Ships to Gaza incident

[Sirotnikov]

I didn't even read most of them. Seriously, too long and you're too droll. The only long posts I read belong to posters with personality.

ouch. my ego is damaged beyond repair.

legal documents and arguments are long. if you want to make legal arguments, keep up.

I would prefer if you didn't say I'm "now" claiming something when I've been claiming it repeatedly in this thread.

I responded to a point you were making, and you chose to change the subject to a different argument. Never have I claimed you never made that point.

When did I accuse you of that?

I've questioned that many times in this thread. Your inability to read it is your own problem.

The blockade isn't legal, and the fact that you think the Red Cross' condemnation of it doesn't include the blockade means you're certifiably retarded. By 'closure' they are referring to the lack of free imports of humanitarian aid. The whole ****ing article starts off with the preface of the Israeli raid of the flotilla.

Where did I say the ICRC's condemnation does not include the blockade?
Where did you learn to read anyway?
I'll spell it out: the closure = blockade + import sanctions.
Most of the article deals with the economical sanctions, not with free naval movement into Gaza, or military inspections of them.

The 'closure' is a specific term chosen with a far wider implication that the naval blockade.

Your interpretation makes no sense towards your argument since even an absolutely unlimited flow of humanitarian aid would would require a blockade, to inspect cargoes for things which aren't humanitarian aid.

Furthermore, the 'closure' clearly does not refer merely to humanitarian aid, like you claim, because one of the leading sentences justifying 'the raising of the closure' in the article is:

the dire situation in Gaza cannot be resolved by providing humanitarian aid.

Which I think clearly suggests lifting the closure is not merely about allowing more humanitarian aid. After this they immediately go on to discuss poor economical conditions and a host of issues which are wider than just humanitarian aid (fishing, farmland, various goods).

[Asher]

Where did I say the ICRC's condemnation does not include the blockade?
Where did you learn to read anyway?
I'll spell it out: the closure = blockade + import sanctions.

So you can read, you just thought you'd be pedantic and form an epicly retarded argument based off of that.

Most of the article deals with the economical sanctions, not with free naval movement into Gaza, or military inspections of them.

You seem to think they're not at all related.

The 'closure' is a specific term chosen with a far wider implication that the naval blockade

The naval blockade exists to serve the closure

Don't be dumb, I'm in no mood.

[Heresson]

Are you sure ?

thanks! what a grave mistake of me. I wanted to write

It doesn't mean that creation of Israel and ethnic clearsing of Palestine that followed, as well as current politics of Israel are something I approve of.

or

It doesn't change the fact that creation of Israel and ethnic clearsing of Palestine that followed, as well as current politics of Israel are not something I approve of.

and I've made some mix between these two, which resulted in a change of meaning.

shame on me.

[Sirotnikov]

I want to see footage showing the attackers attacking with knives and live rounds.

All things I've seen show only sticks and chairs.

Earliest NYT article describing the raid:

One soldier was stabbed and two were beaten. From that moment on, the attempted takeover turned into an armed assault,

video of knife attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Xm8Irz-so

watch 55 secs and forward
this footage is from the live broadcast from the ship.

originals of reuters photos feature knives:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36488_Did_Reuters_Crop_a_Photo_to_Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood/comments/#ctop

shorter and more coherent:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/lying_with_photos_rzk6vz5XbhTSZrjLCo6rGP

i have a video of a syrian journalist that was on board admitting the guns were taken from the soldiers (i'll upload later today), and it was also admitted in a speech by the IHH chairman (who claimed the guns were not used but the bullets taken out).

bbc:

Bulent Yildrim is head of the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), which organised the flotilla.

Upon his arrival back in Turkey, he admitted some of the activists had grabbed the guns off soldiers in self-defence.

"Yes, we took their guns. It would be self-defence even if we fired their guns. We told our friends on board: 'We will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns'. By this decision, our friends accepted death, and we threw all the guns we took from them into the sea."

turkish newspaper:

“At first our friends incapacitated 10 soldiers. Yes, we took their guns and we would have been right if we used them against them. You are legally innocent if you take the weapon of the person who is attacking you. We said we would die before we would take their arms and thereby place Israel in a difficult position.” Yıldırım said they threw the weapons into the sea.

only, the guns were found without bullets on board the ship by the IDF.

[Sirotnikov]

The naval blockade exists to serve the closure

Don't be dumb, I'm in no mood.

You're the one being dumb and idiotically pedantic over a distinction i made between
Blockade = limitation of free movement in and out of Gaza
Sanctions = limitations of import of specific product types into Gaza through the Israeli border

Why is it not clear to you from this text

Sadly for you, there is no ICRC statement specific to the naval blockade. There is however the ICRC statement on the Gaza "closure":

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...-update-140610

This statement does not limit itself to the naval blockade and mostly deals with the land imposed sanctions on import into Gaza.

