then "suddenly" changed his mind.

It is the opposite I am afraid, anyone who values ethical behavior and the rule of law would support Israel's right to self-defense against Gazan terrorism and would not call for the withdrawal of its biggest mean of self-defense, the blockade that prevents weapons from reaching Gazan terrorists' hands. He who calls for such withdrawal is also essentially calling of support for terrorism against the Israeli civilians, out of pure hatred for the Israelis and their state.

LOL seriously? Since when has anything Israel done the last 40 years been under the rule of law and ethical? Stealing land, using human shields, torture, assassinations and so on and so on.. I fully support Israel's right and anyone right to self defence, but that is within the law and rules both locally and internationally.. Israel constantly breaks one or both of these. Like it or not, Israel has every right to search ships going for Gaza.. in their own freaking waters. Doing so outside Israeli waters, and with violence, is nothing but piracy on the high seas. What is next... the IDF searches ships at the straights of Gibraltar? Outside New York Harbour?

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
And this statement is arrogant. Israeli authorities could inspect all the ships it wants... once they are in their own ****ing waters.

There is no arrogance in pointing out the ignorance of that statement.
As to your claim, you've already been told that the San Remo manual permits the boarding of a vessel within international waters if its destination is the blockaded port, which is why your claim is even more ignorant than his.

If it was illegal to board that vessel in international waters there wouldn't be a need for a committee to begin with, they could just declare Israel has acted illegally. Use your brains.

Goldstone withdrew himself from the report after massive preasure from American Jewish organisations and from Israel it self... they played "but you are a Jew" card. Like it or not he defended the report for a long time and then "suddenly" changed his mind.

I didn't ask for your opinion on why he withdrew from the report.
The fact remains that he did, whatever theory you might gather wouldn't change it.

LOL seriously? Since when has anything Israel done the last 40 years been under the rule of law and ethical? Stealing land, using human shields, torture, assassinations and so on and so on..

Nothing but anti-Israeli propaganda, there is a zero amount of truth in this statement.

Like it or not, Israel has every right to search ships going for Gaza.. in their own freaking waters. Doing so outside Israeli waters, and with violence, is nothing but piracy on the high seas. What is next... the IDF searches ships at the straights of Gibraltar? Outside New York Harbour?

Here you present not only ignorance of the San Remo manual and international law but also of the term piracy. The situation you have described does not amount to piracy, which is robbery at sea. The way you use that term is laughable.

PeteEU · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
There is no arrogance in pointing out the ignorance of that statement.
As to your claim, you've already been told that the San Remo manual permits the boarding of a vessel within international waters if its destination is the blockaded port, which is why your claim is even more ignorant than his.

If it was illegal to board that vessel in international waters there wouldn't be a need for a committee to begin with, they could just declare Israel has acted illegally. Use your brains.

Show me where I stated it was illegal to board a vessel in international waters? In fact I have stated time and time again it is a right of Israel to board any ship that is heading to the Gaza strip, since Israel has declared a blockade.

No I stated, it was idiotic that Israel to board the ship in international waters in the way it did because of the geo-political and emotional issues in the area. Had Israel waited till the boats were in Israeli/Gaza waters then they would not only be on much much better legal ground as to how hard they went in, but they would also have a much better PR situation not only over the people involved in the flotilla, but at the organisations who organised it. Like it or not, we need cool heads, and a down toning of the confrontational attitudes in the region, and the actions of the IDF did the total opposite... it pissed off even more people and cost Israel on of its only Arab allies.

I didn't ask for your opinion on why he withdrew from the report.
The fact remains that he did, whatever theory you might gather wouldn't change it.

LOL yea stick your head in the sand....

Nothing but anti-Israeli propaganda, there is a zero amount of truth in this statement.

So when you dont know how to answer a question, then you slam the anti-Israeli card out? How pathetic is that...Like it or not, Israel doing unilateral actions outside its own borders is highly questionable at best, and illegal at worst. Israel should be making more friends, but instead it is going out of its way to piss nations off... why is that?

Here you present not only ignorance of the San Remo manual and international law but also of the term piracy. The situation you have described does not amount to piracy, which is robbery at sea. The way you use that term is laughable.

