Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

One of the main conclusions of the UN Palmer report is that the Israels naval bloccade of Gaza and its enforcement is in accordance with international law.
One of the mantra's of the anti-Israel protesters is that Israels actions to defend itself is against international law. Likewise, when the Flotilla was discussed on this forum, many forumers showed their severe bigotry against opinions that Israel acted according to international law. Many times they donot know what they talk about and hope that repeating their mantra's enough times mixed with bigotry will give them their racists goals.
Israel does get critizised for using excessive force:

ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.

iv. Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable

vii. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

From what I gather is that Turkeys first reactions are hysterical.

Palmer is speaking complete sense when he says the attack by the Israelis on the activists was "excessive and unreasonable".

"Israel's decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable," the report concluded.

...
"No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel," it said.

The report goes on to criticise Israel for the "significant mistreatment of passengers" after they were taken off the ships including physical abuse, harassment, intimidation and unjustified confiscation of property.

His conclusion that the siege is legal is being challenged by Turkey (quite unhysterically as it happens).

I'm reminded of when fanbois refused to acknowledge the findings of the Goldstone report on Israel's one-sided attack on Gaza. I don't recall anyone saying the Israelis were being hysterical when they denied the findings of that report or the subsequent pressure they put on Goldstone to water-down his findings (after it was published).

But we all knew that the 'Pirates of the Med' incident was unreasonable and excessive - and there is incredulity at the notion that collective punishment and a medieval siege is considered legal by Palmer.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:His conclusion that the siege is legal is being challenged by Turkey

Of course it is. Duh!

shafique wrote:I'm reminded of when fanbois refused to acknowledge the findings of the Goldstone report on Israel's one-sided attack on Gaza.

I only remember how the terrorbois refuse to acknowledge the war crimes of Hamas. Goldstone later on did clarify and rectify his findings:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

shafique wrote:there is incredulity at the notion that collective punishment and a medieval siege is considered legal by Palmer.

I am sure there is, it goes against the brainwashed slogans. Palmer's arguments of why the bloccade and its enforcement are legal are clear.

Goldstone's conclusions and reasoning were similarly clear. That didn't stop the Israeli's challenging them.

If you are arguing that Israeli politicians are as bad as Hamas - well, I think you do have a point. Both are elected officials and both have members with extremist views. Heck, Israel's PM have been terrorist leaders (eg Begin) and unsavoury characters such as Sharon (whose own government found him culpable for what led to Sabra and Chatilla).

Coming back to Gaza, collective punishment is collective punishment. The Israeli stranglehold on Gaza is meant to inflict collective punishment - and the naval blockade is just part of that.

The shooting of the activists at short range, multiple times and even in the back are clearly crimes. The diplomatic language can't disguise this fact.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Both are elected officials

Wrong, the elective mandate has long past. Hamas is officially a dictatorship and on top of that a terrorist organisation sending children to blow themselves up.

Begin was a terrorist and was elected. Hamas was elected fair and square in Palestine (overthrowing a corrupt Fatah administration). Hamas abandoned suicide bombing in 2006. Israel regularly bombs and kills Palestinian kids (and holds them hostage in 'administrative detention') - and we all remember the photos of Israeli kids writing on bombs that were to be used to bomb Palestine. All facts.

Anyway - back to the Palmer report.

Do you think that shooting activists in the back and mulitple times at short range is not a crime?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Israel regularly bombs and kills Palestinian kids (and holds them hostage in 'administrative detention')

There is no indication whatsoever that Israel deliberately kills children. Hamas OTH does target children play grounds and has no problem handing out candies when Jewish babies are killed in terrorist attacks. Hamas executes polticial opponents without a trial and tortures prisoners.
Administrative detention is within international law. And no-one is held hostage. The Red Cross has access to all prisoners. Again, unlike Hamas, who does hold people hostage, which is a clear war crime.

shafique wrote:Do you think that shooting activists in the back and mulitple times at short range is not a crime?

Since you are interested in my opinion. When three IDF soldiers where held below deck captive, I think the IDF took off their gloves and didn't take any changes iot free the soldiers. I hope the lesson learnt is that trying to kidnapp IDF soldiers will have severe consequences.

Body counts beats spin every time FD. What you and I may think is justified or not doesn't change the numbers of parents who cry over killed children.

Administrative detention is nothing more than keeping someone hostage - if they were criminals, they should be charged. To keep children hostage and then condone this is despicable.

As for the soldiers that was taken below decks - they were given medical attention weren't they? I do understand that commandos being disarmed and beaten up by unarmed, stick wielding activists was humiliating, but it still doesn't excuse the execution of 9 activists in my mind.

But you didn't answer the question I posed about the shooting of activists in the back and multiple times. Do you agree with me that this is a crime or not?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:I hope the lesson learnt is that trying to kidnapp IDF soldiers will have severe consequences.

If thats the only thing you can come away with from the Pirates of the med debacle, then you're a much more sadder individual than I first thought. Oh never mind the death toll, the beating up of rest of the captives.

But hey who care the IDF kicked ass ! Woohoo

I didn't know they had red necks in "Dutch"land.

I'm reminded of when fanbois refused to acknowledge the findings of the Goldstone report on Israel's one-sided attack on Gaza.

Maybe because most people do not care to selectively cite reports that support their predetermined beliefs.

