Biggest Gaza convoy leaves London

[bub]

It's really amazing how you have no problem at all to admit that they were deliberately 'creating an incident' for the sake of propaganda.
Even more amazing that you have no problem to support such attitudes.

I look at things as they are.

What foods do they ban?
And what do Gazans export anyway?

I don't have the actualized list but I know that they used to ban chocolate, macaroni, fruit juice, canned tuna...and also toys, books...it shows that it's not just a military blockade, it's a form of collective punishment.

As for the exportations, Gaza could export fishes if their fishing ships were not shot at by the IDF

 

[bub]

Yes, it was a success because they just wanted to feed the (already too big) demonization of Israel.

Tell me, which brain-equipped people would ATTACK some soldiers with sticks and knifes without a reason?
If their purpose was indeed to help the Gazans, why didn't they accepted to moor at Ashdod and go ahead by the already existing channel for humanitarians aids?

IMHO They are just a bunch of terrorist who don't give a damn about palestinians.

It's not complex to understand. They wanted to create an incident, they got their incident, it attracted the attention on the illegal blockade, everyone was shocked, Israel looked bad and then people from everywhere asked the blockade to be lifted.

You may disagree totally with what they did, but if you look at the result (some easing of the blockade) it's a success for them, without any doubt.

 

[expandmymind]

It's not complex to understand. They wanted to create an incident, they got their incident, it attracted the attention on the illegal blockade, everyone was shocked, Israel looked bad and then people from everywhere asked the blockade to be lifted.

You may disagree totally with what they did, but if you look at the result (some easing of the blockade) it's a success for them, without any doubt.

Similarly, when Gandhi set up events that led to Indians being battered by the British one by one, was that really about getting people to work (sugar factory or whatever it was)? No, it was about shining light on a brutal occupation for the rest of the world to see.

The Flotilla was similar. They had plenty of aid and no doubt intended to get it to the people of Gaza, but there was an element of Gandhi's plan in their own. And it worked.

 

[Demon of Light]

It's really amazing how you have no problem at all to admit that they were deliberately 'creating an incident' for the sake of propaganda.
Even more amazing that you have no problem to support such attitudes.

I tried to explain to you how protests worked before and you ignored that point. Here is how it works: the group seeking a change in policy carries out an action in protests of the policy. The first action or actions are typically small and get ignored or are dealt with lightly. As such actions prove unsuccessful the group seeking a change in policy escalates their actions. This usually means having more people involved in the actions. When more people get involved the compulsion to take action more frequently and more toughly increases. Once the protest reaches a certain level of participation there is a sort of critical mass. Either a brutal crackdown ensues or the policy is changed. Sometimes a brutal crackdown can bring about a change in policy by itself.

The flotillas followed this typical pattern of escalation until the number of participants in the protest grew to the point Israel had to either allow them through, essentially ending the blockade, or launching a brutal crackdown. Israel chose the latter option. No doubt the people on board would have preferred the former.

 

[bub]

I tried to explain to you how protests worked before and you ignored that point. Here is how it works: the group seeking a change in policy carries out an action in protests of the policy. The first action or actions are typically small and get ignored or are dealt with lightly. As such actions prove unsuccessful the group seeking a change in policy escalates their actions. This usually means having more people involved in the actions. When more people get involved the compulsion to take action more frequently and more toughly increases. Once the protest reaches a certain level of participation there is a sort of critical mass. Either a brutal crackdown ensues or the policy is changed. Sometimes a brutal crackdown can bring about a change in policy by itself.

The flotillas followed this typical pattern of escalation until the number of participants in the protest grew to the point Israel had to either allow them through, essentially ending the blockade, or launching a brutal crackdown. Israel chose the latter option. No doubt the people on board would have preferred the former.

And objectively evaluating the results of an action does not mean that one supports it entirely

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't have the actualized list but I know that they used to ban chocolate, macaroni, fruit juice, canned tuna...and also toys, books...it shows that it's not just a military blockade, it's a form of collective punishment.

That's bull****, chocolate macaroni fruit juice canned tuna toys books and every other kind of civilian goods were all allowed after the easing of the blockade, and now it is indeed a military blockade.

As for the exportations, Gaza could export fishes if their fishing ships were not shot at by the IDF

Apparently you take to the belief that Israel can blockade the Gaza Strip without it having any negative effects on anyone.
Well it can't, a blockade by nature would harm the civilian population, but as long as it harms the government more than the civilian population (as the current military blockade does) then the blockade is absolutely legal, since it has an absolutely legitimate justification. (Hamas terrorism)

 

[Apocalypse]

I tried to explain to you how protests worked before and you ignored that point. Here is how it works: the group seeking a change in policy carries out an action in protests of the policy. The first action or actions are typically small and get ignored or are dealt with lightly. As such actions prove unsuccessful the group seeking a change in policy escalates their actions. This usually means having more people involved in the actions. When more people get involved the compulsion to take action more frequently and more toughly increases. Once the protest reaches a certain level of participation there is a sort of critical mass. Either a brutal crackdown ensues or the policy is changed. Sometimes a brutal crackdown can bring about a change in policy by itself.

The flotillas followed this typical pattern of escalation until the number of participants in the protest grew to the point Israel had to either allow them through, essentially ending the blockade, or launching a brutal crackdown. Israel chose the latter option. No doubt the people on board would have preferred the former.

Yeah and I thought I've already explained to you why this is nothing but bullcrap.

Ignoring for a moment that a "brutal crackdown" would not involve unarmed soldiers being lynched stabbed and shot at by the protesters, ignoring for a moment that a brutal crackdown would not be soldiers boarding a ship with paintabll rifles, ignoring for a moment that a brutal crackdown would really not result with serious injuries to soldiers - there is still the factor of all of the casualties being on the Mavi Marmara, so even if we do answer to this propaganda you promote here, the common sense and the average logic would still strongly reject it claiming that such scenario cannot exist in reality as if a brutal crackdown was planned there would be brutality on every other ship and not merely on one single ship with the deaths belonging to one single nationality.

Now please do try better next time.

 

[Gardener]

I tried to explain to you how protests worked before and you ignored that point.

Back in my day, protests did not involve arming ourselves in premeditated plans to lynch people of a different ethnicity, and our objectives certainly weren't to establish a brutal legal system that treated half the population as chattel. Our aim was to free people rather than force them to knuckle under to a totalitarian theocracy.

 

[Demon of Light]

Yeah and I thought I've already explained to you why this is nothing but bullcrap.

Ignoring for a moment that a "brutal crackdown" would not involve unarmed soldiers being lynched stabbed and shot at by the protesters, ignoring for a moment that a brutal crackdown would not be soldiers boarding a ship with paintabll rifles, ignoring for a moment that a brutal crackdown would really not result with serious injuries to soldiers - there is still the factor of all of the casualties being on the Mavi Marmara, so even if we do answer to this propaganda you promote here, the common sense and the average logic would still strongly reject it claiming that such scenario cannot exist in reality as if a brutal crackdown was planned there would be brutality on every other ship and not merely on one single ship with the deaths belonging to one single nationality.

Now please do try better next time.

Actually these brutal crackdowns typically happen exactly under those circumstances. Those cracking down initially use minimal force, but as resistance continues and escalates they begin using more brutal methods until you have them firing at anyone who looks at them funny. I noted in the other thread how it is quite likely that the reports of a person shot from a helicopter before the boarding are true and that this person was probably just a journalist on board taking a picture of the soldiers.

People on the other boats resisted as well and some were treated quite badly, but there were far fewer people and thus it was less difficult for the soldiers to restrain the people.

Back in my day, protests did not involve arming ourselves in premeditated plans to lynch people of a different ethnicity, and our objectives certainly weren't to establish a brutal legal system that treated half the population as chattel. Our aim was to free people rather than force them to knuckle under to a totalitarian theocracy.

It would seem you are conflating the people on the flotilla with Hamas. They were not members of Hamas. Also the only indication of "premeditation" is that after Israeli ships were heading their way several people on board began preparing to resist the boarding. I mean, some group of people did bring slingshots and glass marbles, but those are hardly unusual in protest actions.

 

[Vader]

London, Sept 18, IRNA – The largest land convoy yet carrying basic humanitarian aid for Gaza left London Saturday in the latest attempt to break Israel’s three year siege.

Islamic Republic News Agency

It's already been proven that the Turks in that flotilla were responsible for what happened. Please stop spreading lies. You should be ashamed of yourself. Also ... that Flotilla isn't getting into Gaza. Israel will seize it and arrest everybody aboard.

 

[expandmymind]

It's already been proven that the Turks in that flotilla were responsible for what happened. Please stop spreading lies. You should be ashamed of yourself. Also ... that Flotilla isn't getting into Gaza. Israel will seize it and arrest everybody aboard.

Addressing the bold I have to say that it is surprising to hear this coming from someone who continually does what you claim others should be ashamed of.

Addressing the rest of your post, http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...a-documentary-attack-idf-premeditated-26.html

Israel attacked the vessel, they were responsible. If Israel hadn't attacked the ship, there would have been no need for defence. If you want to address any of my posts in that thread, please do, but please cease with continuously claiming whatever you want in other threads when what you claim is clearly not supported by facts or the evidence.

 

[expandmymind]

That's bull****, chocolate macaroni fruit juice canned tuna toys books and every other kind of civilian goods were all allowed after the easing of the blockade, and now it is indeed a military blockade.

Well first I think the poster you were replying to was referring to the time before the recent loosening. But here are some examples of a few of the things still not permitted:

Glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine, tarpaulin, sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing

Apparently you take to the belief that Israel can blockade the Gaza Strip without it having any negative effects on anyone.
Well it can't, a blockade by nature would harm the civilian population, but as long as it harms the government more than the civilian population (as the current military blockade does) then the blockade is absolutely legal, since it has an absolutely legitimate justification. (Hamas terrorism)

This is completely untrue. Your reasoning that as long as a blockade does more damage to an organisation than to the people (which is completely untrue in this case anyway, teh people clearly suffer more) is based on nothing. Israel are still, by definition, an occupying force, therefore they are under obligation (and deemed by law) to see to the welfare of the civilian population - this blockade does the complete opposite, and indeed by the Israeli government's own admission this is it's intended objective: to target the civilian population.

Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to supply weapons or support else to an occupied people or resistance as a means to resist the occupation. This has already been well established in international law.

Recalling its resolution 2621 (XXV) of 12 October 1970 on the programme of action for the full implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,


1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

2. Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

 

[donsutherland1]

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

If one reads UNGA Res. 2649 carefully, one finds that it is a reiteration of UNGA Res. 1514 (1960). Neither the West Bank nor Gaza Strip were considered to fall under the category of "trust or non self-governing territories" in question. The full list of such territories can be found at:

Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, 1945-1999

 

[Vader]

Addressing the bold I have to say that it is surprising to hear this coming from someone who continually does what you claim others should be ashamed of.

Addressing the rest of your post, http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...a-documentary-attack-idf-premeditated-26.html

Israel attacked the vessel, they were responsible. If Israel hadn't attacked the ship, there would have been no need for defence. If you want to address any of my posts in that thread, please do, but please cease with continuously claiming whatever you want in other threads when what you claim is clearly not supported by facts or the evidence.

The ATTACK ON THE IDF WAS PREMEDITATED. Yes, the IDF was attacked. Thanks for proving my point.

The IDF intercepted the vessel... then THEY were attacked. There is a distinction here you are failing to see.

 

[expandmymind]

The ATTACK ON THE IDF WAS PREMEDITATED. Yes, the IDF was attacked. Thanks for proving my point.

The IDF intercepted the vessel... then THEY were attacked. There is a distinction here you are failing to see.

Eh.. not sure how I can expplain this any clearer. There was no attack by the activists. There was a premeditated defence, but it was Israel who attacked. Any attempt to board a flagged vessel, a sovereign vessel, in international waters is by definition an attack.

Again, trying to turn basic logic on its head..

 

[expandmymind]

If one reads UNGA Res. 2649 carefully, one finds that it is a reiteration of UNGA Res. 1514 (1960). Neither the West Bank nor Gaza Strip were considered to fall under the category of "trust or non self-governing territories" in question. The full list of such territories can be found at:

Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, 1945-1999

Well now you have twisted the facts again don. You cannot just claim that it is a reiteration when we consider that it is specifically mentions Palestine and South Africa.

It's my fault though, I should probably have quoted more from my link.

# Calls upon all Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial and alien domination to recognize and observe that right in accordance with the relevant international instruments and the principles and spirit of the Charter;

# Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;

# Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine;

As you can see, it seems all provisions were met to ensure that this would rightfully include the Palestinians.

 

[donsutherland1]

Well now you have twisted the facts again don. You cannot just claim that it is a reiteration when we consider that it is specifically mentions Palestine and South Africa.

I should have been more clear. The language concerning Israel was placed in the UN General Assembly at a time when the GA had become highly politicized. Unlike South Africa, which had issues associated with colonialism and Apartheid, Israel did not. Treating Israel in a fashion similar to South Africa was purely a political decision. If it were not, then Egypt and Jordan should have been treated in a similar fashion when they occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively. After all, both were non-governing territories at that time. But they were not. In short, the original intent of the earlier resolution on self-determination differed from the revisionist version later adopted by the UNGA.

Nevertheless, I do support the idea of an independent Palestinian state (or states). However, I do not believe the UNGA's politicization of the issue has been helpful. In fact, that politicization has sharpened differences reducing prospects for compromise. The hateful "zionism = racisim" resolution of 1975 (not repealed until 1990) injected even greater poison into the dispute by treating the Jewish people's nationalism, alone, as somehow illegitimate. By proclaiming a so-called "right to return" to Israel, the UNGA has given the Palestinian leadership ammunition to rationalize a refusal to compromise on that issue. Yet, compromise will be required to reach agreement on that issue. Israel cannot properly be expected to adopt a policy that poses an existential risk and also undermines the original intent of the partition plan under which Israel was re-established in 1948.

 

[expandmymind]

I should have been more clear. The language concerning Israel was placed in the UN General Assembly at a time when the GA had become highly politicized. Unlike South Africa, which had issues associated with colonialism and Apartheid, Israel did not. Treating Israel in a fashion similar to South Africa was purely a political decision. If it were not, then Egypt and Jordan should have been treated in a similar fashion when they occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively. After all, both were non-governing territories at that time. But they were not. In short, the original intent of the earlier resolution on self-determination differed from the revisionist version later adopted by the UNGA.

This is simply twisting the realities of the situation, and I've seen this approach used often. Those countries were not occupying the Palestinians in the manner in which you describe. In fact, they welcomed the 'occupation' because if it weren't for the Arab States' 'occupation' then Israel would have long ago (probably in '48 when we consider that the Arab countries acquired the now Occupied Territories from Israel during the course of the war) turned Palestinians into the next 'Jews' - a people without a country. For if the Arabs hadn't rescued this tiny portion of Palestine then there would be no 'Palestine' left.

To then claim that their saviors should somehow be treated as occupiers is to turn the situation on its head. These Arabs were the ones who helped create the PLO. You don't create the very resistance movement of the people that you are occupying. That would be madness! This is why they were not defined as such.

Israel were treated like South Africa because both were (Israel still is, in the Occupied Territories) colonial ventures. They were not singled out unjustly as you seem to suggest. This was an extremely legitimate resolution and to claim Israel is somehow a victim here is to make a completely false claim.

And my point still remains that the resolution was not simply a reiteration of the one from a decade before as it specifically singled out Israel and Palestine, along with another colonial enterprise of the time.

It seems you are attempting to re-write history.

 

[Vader]

There was no attack by the activists. There was a premeditated defence, but it was Israel who attacked. Any attempt to board a flagged vessel, a sovereign vessel, in international waters is by definition an attack.

Yet more anti-israeli bull****. That vessel was breaking a legal blockcade. The vessel and the terrorists aboard it broke the law ... not the other way around.

You should be ashamed of youself for trying to color the story. Have the balls to admit your biased and bow out.

Your behavior is absolutely disgraceful.

 

[Vader]

This is simply twisting the realities of the situation, and I've seen this approach used often. Those countries were not occupying the Palestinians in the manner in which you describe. In fact, they welcomed the 'occupation' because if it weren't for the Arab States' 'occupation' then Israel would have long ago (probably in '48 when we consider that the Arab countries acquired the now Occupied Territories from Israel during the course of the war) turned Palestinians into the next 'Jews' - a people without a country. For if the Arabs hadn't rescued this tiny portion of Palestine then there would be no 'Palestine' left.

To then claim that their saviors should somehow be treated as occupiers is to turn the situation on its head. These Arabs were the ones who helped create the PLO. You don't create the very resistance movement of the people that you are occupying. That would be madness! This is why they were not defined as such.

Israel were treated like South Africa because both were (Israel still is, in the Occupied Territories) colonial ventures. They were not singled out unjustly as you seem to suggest. This was an extremely legitimate resolution and to claim Israel is somehow a victim here is to make a completely false claim.

And my point still remains that the resolution was not simply a reiteration of the one from a decade before as it specifically singled out Israel and Palestine, along with another colonial enterprise of the time.

It seems you are attempting to re-write history.

The PLO is a terrorist group. DO NOT ATTEMPT to call them a resistance group. They are not.

 

[expandmymind]

The PLO is a terrorist group. DO NOT ATTEMPT to call them a resistance group. They are not.

Palestine Liberation Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is a political and paramilitary organization founded in 1964.[1] It is recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," by over 100 states with which it holds diplomatic relations, and has enjoyed observer status at the United Nations since 1974.[2][3] The PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organization until the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1993 PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people

Even Israel don't consider them a terrorist organisation so I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from.

Yet more anti-israeli bull****. That vessel was breaking a legal blockcade. The vessel and the terrorists aboard it broke the law ... not the other way around.

You should be ashamed of youself for trying to color the story. Have the balls to admit your biased and bow out.

Your behavior is absolutely disgraceful.

None of what you claim is true. Nothing. It's not worth addressing again other than to mention that. I will suggest to you though that you should probably start actually reading the relevant material - the report would have been a good start.

I base my replies on facts, I suggest you start doing the same.

 

[expandmymind]

None of what you claim is true. Nothing. It's not worth addressing again other than to mention that. I will suggest to you though that you should probably start actually reading the relevant material - the report would have been a good start.

I base my replies on facts, I suggest you start doing the same.

Actually, Vader, just so it's down on a thread, quoted and so there can be no more of your constant blanket denials.

Blockade
51. 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 In particular a blockade is illegal if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other
objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43
52. 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 LOAC 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 of
past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the
means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause
hunger.44
53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the
severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of
reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting
disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and as such the
interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.
54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No
protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism, are
prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition
of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected
Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip
leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined
by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since
1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza
Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment
in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

The blockade is illegal.

 

[donsutherland1]

And my point still remains that the resolution was not simply a reiteration of the one from a decade before as it specifically singled out Israel and Palestine, along with another colonial enterprise of the time.It seems you are attempting to re-write history.

The revisionist UNGA resolution attempts to rewrite the history of colonialism. It was nothing but the kind of shrill screed that increasingly arose in what had become a radicalized body. Of course, where serious oppression was concerned at the time e.g., in Eastern Europe, the UNGA was mute. The desire to harrass Israel, not a desire for human rights or self-determination, drove that body.

Properly, both because it is non-binding and because of its politicized nature, Israel has given that resolution little heed. No Israeli leader cites it among the resolutions that Israel seeks to use as a framework for helping guide a peace agreement.

 

[donsutherland1]

The blockade is illegal.

The International Court of Justice has reached no such judgment. There is no binding decision against Israel that its maritime blockade is illegal. The opinion you cited above is not a binding decision nor does it have any judicial effect.

 

[Vader]

Actually, Vader, just so it's down on a thread, quoted and so there can be no more of your constant blanket denials.



http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

The blockade is illegal.

Says you... but what does that prove?