Is it? Has Israel returned everything from the raid to its owners? No not according to the information I have seen. Hence there is a robbery, hence it is piracy. My use of the term Piracy is 100% correct, especially considering the violence and use of live fire in the take over of one ship. Only pirates and cowards shoot unarmed people in the back, multiple times and in the head. And especially considering Israel could have WAITED till the ships were in its own waters....

Apocalypse · Sep 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
Show me where I stated it was illegal to board a vessel in international waters? In fact I have stated time and time again it is a right of Israel to board any ship that is heading to the Gaza strip, since Israel has declared a blockade.

No I stated, it was idiotic that Israel to board the ship in international waters in the way it did because of the geo-political and emotional issues in the area. Had Israel waited till the boats were in Israeli/Gaza waters then they would not only be on much much better legal ground as to how hard they went in, but they would also have a much better PR situation not only over the people involved in the flotilla, but at the organisations who organised it. Like it or not, we need cool heads, and a down toning of the confrontational attitudes in the region, and the actions of the IDF did the total opposite... it pissed off even more people and cost Israel on of its only Arab allies.

The level of ignorance in your comments rises exponentially with every post.

-If you acknowledge it was legal, why do you talk about a "better legal ground"? It is just as legal to board the vessel in international waters as it is in Gazan/Israeli waters. There is no better legal ground here.

-Better PR? Where the hell is the connection here? So if the vessels were boarded in Israeli/Gazan waters it would have been better PR-wise to Israel? Don't make me laugh. If the boarding in international waters is legal and it is then there is no difference PR-wise. Those who object to the boarding do not do so because the vessel was boarded legally in international waters and not boarded legally in Israeli/Gazan waters. The very notion is absurd.

-Turkey is not an Arab state, and the incident did not cost the alliance with it. It was already ruined before it, the incident has merely supplied the final blow. Nevertheless even if it did cause the turnout in the relations Israel cannot and shouldn't prefer diplomatic relations over the safety of its civilians.

LOL yea stick your head in the sand....

Whatever you call it, I prefer to call it "not giving any relevancy to one's conspiracy theories and baseless opinions". Goldstone has withdrawn his comments because he was wrong, as hard as it is for you to recognize that the UNHRC's "report" was filled with bullcrap.

So when you dont know how to answer a question, then you slam the anti-Israeli card out? How pathetic is that...Like it or not, Israel doing unilateral actions outside its own borders is highly questionable at best, and illegal at worst. Israel should be making more friends, but instead it is going out of its way to piss nations off... why is that?

How pathetic it is to call what you said a "question". You've merely lashed out with the usual anti-Israeli propaganda bollocks, was I supposed to analyze it? :lol:

"Israel bad!!", okay let me answer that... ha!

As to your last question it doesn't do that, it protects its civilians and that is all there is to it.

Is it? Has Israel returned everything from the raid to its owners? No not according to the information I have seen. Hence there is a robbery, hence it is piracy.

The soldiers were acting on authority, thus not robbery and thus no piracy. Items were taken as evidence to be used in courts, and I believe valuables were all returned with the Mavi Marmara.

My use of the term Piracy is 100% correct, especially considering the violence and use of live fire in the take over of one ship.

You mean in self-defense. Again you go against the precious UN you usually speak greatly of.

Only pirates and cowards shoot unarmed people in the back, multiple times and in the head. And especially considering Israel could have WAITED till the ships were in its own waters....

Only cowards disguise themselves as peace activists as they ambush the soldiers who boarded the vessel with lethal weapons.
Only brave heroes stand strong against those cowards and finish their mission even due to the circumstances, to inspect the ship of weapons and to ensure that the citizens of Israel will be safe.

ido_ · Sep 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
it pissed off even more people and cost Israel on of its only Arab allies.

Israel doesn't have nor ever had any Arab allies.

PeteEU · Sep 12, 2011

Apocalypse said:
-If you acknowledge it was legal, why do you talk about a "better legal ground"? It is just as legal to board the vessel in international waters as it is in Gazan/Israeli waters. There is no better legal ground here.