^You're confused young one. Goldstone's conclusions were quite clear - and the ones complaining the loudest were those who supported Israel's brutal bombing campaign. Goldstone was even hounded out of attending his grandson's Bar Mitzvah!

But be that as it may, the Palmer report says the Israelis used unnecessary force and haven't given any satisfactory excuses for the killings of the 9 activists - noting that the foresnsic evidence shows activists were shot multiple times, at close range and in the back. Clearly a crime to all reasonable people. Only extremists will defend this crime.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote: Oh never mind the death toll, the beating up of rest of the captives.

The report says that the IDF acted in self-defence after being provoked.

^Victims being shot multiple times in the back at close range doesn't tie in with the excuse of 'it was self defence - our armed commandos were scared of the activists'

What active imaginations the fanbois have to have!

Cheers,
Shafique

Nothing imaginary, its all in the report. Terrorbois should eat a big piece of humble pie after proven wrong and that Israels naval blockade and interception of the ship is and was legal.

The report says that Israel still hasn't given any satisfactory explanation as to why they shot 9 activists dead. I highlighted this bit in red - did you miss it?

Why the selective reading FD? Guilt or embarrassment?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Guilt or embarrassment?

What a completely non-sensical remark.

Do you have another reason?

I said I agreed with Turkey's challenge to the legality of the blockade - you seem to be ignoring what the report says about the shooting of the 9 activists - stating a belief that it was in self defence, when Palmer says Israel hasn't actually given an adequate explanation.

Do you have more information than Palmer, or are you just stating an article of faith?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Do you have more information than Palmer

No, from the report:

the IDF personnel involved in the operation needed to take action for their own protection and that of the other soldiers.

The IDf clearly acted on self-defense.

Flying Dutchman wrote:The IDf clearly acted on self-defense.

Why wouldn't you confess that they acted like butchers? Water cannons, plastic bullets and riot police would have been more appropriate in that situation. It was not the first flotilla and previous ones had been passed. So it was not a surprise for Israel and the "self-defence" looked more like deterrent and punishment.

Those people were killed in self-defense. Excessive force was used during an act of self-defense.
In the first attempt IDF came in with paintball guns. They highly underestimated the violent intent of the passengers. That was their mistake.

Being shot in the back, multiple times, at close range.. and Israel can't adequately account for the killings. That's what the report says.

Can't see where it says these killings were done in self defence - it says Israel hasn't adequately explained why the activists were killed in this way.

Perhaps there are two versions of the report out there?

(RC - I'm wondering too why FD can't admit to the butchery.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:They highly underestimated the violent intent of the passengers. That was their mistake.

Well... I'm going to confiscate my son's slingshot. Probably I underestimate this weapon of mass destruction badly...

Flying Redneck the spin is embarasing, you keeping making excuses when its all their in black and white in the link you yourself provided.

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable

You're even worse then Tariq Aziz and Mark Ragehev combined !

Yes, I realize it must be disappointing to some people that the kikes (as RC calls them), donot roll over when attacked by people telling them to back to Auschwitz.

So no one disputes that Israeli forces used live fire *after* the activists were firing live rounds at the Israelis?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote: Oh never mind the death toll, the beating up of rest of the captives.

The report says that the IDF acted in self-defence after being provoked.

LOL does the report, show evidence of one single bullet shot on the IDF soldiers? what kind of a brutal defense was that performed by the IDF.. you know despite the bars and sticks of the volunteers in defense, IDF soldiers were much stronger and fit to fight in counter combat. So why the hell weapons had to be used when roundhouse kick could do the job without human loss..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga

Berrin wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote: Oh never mind the death toll, the beating up of rest of the captives.

The report says that the IDF acted in self-defence after being provoked.

LOL does the report, show evidence of one single bullet shot on the IDF soldiers? what kind of a brutal defense was that performed by the IDF.. you know despite the bars and sticks of the volunteers in defense, IDF soldiers were much stronger and fit to fight in counter combat. So why the hell weapons had to be used when roundhouse kick could do the job without human loss..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga

The gun shot injuries the soldiers received is the evidence.

yeah right anyone can prove that they were not made by the IDF soldiers? They are the most nuts DF of the world, I expect every impossible logic for the most enviable damage without leaving any of their own trace..

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, I realize it must be disappointing to some people that the kikes (as RC calls them), donot roll over when attacked by people telling them to back to Auschwitz.

Wow, I am surprised to hear so emotional statement from any person from the North. Do you mean that IDF punnised unarmed people for their "words"?

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, I realize it must be disappointing to some people that the kikes (as RC calls them), donot roll over when attacked by people telling them to back to Auschwitz.

Man this, they will push them into sea, go back to Auschwitz, etc etc rethoric is getting pretty lame.

Even the official Israeli spin bois have stopped using it as they have milked it for every ounce of guilt and sympathy they could, the new rethoric is the 67 borders crap because no one is falling for the old shyte anymore.

If you're looking for sympathy by throwing up old and tired rethoric then look it up, its in between sh1t and syphilis in the dictionary.

-- Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:24 pm --

Red Chief wrote:Wow, I am surprised to hear so emotional statement from any person from the North. Do you mean that IDF punnised unarmed people for their "words"?

Guess they have never heard the saying sticks and stones may break my bone but words will never harm me !