Turkel Commission: Israeli soldiers fired at Gaza aid flotilla in self-defence, says inquiry. Raid on Gaza-bound ships was legal. Israel's blockade of Gaza legal under international law.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/israel-gaza-aid-flotilla-inquiry

    Israeli soldiers opened fire in self-defence during a raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla of aid ships in which nine activists were killed, an Israeli inquiry concluded today.

    The assault last May - which triggered a worldwide furore - did not violate international law, the 300-page report from the government-appointed commission of inquiry found.

    The commission, headed by retired supreme court judge Yaakov Turkel, was announced last June, almost a month after the deadly interception of the flotilla, which was carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip.

    Its conclusions were endorsed by two international observers, who were appointed to the commission following claims that an internal Israeli investigation into the raid would not be objective.

    Israel intercepted the flotilla in international waters, claiming the boats could be carrying arms or materials that could be used by militants. A battle between naval commandoes and mainly Turkish activists on the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, ended with the death of nine people – including one who sustained four bullet wounds to the head.

    The report, delivered to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said the Israeli military "were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law".

    The report said that Israel's blockade of Gaza was legal under international law, but recommended that the government examine ways to "focus its sanctions on Hamas", referring to the Islamist organisation that runs the territory, rather than on the civilian population as a whole.

    The raid on the Mavi Marmara caused a wave of global protest. Relations between Israel and its close ally Turkey came close to breaking point. The Mavi Marmara had sailed from Turkey and all those killed were Turkish citizens.

    Israel rebuffed calls for an international investigation after the botched assault. However it faced criticism over its choice of commissioners, with critics saying the outcome of the inquiry would be a whitewash.

    The two international observers – former Northern Ireland first minister David Trimble and Brigadier-General Ken Watkin of Canada – were intended to counter such criticism.

    The Turkel commission will continue to investigate the political decision making process in the runup to the raid. It is expected to report later this year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWell, this certainly is unexpected.... icon_rolleyes.gif

    The conclusions of the commission, headed by retired supreme court judge Yaakov Turkel......




    LOL !!!! SouthBeach, we can always expect the unexpected can't we !!!!!



    ZIONIST FANATICS work so hard, so very very hard to obliterate the truth and defame truth tellers in multiple opposing findings of fact. It seems there was a Goldman whom these fanatics particularly hate because of his telling too much truth. An American of Middle Eastern background was brutally murdered by these ZIONIST THUGS, and they sure don't want to have to admit to that. Such F'n liers !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    Not only are the Israeli supreme Court and its justices highly regarded, but the Commission was advised on matters of international law by two outstanding legal experts, Dr. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg and Prof. Michael Schmitt.

    The work of the Commission was observed by Northern Irish former First Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner William David Trimble, and Canadian former military judge Ken Watkin.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0124/1224288164716.html
    Mr Trimble, together with the other international observer, retired Canadian Brig Gen Ken Watkin, endorsed the panel’s findings. “We are glad the commission made ongoing efforts to hear both sides. We have no doubt the commission was independent,” Mr Trimble said.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 6:48 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidNot only are the Israeli supreme Court and its justices highly regarded, but the Commission was advised on matters of international law by two outstanding legal experts, Dr. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg and Prof. Michael Schmitt.

    The work of the Commission was observed by Northern Irish former First Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner William David Trimble, and Canadian former military judge Ken Watkin.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0124/1224288164716.html
    Mr Trimble, together with the other international observer, retired Canadian Brig Gen Ken Watkin, endorsed the panel’s findings. “We are glad the commission made ongoing efforts to hear both sides. We have no doubt the commission was independent,” Mr Trimble said.





    Idependent commission my ass !!!! I just wonder how many of the judges or others of influence, or of the witnesses are ZIONIST FANATICS of some extraction or part of an Ikuud (sp) Israeli groups.


    and how did they ignore what happened to the American Citizen, he wasn't threatening the health or welfare of any of the ZIONIST THUGS that shot him while he was down, or was that 'held down'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 6:52 PM GMT
    Oh this finding is bullshit! You would have done better to keep quiet, C4, and hoped nobody noticed.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 24, 2011 8:03 PM GMT
    Well, I'm glad that we got that cleared up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 8:06 PM GMT
    I'm sure no one here expected anything but the personal attacks we have just seen.
    And, of course, the lies:

    pouncer> barely even being widely reported

    A search on Goolge news find more than 700 articles.
    (Including, of course, the Guardian and Irish Times which I quoted above.)


    We're also seeing the usual hypocrisy and faux principles:

    pouncer> an international UN investigation

    Coming from the person who rejects the 5-year UN investigation into the Syrian/Hizbullah murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri?

    It almost seems as if the more in-depth and technical an investigation is, the less likely pouncer is to like it. The shallow UN investigation into this incident - which reached its conclusion before it had spent 1 second investigating anything - is so unsatisfactory that the UN has itself rejected it and Ban Ki-moon has ordered a new investigation.


