That's a bit of a stretch.
Every time I've done just that, you ignore it. Then tell me to do it again, the next time I point out your own opinions. Then you ignore it, again.
BTW: I completely agree with the insinuation that was made.
The Flotilla....IDF Actions Validated!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Every time I've done just that, you ignore it. Then tell me to do it again, the next time I point out your own opinions. Then you ignore it, again.
BTW: I completely agree with the insinuation that was made.
I didn't claim that you did believe that, at least about the banks, although you're pretty much proving you do feel that way about media.
I am quite certain that you would have trouble tearing a Kleenex to shreds, if your skills on this forum are any sort of example.
Please reference the international law which requires that this flotilla go to Israel first.
As per my understanding of International Law, Israel has the right to board ships bound for Gaza and search for contraband. Israel can only redirect boats to Israeli ports if they find contraband or evidence that the ships carry contraband.
Some of the ships in the flotilla stopped and allowed to IDF to board without any physical resistance or risk to the soldiers. The activists on those ships were illegally detained, harassed, abused, robbed and beaten.
Other ships in the flotilla tried to evade the IDF. The activists on those ships were illegally detained, harassed, abused, robbed, beaten and shot. The lethal injuries of some of the activists were consistent with an execution style killing... indicating some members of the IDF probably committed murder.
...and you accuse me of defending criminals????
I'm just stating the facts as best as I am able to ascertain them. I don't defend the actions of people who resort to violence... so I won't defend the actions of some activists on the Mavi Marmara. I do defend the right of international aid agencies to send humanitarian food and medical aid directly to Gaza. I support the right of the IDF to board these vessels to check for contraband. If the IDF finds contraband, then I would support the right of the IDF to redirect those vessels to an Israeli port and detain people. I would never support illegally harassing, abusing, robbing, beating and shooting people. How about you? It sure sounds to me like you support criminal behavior.
I already posted links backing up my claims.
The UN report which describes the IDF's actions as illegal and very likely as murder:
A/HRC/15/21 of 27 September 2010
Reference to research proving the US media has a pro-Israel bias:
Analysis of Coverage of Israel/Palestine in Media
A link to a documentary which describes in detail how the MSM came to be so biased in favor of the Israeli narrative:ganda & The Promised Land {Part 1} - YouTube
Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land {Part 1} - YouTube
and
Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land { Part 2 } - YouTube
We've been over this, you lost the argument the first time too...
Here's a legal brief...
The Legality of Israel’s Naval Blockade and Seizure of Foreign Vessels | National Security Law Brief
Enjoy.
I have many more links that say the same thing, if you need.
Even the UN, whom you have cited numerous times, Palmer Commission stated that the seizure of ships isn't illegal.
Even the drivers of decoy cars used in armed robbery are guilty of robbery.
But it doesn't matter, as the legal brief I posted above will prove.
In fact they should consider themselves lucky. Under international law, ships running a legal military blockade, can be sunk, legally.
They committed illegal acts, their detention was legal.
Of course, you've defended Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
But you only ascertain facts, opinions actually, so long as they support your demonization of Israel.
But you don't separate the activists.
That's good, because israel does too.
You support international law, when it suits you.
Last edited:
The brief is diversionary. Yes Israel has a right to an arms blockade as I already stated. But it does not address Israel's blockade and interference regarding humanitarian aid. In fact Israel's actions which effectively limits humanitarian aid is a war crime:
The denial of humanitarian assistance as a crime under international law
Crimes of War – The Legality of Israel’s Naval Blockade of Gaza
The evidence supports activists claims that some IDF soldiers committed murder.
The denial of humanitarian assistance as a crime under international law
Crimes of War – The Legality of Israel’s Naval Blockade of Gaza
The evidence supports activists claims that some IDF soldiers committed murder.
Seems someone would have taken it to the ICC- Like Turkey- Guess not- Why-
The UN stated the Blockade was legal-
You keep on bringing up the irrelevant to prove what- That you are wrong again
Only to you, lol.
Maybe you can show where the Palmer Commissions decision is wrong.
It has a right to national security. They can legally sink ships that attempt to run the blockade. That's been up held in courts, lol.