From this should be obvious that that closure = {blockade, sanctions}. The rest of my text clearly deals with both issues - the blockade (where free movement is blocked), and the sanctions (where many types of imports are prohibited).

The importance of the distinction is that many of the issues mentioned in the article can be solved by easing the import/export sanctions, all the while continuing to limit free entry into Gaza (the blockade). It is clear to anyone reading the article that it is mostly concerned with the span and types of goods that are allowed to be imported, and not specifically with the Israeli control of movement. Thus, the ICRC report is not specific to the sea blockade and mostly deals with a wider issue, exactly like I said.

But instead of addressing my arguments you chose to dig into mindless pedantic fallacies, over the meaning of closure.

You then argued the word 'closure' refers to a lack of free import of humanitarian aid, but that does not make sense since the ICRC says (a) there's no use in more aid, because (b) the issues that exist are not a result of lack of aid, and most of them are issues more far reaching than humanitarian aid, and because (c) Israel is never accused of stopping humanitarian aid (food or medicine).

let's quote the ICRC article:

Stocks of essential medical supplies have reached an all-time low because of a standstill in cooperation between Palestinian authorities in Ramallah and Gaza.

[Asher]

Earliest NYT article describing the raid:

One soldier was stabbed and two were beaten. From that moment on, the attempted takeover turned into an armed assault,

video of knife attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Xm8Irz-so

watch 55 secs and forward
this footage is from the live broadcast from the ship.

So from that fuzzy footage you have scientifically determined that to be a "commando knife"? LOL.

Who the **** captioned this atrocity of a video? I feel exactly like I'm watching a propaganda video.

originals of reuters photos feature knives:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36488_Did_Reuters_Crop_a_Photo_to_Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood/comments/#ctop

Wow, look at that deadly knife. It's shorter than a ****ing steak knife. I'm shocked to hear someone had a knife that looks more useful in opening up cans than anything else on aid ship. This is definitely a weapon of mass destruction.

i have a video of a syrian journalist that was on board admitting the guns were taken from the soldiers (i'll upload later today), and it was also admitted in a speech by the IHH chairman (who claimed the guns were not used but the bullets taken out).

Taking weapons from a violent boarding party is not a crime. In fact, the fact that they've taken the soldier's loaded guns without killing the soldiers (while the soldiers did not exercise the same reservation) is counter to your point.

I'm not sure why you are investing so much of your time serving as a propaganda mouthpiece, but it is completely pathetic. I suspect since the video you linked is from your youtube account, you probably captioned it too.

You've zero credibility here.

[Asher]

You're the one being dumb and idiotically pedantic over a distinction i made between
Blockade = limitation of free movement in and out of Gaza
Sanctions = limitations of import of specific product types into Gaza through the Israeli border

I'm done talking with you. This is beyond pathetic.

I'm the one saying the Red Cross is asking for the blockade to be lifted. You said they didn't say any such thing, but they did ask for the "CLOSURE" to be lifted. The closure is IMPLEMENTED IN PART BY THE BLOCKADE. Your statement "Sadly for you, there is no ICRC statement specific to the naval blockade." implies there was nothing to back up what I was saying, when clearly there was.

I never ****ing said the Red Cross "issued a specific statement to the blockade", which you apparently are pretending I am doing. I am smart enough to realize the Red Cross' statement about the closure means they wish for the blockade is to be lifted, no "specific" statement is needed. How dare you accuse me of being pedantic.

Your lack of integrity is not surprising.

[Sirotnikov]

a nice enough video with an hour of footage, somewhat edited of the marmaris before and during the IDF boarding.

quite clear that
a) the idf was using paint bullets during the start of the take over
b) there was planned resistance




16m26s two peaceful activists talking about the Turks planning resistance trained to deal with IDF if IDF boards the ship.

37m20s activists throwing Molotov cocktail at the IDF boat... IDF shooting back with paintballs

39m10s journalist explaining the IDF is using paint bullets

42m30s armed welcoming party awaiting IDF soldiers

then the video is cut off and returns from within the hall when actual gun fight is in progress

45m25s local activist admitting they are holding 2 wounded IDF soldiers captive

after that many jumps, showing some wounded people being taken, but no footage of the actual fight with the IDF

[Sirotnikov]

I'm done talking with you. This is beyond pathetic.

I'm the one saying the Red Cross is asking for the blockade to be lifted. You said they didn't say any such thing, but they did ask for the "CLOSURE" to be lifted. The closure is IMPLEMENTED IN PART BY THE BLOCKADE. Your statement "Sadly for you, there is no ICRC statement specific to the naval blockade." implies there was nothing to back up what I was saying, when clearly there was.

go back to to school and learn to read. no where did I say "they didn't say such a thing". You're such an idiot I'm surprised you can code.