And now your ignorance is showing big time. Like it or not everything done by anyone is always up to a legal challenge. You or I might agree or not agree with it, but people have the right to claim illegality based on X Y and Z in international law which like it or not, is written in such a way that there can always be a challenge, just as much as you and I can scream over the mountain tops that the boarding is "legal".

However NO ONE, can come and say that a boarding of a ship in your own sovereign waters is in any way illegal according to national or international law. Hence why in hell did Israel have to board the ship when their destination was in doubt and that they were in international waters? If they had waited till the ships were clearly heading towards Gaza and not Egypt, and were in Israeli waters, then for one the whole legality according to international laws would be null and void since it happened within the sovereign borders of Israel.

-Better PR? Where the hell is the connection here? So if the vessels were boarded in Israeli/Gazan waters it would have been better PR-wise to Israel? Don't make me laugh. If the boarding in international waters is legal and it is then there is no difference PR-wise. Those who object to the boarding do not do so because the vessel was boarded legally in international waters and not boarded legally in Israeli/Gazan waters. The very notion is absurd.

Now you are even more ignorant. PR has EVERYTHING to do with the conflict in the middle east. Israel plays the holocaust/self defence card constantly, and the Palestinian's play the apartheid/ghetto/starving/oppressed card constantly. All this is to sway the hearts and minds of people outside the state of Israel so that the world can take sides. So far only the US has taken sides, where as the rest of the world are looking on.

-Turkey is not an Arab state, and the incident did not cause the alliance with it. It was already ruined before it, the incident has merely supplied the final blow. Nevertheless even if it did cause the turnout in the relations Israel cannot and shouldn't prefer diplomatic relations over the safety of its civilians.

More ignorance. Turkey was an ally, and the present Israeli government has gone out of its way to break this alliance. Your own fanatical foreign minister pissed on the Turkish state only weeks after taking office by doing a diplomatic faux pas. Like it or not, the present government is a disaster for the foreign policy of Israel and has caused Israel to become more and more isolated in the world.

Whatever you call it, I prefer to call it "not giving any relevancy to one's conspiracy theories and baseless opinions". Goldstone has withdrawn his comments because he was wrong, as hard as it is for you to recognize that the UNHRC's "report" was filled with bullcrap.

Again I have not commented on the UNHRC report, but on the actions of Goldstone. I can only state, that he defended the report big time even with huge Israeli and American pressure and then suddenly months after he switched his view without giving any reason. There is no conspiracy theory here, but factual. The Goldstone report was a slap in the face of Israel yet again, and as usual Israel complained, demonized and worse the participants in the report, the organisation and pretty much everything else, instead of debunking the accusations in the reports.

How pathetic it is to call what you said a "question". You've merely lashed out with the usual anti-Israeli propaganda bollocks, was I supposed to analyze it? :lol:

"Israel bad!!", okay let me answer that... ha!

As to your last question it doesn't do that, it protects its civilians and that is all there is to it.

More avoidance... Let me ask again, is it okay for Israel to board a ship outside New York harbour in international waters?

The soldiers were acting on authority, thus not robbery and thus no piracy. Items were taken as evidence to be used in courts, and I believe valuables were all returned with the Mavi Marmara.

And priates act on the authority of their captain..

Ahh I see you believe? Are you sure? Has Henning Mankell's manuscript been returned? Like it or not, private possessions of the flotilla people were stolen and abused by IDF soldiers (who were later convicted of it) and last I heard Israel still are holding a couple of ships because they dispute the ownership of said ships.

You mean in self-defense. Again you go against the precious UN you usually speak greatly of.

Again you use the self-defense bullcrap excuse. The UN has only stated that it is in the right of any nation to defend it self, but it has also stated that the actions of Israel was excessive and unreasonable... hardly a glowing recommendation of the Israeli actions.

Only cowards disguise themselves as peace activists as they ambush the soldiers who boarded the vessel with lethal weapons.

LOL so people are not allowed to defend themselves now if they are not Israeli or IDF?

Only brave heroes stand strong against those cowards and finish their mission even due to the circumstances, to inspect the ship of weapons and to ensure that the citizens of Israel will be safe.