    Over the coming days and weeks, intelligent people and experts - who have read the report rather than dismiss it out of hand - will comment on the substance of the Commission's work. I'm ready to wait for that, but evidently the Israel hatists are not (as if they ever let facts get in their way). Not because they have a legitimate disagreement with anything the Commission wrote, but simply for the reason that the conclusion doesn't align itself with their hate-based "model" and must therefore be rejected. (You can be sure that had the Commission concluded differently, as the Israeli Kahan Commission did, they'd just as vehemently be singing its praises.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 11:49 PM GMT
    POUNCER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God this was well written and great information !!!!! Them people and C4 are so damned easy to see through !!!! I wonder when its going to finally sink in to the Israeli Gov. far righters that they are embarassing themselves right into forever convinsing the world that they are not at all credible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    Looks like pouncer, unable to defend his previous preposterous lie-for-the cause (that the Turkel Commission report is "barely even being widely reported") will simply zoom on to his next lies.

    Pouncer saidRather funny don't you think that Caesarea seeks to contrast my "rejection" of the Hariri tribunal (which the UN itself has expressed concern about) with my apparent support of the UN flotilla inquiry - when C4 himself, who supports the Hariri tribunal so much he made a thread about it, nonetheless slams the flotilla inquiry as "shallow" and "unsatisfactory"?

    Sheer idiocy.
    The UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon did not announce its conclusions before it started its investigation.
    It is further composed of distinguished investigators who have been working for 5 years.

    My position is not hypocritical. I did not claim that the UN is always right.
    I said that one must examine each on the basis of their work.

    Pouncer had made exactly such blind appeals to the "international community" and the UN. Even misconstruing the UN as the source for international law. Indeed, just a few months ago, when he delusionally thought the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon would indict Israel, he sang its praises right here on RJ.

    Now that it is going another way... the unprincipled pouncer is making exceptions of convenience.
    Attempting to project his hyporisy onto me won't work.



    pouncer> UN inquiry was a fact finding mission, followed up the following month by an investigation, which is still ongoing.

    Curious. They first published their conclusions, then had a "fact finding mission," then an "investigation" - which is "ongoing", but yet we should bother with their anachronistic "conclusions"?


    pouncer lie> the UN fact finding mission, which he [Ban Ki-moon] sought only to improve upon.

    That's like saying that Michaelangelo, painting over the previous pictures, was hired to "improve" the Sistine Chapel.
    The new UN Commission is completely unrelated to the previous one - and will not use its work.


    pouncer lie> Ban Ki-moon has made clear his demand for an independent investigation, and has stated that the Israeli investigation does not have international credibility).

    Please quote Ban Ki-moon "stating" that.


    pouncer lie> The only attempt at an investigation that Ban Ki-moon has condemned is... the Turkel one.

    Please quote Ban Ki-moon "condemning" the Turkel investigation.

    Reality:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/israel-gaza-aid-flotilla-inquiry
    UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon

    This panel set up by Ban, co-chaired by the former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, is still in progress. The Turkel Commission's conclusions will form Israel's submission.

    In other words, The Turkel Commission forms a part of the new UN investigation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    WAH WAH WAH !!!!! Ceaserea4, you cannot hide that your a ZIONIST FANATIC who stops at no normal level of effort to make everything OK , where your Israel is concerned. Your completely transparent in your efforts, no one is fooled !!


    So which ZIONIST FANATIC SECT is it that you belong to ?? Do you get paid for all this bullshit you try to pass off on us ???


    When are you moving to one of your ZIONIST FANATIC Settlements ? Please do let us know, we'll throw you a moving party !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 1:29 AM GMT
    Caslon17000 saidOh this finding is bullshit! You would have done better to keep quiet, C4, and hoped nobody noticed.

    An internal "investigation" performed by the chief aggressor in this incident is hardly unbiased or credible. I don't care who Turkel is, this is an Israeli investigation of its own actions. By simple definition such an investigation carries no international validity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 1:51 AM GMT
    Art Deco> An internal "investigation" performed by the chief aggressor

    So you already determined who the "chief aggressor"?
    Normally wouldn't the people attempting to run a blockade be the aggressors?
    Normally aren't those who attack soldiers legally boarding a vessel with deadly force the aggressors?


    AD> an Israeli investigation of its own actions

    So when the US military investigates itself is it automatically biased and lacks credibility?
    What about an independent Commission including retired Supreme Court Justices investigating the legality of a US military action?

    Why ignore that there were external observers on the Committee including Ken Watkin?
    (An expert on military law and the former Canadian Judge Advocate General.)


    pouncer's post doesn't merit a response, but nonetheless I'll quickly go through some of its low lights:

    p> disregard more of their decisions and resolutions than every other nation on Earth combined

    Only serves to show how the UN (through the tyranny of the majority) obsesses over Israel, with the majority of its resolutions being one-sided condemnations, while ignoring ghastly events in the other 99.9% of the world. For example: after a string of suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians, the UN will condemn Israel's targeted killing of the bomb maker. Yet when Syria in a week kills 15,000-60,000 in Hama (more than have been killed on both sides in the 10.5 years since the start of the Arab violence and terrorism known as the "intifada"), the UN is silent. No investigation, resolution let alone condemnation.


    C4> Even misconstruing the UN as the source for international law.

    p> Not in the least.

    The first part is a lie (you claimed that even General Assembly Resolutions were "binding", simultaneously and falsely claiming that the UN doesn't distinguish between "binding" and "non-binding" resolutions).

    p> The UN enforces international law.

    Still wrong.