I never ****ing said the Red Cross "issued a specific statement to the blockade", which you apparently are pretending I am doing. I am smart enough to realize the Red Cross' statement about the closure means they wish for the blockade is to be lifted, no "specific" statement is needed. How dare you accuse me of being pedantic.

Because you are a pedantic dolt.

Instead of addressing my arguments you've spent over 10 posts nitpicking a sentence making a distinction between the blockade and the sanctions, that isn't critical to most of my argument.

I spent most of my post explaining exactly what are the arguments against the closure (blockade + sanctions) and why I think they are legally problematic, and you spend your energy discussing a completely irrelevant point, and then accusing me of being dishonest, despite lying through your teeth.

[Wezil]

Just for you Siro:

GENEVA - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Monday Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip violates the Geneva Conventions and called for its lifting.

The neutral humanitarian agency also urged Hamas Islamist militants holding Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured nearly four years ago in a cross-border raid, to allow his family to have regular contact with him, in line with international law.

Israel’s raid on a Gaza aid flotilla two weeks ago, in which nine pro-Palestinian Turkish activists were killed, highlighted acute hardships faced by 1.5 million Gazans due to the closure since 2007, it said. They endure unemployment, poverty and warfare, and health care whose quality is at an “all time low”.

“The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law,” the ICRC said in a five-page statement. It was the first time the ICRC has said explicitly that Israel’s blockade constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law embodied in the Geneva Conventions, an ICRC spokeswoman said. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.

Israel is entitled to impose restrictions on military material for legitimate security reasons, but the scope of the closure is disproportionate, covering items of basic necessity, according to the ICRC.

“We are urging Israel to put an end to this closure and call upon all those who have an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza’s civilian population,” said Beatrice Megevand-Roggo, head of ICRC operations for the Middle East.

The ICRC said Hamas had continually rebuffed its requests to allow its officials to visit Shalit in detention.

“In violation of international humanitarian law, it has also refused to allow him to get in touch with his family,” it said.

Under customary international humanitarian law, captors holding detainees must allow them family contacts, while the Geneva Conventions require that they be treated humanely.

Arab League chief Amr Moussa visited the Gaza Strip on Sunday, the highest Arab official to do so since its seizure by Hamas Islamists in 2007, and called for an end to Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held talks on Friday with Middle East envoy Tony Blair on the blockade.

Netanyahu said on Sunday Israel would continue discussions with the international community to prevent weapons and military equipment from reaching Gaza and to allow in humanitarian aid, an apparent signal it was open to revising blockade procedures.

“Under international humanitarian law, Israel must ensure that the basic needs of Gazans, including adequate health care, are met,” the ICRC said.

The blockade, about to enter its fourth year, was “choking off any real possibility of economic development”, it said.

States are obliged to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief supplies, equipment and personnel, according to ICRC which deploys 100 staff in Gaza.

“The Palestinian authorities ... must do everything within their power to provide proper health care, supply electricity and maintain infrastructure for Gaza’s people,” it added.

Fuel reserves in Gaza, vital for keeping hospital generators running during daily power cuts, keep drying up, it said.

Stocks of essential medical supplies were at an all-time low because of a halt in cooperation between authorities in Ramallah, the Fatah-ruled West Bank, and Gaza, the agency said.

“The state of the health care system in Gaza has never been worse,” said ICRC health coordinator Eileen Daly. “Health is being politicised: that is the main reason the system is failing.”

Only 60 percent of Gazan residents are connected to a sewage collection system, according to the ICRC which voiced concern that drinking water in most of Gaza is unfit for consumption.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/06/13/14376051.html

Have they now made it clear enough for Israelis (and others that have been arguing the legality of this nonsense)?

[Jon Miller]

Umm, how do they decide whether something is illegal or not?

There are two separate issues here relating to illegality.

Were the actions taken in this incident legal in a blockade? I think the answer is definitely yes.

Is the blockade legal? That should be looked at, maybe. Although it isn't really different than other blockades that were not acted on as being illegal.

Is the blockade the wrong thing to do? Yes.

Note that the reasons cited for why the ICRC thinks the blockade is wrong has nothing to do with the actual gaza incident.

JM

[Patroklos]

Wow, Asher got rocked.

[Asher]

Leave it to you, Patty, to think that.

I've had similar debates with you, with you taking the mindless soldier bit parroting military lines just as Siro did here. I can see how you can instantly identify with what he is saying.

You were similarly "rocked" there, but you never understood it and had the perception that this wasn't the case.

[Asher]

Just for you Siro:

But but but, does it SPECIFICALLY say blockade? Wait, it does?

But but but, San Remo says they can!

[Asher]

a nice enough video with an hour of footage, somewhat edited of the marmaris before and during the IDF boarding.

quite clear that
a) the idf was using paint bullets during the start of the take over
b) there was planned resistance

Yes, that looked like a meticulously planned mob. I'm sure the chairs nearby were strategically placed to hit soldiers with.

Jesus ****ing christ, do you read what you write?