Shooting an American 5 times, shooting 5 other people in the back and shooting one person between the eyes.... you call that the work of heroes? Only cowards shoot people in the back.

ido_ · Sep 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
And now your ignorance is showing big time. Like it or not everything done by anyone is always up to a legal challenge. You or I might agree or not agree with it, but people have the right to claim illegality based on X Y and Z in international law which like it or not, is written in such a way that there can always be a challenge, just as much as you and I can scream over the mountain tops that the boarding is "legal".

However NO ONE, can come and say that a boarding of a ship in your own sovereign waters is in any way illegal according to national or international law. Hence why in hell did Israel have to board the ship when their destination was in doubt and that they were in international waters? If they had waited till the ships were clearly heading towards Gaza and not Egypt, and were in Israeli waters, then for one the whole legality according to international laws would be null and void since it happened within the sovereign borders of Israel.

There was no doubt about the destination of the flotila, it was after all decleared all around the news agencies, and of course after the navy warned the flotila and told them to reroute they replied "negative we are heading to Gaza".
Now how can Israel, or any other nation for that matter, enforce a naval blockade if it is only supposed to board ships in its own territorial water? You can either stop them at international water, or at the territorial water of the territory under the blockade, and the international law is clear here. What wasn't clear is if the naval blockade is legal or not, the report found the blockade to be legal, thus boarding the flotila's ships who stated they go on to Gaza after being warned several times was legal

More ignorance. Turkey was an ally, and the present Israeli government has gone out of its way to break this alliance. Your own fanatical foreign minister pissed on the Turkish state only weeks after taking office by doing a diplomatic faux pas. Like it or not, the present government is a disaster for the foreign policy of Israel and has caused Israel to become more and more isolated in the world.

The ignorance is yours. The detariation between Israeli-Turkey relationship began under Kadima's rule, the foriegn minister at the time was Tzipi Livni, not Liberman. To be precise the incident that started all of this mess was when Erdogan shouted at Israeli president, Peres, "you are murdering children" during a conference which took place at the time of the Gaza war, Erdogan didn't like the fact that he wasn't given enough time to talk and I guess felt humiliated so he did what every other 3 years old boy does, an angry face.

More avoidance... Let me ask again, is it okay for Israel to board a ship outside New York harbour in international waters?

If its decleared to be headed to Gaza and was warned to reroute and refused, I see no problem with it. But why would the INF burn so much fuel to do that?

And priates act on the authority of their captain..

Pirates steal sugar tabaco and spices, Israel just wanted to inspect the ships, the cargo and ships were to be released once inspected at the port of Ashdod

Ahh I see you believe? Are you sure? Has Henning Mankell's manuscript been returned? Like it or not, private possessions of the flotilla people were stolen and abused by IDF soldiers (who were later convicted of it) and last I heard Israel still are holding a couple of ships because they dispute the ownership of said ships.

Did Israel keep sugar tabaco and spices?
Seriosly, the fact that IDF soldiers were convicted of looting just demonstrates the opposite of what you are trying to claim, how can Israel engage in piracy and trail its own pirates in looting is beyond me...

Again you use the self-defense bullcrap excuse. The UN has only stated that it is in the right of any nation to defend it self, but it has also stated that the actions of Israel was excessive and unreasonable... hardly a glowing recommendation of the Israeli actions.

The UN report stated that the soldiers were under attack and acted in self defence, it said they used excessive force when they did so.

LOL so people are not allowed to defend themselves now if they are not Israeli or IDF?

Defend from what?

Shooting an American 5 times, shooting 5 other people in the back and shooting one person between the eyes.... you call that the work of heroes? Only cowards shoot people in the back.

Not only cowards, soldiers who watch people runs with a huge knife torwards their commrads will also shoot people in the back in order to save their fellow soldiers' lives. I don't know if thats how it was but I didn't see any reference to the Israeli "unsatisfying" explenation of those facts.

Mika-El · Sep 12, 2011

ido_ said:
Israel doesn't have nor ever had any Arab allies.

Oh I am sure they do but these "allies" would never admit to such a thing in public for obvious reasons. Now how deep that friendship is I won't comment on. Its probably not very deep I would admit that. I think to be fair though, King Hussein in the past and Sadat and the King of Morrocco could have been called genuine allies and Oman at one point openly supported Israel.