    C4> just a few months ago, when he delusionally thought the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon would indict Israel, he sang its praises right here on RJ.

    p> I said no such thing. I openly support the UN. Saying I 'sing its praises' just reveals your contempt. The establishment of a UN tribunal would have been my own choice in investigating the Hariri assassination. Unfortunately, there has been plenty of time for disillusionment since.

    You've been all over the map - wherever necessary to exude your hate of Israel and all things Jewish. As late as August, when tokugawa posted a topic saying that the Tribunal "May Implicate Israel in Hariri Assassination" you found no need to correct him or voice disgruntlement with it. When I posted the current topic, you defended Hizbullah first by claiming that the Tribunal had previously collected information incriminating Syria... and later undermining that and pretending it was Israel.

    Which again goes to show that you hate Jews/Israel more than you love truth and justice.


    C4> They first published their conclusions, then had a "fact finding mission," then an "investigation" - which is "ongoing", but yet we should bother with their anachronistic "conclusions"?

    p> They never published "conclusions"
    p in his next paragraph> The conclusions of the fact-finding mission
    p in a post 1 hour later> Interesting extract from the conclusions of the UN mission

    Once again the pathological liar can't help himself.
    Any argument, even blatant lies, for the cause.


    C4> Please quote Ban Ki-moon "stating" that the Israeli investigation has no credibility.
    Please quote Ban Ki-moon "condemning" the Turkel investigation

    p> You don't have Google near at hand?

    You mean you "quoted" him absent a source?!

    p> General Secretary of the United Nations making a unilateral statement that a country's supreme court lacks "international credibility" is not condemnatory?

    It wouldn't even if he said that.
    What he said is that others (like you) would question it.
    Which is why Israel added international observers to witness the process.

    As your own quote says, Ban noted that Israel's investigation "is important".
    Which is the complete opposite of your lies-for-the-cause.

    Despite the plethora of pathological pouncer prevarications, the fact remains that Ban has constituted a new panel to investigate this incident, with the Turkel report constituting an important part of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 2:06 AM GMT
    The outcome, and the reaction to it are all utterly predictable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 2:36 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidThe outcome, and the reaction to it are all utterly predictable.




    Yes 'thugs' trying to cover their 'thuggery' is quite predictable, the only thing is we should be able to expect better, but have been made fools of by whining ZIONIST FANATICS, who are being gifted in their right hand, given weapons into their left hands, while complaining that neither is enough!!!! we want more !!!! with their embarassingly arrogant, everflapping and demanding mouths, while kicking us in the ass at the same time.

    Some wonderfully rewarding relationship we have there with the Zionist Fanatics eh !!!! Our Leaders must be pretty convinced that this Christian "New Jerusalem" is a sure thing, to be worth all this bullshit we get from them. With Friends like these who the hell needs enemies.


    The hell of it is that there is probably a majority of progressive Jewish people, who are horrified and feel hopeless and helpless in overcoming those fanatics, so peace will finally come, and they will no longer be hated in the region.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 6:20 AM GMT
    Normally wouldn't the people attempting to run a blockade be the aggressors?

    p> I think C4 means running an illegal blockade

    Thinking has nothing to do with your position based on reflexive hate.

    Even IF the blockade were illegal, the act of attempting to run it is aggressive.

    Look what the UN Commission writes:

    UN> Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42

    It goes on to say that a blockade is illegal if it is solely intended to starve the population (to quote Hamas minister Khalil Hamada, "There is no starvation in Gaza"), but then the UN Commission flips out:

    UN> insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.

    Really? UN Agencies have spoken of a "pending" humanitarian crisis, never of existing "starvation", yet now - for no other purpose than to "conclude" that the blockade is illegal, this Commission is redefining "starvation" as any "shortage" of food?

    The fact of the matter is that there is no "shortage" of basic necessities, only of luxury goods.

    There's a "shortage" of filet mignon in my fridge. Am I "starving" if it is full of rice, chicken and corn?

    But wait, there's more. The Commission states:

    UN> A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction further to damage.

    Which is NOT "death", "injury" or "property damage". And yet, contradicting it's own premises, the Commission "concludes": "the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal."

    Holy hokus pokus.
    Again we see the rabbit pulled out of nowhere for exactly one purpose.

    The UN document hides behind "humanitarian crises", but ignores that these boats could have docked at Ashdod (or El Arish in Egypt) and delivered their aid. One can further note that the amount of aid aboard the boats was comparable to what Israel delivers every few hours, day after day.

    It ignores that the object of the IHH was not to deliver food but to ambush Israeli forces they knew would board the boats.
    If anyone is skeptical, I invite them to view the "martyrdom" videos members prepared.


    Normally aren't those who attack soldiers legally boarding a vessel with deadly force the aggressors?

    p> I think C4 means unlawfully boarding a boat.

    Irrelevant. Even IF the boarding was unlawful (which requires as a premise the result of the legal contortion noted above), that doesn't give the people on-board - against the wishes of the Captain of the ship - the right to violently attack those peacefully boarding the vessel.

    Hint: if you get pulled over and your passengers start stabbing the police officer, do you really think a defense that "the officer was out of his jurisdiction" would work?

    What we're actually seeing here is another facet of the unprincipled pouncer. Proportionality only applies to the "enemy", not to his side.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 8:53 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidNormally wouldn't the people attempting to run a blockade be the aggressors?



    Even IF the blockade were illegal, the act of attempting to run it is aggressive.

