The sane world has a commonsense opinion on Israel's bullshit that hasn't been brought to resolution thanks to the influence of one powerful sympathizer.
The UN Security Council has agreed a statement following Israel's raid on Monday on a convoy of aid ships bound for Gaza. Here is the full text:
The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.
The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasises that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.
The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and voices concern that this incident took place while the proximity talks are underway and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region.
Israel is at war with Hamas; Hamas controls Gaza. Israel has every right to blockade Gaza. Being in international waters makes no difference; the flotilla clearly stated that they were heading to Gaza, and refused Israel's request to allow the inspection of their cargo to make sure there were no weapons.
Israel acted exactly as they said they would, and the ships purposefully provoked them to get publicity. That's what I think is the most despicable--that the ships would sacrifice lives just to get attention. They knew exactly what the consequences of their actions would be, and they went ahead anyway.
On June 02 2010 04 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 02 2010 04 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:08 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, do any of you care that the ships that Israel boarded were funded by a group with known terrorist ties? Specifically, does that fact give Israel enough cause to board the ships in the first place? Does it affect how Israel should have approached the situation in the first place?
All the more reason for the rest of the world to back up Israels decision to warn the boats and ask the U.N(or who?) for permission to search the ships for weapons.
Oh wait . They didn't ask for anything. They didn't explain their planned actions except for the threats of actually completing them. They just boarded a ship with civilians on international water.
It would look completely different if the boarding had taken place on Israeli water or if they'd have done what I mentioned above but that's irrelevant.
Looking at the situation as it is today It should definitely be taken into consideration. But it doesn't change much except for perhaps Israels claims of "known terrorists standing behind the initiative". (Though those standing behind it are swedish Theologists and authors, not those paying for the ships).
Their goal was probably not to use ships funded by possible terrorist organizations but it doesn't really change anything.
The UN Security Council has agreed a statement following Israel's raid on Monday on a convoy of aid ships bound for Gaza. Here is the full text:
The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families. The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.
The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasises that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.
The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and voices concern that this incident took place while the proximity talks are underway and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region. What has to be said has been said. Thanks mmp
On June 02 2010 04:42 ForgetMeNow wrote: Israel is at war with Hamas; Hamas controls Gaza. Israel has every right to blockade Gaza. Being in international waters makes no difference; the flotilla clearly stated that they were heading to Gaza, and refused Israel's request to allow the inspection of their cargo to make sure there were no weapons.
Israel acted exactly as they said they would, and the ships purposefully provoked them to get publicity. That's what I think is the most despicable--that the ships would sacrifice lives just to get attention. They knew exactly what the consequences of their actions would be, and they went ahead anyway.
Many can't understand that Israel can't do this.
Israel has NO right to blockade Gaza, therefore the rest of the sentence is not legitimate.
On June 02 2010 04:42 ForgetMeNow wrote: Israel is at war with Hamas; Hamas controls Gaza. Israel has every right to blockade Gaza. Being in international waters makes no difference; the flotilla clearly stated that they were heading to Gaza, and refused Israel's request to allow the inspection of their cargo to make sure there were no weapons.
Israel acted exactly as they said they would, and the ships purposefully provoked them to get publicity. That's what I think is the most despicable--that the ships would sacrifice lives just to get attention. They knew exactly what the consequences of their actions would be, and they went ahead anyway.
Ok. Do you know what the flotilla was for? It was help for people starving at Gaza -.- Why are people starving at Gaza? Because Israel decide to put embargo and real little resources can pass. And you have the courage to justify an act like that? I understand war is war..but damn..it is like shooting on red cross..
On June 02 2010 04:42 ForgetMeNow wrote: Israel is at war with Hamas; Hamas controls Gaza. Israel has every right to blockade Gaza. Being in international waters makes no difference; the flotilla clearly stated that they were heading to Gaza, and refused Israel's request to allow the inspection of their cargo to make sure there were no weapons.
Israel acted exactly as they said they would, and the ships purposefully provoked them to get publicity. That's what I think is the most despicable--that the ships would sacrifice lives just to get attention. They knew exactly what the consequences of their actions would be, and they went ahead anyway.
I wish I was you. Ignorance is not only bliss but so much easier "Israel is at war with Hamas" Good one. Everyone knows that governments, especially ones like Israel's oh so trustworthy government, are only at war with who they say so.
"Israel has every right to blockade Gaza" why exactly? Oh the terrorists are on the other side, of course!
As most of the world is raging against these crimes, few seem to try and rationalize them. Oh I'm so silly, everyone is wrong. People we all have it wrong here! We need to wake up and start living in ignorance and be naive.
(copied from here) There were already documented inspections of every ship prior to leaving port:
"Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, says the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure:
'I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid.'"
It's not a war, it's an illegal occupation. Calling it a war makes it sound symmetric and balanced, when the fact is only one side holds all of the power.
Israel claims ownership of every aspect of life around the occupied territories, and is increasingly claiming land illegally. How can you occupy what you presume to own? By Israel's standards there is no contest, no question, no alternative.
Why would anyone support a rogue state except for personal bias?
On June 02 2010 04:57 mmp wrote: It's not a war, it's an illegal occupation. Calling it a war makes it sound symmetric and balanced, when the fact is only one side holds all of the power.
Israel claims ownership of every aspect of life around the occupied territories, and is increasingly claiming land illegally. How can you occupy what you presume to own? By Israel's standards there is no contest, no question, no alternative.
Why would anyone support a rogue state except for personal bias?
I bet many people doesn't about Israel's colonization in the region (not specifically gaza): removing the locals, destroying their homes, and then building Israeli homes there which is one of the most illegal acts happening there.
I gave the insight from Turkey in this topic. I tried to explain how we see the situation. I am a senior in Istanbul University, Law Faculty. The facts about international territorial waters and sovereignty I brought up in my posts are based on international law, UN declerations and the international treaties about war/territorial waters/international waters/sovereignty of a state on the subjects. So I feel pretty confident about proving my points with international arguments.
____
Today between my final exam studies I was watching TV nd the rescued people from Mavi Marmara was on TV. Something interesting they mentioned : Israels zodiac boats and and helicopters passed by the closer ships and headed directly to Turkish flagged one even tough there were 1-2 sea miles behind. From now on it is clear that this act was not just an accident but was semi-planned goverment supported action directly against Turkey. They also mentioned the commandos atacked at like 3-4 am in the morning and before they land they jammed every communication on the boats also tried to prevent TV connection atacking to the ones who were recording.
Cengiz Candar, Mehmet Yılmaz, Fehmi Koru (Turkish columnists) said today after and before the operation they called their Israeli coleagues to get information but they said there's a total censor by IDF they couldnt get any information or they werent allowed to pass any information except the ones approved by IDF (I am talking about videos and pictures not column articles since they dont need picture or video for that)
On June 02 2010 04:08 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, do any of you care that the ships that Israel boarded were funded by a group with known terrorist ties? Specifically, does that fact give Israel enough cause to board the ships in the first place? Does it affect how Israel should have approached the situation in the first place?
I still haven't seen any solid proof of significant backing from groups with true known terrorist ties. Especially considering if it was true it would be significantly spouted by the Israeli government as part of their supposed justification. I'm sure they're spouting this all over Faux news but I don't have the heart to read their take on this.
Today between my final exam studies I was watching TV nd the rescued people from Mavi Marmara was on TV. Something interesting they mentioned : Israels zodiac boats and and helicopters passed by the closer ships and headed directly to Turkish flagged one even tough there were 1-2 sea miles behind. From now on it is clear that this act was not just an accident but was semi-planned goverment supported action directly against Turkey. They also mentioned the commandos atacked at like 3-4 am in the morning and before they land they jammed every communication on the boats also tried to prevent TV connection atacking to the ones who were recording.
I would hold off on believing that just from some NTV coverage. Wait for confirmation from somewhere else.
Today between my final exam studies I was watching TV nd the rescued people from Mavi Marmara was on TV. Something interesting they mentioned : Israels zodiac boats and and helicopters passed by the closer ships and headed directly to Turkish flagged one even tough there were 1-2 sea miles behind. From now on it is clear that this act was not just an accident but was semi-planned goverment supported action directly against Turkey. They also mentioned the commandos atacked at like 3-4 am in the morning and before they land they jammed every communication on the boats also tried to prevent TV connection atacking to the ones who were recording.
I would hold off on believing that just from some NTV coverage. Wait for confirmation from somewhere else.
Moreover, don't you think there is something terribly wrong with his conclusion, "...it is clear that..."
Of course Israel must have had some kind of intel about who were on that ship. And seen from the results, it certainly was a special case, as there seems to have not been similar attacks against the soldiers on the other ships.
Today between my final exam studies I was watching TV nd the rescued people from Mavi Marmara was on TV. Something interesting they mentioned : Israels zodiac boats and and helicopters passed by the closer ships and headed directly to Turkish flagged one even tough there were 1-2 sea miles behind. From now on it is clear that this act was not just an accident but was semi-planned goverment supported action directly against Turkey. They also mentioned the commandos atacked at like 3-4 am in the morning and before they land they jammed every communication on the boats also tried to prevent TV connection atacking to the ones who were recording.
I would hold off on believing that just from some NTV coverage. Wait for confirmation from somewhere else.
I belaive your confirmation must come from directly IDF for you to belaive. The person who was talking was not an NTV reporter he was rescued from the ships.
Moreover, don't you think there is something terribly wrong with his conclusion, "...it is clear that..."
Of course Israel must have had some kind of intel about who were on that ship. And seen from the results, it certainly was a special case, as there seems to have not been similar attacks against the soldiers on the other ships.
If you can explain what you meant with this I can give you a proper response. do u mean that Turks atacked the commandos therefore they deserved to die?
Today between my final exam studies I was watching TV nd the rescued people from Mavi Marmara was on TV. Something interesting they mentioned : Israels zodiac boats and and helicopters passed by the closer ships and headed directly to Turkish flagged one even tough there were 1-2 sea miles behind. From now on it is clear that this act was not just an accident but was semi-planned goverment supported action directly against Turkey. They also mentioned the commandos atacked at like 3-4 am in the morning and before they land they jammed every communication on the boats also tried to prevent TV connection atacking to the ones who were recording.
I would hold off on believing that just from some NTV coverage. Wait for confirmation from somewhere else.
I belaive your confirmation must come from directly IDF for you to belaive. The person who was talking was not an NTV reporter he was rescued from the ships.
Moreover, don't you think there is something terribly wrong with his conclusion, "...it is clear that..."
Of course Israel must have had some kind of intel about who were on that ship. And seen from the results, it certainly was a special case, as there seems to have not been similar attacks against the soldiers on the other ships.
If you can explain what you meant with this I can give you a proper response. do u mean that Turks atacked the commandos therefore they deserved to die?
No, that is not what I mean.
I mean that Israel most likely knew that the Turkish ship held the more extreme "activists" and that is why they wanted to board it first and the rest second. And that this is a much better explanation than the one you gave.
Moreover, don't you think there is something terribly wrong with his conclusion, "...it is clear that..."
Of course Israel must have had some kind of intel about who were on that ship. And seen from the results, it certainly was a special case, as there seems to have not been similar attacks against the soldiers on the other ships.
If you can explain what you meant with this I can give you a proper response. do u mean that Turks atacked the commandos therefore they deserved to die?
I think it is correct to say that Israel had suspicions about the credibility of the cargo inspections that occurred (in Cyprus I believe) - it isn't clear that these inspections were even available to the IDF. With this and rumors that individuals connected to Hamas were involved in organizing the flotilla, I would say that the embargo break could be justly misread as aggressive smuggling.
The fact that the majority of the protesters were Turks and the prominent display of the Turkish flag (alongside others I believe but most prominent nonetheless) may have played a role in inciting aggression by the IDF.
One interviewee (I'll try to find the hard source) reported that IDF helicopters fired bullets on at least one of the ships before boarding. Regardless of the fact that the ships were immune in international waters, if this report is true then it confirms that the IDF violated the rules of engagement. A brawl would be understandable if the protesters feared they were going to be killed.
Moreover, don't you think there is something terribly wrong with his conclusion, "...it is clear that..."
Of course Israel must have had some kind of intel about who were on that ship. And seen from the results, it certainly was a special case, as there seems to have not been similar attacks against the soldiers on the other ships.
If you can explain what you meant with this I can give you a proper response. do u mean that Turks atacked the commandos therefore they deserved to die?
I think it is correct to say that Israel had suspicions about the credibility of the cargo inspections that occurred (in Cyprus I believe) - it isn't clear that these inspections were even available to the IDF. With this and rumors that individuals connected to Hamas were involved in organizing the flotilla, I would say that the embargo break could be justly misread as aggressive smuggling.
The fact that the majority of the protesters were Turks and the prominent display of the Turkish flag (alongside others I believe but most prominent nonetheless) may have played a role in inciting aggression by the IDF.
One interviewee (I'll try to find the hard source) reported that IDF helicopters fired bullets on at least one of the ships before boarding. Regardless of the fact that the ships were immune in international waters, if this report is true then it confirms that the IDF violated the rules of engagement. A brawl would be understandable if the protesters feared they were going to be killed.
Individuals connected to Hamas were not just rumoured to be involved in organizing the flotilla. Such people were actually onboard.
I highly doubt they actually shot the ships. Perhaps warning shots. What do the ROE say about that, I don't know.
^ The source I mentioned is Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and a board member of the Free Gaza Movement being interviewed by Democracy Now! I haven't seen the Al Jazeera video, but he says it shows the commandos firing as they descended:
ADAM SHAPIRO: The boats were making their way, the six ships, in international waters, far in international waters. They were still at least fifty miles offshore, and so well off the coasts of Israel and Gaza. And as they were making their way, Israeli warships surrounded the flotilla, all the ships, and the first ship to come under attack by helicopter, with commandos coming down from helicopter, as we’ve seen on the media, on the footage, was this big Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara. And soldiers, as they came down, started opening fire immediately, as was reported by the Al Jazeera correspondence on live stream that we have. And the soldiers injured and eventually killed at least one person, before other passengers decided at that point to try to act in self-defense and to try to stop soldiers, more soldiers, from coming onto the ship.
What needs to be acknowledged here is that Israel acted violently by attacking our ships, to begin with. And under international law, under the law of the seas, our people, as the people on that ship coming under such an attack, an illegal attack on the high seas, do have a right to defend themselves. Now, we don’t necessarily encourage people to take up any kind of weapons against the Israelis, and certainly our activists train in nonviolence, but given the kind of scenario that was unfolding on that boat, I certainly do understand the desire of people to try to protect themselves and try to protect others who were already injured.
The other ships, including the one that my wife Huwaida was on, also came under attack. We don’t know, because we didn’t have satellite feeds on those ships, the kinds of attacks that they suffered. And we still don’t know, because all of the detainees are being kept from any kind of communication with media, with their families, even up until now with their lawyers and with their embassies.
EPT
. They didn't ask for anything. They didn't explain their planned actions except for the threats of actually completing them. They just boarded a ship with civilians on international water.
