Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[bit_pattern]

Gaza isn't occupied either.

Hahahaha! That's a good one!

 

[bigjelmapro]

Hahahaha! That's a good one!

Yeah it is. Been debated too, but oh dear, might have to ask you to make an effort on that one.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah it is. Been debated too, but oh dear, might have to ask you to make an effort on that one.

What, mashing the keys on my laptop isn't effort enough now?

 

[amb]

The flotilla organizers accepted that the Israeli military might decide on a confrontation. After all they were challenging Israel's blockade, a blockade that had been declared illegal and a possible crime against humanity. It was evident that it was very important to the occupiers of Gaza that the Palestinians be prevented from eating chocolate and from rebuilding their destroyed homes and infrastructure.

The flotilla organizers, however, would have over the moon if Israel had decided to allow them dock in Gaza, as had happened with other aid boats.

Instead, Israel chose violent, military confrontation.

Had that been let go . Other flotillas would have been organized perhaps with a rocket or two among the useless cargo. Then another even more daring and so on until the kind of cargo Israel is trying to stop because the terrorist use it to make weapons to attack Israeli civilians with, would flood Gaza.
The thing is, ships can bring genuine aid to the Palestinians by landing at specified Israeli ports and the cargo can be inspected. I see no problem with that.
But that wont do to Hamas apologists, they are bent on confrontation.

 

[bigjelmapro]

What, mashing the keys on my laptop isn't effort enough now?

Probably as much an effort as an armless traffic officer directing traffic. But hey, its the effort that counts right?

 

[The Fool]

Had that been let go . Other flotillas would have been organized perhaps with a rocket or two among the useless cargo. Then another even more daring and so on until the kind of cargo Israel is trying to stop because the terrorist use it to make weapons to attack Israeli civilians with, would flood Gaza.
The thing is, ships can bring genuine aid to the Palestinians by landing at specified Israeli ports and the cargo can be inspected. I see no problem with that.
But that wont do to Hamas apologists, they are bent on confrontation.

Are you aware that other ships have landed...in the past? where is the rocket or two in the later cargoes?

Can I just ask that if these ships land at an Israeli port and go through the same restrictions as goods going overland what is the point? Unless you are suggesting that the restrictions on ships would be less than that overland? Why not just lessen the overland restrictions?

seems that this is what is happening anyway. And it would not have happened but for the flotilla so it seems to have achieved its purpose. Its just the face saving left to get over with.

 

[amb]

Restrictions had to be placed on any material that could be used to manufacture weapons.
This was done after the Palestinians used such products to make offensive weapons.

 

[JihadJane]

And since there was no collective punishment form the blockade, your argument is meaningless. Israel many times offered to help deliver the cargo. There was no issue of getting the supplies to Gaza, the issue was running a blockade. IF the movement was simply concerned with getting supplies there, they would have complied, there would have been no deaths, and Gaza would have gotten the supplies. Israel even offered to have a 3rd party like the UN monitor the entire process.

But they chose to run a blockade instead of delivering supplies. So if anything the Free Gaza movement is in violation here.

Wrong

No they didn't. The arab nations of the UN did. And they have no legal basis for such a claim. The blockade is 100% legal by the letter of the law. Show us the law that was violated.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, article 33

“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited”

Slip of the pen?> No. Don't try to get out of it.

Get out of what?

Without any apparent foundation whatsoever, you have accused me of racism. Either justify your accusation, withdraw your accusation or prepare for eternal JihadJane/Jonnyclueless oblivion forthwith!

ETA: To avoid derailing this thread and cluttering it up with the many examples of my racism that you will be able to provide I have started a separate thread for you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184121

Unlike you, I actually have.

Why, then, are you asking for evidence that Israel stole video footage?

There seem to be some major holes in your knowledge.

Yes? It's a figure of speech. And you ignore the actual explanation given and demonstrated. Talk about cherry picking. To be expected of a truther.

No, it's not just figure of speech. It's a description of economic warfare against the people of Gaza - their punishment for democratically electing Hamas.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15964

Thank you for admitting that their goal was not to edliver aid, but to confront a military operation.

Their declared goal was always political - to break the siege of Gaza. Why don't you know this?

Of course you're still lying by claiming it was illegal. We know it's not and you have failed to present any laws which are broken by the blockade.

Who is this mysterious "we" you keep mentioning?

Gaza isn't occupied either.

Ha ha! Israel controls Gaza's territorial waters, the airspace, the land crossing points and bombs it whenever it pleases.

You seem to think that if you keep repeating the same provenly false claims that we might agree with you.

"We"?

If Israel had let them through the the people on the Flotilla who claimed their goal was to die as Martyrs...

Enough rhetoric - produce the claims.

...would have been disappointed. And it would send a signla to the countries who keep trying to smuggle in missiles that they can now try to smuggle those weapons in as they have been caught doing in the past.

Bollocks.

The Gaza Freedom Flotilla had nothing to do with smuggling missiles and Israel has admitted that the purpose of the blockade is economic warfare not military defense.

jane, can you try to post something other than rhetoric?