    WAH WAH F'n WAH C-4 Make it your way, the ZIONIST FANATIC LIKE YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT !!!!!! So I hear Yahweh calling you back to keep aggressors from running blocades !!! Do you hear them you you one sided PRICK ??

    UN> insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.

    Really? UN Agencies have spoken of a "pending" humanitarian crisis, never of existing "starvation", yet now - for no other purpose than to "conclude" that the blockade is illegal, this Commission is redefining "starvation" as any "shortage" of food?

    The fact of the matter is that there is no "shortage" of basic necessities, only of luxury goods.

    There's a "shortage" of filet mignon in my fridge. Am I "starving" if it is full of rice, chicken and corn

    Holy hokus pokus.
    Again we see the rabbit pulled out of nowhere for exactly one purpose. and that is for for the RESIDENT ZIONIST FANATIC C4 to be so distasteful as to attempt defending what level of discomfort in hunger his ZIONISTS are allowed to bring on the millions in the GAZA STRIP where his ZIONIST BUDDIES have them JAILED. oh but its all legal under his idea of definitions of the "law of armed conflict".

    OH HOW NICE AND SWEET IT IS TO BE CEASEREA4 AND TO BE RIGHT !!!!


    What a dumb fuck !!!!! not in the least embarassed to speal such bullshit in his effort to be a ALWAYS RIGHT ZIONIST FANATIC


    I HEAR YAHWEH CALLING YOU CEASEREA4, he wants you to go back and verify what level of hunger these mere gaza eaters are in so you can be sure that your RIGHT and they are at JUST THE RIGHT LEVEL OF HUNGER SO YOU ZIONISTS CAN BE RIGHT !!!! YAHWEH LOVES YOU CEASEREA4 GO HOME TO A JERUSALEM SETTLEMENT !!!!!! YOU S O B !!!!! Keep an eye on THEIR LEVEL OF HUNGER, MAKE SURE THEY ARE JUST HUNGRY ENOUGH !!!! YOU SOB !!!!!



    Hint: if you get pulled over and your passengers start stabbing the police officer, do you really think a defense that "the officer was out of his jurisdiction" would work?


    THE AMERICAN BOY OF MIDDLE EASTERN BACKGROUND WASN"T STABBING ANYONE WHEN SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES, you DUMB FUCK CEASEREA4

    What we're actually seeing here is another facet of the unprincipled CEASEREA4 Proportionality only applies to the "enemy", not to his side.


    CONCLUSION !!! Here is a perfect example of a ZIONIST FANATIC, CEASEREA4 whose words and rhetoric are so damned inflamatory that he gives any reader full and complete reason to hold him in the lowest of contempt. The very idea that this ZIONIST PIG shamelessly oinks out some F'n excuse about allowable levels of hunger would leave any Palestinian and those who care about human rights not even wanting to breath the same air in a room with the PIG, let alone sit in a room to negotiate with his ilk. CEASEREA4, you reached the lowest level yet in your filthy assinine defenses of ZIONIST FANATIC ACTIONS, GO BACK YOU PIG !!! GO BACK TO ONE OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS YOU LOVE AND DEFEND!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 9:15 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    CONCLUSION !!! Here is a perfect example of a ZIONIST FANATIC, CEASEREA4 whose words and rhetoric are so damned inflamatory that he gives any reader full and complete reason to hold him in the lowest of contempt. The very idea that this ZIONIST PIG shamelessly oinks out some F'n excuse about allowable levels of hunger would leave any Palestinian and those who care about human rights not even wanting to breath the same air in a room with the PIG, let alone sit in a room to negotiate with his ilk. CEASEREA4, you reached the lowest level yet in your filthy assinine defenses of ZIONIST FANATIC ACTIONS, GO BACK YOU PIG !!! GO BACK TO ONE OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS YOU LOVE AND DEFEND!!!!


    Hey dawg I think your post is foaming at the mouth. You should go get it checked for rabies and probably syphilis too while you're at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 3:45 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    realifedad said
    CONCLUSION !!! Here is a perfect example of a ZIONIST FANATIC, CEASEREA4 whose words and rhetoric are so damned inflamatory that he gives any reader full and complete reason to hold him in the lowest of contempt. The very idea that this ZIONIST PIG shamelessly oinks out some F'n excuse about allowable levels of hunger would leave any Palestinian and those who care about human rights not even wanting to breath the same air in a room with the PIG, let alone sit in a room to negotiate with his ilk. CEASEREA4, you reached the lowest level yet in your filthy assinine defenses of ZIONIST FANATIC ACTIONS, GO BACK YOU PIG !!! GO BACK TO ONE OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS YOU LOVE AND DEFEND!!!!


    Hey dawg I think your post is foaming at the mouth. You should go get it checked for rabies and probably syphilis too while you're at it.




    NO DAMN KIDDING >>> foaming !!!!! I'm incensed at such low bred mentality as Ceaserea4 exhibited above in those words about other humans hunger. ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU'D DEFEND HIM ???

    Sounds like you are !!! and here I had thought better of you !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    Even IF the blockade were illegal, the act of attempting to run it is aggressive.

    pouncer> Catching someone in an illegal act and attempting to subvert it is "aggression"??