Get over it.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq32.htm
The Red Cross redefines international law, to meet their ideology. Which starts at all war is illegal.
Their opinion is irrelevant.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/the-legality-of-israels-naval-blockade-of-gaza/
Ya, I read that a long time ago. The second paragraph of The Legality of the Blockade, is where I knew it was going to be BS.
When you can take apart the Palmer Commissions report, get back to me.
No it doesn't, it's subjective at best. When you have a finding by a court of law (Your standard), get back to me.
It's diversionary, lol.
An example of diversion - Nah - An example of the Law being thrown to the side along with numerous Palestinian Laws ignored.
BBC News - Hamas executes three Gaza Palestinians for murder
The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip has executed three Palestinian men it says were convicted of murder.
The men were identified only by their initials. No details were given about their convictions.
Palestinian law says President Mahmoud Abbas must authorise executions, but Hamas does not recognise his authority.
The Hamas' Interior Ministry said the men were executed "based on religious law and our religion and what is stipulated in Palestinian law"
I don't disagree with the Palmer Commission's findings. As I have already posted repeatedly...Israel has the right to block arms from entering Gaza. But that's not the point. Israel does not have the right to interfere with or block humanitarian aid. The IDF does not have the right to confiscate personal property. The IDF does not have the right to execute people after they've surrendered. The IDF does not have the right to use stolen credit cards to buy beer.
Referencing the Palmer Commission's findings are diversionary. If I say that armed robbery is illegal, it would be diversionary to argue that owning handguns are perfectly legal, pretending that the issue is handgun ownership rather than armed robbery. You can reference all the commissions you like proving handgun ownership is legal, but that would not make armed robbery legal.
Referencing the Palmer Commission's findings are diversionary. If I say that armed robbery is illegal, it would be diversionary to argue that owning handguns are perfectly legal, pretending that the issue is handgun ownership rather than armed robbery. You can reference all the commissions you like proving handgun ownership is legal, but that would not make armed robbery legal.
You have brought these allegation up before- Proof please. It matter little what you think when your comparisons are not relevant.
Deaths occurring on the top deck (roof) Furkan Doğan
Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.
İbrahim Bilgen
İbrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time without medical attention. Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.
Fahri Yaldiz
Fahri Yaldiz, a 42-year-old Turkish citizen from Adiyaman, received five bullet wounds, one to the chest, one to the left leg and three to the right leg. The chest wound was caused by a bullet that entered near the left nipple and hit the heart and lungs before exiting from the shoulder. This injury would have caused rapid death.
Ali Heyder Bengi
According to the pathology report, Ali Heyder Bengi, a 38-year-old Turkish citizen from Diyarbakir, received six bullet wounds (one in the chest, one in the abdomen, one in the right arm, one in the right thigh and two in the left hand). One bullet lodged in the chest area. None of the wounds would have been instantly fatal, but damage to the liver caused bleeding which would have been fatal if not stemmed. There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back and chest at close range while he was lying on the deck as a consequence of initial bullet wounds.
Deaths occurring on the bridge deck, portside
Cevdet Kiliçlar
Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck. According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.
Cengiz Akyüz and Cengiz Songür
Cengiz Akyüz, 41, from Hatay and Cengiz Songür, 46, from Izmir, both Turkish citizens, were injured on the bridge deck in close succession by live fire from above. They had been sheltering and were shot as they attempted to move inside the door leading to the stairwell. Cengiz Akyüz received a shot to the head and it is probable that he died instantly.
The pathology report shows four wounds: to the neck, face, chest and thigh. Cengiz Songür received a single bullet to the upper central thorax below the neck, shot from a high angle, which lodged in the right thoracic cavity injuring the heart and aorta. Unsuccessful efforts were made by doctors inside the ship to resuscitate him through heart massage.
Çetin Topçuoğlu
Çetin Topçuoğlu, a 54-year-old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, exited from the neck and then re-entered into the thorax. Another bullet entered the left buttock and lodged in the right pelvis. The third entered the right groin and exited from the lower back. There are indications that the victim may have been in a crouching or bending position when this wound was sustained.