Have you ever considered anger management?

 

[The Fool]

Restrictions had to be placed on any material that could be used to manufacture weapons.
This was done after the Palestinians used such products to make offensive weapons.

so can I confirm you think that there is no difference between the Israeli offer to the ship....and what was then currently in place at land crossings? In other words overland was only restricting stuff that could be used as as weapons or to make weapons?

 

[bit_pattern]

Restrictions had to be placed on any material that could be used to manufacture weapons.
This was done after the Palestinians used such products to make offensive weapons.

What such materials were found on the Mavi Mara?

 

[JihadJane]

Marmara.

 

[The Fool]

See? Not two paragraphs after haranguing me for assigning a position to you, you assign one to me. Isn't that laughable? Do you do this kind of stuff on purpose because it appeals to your trollish sense of humor, or are you really that...?

this is not your position?

"You....however...want this matter to be concluded by simply accepting the IDFs assurances."

lets look at your "clarification"

I'm not demanding that the matter be closed (that's the position you hypocritically assigned to me) but neither am I demanding further investigations.

looks pretty much the same eh? requiring no further investigation is not "closed" in the united states of mycroft?

I assume any military action involves some degree of debriefing/investigation, and I don't expect that process to come to any different conclusions that what we already have.

that stuffs all been done by the IDF...they have made their investigations and you accept them. so its concluded in your mind....as you are not calling for further investigations.


your positions seem to turn to smoke when looked at in detail.

 

[WildCat]

This would mean that the IDF would have to re-enter Gaza, via the beaches (which are mined partly to prevent such beaching parties), take over a densely defended Gaza port, re-occupy a buffer zone, all in order to arrest activists aboard. And this would lead to less deaths?

The knee-jerk Israel bashers never stop to think through their plans of what Israel should do. Like the ones who get their panties in a knot every time an Israeli missile finds the car of a Hamas honcho and they say Israel could have just walked into Gaza and arrested them instead.

 

[The Fool]

Well, if the video outside the bar showed person A attacking person B, and then moments later inside the bar person A ends up dead and person B says he killed him but it was self-defense, I would say that the video is strong evidence that he really did need to defend himself.

Do you disagree?

ummmm. I would ask why you are adding the person A and person B stuff...The videos just show some fighting and some people ended up dead later.....can you isolate people like that in the flotilla videos...if you could they would be a lot more useful.

 

[WildCat]

Read the papers and the reports and stop trolling. Even BJM knows that they admitted their mistakes. It seems some can still not admit it

You tried to imply that the mistake they admitted top was not allowing the flotilla to sail to Gaza.

If you weren't, why would you make tat comment in the context you did?

No that is you making up lies about what I posted. Just stop it.

That would have been my plan. You really are not too sharp are you?

So your plan wouold have been to dismantle the sea blockade, and thus allow Hamas to import weapons from Syria and Iran.

Brilliant plan there funk!

The IDF admit they should have had another plan. What that was, I do not know.

Yes you do, because they said that in hindsight they should have been prepared to use much greater force. Letting it sail on to Gaza was not an option.

How utterly sad your last few posts have been. You could cause a fight in a phonebox.

I know, from now on I'll just assume that your comments are completely unrelated to the posts you're quoting.

 

[WildCat]

That's your fevered imagination sunshine. That was what I think they should have done. How many times do I have to tell you that? It is not difficult.



If you cannot support your lies its a good idea to stop it.



At least I can read and I am not dishonest.

It's obvious what you were doing. You jumped into a conversation where 2 others stated the IDF mistake was in not allowing the flotilla to sail to Gaza, with the statement that even the IDF admitted it made a mistake. Clearly, this was an effort to make it appear as if even the IDF agreed with your assessment.

And my, how you squeal now that I called you on it!

 

[bigjelmapro]

Wrong

Still quoting Gisha. Pay special attention to its requests for a listing from the IDF of goods restrictions into and out of Gaza under the equivalent Freedom of Information Act in that article. It didn't receive a listing, but somehow produced a fictional listing by itself. There's a thread on this Gisha list as well.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, article 33

“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited”

Its a bit sad that this article in GC is so misused:
A Critique of the Goldstone Report and Its Treatment of International
Humanitarian Law

...
Begin with collective punishment. As the ICRC observes, the prohibition on collective punishment is an “application, in part, of [the] Rule [] that no one may be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual criminal responsibility.”4 In other words, collective punishment is the imposition of penal and quasi-penal punishment on the basis of association
rather than criminal guilt.