However I think the only Muslim people in any nation today that would openly reach out to Israel would probably be the Kurds or Albanian Muslims who are aware of their people Israel took in as refugees. The Sunni Muslim states relying on Israel to buffer Iran fundamentalism like the Gulf oil states, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could never admit its in their best interests to back Israel.

Serenity · Sep 12, 2011

the IHH have no plans for now to mount another Gaza mission and there are no aid boats sailing to Gaza. Turkey for now are not escorting anyone nor are there any plans in place.

so how about the media quit with it's warmongering and Turkey can quit puffing it's chest out. they've made their point. now Turkey and Israel can sort their greviances out diplomatically.

there's a thought.

ido_ · Sep 12, 2011

Hebrew Ynet says that according to Turkish newspaper "Sabah", 3 Turkish warships are to be deployed in the region and they are instructed to neutralize the weapons of any Israeli warship. I couldn't find this article in Sabah's english website to confirm it.

If it is true, the Turks are way beyond mad...

Serenity · Sep 12, 2011

ido_ said:
Hebrew Ynet says that according to Turkish newspaper "Sabah", 3 Turkish warships are to be deployed in the region and they are instructed to neutralize the weapons of any Israeli warship. I couldn't find this article in Sabah's english website to confirm it.

If it is true, the Turks are way beyond mad...

if true they are indeed mad. again, there is no humanitarian aid ships on the way.

Turkey is planning to send three warships to the the Eastern Mediterranean to defend against Israeli vessels if necessary and ensure freedom of navigation for Turkish ships, Today's Zaman reported on Monday.

The Turkish ships will provide protection for ships bringing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and confront Israeli warships outside of Israel's territorial waters if necessary, according to the report.

Report: Turkish Navy sending 3 warships to e... JPost - Headlines

Serenity · Sep 12, 2011

on a positive note.

as unpredictable as the situation is across Egypt is at the moment, a large international convoy with much needed needed medical aid which was initially refused entry through the Rafah Crossing, has now been cleared into Gaza and was only held up for 24 hours.

this is a good thing. entry/exit of anything into/out of Gaza viah the Rafah crossing has been extremely difficult for obvious reasons over the last few weeks.

PeteEU · Sep 12, 2011

ido_ said:
There was no doubt about the destination of the flotila, it was after all decleared all around the news agencies, and of course after the navy warned the flotila and told them to reroute they replied "negative we are heading to Gaza".

Again the report disagrees with you. There was doubt. Plus the ship did change course which could have lead it to Egypt, but also to Gaza.. because Israel attacked the flotilla before any confirmation of a possible change in destination, then we shall never know.

Now how can Israel, or any other nation for that matter, enforce a naval blockade if it is only supposed to board ships in its own territorial water? You can either stop them at international water, or at the territorial water of the territory under the blockade, and the international law is clear here. What wasn't clear is if the naval blockade is legal or not, the report found the blockade to be legal, thus boarding the flotila's ships who stated they go on to Gaza after being warned several times was legal

Like it or not Israel is not just any other nation. Like it or not, what Israel does, where it does and how it does will be under scrutiny regardless. However what I can not understand is why Israel, and especially the sitting government is almost going out if its way to piss as many people off as it can. I would have thought that Israel wanted more friends than enemies... as it stands now the only friend that Israel has is the US and even they are starting to question that friendship. Even North Korea has more friends than Israel..

While you say Israel has the right to inspect ships in international waters bound for a blockade... I agree. However is it wise to do so, knowing the geo-political fallout? HELL NO... all it does is to help the radicals on both sides to feed their never ending hatred to each other. It does NOTHING for peace.. quite the opposite. Look at how this thread and how the whole case evolved? It is bad enough that so many died, but it was done in international waters so far from Israel... There would not have been the same outcry if the interception had happened in Israeli waters, because then there would be zero doubt that the ships wanted to go to Gaza and were attempting to break the blockade.

All I am saying, Israel could have saved a lot of grief and international condemnation if it had just waited to the ships were in Israeli waters.. they had nothing too loose and a ton to gain from such an action.. instead they acted like pirates and attacked in the high seas.