Deaths and seriously wounded occurring in unknown locations
Necdet Yildirim
The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Yildirim, a 31-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back. The trajectory of both bullets was from top to bottom. He also received bruises consistent with plastic bullet impact
Wounding of Uğur Suleyman Söylemez (in a coma)
The serious nature of wounds to Uğur Suleyman Söylemez, a 46-year-old Turkish citizen from Ankara,which include at least one bullet wound to the head, have left the victim in a coma in an Ankara hospital. He remains in a critical condition with a serious head injury.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BFFAFA61F26CA7C0852577A8004B405B
Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.
İbrahim Bilgen
İbrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time without medical attention. Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.
Fahri Yaldiz
Fahri Yaldiz, a 42-year-old Turkish citizen from Adiyaman, received five bullet wounds, one to the chest, one to the left leg and three to the right leg. The chest wound was caused by a bullet that entered near the left nipple and hit the heart and lungs before exiting from the shoulder. This injury would have caused rapid death.
Ali Heyder Bengi
According to the pathology report, Ali Heyder Bengi, a 38-year-old Turkish citizen from Diyarbakir, received six bullet wounds (one in the chest, one in the abdomen, one in the right arm, one in the right thigh and two in the left hand). One bullet lodged in the chest area. None of the wounds would have been instantly fatal, but damage to the liver caused bleeding which would have been fatal if not stemmed. There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back and chest at close range while he was lying on the deck as a consequence of initial bullet wounds.
Deaths occurring on the bridge deck, portside
Cevdet Kiliçlar
Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck. According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.
Cengiz Akyüz and Cengiz Songür
Cengiz Akyüz, 41, from Hatay and Cengiz Songür, 46, from Izmir, both Turkish citizens, were injured on the bridge deck in close succession by live fire from above. They had been sheltering and were shot as they attempted to move inside the door leading to the stairwell. Cengiz Akyüz received a shot to the head and it is probable that he died instantly.
The pathology report shows four wounds: to the neck, face, chest and thigh. Cengiz Songür received a single bullet to the upper central thorax below the neck, shot from a high angle, which lodged in the right thoracic cavity injuring the heart and aorta. Unsuccessful efforts were made by doctors inside the ship to resuscitate him through heart massage.
Çetin Topçuoğlu
Çetin Topçuoğlu, a 54-year-old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, exited from the neck and then re-entered into the thorax. Another bullet entered the left buttock and lodged in the right pelvis. The third entered the right groin and exited from the lower back. There are indications that the victim may have been in a crouching or bending position when this wound was sustained.
Deaths and seriously wounded occurring in unknown locations
Necdet Yildirim
The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Yildirim, a 31-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back. The trajectory of both bullets was from top to bottom. He also received bruises consistent with plastic bullet impact
Wounding of Uğur Suleyman Söylemez (in a coma)
The serious nature of wounds to Uğur Suleyman Söylemez, a 46-year-old Turkish citizen from Ankara,which include at least one bullet wound to the head, have left the victim in a coma in an Ankara hospital. He remains in a critical condition with a serious head injury.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BFFAFA61F26CA7C0852577A8004B405B
178. During the period of detention on board the Mavi Marmara the passengers were subjected to treatment that was cruel and inhuman in nature and which did not respect the inherent dignity of persons who have been deprived of their liberty. This included a large number of persons being forced to kneel on the outer decks in harsh conditions for many hours, the physical mistreatment and verbal abuse inflicted on many of those detained, the widespread unnecessarily tight handcuffing and the denial of access to basic human needs such as the use of toilet facilities and provision of food. In addition there was a prevailing climate of fear of violence that had a dehumanizing effect on all those detained on board. On other vessels in the flotilla there were additional instances of persons being subjected to similar severe pain and suffering, including a person being seriously physically abused for refusing to provide his passport without a receipt.
179. The Mission is particularly concerned with the widespread use of tight handcuffing of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara in particular and to an extent of passengers on board the Challenger 1, Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios. Numerous passengers described the pain and suffering caused by being shackled by plastic handcuffs (also known as “‘plasticuffs”) in an overly tight manner, frequently behind their backs, causing further suffering. Many were experiencing neurological damage up to three months after the events of the flotilla. As has been highlighted, the manner in which handcuffs were used on passengers on board the flotilla is consistent with the systematic use of handcuffs by the Israeli forces in a manner that causes pain and injury.83 The Mission is satisfied that the manner in which the handcuffs were used was clearly unnecessary and deliberately used to cause pain and suffering to passengers.