But according to the Goldstone Report, collective punishment consists of imposing economic and political sanctions, or engaging in lawful actions of war when motivated by lawful goals such as convincing the enemy to release hostages—though apparently only when carried out by Israel. Thus, for instance, the Report found Israel guilty of collective punishment for implementing a partial closure of its own border with Gaza,5 and in warning it might continue “economic and political isolation” of Gaza until Hamas releases the hostage Gilad Shalit.6

The Report provided no precedent for this radical reinterpretation of “collective punishment.” It could not, since there is no such precedent. Economic and political sanctions and other forms of retorsion, are among the most basic tools of international relations. For example, the states of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have imposed economic and political sanctions on Israel for more than six decades without ever having been found in violation of the IHL rule of collective punishment. The Report justified neither its odd understanding of the law nor its application to only one party.7 Instead, the Report sufficed with the claim that the accusation is popular among Palestinians. In the words of the Report, “Israel has chosen to punish the whole Gaza Strip and the population in it with economic, political and military sanctions. This has been seen and felt by many people with whom the Mission spoke as a form of collective punishment inflicted on the Palestinians because of their political choices.”8
...

You have yet to provide an legal argument to support this notion for the accusation of collective punishment, amongst other legal accusations.

Got any?

No, it's not just figure of speech. It's a description of economic warfare against the people of Gaza - their punishment for democratically electing Hamas.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15964

Democratically electing a terrorist organization doesn't negate its history and its continued terrorist operations against Israel. Lest you forget, Hamas is in a state of armed conflict with Israel, and has been since its inception in 1987.

Then again, retorsion is not illegal and not collective punishment.

Their declared goal was always political - to break the siege of Gaza. Why don't you know this?

When you add in the humanitarian skit, referring to the Mavi Marmara as an aid ship. And there's no siege. There's a humanitarian corridor open, which negates this accusation of a 'siege'.

Who is this mysterious "we" you keep mentioning?

I guess I'm included in this 'we', since 'we' have been asking you to cite how this naval blockade is illegal, in addition to the claim that you stated the UN declared this naval blockade as illegal. This has been going on for pages with no results.

Ha ha! Israel controls Gaza's territorial waters, the airspace, the land crossing points and bombs it whenever it pleases.

Israel controls the land crossings with Gaza that border with Israel. How's this different from any other country again? Egypt and Hamas control the Rafah crossing.

According to the Jericho-Hebron 1994 agreement, the PA was supposed to be controling its territorial waters. This all changed with Karin-A where Israel monitored the crossing between Egypt and Gazan waters (as did the Egyptian navy) and the naval blockade was put into place once Hamas took power.

Then again, a naval blockade and controlling ones bordering land entries is not considered a function of government.

Enough rhetoric - produce the claims.

What? The bit that there is video evidence to support that there were indeed activists that wanted to die as martyrs? Funny how you ask for sourcing...

Bollocks.

The Gaza Freedom Flotilla had nothing to do with smuggling missiles and Israel has admitted that the purpose of the blockade is economic warfare not military defense.

The latter which you still have to cite ('diet' bit). You can keep repeating it ad nauseum, but it won't magically be accepted as truth at face value.

The Mavi Marmara was carrying cash directly to Hamas, which is a declared terrorist organization. What penalties are incurred if an American is caught financially contributing a declared terrorist organization in the US?

 

[Mycroft]

this is not your position?

"You....however...want this matter to be concluded by simply accepting the IDFs assurances."

lets look at your "clarification"


looks pretty much the same eh? requiring no further investigation is not "closed" in the united states of mycroft?

Are you kidding?!

Are you seriously saying you can't discern a difference between "wanting the matter closed" and "not demanding further investigations"?

Let me clue you in. "Wanting the matter closed" means I get upset if there is another investigation. Presumably because I think a new investigation might turn up something I don't like. "Not demanding further investigations" means I doubt a competent investigation is likely to turn up anything substantially different from what we already know, but I won't lose any sleep if someone else demands and gets another investigation.

Was that so hard?

that stuffs all been done by the IDF...they have made their investigations and you accept them. so its concluded in your mind....as you are not calling for further investigations.

Dude, this semantic twisting of yours is truly comic. Why don't you stop trying to contort what I think into the box you want it to fit, and leave expressing my opinions up to me? You take responsibility for letting us know what you think. Letting people know what I think is my job.

your positions seem to turn to smoke when looked at in detail.

If by "turn to smoke" you mean you discover I don't really subscribe to the opinions you assign to me, then yeah.

 

[Mycroft]

ummmm. I would ask why you are adding the person A and person B stuff...The videos just show some fighting and some people ended up dead later.....can you isolate people like that in the flotilla videos...if you could they would be a lot more useful.

Well, it is just an analogy, but the video we have shows person(s) A, the "activists" attacking person(s) B, the IDF. Later some of person(s) A end up dead, and person(s) B say they did it, but it was self defense.

Any more questions?

Do we need to go over this some more?

 

[WildCat]

Well, it is just an analogy, but the video we have shows person(s) A, the "activists" attacking person(s) B, the IDF. Later some of person(s) A end up dead, and person(s) B say they did it, but it was self defense.

Any more questions?

Do we need to go over this some more?

This is where the flotilla truthers go from claiming there was non-violent peaceful resistance to "they have the right to defend themselves", abandoning their previous claim that there was no violence. And then a bit later, when it suits them, go back to claiming there was only non-violent peaceful resistance.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Round and round and round we go.