The ignorance is yours. The detariation between Israeli-Turkey relationship began under Kadima's rule, the foriegn minister at the time was Tzipi Livni, not Liberman. To be precise the incident that started all of this mess was when Erdogan shouted at Israeli president, Peres, "you are murdering children" during a conference which took place at the time of the Gaza war, Erdogan didn't like the fact that he wasn't given enough time to talk and I guess felt humiliated so he did what every other 3 years old boy does, an angry face.

Well he was murdering children at the time.. well his military forces were. While I agree that it was also a diplomatic faux pas, the statement it self was not false. But regardless, if Israel wants peace, then it should be the "bigger person" and not retaliate diplomatically. Israel did. And it was not Lipi, but the deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon.... who is part of that nationalistic fascist party Liberman runs.

If its decleared to be headed to Gaza and was warned to reroute and refused, I see no problem with it. But why would the INF burn so much fuel to do that?

Again read the report. It clearly states this..

In the Turkish Commission’s account, there was a diplomatic understanding
reached between Turkey and Israel that the vessels in the convoy would not force a
breach of the blockade and would change their destination to the port of Al-Arish if
necessary, and that Israel would refrain from using force against the vessels.

So yes there was doubt. Now of course Israel denies this, and it comes down to their word against Turkey's.. but the fact is this means there was doubt if even remotely true. Add to this

t approximately 11.30 p.m., however, the Mavi Marmara did change course to a
bearing of 185º directed towards the coast of Egypt

This was hours before the IDF attacked the convoy.

Pirates steal sugar tabaco and spices, Israel just wanted to inspect the ships, the cargo and ships were to be released once inspected at the port of Ashdod

Pirates of the 1940s movies maybe. Pirates however in reality murder and rape and steal anything they can get their hands on. I understand Israel wanted to inspect the ships..and were justified to do so.. but because of the way they did the inspecting, then their actions came much close to piracy than to inspecting.... I repeat.... 5 shot in the back.. one shot multiple times... all unarmed.

Seriosly, the fact that IDF soldiers were convicted of looting just demonstrates the opposite of what you are trying to claim, how can Israel engage in piracy and trail its own pirates in looting is beyond me...

They were convicted because it became a media story. In the PR war, Israel was already loosing badly because of the doctored footage and having another scandal would have been highly problematic to say the least. Had the people from the flotila not complained to the western media, then the IDF soldiers would have gone unpunished. It is the human shield and torture story all over again... the IDF does nothing to punish its own unless the media is involved some how in exposing the crimes.

The UN report stated that the soldiers were under attack and acted in self defence, it said they used excessive force when they did so.

Exactly. They used excessive force once attacked.. but the report also states that they used excessive force in the initial boarding of the ships.

Defend from what?

From the IDF of course.. a military force that has a history and reputation of shooting first and maybe asking questions later. The IDF might be a might fighting force you are proud off, but it has a very bad reputation outside Israel when it comes to human rights and justice.. Like it or not we have all seen the excessive force used by the IDF in the occupied territories.. the shelling of Gaza and the helicopter attacks in civilian areas of Gaza.

Not only cowards, soldiers who watch people runs with a huge knife torwards their commrads will also shoot people in the back in order to save their fellow soldiers' lives. I don't know if thats how it was but I didn't see any reference to the Israeli "unsatisfying" explenation of those facts.

So tell me this.. There are reports (of course denied by Israel) that there was fired live rounds from helicopters and boats that killed 2 people before any IDF solider was on board. Now lets just say for the sake of argument that this is correct... dont you think that the people on the boat might have thought that the IDF soldiers were there to kill them and then took up arms to defend themselves against the attackers? Is that not justified if that scenario was the closer to the truth than the spoon fed one the IDF claims? Add to that the chaos of smoke bombs and stun grenades being used... is that the action of a normal boarding party?

Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Leo

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

alexa

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Leo

alexa

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Leo

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

PeteEU

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

PeteEU

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

ido_

PeteEU

ido_

Mika-El

Serenity

Stay Human

ido_

Serenity

Stay Human

Serenity

Stay Human

PeteEU