179. The Mission is particularly concerned with the widespread use of tight handcuffing of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara in particular and to an extent of passengers on board the Challenger 1, Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios. Numerous passengers described the pain and suffering caused by being shackled by plastic handcuffs (also known as “‘plasticuffs”) in an overly tight manner, frequently behind their backs, causing further suffering. Many were experiencing neurological damage up to three months after the events of the flotilla. As has been highlighted, the manner in which handcuffs were used on passengers on board the flotilla is consistent with the systematic use of handcuffs by the Israeli forces in a manner that causes pain and injury.83 The Mission is satisfied that the manner in which the handcuffs were used was clearly unnecessary and deliberately used to cause pain and suffering to passengers.
Please refrain from PERSONAL ATTACKS and keep this thread ON TOPIC!!
If you have a point, please feel free to express it. But its against forum rules to post personal attacks...
V. Conclusions
260. The attack on the flotilla must be viewed in the context of the ongoing problems between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and people. In carrying out its task, the Mission was exposed to the depth of conviction on both sides of the correctness of their respective positions. Similar disasters are likely to reoccur unless there is a dramatic shift in the existing paradigm. It must be remembered that might and strength are enhanced when attended by a sense of justice and fair play. Peace and respect have to be earned, not bludgeoned out of any opponent. An unfair victory has never been known to bring lasting peace.
261. The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade.
262. Certain results flow from this conclusion. Principally, the action of the Israel Defense Force in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas in the circumstances and for the reasons given was clearly unlawful. Specifically, the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
263. Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances.
264. The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law.
265. The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It is not satisfied that, in the time available, it has been able to compile a comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Wilful killing;• Torture or inhuman treatment;
• Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
• Right to life (art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
• Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
• Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (art. 9, International Covenant);
• Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10, International Covenant);
• Freedom of expression (art. 19, International Covenant).
The right to an effective remedy should be guaranteed to all victims. The mission must not be understood to be saying that this is a comprehensive list by any means. 266. The Mission notes that the retention by the Israeli authorities of unlawfully seized property remains a continuing offence and Israel is called upon to return such property forthwith.
267. The perpetrators of the more serious crimes, being masked, cannot be identified without the assistance of the Israeli authorities. They reacted in a violent manner when they thought that anyone was attempting to identify them. The Mission sincerely hopes that there will be cooperation from the Government of Israel to assist in their identification with a view to prosecuting the culpable and bringing closure to the situation.
268. The Mission is aware that this is not the first time that the Government of Israel has declined to cooperate with an inquiry into events in which its military personnel were involved. On this occasion the Mission accepts the assurances of the Permanent Representative of Israel that the position which he was directed to defend was in no way directed towards the members of the Mission in their personal capacities. It is nonetheless regrettable that, on yet another occasion of an enquiry into events involving loss of life at the hands of the Israeli military, the Government of Israel has declined to cooperate in an inquiry not appointed by it or on which it was significantly represented.
269. The Mission regrets that its requests to the Permanent Mission of Israel for information were not entertained. The reason initially given was that the Government of Israel had established its own independent panel of distinguished persons to investigate the flotilla incident. The Mission was told that for that reason, and also because the Secretary-General had announced the establishment of another distinguished panel with a similar mandate, that “an additional Human Rights Council initiative in this regard [are] both unnecessary and unproductive”.
270. The Mission did not agree with that position and for that reason suggested to the Permanent Representative of Israel that he should direct to the Council and not the Mission a request that the Mission defer submitting its report to permit other enquiries to complete their tasks. The Mission has not received any direction from the Council to date and considers that it would have been obligated to respond positively to any such directive from the Council.
271. In the light of the fact that the Turkel Committee and the Secretary-General’s panel have not concluded their sittings, the Mission will refrain from any remarks which are capable of being construed as not allowing those bodies to complete their tasks “unfettered by external events”. The Mission confines itself to the observation that public confidence in any investigative process in circumstances such as the present is not enhanced when the subject of an investigation either investigates himself or plays a pivotal role in the process.