    Except at that point no determination was made that the blockade was illegal (and there still hasn't been one).
    Nor is it the role of the IHH to "catch" or "subvert".
    At best you can argue that this is vigilantism.
    But that outs it as aggression.


    p> if I see someone in the course of being murdered and I "aggressively" attack the murderer (negating his right to public safety), I'm in flagrant violation of the law?

    This has go to be the most immature and idiotic analogy ever.

    Not only is no one being murdered, but as already noted the IHH had the option to deliver food via Ashdod or El Arish.
    Their intent (as seen on their own videos) wasn't to deliver relief but to mount an aggressive altercation by ambush.


    view the "martyrdom" videos IHH members prepared.

    p> That the aid workers knew all about Israel's brutal nature in advance, and anticipated a violent interception hardly means this was their "goal".

    Except that there had not been any prior "violent interception" so there was nothing to "know" or "anticipate".
    To the contrary, the other 5 vessels in the "fleet" were boarded peacefully without incident.
    The Mavi Marmara was different because the IHH had planned to make it violent.
    Proving that they were the aggressors.


    A blockade is illegal if it is solely intended to starve the population

    p> Among, of course, many other things.

    What "other things"?!


    To quote Hamas minister Khalil Hamada, "There is no starvation in Gaza"

    The unprincipled and dishonest pouncer quotes what Hamada says as if I said it and says:

    p> What a callous cretin.

    LOL. It's not Hamas that are "callous cretins" but me for quoting them?!

    p> 80% of Gazans rely on food aid to survive. 80% live on less than $2 a day. ...$2 a day is a starvation wage.

    That they receive food aid indicates that they are not starving.
    Note that prior to the intifadah, only 11,000 were on food aid, mostly the elderly, sick, orphans, widows, etc.
    Which just goes to show that terrorism causes poverty, not vice versa.

    "Starvation wage" isn't "starvation", either.
    (Not to mention that much of the world makes less than that per week or month.)


    UN> A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction further to damage.

    Which is NOT "death", "injury" or "property damage". And yet, contradicting it's own premises, the Commission "concludes": "the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal."

    p> 2008 Gaza War?

    I know it's difficult for your discombobulated brain to stay focused on a topic, but we are talking about the blockade.
    In no way is it causing "death", "injury" or "property damage".


    These boats could have docked at Ashdod (or El Arish in Egypt) and delivered their aid

    p> Sure - that's why I send my aid to Darfur via Khartoum, for example.

    Another stupid and childisn mis-analogy, already?

    Most of the aid to Gaza comes through Ashdod. But if due to your own biased hate you don't want to trust Israel, there is also the option of El Arish (through which your own "Viva Palestinia" aid arrived).


    The amount of aid aboard the boats was comparable to what Israel delivers every few hours, day after day.

    p> Israel delivers 10,000 tonnes of aid, valued at $20 million, every few hours?!

    The pathological liar strikes again. Strange that we are to believe that the Mavi Marmara had that amount of aid on it when later he claimed that Viva's 5 million in aid (he lied and said it was 10 million) was way more than anyone else.

    The "fleet" of 6 ships had a total of just over 20 truckloads of aid.
    Israel delivers more than 10x that much every day. Day after day.
    (Note further that contrary to being vital, Hamas refused the aid because it came by land.)


    Normally aren't those who attack soldiers legally boarding a vessel with deadly force the aggressors?

    p> Legally?! Illegal blockade ...international waters ...disproportionate force ...live ammunition ...legal?!

    Again, there is no legal determination that the blockade is "illegal", that this happened in "international waters" is completely irrelevant, the "disproportionate force" is malarky (as seen on videos) and the first use of "live ammunition" was by the IHH (which had overpowered and siezed the weapons of the first soldiers who came on board).


    Even IF the boarding was unlawful (which requires as a premise the result of the legal contortion noted above), that doesn't give the people on-board - against the wishes of the Captain of the ship - the right to violently attack those peacefully boarding the vessel.

    p> The "boarders" were armed commandos

    Irrelevant.


    If you get pulled over and your passengers start stabbing the police officer, do you really think a defense that "the officer was out of his jurisdiction" would work?

    p> A police officer's jurisdiction is every road and country lane in his department's legal purview.

    I'm sorry that you missed the point of the analogy (which was to set aside issues of jurisdiction).
    What if a Canadian policeman pulls you over in Australia?
    What if Michigan policeman pulls you over and you thought you were in Ohio?
    Does that give your passengers the right to physically attack him?
    Of course not.

    What we're actually seeing here is another facet of the unprincipled pouncer.
    "Proportionality" only applies to the "enemy", not to his side.


    p> [busted]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 5:33 PM GMT
    Well C4, you continue to expose yourself as a OBNOXIOUS ZIONIST FANTATIC who will go to any length to defend ZIONIST actions no matter what the facts are. YOUR A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR HUMANTIY,

    When are you going back to a ZIONIST SETTLEMENT ?? HOPE ITS SOON !!!!! We can do just fine in Michigan without your kind !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 6:46 PM GMT
    Once again the stream of discombobulated nonsense needs no refutation (just reread my post above and consider how little of it was challenged other than by the twisting repetition of pathological lies).

    I will, however, address some of the new ones:

    p> a $50,000 cheque in a pocketbook is worth financially far more than 20 "truckloads" of paving slabs

    So the convoy wasn't really bringing in aid but checks (or, as the case, cash)?
    Why, so that Hamas could pay for the aid they are now getting for free?
    Or so they could purchase weapons?

    And how is it that the $10/7/5 million is more than this alleged $20 million?

    But the point was "starvation".
    Maybe pouncer thinks that "starving" people can eat checks?

    In the first quarter of 2010 (before the incident), monthly aid from Israel averaged:
    13,333 tons of wheat (enough for 18 million loaves of bread or nearly half a loaf per person per day).
    920 tons of rice (23 million servings).
    553 tons of milk powder and baby food.

    Which helps explain why contrary to pouncer's prevarications, the aid from the Mavi Marmara & "fleet" was so NOT vital that Hamas defiantly refused it (because it came by land).

    Since then, aid from Israel has increased by a factor of about 3.


    there is no legal determination that the blockade is "illegal"

    p> Then we must take it that the UN General Secretary, the UN High Commissioner, OCHA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, renowned international jurist Richard Goldstone, and UN Special Rapporteur to Palestine (and Princeton Professor of International Law) Richard Falke, are incapable of making a "legal determination".

    That's right, legal determinations - as opposed to opinions - are made by courts of law.
    (Falk, not known for his sanity, may be about to resign or be fired after stating that the US was behind 9/11.)


    that this happened in "international waters" is completely irrelevant

    p> Not irrelevant at all. Commandeering a non-military sea vessel by force in international waters during a period of peacetime is an act of flagrant criminality.

    Peacetime? The was a declared closed military zone, properly announced and broadcast (as the UN noted).


    Outlining the childish ignorance that is pouncer:

    p> Do I have the right to shoot someone who has illegally entered my house? Of course I do.

    No, you do not have the right to use deadly force against even an intruder into your house.
    Suddenly pouncer comes across as a dangerously violent person, seeking a pretense to cause mayhem.
    Maybe in real life your a neo-nazi skinhead (or wannabe)?

    Consider the inadequacy of yet another idiotic analogy.
    The "resistance" wasn't by the captain/crew (house owner/family) but by one group of violent passengers (guests).


    p> a naval escort is the way to go.

    Spoken like a violent person who, rather than helping the people in Gaza, has as his goal to escalate the level of violence.
    We all know that he's not a peacenik or humanitarian, that he only pays lip service to principles he doesn't hold to bash Israel.


    p> The Israeli commandos had made use of paint balls and live ammunition long before any return fire.

    What an odd combination - which is complete nonsense.
    Those boarding the ship were armed with paint-guns, their live fire weapons holstered.


    Let's go back and recall that the UN inquiry's "conclusion" (even prior to the "investigation" and "fact-finding") was based on the premise that there is "starvation" (redefined as food "shortage") in Gaza.

    How odd is it that in the World Health Organization's lists (2010) them amongst the most OBESE people on earth?
    Men come in at #8 (23.9%), women at #4 - with 42.5% of them obese.
    Are we really to believe that nearly half is overweight and the other half is "starving"?!

    Starvation brings to mind living skeletons, as we've seen post WW II, in Africa, during the worst time following the break-up of Yugoslavia, etc.

    Given that the UN "inquiry's" "conclusion" is predicated on "starvation" in Gaza, it's legal argument has been easily unraveled.

    Absent "starvation" in Gaza, the blockade and interdiction are legal.

    Even with the contortion of a food "shortage" being "starvation", the violent action of the IHH passengers - in defiance of the captain and crew - was unwarranted and illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 11:41 PM GMT
    The pathological pouncer just can't stop lying:

    p> I was merely giving an example of how "20 truckloads" of something can pale in comparison to the smallest of things. In this case 10,000 tonnes in aid is hardly small (Israel's 20 truckloads are surely heavier), but they're definitely not worth $20 million.

    The topic was "starvation". Were they bringing in the world's most expensive caviar?!

    Half of the ships weren't even carrying any cargo at all, just people.
    If people are "starving" in Gaza, why fill 3 ships with a circus of people rather than flour or rice?

    You haven't explained why these would-be "humanitarians" were smuggling in large amounts of inedible cash.
    (Obviously not to pay for food - which Gaza gets for free.)
    And what was the purpose of night goggles, gas masks, clubs, ballistic vests and sling-shots?

    Before you rant about medical supplies, let me pre-empt you by noting that 2/3rds of the medicines were expired by more than 6 months, some by more than a year. Equipment was not packaged, just thrown in cargo holds, and damaged in transit. Such careless "humanitarians". How much of that "value" of "$20 million" only existed on paper?


    How is it that the Viva $10/7/5 million is more than this alleged $20 million?

    p new lie> I claimed that the Viva Palestina convoy (October 2010) was the biggest land convoy ever

    Old lies:

    p> Part of the aid convoy set sail from London earlier today and is scheduled to be joined by two other parties on its way to the Strip... it will be by far the biggest convoy ever to enter Gaza

    p> carrying over $10 million worth of aid (an amount other charities couldn't muster up in a year)

    Is there anyone who doubts that pouncer is a pathological liar?


    p> So 14,000-15,000 tons of aid per month? Hardly 10,000 a day

    That much in 3 food categories, and lots more.
    Again, in terms of volume, Israel delivers 5-15x as much per day.
    Every day, not once or twice a year.


    As was discussed in the Viva topic, international aid amounts to $4.5 Bilion per year.
    It is entertaining to see pouncer pretend that two one-time deliveries of (allegedly!) $5-7 million and $20 million are humongous.
    (Or that this relieves "starvation")


    p> Sounds like IHH was delivering the equivalent of almost a month's worth of supplies to Gaza.
    Indeed, they would have produced the people of Gaza with roughly a 65-70% surplus that month.

    LOL. So you are saying that the obesity measured by WHO is due to this "surplus"?

    Sadly, this is just the latest pathological lie by pouncer. Most of the aid, by weight, was cement. He's trying to mislead you, dear reader - preying on your ignorance - by comparing that to the weight of rice, flour and baby formula, voluminous but light items that wouldn't even fit in 20 trucks.)


    Contrary to pouncer's prevarications, the aid from the Mavi Marmara & "fleet" was so NOT vital that Hamas defiantly refused it (because it came by land).

    p> Hamas are irrelevant here. They're not the ones being investigated - you are

    It's a darn good question why Hamas (who has stolen aid intended for the people) isn't being investigated.
    But the point here was that the aid was not vital, depsite your twisting and prevarications.


    You do not have the right to use deadly force against even an intruder into your house

    p> [misses the point]


    p> when an Israeli army officer confided in an Israeli newspaper the need to "internalize the lessons of how the German army operated in the Warsaw Ghetto", and I subsequently asked why the need to "internalize" the lessons of how the Nazis "operated" in the course of a WWII massacre,

    Still lying about that?! At least this time you left out the lies that it was a "senior" officer and a Jew.
    Nor was said officer talking about a "massacre".
    His point was to "execute the mission without casualties on either side"
    Pouncer's level of derangement can be seen by his attempt to twist that to convolute Jews as nazis.
    His pathology is evidenced by his compulsion to repeat this here despite knowing it is wrong.


    p> Funny. If the Israelis would just let the aid convoys through you'd find me astonishingly uninterested in "violence".

    There it is again. So you'd rather see this violence than have the aid routed through Ashdod or El Arish.
    Which tells us your primary interest is not assisting "starving" people in need in Gaza.
    Rather that you ab/use them to advance your own anti-Israel (not pro-Palestinian) political agenda.


    p> The naval escort was in fact Turkey's idea, and I think it might be the best option we now have.

    Again! "Best" only if you prefer violence to getting "aid" to Gaza via existing, available and functioning channels.
    (I'm sure you're drooling at the prospect of the Turkish navy trying to run the Israeli blockade, but it won't happen.)


    What an odd combination - paint balls and live fire - which is complete nonsense.
    Those boarding the ship were armed with paint-guns, their live fire weapons holstered.


    p> And they were shot at?

    First they were met with clubs, chains and long knives (spare yourself the lie about kitchen knives).
    Israeli soldiers were then shot at with weapons taken from the first boarding soldiers who were ambushed.


    p now> The "conclusion" of the UN fact-finding mission was published in September.

    p before> They never published "conclusions",

    p before> an investigation, which is still ongoing

    So how could they publish "conclusions" before they completed the investigation?


    The UN inquiry's "conclusion" (even prior to completing the "investigation" and "fact-finding") was based on the premise that there is "starvation" (redefined as food "shortage") in Gaza.

    How odd is it that in the World Health Organization's lists (2010) them amongst the most OBESE people on earth?
    Men come in at #8 (23.9%), women at #4 - with 42.5% of them obese.
    Are we really to believe that nearly half is overweight and the other half is "starving"?!


    p> Who's "them"?
    Your statistics are for "Gaza and the West Bank". The West Bank is 94% of Palestine. Gaza is 6%.

    Gaza accounts for 1/3rd of the population.
    WHO makes no indication of any statistical distinction between the two territories.

    This is followed up by further idiocy:

    p> Still, what economic rung of society suffers the highest obesity rates in every country? Those with the lowest income.

    This is not true about the "starving poor" anywhere.

    This is an historical aberration and is only true of the "working poor" in some first world countries (due to the preponderance of low-quality "fast food" and low availability of fresh food markets). This is not applicable in Gaza.

    You still need to explain to us how the population is "starving" when a large segment (~1/3rd) is obese.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 11:44 PM GMT
    Given the "inquiry's" "conclusion" is predicated on "starvation" in Gaza, it's legal argument has been easily unraveled.
    Absent "starvation" in Gaza, the blockade and interdiction are legal.


    p> Spoken as if a humanitarian crisis, absent starvation, is nothing to worry about,

    The potential "humanitarian crisis" is being worried about.
    Lost focus again? We were talking about the legality of the blockade.
    Absent "starvation", the UN's "logic" (if it can be called that) disintegrates.


    Even with the contortion of a food "shortage" being "starvation", the violent action of the IHH passengers - in defiance of the captain and crew - was unwarranted and illegal.

    p> you'd nonetheless focus on one act of perceived illegality by one party (the activists), but would turn a blind eye to the definite and agreed trilateral illegality of the second party (which the flotilla activists were, in any case, trying to combat)??!

    "Definite and agreed"? Is that the delusional or liar in you speaking?

    That is the precipitating event that distinguishes the boarding of this one vessel from all others.
    So yes, it should be the focus of why this is different from all others.

    Furthermore, you again betray yourself:
    That the "activists" were trying to "combat" is exactly the source of the problem.
    Not to mention that they lack the combatants priviledge under the Third Geneva Convention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 12:52 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidGiven the "inquiry's" "conclusion" is predicated on "starvation" in Gaza, it's legal argument has been easily unraveled.
    Absent "starvation" in Gaza, the blockade and interdiction are legal.


    p> Spoken as if a humanitarian crisis, absent starvation, is nothing to worry about,

    The potential "humanitarian crisis" is being worried about.
    Lost focus again? We were talking about the legality of the blockade.
    Absent "starvation", the UN's "logic" (if it can be called that) disintegrates.


    Even with the contortion of a food "shortage" being "starvation", the violent action of the IHH passengers - in defiance of the captain and crew - was unwarranted and illegal.

    p> you'd nonetheless focus on one act of perceived illegality by one party (the activists), but would turn a blind eye to the definite and agreed trilateral illegality of the second party (which the flotilla activists were, in any case, trying to combat)??!

    "Definite and agreed"? Is that the delusional or liar in you speaking?

    That is the precipitating event that distinguishes the boarding of this one vessel from all others.
    So yes, it should be the focus of why this is different from all others.

    Furthermore, you again betray yourself:
    That the "activists" were trying to "combat" is exactly the source of the problem.
    Not to mention that they lack the combatants priviledge under the Third Geneva Convention.



    CONCLUSION, this Guy Ceaserea4 comes with a ZIONIST FANATIC Chip implant. It must repeat little crazy voices in his head. We Zionists are always right !!! we Zionists are always right !!!! Nothing we ever do is wrong !!! We never make any errors !!!! No matter what we do Yahweh is on our side !!!! Under no circumstances can we do wrong !!!! Mere human Gazans or othe Palestians are always wrong !!!! Nobody can ever prove us wrong !!!! If we drop from the Sky we are right !!!! Never cross a Zionist, you will be proven wrong !!! Words are made to prove Zionists always right !!! We Zionists can take any home or any land because Zionists are always right!!! A Zionist is never wrong!!! No discussion is necessary, cause Zionists are always right !!!! Facts are for twisting because Zionists are always right !!!! No World Body can say we're wrong, cause Zionists are always right !!!! Abraham said 2000 years ago the land is ours, so Zionists are always right !!!! No matter what is right, its not right unles Zionists say its right !!!! No one can negotiate with us, cause Zionists are always right!!! Its good to be a Zionist, cause we are always right !!! If it looks like Israel is wrong, just go back to Zionists are always right !!!! The Middle East exists to change to what Zionists want, cause Zionists are always right !!! No country too small or too big who is not subservient to Zionists always being right. !!! If Zionists need you land, nothing wrong with that, cause Zionists are always right !!! If Israel fences your people in and their hungry, Zionists will determine when they're too hungry, cause Zionists are always right !!!! Zionists deside if you get cement, Cause Zionists are always right!!!! If Zionists bomb a school, no problem, cause Zionists are always right !!! If you get hit by a Zionist bullet and the Ambulance cannot get there because Zionists won't allow it, don't worry, Zionists have reasons for what they do, cause Zionist are always right !!! If you live in Gaza and fell hopeless, just remember to cheer up, cause Zionists are always right !!!! Its all good cause Zionists are always right !!! Zionists are always right !!! Zionists are always right !!! When in doubt, Zionists are always right !!! Be happy with the morsels you Gazans get, cause Zionists are always right !!! Zionists are always right !! If this seems repeititious, it is cause Zionists are always right !!! have you got the point that Zionists are always right !!! C4 is a Zionist that is always right !!! never question that he is right, cause he's a Zionist Fanatic and Zionists are always right !!! Zionists are always right, !!! Don't forget that C4 the RJ ZIONIST FANATIC is always right !!! Did he tell you that he's a ZIONIST FANATIC and he is always right !!!! Being a ZIONIST FANATIC makes C4 always Right !!! Are you in doubt yet that Zionists are always right ?? Have no doubt, C4 wants you to believe that he being a ZIONIST FANATIC makes him always right !!! Yahway needs C4 cause ZIONIST FANATICS are always right !!!! C4 is an always right Zionist !!!! ZIONIST FANATICS are always right !!! HAVE YOU GOT THE POINT, THAT C4 AS A ZIONIST FANATIC IS ALWAYS RIGHT !!!!! HE IS RIGHT !!!! HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT !!!!! DON'T DISAGREE, CAUSE HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT !!! THATS HIS POINT !!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 3:21 AM GMT
    pouncer> if 61% of a population is considered to be "food insecure", and 80% rely completely on a United Nations relief agency for food

    That they receive food means they are not "starving".
    The blockade would be illegal if it prevented entry of this humanitarian aid, in which case people would be starving.
    (But then it wouldn't be a "blockade" but a "siege")

    The argument that there is "starvation" in Gaza is a slap to those who were or are really starving.



    pouncer> The verdict has been given - the blockade is illegal

    You sure are confused. UN commissions do not deliver "verdicts".
    Not to mention that you yourself told us that there were no "conclusions" as the investigation and fact-finding was "ongoing".


    As usual, pouncer doesn't understand the legal requirements and absent a legal argument, resorts to the circumstantial nonsense that permeates his petty and repugnant posts.