272. Elsewhere in this report the Mission has referred to the fact that it found it necessary to reinterpret its mandate because of the manner in which the resolution appointing it was couched. It is important in the drafting of matters of the sort that the impression is not given of the appearance of any prejudgment. The Mission took particular care at the first opportunity to indicate that it interpreted its mandate as requiring it to approach its task without any preconceptions or prejudices. It wishes to assure all concerned that it has held to that position scrupulously.
273. All the passengers on board the ships comprising the flotilla who appeared before the Mission impressed the members as persons genuinely committed to the spirit of humanitarianism and imbued with a deep and genuine concern for the welfare of the inhabitants of Gaza. The Mission can only express the hope that differences will be resolved in the short rather than the long term so that peace and harmony may exist in the area.
274. Nine human beings lost their lives and several others suffered serious injuries. From the observations of the Mission, deep psychological scars have been inflicted by what must have been a very traumatic experience not only for the passengers but also the soldiers who received injuries. The members of the Mission sympathize with all concerned and in particular with the families of the deceased.
275. The Mission is not alone in finding that a deplorable situation exists in Gaza. It has been characterized as “unsustainable”. This is totally intolerable and unacceptable in the twenty-first century. It is amazing that anyone could characterize the condition of the people there as satisfying the most basic standards. The parties and the international community are urged to find the solution that will address all legitimate security concern of both Israel and the people of Palestine, both of whom are equally entitled to “their place under the heavens”. The apparent dichotomy in this case between the competing rights of security and to a decent living can only be resolved if old antagonisms are subordinated to a sense of justice and fair play. One has to find the strength to pluck rooted sorrows from the memory and to move on.
276. The Mission has given thought to the position of humanitarian organizations who wish to intervene in situations of long-standing humanitarian crisis where the international community is unwilling for whatever reason to take positive action. Too often they are accused as being meddlesome and at worst as terrorists or enemy agents.
277. A distinction must be made between activities taken to alleviate crises and action to address the causes creating the crisis. The latter action is characterized as political action and therefore inappropriate for groups that wish to be classified as humanitarian. This point is made because of the evidence that, while some of the passengers were solely interested in delivering supplies to the people in Gaza, for others the main purpose was raising awareness of the blockade with a view to its removal, as the only way to solve the crisis. An examination should be made to clearly define humanitarianism, as distinct from humanitarian action, so that there can be an agreed form of intervention and jurisdiction when humanitarian crises occur.
278. The Mission sincerely hopes that no impediment will be put in the way of those who suffered loss as a result of the unlawful actions of the Israeli military to be compensated adequately and promptly. It is hoped that there will be swift action by the Government of Israel. This will go a long way to reversing the regrettable reputation which that country has for impunity and intransigence in international affairs. It will also assist those who genuinely sympathise with their situation to support them without being stigmatized.
Some of the victims were killed by head shots delivered from behind, which is absolutely consistent with the Israeli version: ONE soldier initially drew his handgun and opened fire on "activists" that were beating his comrades with steel pipes.
If you would picture the scene, that means you come up behind the guy swinging and give him one in the base of the skull.
That is perfectly legitimate.
It does NOT indicate murder.
Perfect.
So you will be retracting your condemnation of the seizure of the ships, the detention of passengers, and the forcing of the ships to an Israeli port.
Because all of that is/was completely legal.
Supported by the Courts, Canadian, US, International.
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
By your standard, neither do the Police.
Anyone arrested, in Canada, the US or in Israel, has all personal property confiscated from them.
It's standard practice.
That statement is an absolute, all accusations, are subjective at best.
I agree.
Only to you. It is supported by International and domestic, case law.
Unless you can show where the Palmer Commission erred. You have lost the argument.
The crap in your posts, is supported by conjecture and a desire to demonize Israel.
Now that was an excellent example of diversionary.
Again, the Palmer Commission based it's decision on case law.
You base yours on anecdote and conjecture.
He made his point. It is a sentiment held by the bulk of the membership.
The rest of your post is absurd nonsense.
Last edited:
