The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow... I can hardly believe you asked that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've not read my post.

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty did not free any holdings placed under OETA.

The Treaty did not attach any nationality.

The applicable documents, prior to the Treaty, were listed in Post #956.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what part of all that refuted my post?

(COMMENT)

Your Posting #948 is refuted. In it you suggest that "It (The Lausanne Treaty) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality." It does not.

Your Posting #951 is refuted. While you merely copy Article 30, you do not actually apply it to a given condition. My Posting #956 completely refutes your implication that Article 30 has some impact on the establishment of Nationality that was not already in effect.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.​

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

But you didn't prove anything. All you did was make the claim about the treaty but zero proof.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah? Then what is the legal authority? Big mouth low IQ assholes like you? Ha ha ha.

The UNHRC-FFM report, that was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade.

"The FFM was equipped with a large support team so that its own very senior lawyers who are experienced in international criminal law were supplemented by experts in the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In addition it met with a number of non-governmental organizations, had assistance from law firms in three countries, and was thoroughly briefed on the situation in Gaza by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The UN [Palmer] Panel did not have the services of anyone with expertise in international criminal or maritime law and did not conduct interviews of its own. That it should now criticise its more senior and better equipped counterparts in the UNHRC is an indication of the unreal world in which it has functioned."​

Your link takes us to "Global Research"? THAT'S your idea of a legit source?! Bwahahahahahaha!

Hey I have an idea, why won't you go and make a clone of yourself, that way you can go fuck yourself, you low IQ'd shitstain.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your link takes us to "Global Research"? THAT'S your idea of a legit source?! Bwahahahahahaha!

Hey I have an idea, why won't you go and make a clone of yourself, that way you can go fuck yourself, you low IQ'd shitstain.

So your point is what, big brain? That because the report is posted on a website you don't particularly care for, it doesn't exist? That there's no UNHRC-FFM report on the Gaza blockade? Is that your contention, Mr. High I.Q.?

Or are bullshit innuendo's and ad hominems as far as your grey matter can take you?

Well, here's the UNHRC-FFM report, that concluded the blockade was illegal.

59. The Mission finds that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate.

60. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
​

 

[Roudy]

Your link takes us to "Global Research"? THAT'S your idea of a legit source?! Bwahahahahahaha!

Hey I have an idea, why won't you go and make a clone of yourself, that way you can go fuck yourself, you low IQ'd shitstain.

So your point is what, big brain? That because the report is posted on a website you don't particularly care for, it doesn't exist? That there's no UNHRC-FFM report on the Gaza blockade? Is that your contention, Mr. High I.Q.?

Or are bullshit innuendo's and ad hominems as far as your grey matter can take you?

Well, here's the UNHRC-FFM report, that concluded the blockade was illegal.

59. The Mission finds that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate.

60. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
​

Palmer report is the only binding one. The rest are meaningless garbage and propoganda pieces. Case closed.

UN Palmer report: blockade of Gaza legal

The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters. It has also rebutted many of the false claims and assumptions that have been made about the flotilla incident and about the broader situation in Gaza.

The UN investigative committee headed by former prime minister of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law, was established by the UN to examine the Israeli raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.

On that day, seven flotilla ships were seeking to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza when they were intercepted by the Israeli navy seeking to escort the ships to the Ashdod port to inspect their goods. On the ship Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists attacked Israeli commandos with baseball bats, steel bars, and live fire. Israeli commandos used both non-lethal weaponry and live fire to defend themselves. Nine activists were killed, and seven Israeli commandos were wounded.

The Palmer report unequivocally found that: "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." The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

The report also questioned the motives of the flotilla organisers, in stating that: "Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exists serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly the IHH [Humanitarian Relief Foundation - the Turkish aid group that primarily organised the flotilla]. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."

Israel has adopted the Palmer report, with the exception of some reservations in relation to the report's finding that Israel's decision to board the vessels in the manner it did was "excessive and unreasonable". Israel rejects that finding, arguing that repeated warnings were given to the vessels and that its soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara were in immediate danger and therefore acted in self-defence.

And in fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised 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."

The Palmer report also raises serious questions about the Palestinians' readiness for statehood. The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, which includes the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. However, while it may be argued that the West Bank is ready for statehood, it appears pretty clear that Gaza is not, as it is still run by Hamas - a recognised terrorist organisation that continues to launch rockets and mortars in Israel. The Palmer report acknowledged the threat to Israel posed by Hamas terrorists, in stating that:

Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza toward Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased, some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.

The Palmer report goes on to highlight the dangers posed by Hamas, and repudiates those who deny that Israel is involved in something resembling a state of war with Hamas, or those who claim that Israel is somehow still "occupying" Gaza, despite having no presence on the ground inside that territory. The Palmer report stated:

It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza's status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities... it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict… Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza.

Those who argue that the UN should grant the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement with Israel therefore have to answer these questions: do they really want to create a new state which will be co-run by the very terrorists described in the UN Security Council's own flotilla report as waging war on Israel in a way that targets Israeli civilians in contravention of international law? Should Hamas be rewarded for doing so with a declaration inviting them to join the "international community" of civilised nations as part of a Palestinian unity government?

 

[Billo_Really]

Palmer report is the only binding one. The rest are meaningless garbage and propoganda pieces. Case closed.

UN Palmer report: blockade of Gaza legal

The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters. It has also rebutted many of the false claims and assumptions that have been made about the flotilla incident and about the broader situation in Gaza.

The UN investigative committee headed by former prime minister of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law, was established by the UN to examine the Israeli raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.

On that day, seven flotilla ships were seeking to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza when they were intercepted by the Israeli navy seeking to escort the ships to the Ashdod port to inspect their goods. On the ship Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists attacked Israeli commandos with baseball bats, steel bars, and live fire. Israeli commandos used both non-lethal weaponry and live fire to defend themselves. Nine activists were killed, and seven Israeli commandos were wounded.

The Palmer report unequivocally found that: "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." The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

The report also questioned the motives of the flotilla organisers, in stating that: "Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exists serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly the IHH [Humanitarian Relief Foundation - the Turkish aid group that primarily organised the flotilla]. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."

Israel has adopted the Palmer report, with the exception of some reservations in relation to the report's finding that Israel's decision to board the vessels in the manner it did was "excessive and unreasonable". Israel rejects that finding, arguing that repeated warnings were given to the vessels and that its soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara were in immediate danger and therefore acted in self-defence.

And in fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised 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."

The Palmer report also raises serious questions about the Palestinians' readiness for statehood. The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, which includes the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. However, while it may be argued that the West Bank is ready for statehood, it appears pretty clear that Gaza is not, as it is still run by Hamas - a recognised terrorist organisation that continues to launch rockets and mortars in Israel. The Palmer report acknowledged the threat to Israel posed by Hamas terrorists, in stating that:

Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza toward Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased, some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.

The Palmer report goes on to highlight the dangers posed by Hamas, and repudiates those who deny that Israel is involved in something resembling a state of war with Hamas, or those who claim that Israel is somehow still "occupying" Gaza, despite having no presence on the ground inside that territory. The Palmer report stated:

It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza's status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities... it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict… Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza.

Those who argue that the UN should grant the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement with Israel therefore have to answer these questions: do they really want to create a new state which will be co-run by the very terrorists described in the UN Security Council's own flotilla report as waging war on Israel in a way that targets Israeli civilians in contravention of international law? Should Hamas be rewarded for doing so with a declaration inviting them to join the "international community" of civilised nations as part of a Palestinian unity government?

The Palmer Report is not binding and was not commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade. Its "Mission", was to ease Israeli-Turkey relations and that's it.

There were no experts in international law on the whole Panel.

The unusually small inquiry panel itself lacked credibility. It was chaired by former New Zealand prime minister and international environment law expert Geoffrey Palmer. Astonishingly, the only other independent member was its vice-chair, the former president of Colombia. Alvaro Uribe’s notorious history as a human rights abuser who called human rights advocates such as Amnesty International “rats,” as well as his legacy of seeking out the closest possible ties to and defense of Israel while in office, make him wildly inappropriate for such an assignment. The panel was rounded out with two members appointed by Israel and Turkey, each of whom appended a partisan dissent to the report.​

And since the Panel had no experts, their comments on the legality of the blockade are not credible.

"the report of the Palmer Commission is severely flawed from an international law perspective. The most significant finding of the report is its most dangerous and legally dubious: the conclusion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, in effect since mid-2007, was somehow, despite being severely harmful to the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, a legitimate act of self-defense. The report gives considerable attention to the illegal rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian militants mainly associated with Hamas, and notes, appropriately, that “stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people.” But while that justifies protective action, it does not make the case for a valid claim of self-defense under international law."​

The Panel definitely showed its lack of legal expertise.

"The report ignores altogether the crucial fact that a unilateral ceasefire had been observed by Hamas ever since the end of the Gaza War in early 2009. An earlier joint Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire had been declared in July 2008, and had led to a virtual halt in rocket attacks until it was broken by Israel in November of that year, in a lethal assault on Gaza that led to a crumbling of the ceasefire and thereafter to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead on December 27, 2008. The Palmer report cannot be legally persuasive on the central issue of self-defense without addressing the relevance of these ceasefires that gave Israel a viable security alternative to blockade and force. The fact that the word “ceasefire” does not even appear in the 105-page document underscores why this report is so unconvincing except to Israel’s partisans.

Instead of trying diplomacy, which had shown itself effective, Israel relied on a naval blockade, which prevented every boat from reaching the Gaza Strip, establishing a military siege, cruelly confining all Gazans, children, women and men (more than 50 percent of Gaza’s population is below the age of 15) living under occupation in what amounts to an open-air prison. Such a blockade is a massive and sustained example of collective punishment, unequivocally prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."​

But I do understand why you keep pushing this Palmer Report.

It's all you got!

 

[Phoenall]

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Does it say that in those words, or is that your interpretation of it ? What it did is set the scene for the Jewish national home in Palestine, and allowed the arab muslims from Saudi to rule over arab muslim nomads

No it didn't. It didn't say anything about that.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.




So which state was Palestine transferred to again, remembering that there was no state of Palestine at that time ?

You lose again because you don't read and digest what you post.............................

Who said there wasn't?

Link?

Will the UN and the Palestinians do

A 43 827-S 20278 of 18 November 1988


In the land of heroic Algeria and as the guest of its people and its President, Chadli Bendjedid, the Palestine National Council held its nineteenth extraordinary session - the session of the intifadah (uprising) and national independence, the session of the martyr and hero Abu Jihad - from 12 to 15 November 1988.

The session culminated in the declaration of the Palestinian State on our Palestinian land, representing the natural culmination of a valiant and tenacious popular struggle which has continued for more than 70 years and taken its toll in the immense sacrifices made by our people in its homeland, on its frontiers and in all the camps and places to which it has been dispersed.



So no state of Palestine before this date officially

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see pro-Palestinians cite this Article quite frequently.

No it didn't. It didn't say anything about that.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

(COMMENT)

They get this wrong all the time.

• "In the conditions laid down by the local law,"
  • The local law, at the conclusion of the Great War, for the territory to which a given Mandate was applied:
    • Palestine Order in Council
    • Mandate for Palestine
    • Palestine Citizenship Order
• "Nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred"
  • Under Article 16 ("Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."), the territory was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers further remanded custody to the Mandatory Powers.

The Pro-Palestinians try to imply that this Article 30 grants some special status to the Palestinians. All it does is insures that no one, at the outcome of the War, is a stateless person. It does not confer any special sovereignty - any specific citizenship title, or state status to any habitually resident anywhere in the former Empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

because it spells out that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to international law regarding Palestine, and you just spout any LIE that shows the Jews in a bad light.

 

[Phoenall]

Palmer report is the only binding one. The rest are meaningless garbage and propoganda pieces. Case closed.

UN Palmer report: blockade of Gaza legal

The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters. It has also rebutted many of the false claims and assumptions that have been made about the flotilla incident and about the broader situation in Gaza.

The UN investigative committee headed by former prime minister of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law, was established by the UN to examine the Israeli raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.

On that day, seven flotilla ships were seeking to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza when they were intercepted by the Israeli navy seeking to escort the ships to the Ashdod port to inspect their goods. On the ship Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists attacked Israeli commandos with baseball bats, steel bars, and live fire. Israeli commandos used both non-lethal weaponry and live fire to defend themselves. Nine activists were killed, and seven Israeli commandos were wounded.

The Palmer report unequivocally found that: "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." The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

The report also questioned the motives of the flotilla organisers, in stating that: "Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exists serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly the IHH [Humanitarian Relief Foundation - the Turkish aid group that primarily organised the flotilla]. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."

Israel has adopted the Palmer report, with the exception of some reservations in relation to the report's finding that Israel's decision to board the vessels in the manner it did was "excessive and unreasonable". Israel rejects that finding, arguing that repeated warnings were given to the vessels and that its soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara were in immediate danger and therefore acted in self-defence.

And in fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised 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."

The Palmer report also raises serious questions about the Palestinians' readiness for statehood. The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, which includes the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. However, while it may be argued that the West Bank is ready for statehood, it appears pretty clear that Gaza is not, as it is still run by Hamas - a recognised terrorist organisation that continues to launch rockets and mortars in Israel. The Palmer report acknowledged the threat to Israel posed by Hamas terrorists, in stating that:

Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza toward Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased, some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.

The Palmer report goes on to highlight the dangers posed by Hamas, and repudiates those who deny that Israel is involved in something resembling a state of war with Hamas, or those who claim that Israel is somehow still "occupying" Gaza, despite having no presence on the ground inside that territory. The Palmer report stated:

It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza's status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities... it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict… Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza.

Those who argue that the UN should grant the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement with Israel therefore have to answer these questions: do they really want to create a new state which will be co-run by the very terrorists described in the UN Security Council's own flotilla report as waging war on Israel in a way that targets Israeli civilians in contravention of international law? Should Hamas be rewarded for doing so with a declaration inviting them to join the "international community" of civilised nations as part of a Palestinian unity government?

The Palmer Report is not binding and was not commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade. Its "Mission", was to ease Israeli-Turkey relations and that's it.

There were no experts in international law on the whole Panel.

The unusually small inquiry panel itself lacked credibility. It was chaired by former New Zealand prime minister and international environment law expert Geoffrey Palmer. Astonishingly, the only other independent member was its vice-chair, the former president of Colombia. Alvaro Uribe’s notorious history as a human rights abuser who called human rights advocates such as Amnesty International “rats,” as well as his legacy of seeking out the closest possible ties to and defense of Israel while in office, make him wildly inappropriate for such an assignment. The panel was rounded out with two members appointed by Israel and Turkey, each of whom appended a partisan dissent to the report.​

And since the Panel had no experts, their comments on the legality of the blockade are not credible.

"the report of the Palmer Commission is severely flawed from an international law perspective. The most significant finding of the report is its most dangerous and legally dubious: the conclusion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, in effect since mid-2007, was somehow, despite being severely harmful to the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, a legitimate act of self-defense. The report gives considerable attention to the illegal rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian militants mainly associated with Hamas, and notes, appropriately, that “stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people.” But while that justifies protective action, it does not make the case for a valid claim of self-defense under international law."​

The Panel definitely showed its lack of legal expertise.

"The report ignores altogether the crucial fact that a unilateral ceasefire had been observed by Hamas ever since the end of the Gaza War in early 2009. An earlier joint Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire had been declared in July 2008, and had led to a virtual halt in rocket attacks until it was broken by Israel in November of that year, in a lethal assault on Gaza that led to a crumbling of the ceasefire and thereafter to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead on December 27, 2008. The Palmer report cannot be legally persuasive on the central issue of self-defense without addressing the relevance of these ceasefires that gave Israel a viable security alternative to blockade and force. The fact that the word “ceasefire” does not even appear in the 105-page document underscores why this report is so unconvincing except to Israel’s partisans.

Instead of trying diplomacy, which had shown itself effective, Israel relied on a naval blockade, which prevented every boat from reaching the Gaza Strip, establishing a military siege, cruelly confining all Gazans, children, women and men (more than 50 percent of Gaza’s population is below the age of 15) living under occupation in what amounts to an open-air prison. Such a blockade is a massive and sustained example of collective punishment, unequivocally prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."​

But I do understand why you keep pushing this Palmer Report.

It's all you got!

What is it you say again, AD HOMINENS ARE NOT VALID REBUTTALS

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The League of Nations, entrusted the administration of the Territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them the Allied Powers in 1922.

It was not sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine, nor was it self governing.

Does it say that in those words, or is that your interpretation of it ? What it did is set the scene for the Jewish national home in Palestine, and allowed the arab muslims from Saudi to rule over arab muslim nomads

No it didn't. It didn't say anything about that.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

So which state was Palestine transferred to again, remembering that there was no state of Palestine at that time ?

You lose again because you don't read and digest what you post.............................

Who said there wasn't?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Within the land outline by the Treaty of Lausanne, in ARTICLE 3, the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

PART I. Palestine Order in Council

PRELIMINARY.
Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

I am interested in where P F Tinmore says specifically that "Palestine" is (by name or by territorial outline) identified as a self-governing, sovereign territory --- by the Treaty, or other such document.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.

You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

Then why do you throw it into the mix all the time as if it is relevant. Without any form of self governance the arab muslims don't have a case. And seeing as they only declared self governance in 1988 then all that went before was of no consequence.

 

[Phoenall]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

As far as the UN are concerned the blockade has been declared legal, and it was part of the remit of the panel that was set up to decide on ALL FACTORS regarding the boarding of the Mavi Marmara.

The conlusions of the panel are



The Panel finds:

i. The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did and

strenuous efforts should be made to prevent the occurrence of such incidents

in the future.


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.

iii. The flotilla was a non-governmental endeavour, involving vessels and

participants from a number of countries.

iv. Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted

recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the

flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions

about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers,

particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential

for escalation.



v. The incident and its outcomes were not intended by either Turkey or Israel.

Both States took steps in an attempt to ensure that events did not occur in a

manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and

security. Turkish officials also approached the organizers of the flotilla with

the intention of persuading them to change course if necessary and avoid an

encounter with Israeli forces. But more could have been done to warn the

flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from

their actions.

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:

a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In

particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a

demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the

type of confrontation that occurred;




For more read here

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

 

[Phoenall]

Yet to see such a big mouth combined with such low IQ.

UN investigation backs Israel s naval blockade of Gaza World news The Guardian

I wouldn't talk about the IQ of others, when you keep pushing a fatally flawed document, that cannot be used as the legal authority on the blockade.

It can when the UN regards it as a legal authority on the whole subject of the Blockade and illegal actions regarding the Blockade.

Your counter is just one persons POV on the subject

 

[Phoenall]

It seems like he enjoys making himself look like an idiot.

You gotta love a thread like this, because it shows just how big of assholes, Zionists are. It also shows how stupid and afraid they are.

Stupid, because they think others will buy into their constant name-calling, when it's obvious for all to see, they're afraid to specifically address arguments against them.

I blew your dumbass Palmer Report out of the sky and stated the reasons why; all your rebuttal consisted of, was a bunch of lame ass name-calling and repeating the same line you said before.

Which makes me wonder, are there any Zionists past the age of 10?

No you produced a flawed report from someone acting on their own authority without any actual authority to do so.

 

[Phoenall]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

The Palmer Report was a political opinion not a legal finding.

It was a duly recognised UN fact finding commission and as such had legal standing as far as the UN was concerned. The link dildo provided was just an opinion of no consequence so has no bearing on the subject.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.​

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

So if it dealt with generalities how could it be specific to Palestine as you claim. All it did was transfer sovereignty to the LoN for all the former Ottoman empire lands, it did not make a nation of Palestine or trans Jordan or even Syria.

 

[Phoenall]

Yet to see such a big mouth combined with such low IQ.

UN investigation backs Israel s naval blockade of Gaza World news The Guardian

I wouldn't talk about the IQ of others, when you keep pushing a fatally flawed document, that cannot be used as the legal authority on the blockade.

Yeah? Then what is the legal authority? Big mouth low IQ assholes like you? Ha ha ha.

The UN who instructed the panel in the first place. Or are you saying that the UN is not a good enough authority to decide the legality of the commission report ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've not read my post.

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty did not free any holdings placed under OETA.

The Treaty did not attach any nationality.

The applicable documents, prior to the Treaty, were listed in Post #956.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what part of all that refuted my post?

All of it and you cant understand how because you just want to be right all the time.

 

[Phoenall]

You, as always, came up short in your weak attempt to save you shrunken credibility.

The panel concluded: "..... that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."

You're incensed by the panel's conclusion because Israel's actions were consistent with established constructs of law and, more than that, because it conflicts with your stunted self esteem and your ignorance regarding the matter.

Sorry there, shortstop. Now go wipe that unseemly drool left from your saliva-slinging tirade.

Your "Panels" conclusion, was like an auto mechanic explaining the intricacies of open heart surgery and concluding its not a life threatening procedure. And you're telling everyone, that if you were the one who needed the procedure, you'd go to an auto mechanic for advice.

Not only that, you'd also dismiss the advice of a heart surgeon and telling everyone the auto mechanic was the authority in this case.

There were no experts in international maritime law, on your "Panel". There were no legal experts in international law, on your "Panel". There was a bunch of partisan hacks, such as yourself, using the UN for a hasbara report.

Your "Panel", has no credibility within the international community.

Wrong analogy again dildo as it would be more like a Mechanic explaining the workings of an IC engine to you. They will have taken legal council and read all the appropriate legal books on the subject matter. Then they will have had access to the legal eagles of the UN to clarify the legalities. The UN accepted the report as being legal and that is what matters, not what you or Falk are saying in regards to the matter. He is just a rabid Jew Hating anti semitic Nazi proven many times and why he lost his job at the UN.

 

[Phoenall]

Yeah? Then what is the legal authority? Big mouth low IQ assholes like you? Ha ha ha.

The UNHRC-FFM report, that was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade.

"The FFM was equipped with a large support team so that its own very senior lawyers who are experienced in international criminal law were supplemented by experts in the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In addition it met with a number of non-governmental organizations, had assistance from law firms in three countries, and was thoroughly briefed on the situation in Gaza by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The UN [Palmer] Panel did not have the services of anyone with expertise in international criminal or maritime law and did not conduct interviews of its own. That it should now criticise its more senior and better equipped counterparts in the UNHRC is an indication of the unreal world in which it has functioned."​

So what legal authority does the author of this piece of crap have, to save you the bother ne has none and is nothing more than a British human rights activist and researcher who writes occasional articles on Middle East topics for various online publications He has no legal training and is about as much use in deciding legal matters as you are.

 

[Roudy]

Palmer report is the only binding one. The rest are meaningless garbage and propoganda pieces. Case closed.

UN Palmer report: blockade of Gaza legal

The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters. It has also rebutted many of the false claims and assumptions that have been made about the flotilla incident and about the broader situation in Gaza.

The UN investigative committee headed by former prime minister of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law, was established by the UN to examine the Israeli raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.

On that day, seven flotilla ships were seeking to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza when they were intercepted by the Israeli navy seeking to escort the ships to the Ashdod port to inspect their goods. On the ship Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists attacked Israeli commandos with baseball bats, steel bars, and live fire. Israeli commandos used both non-lethal weaponry and live fire to defend themselves. Nine activists were killed, and seven Israeli commandos were wounded.

The Palmer report unequivocally found that: "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." The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

The report also questioned the motives of the flotilla organisers, in stating that: "Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exists serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly the IHH [Humanitarian Relief Foundation - the Turkish aid group that primarily organised the flotilla]. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."

Israel has adopted the Palmer report, with the exception of some reservations in relation to the report's finding that Israel's decision to board the vessels in the manner it did was "excessive and unreasonable". Israel rejects that finding, arguing that repeated warnings were given to the vessels and that its soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara were in immediate danger and therefore acted in self-defence.

And in fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised 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."

The Palmer report also raises serious questions about the Palestinians' readiness for statehood. The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, which includes the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. However, while it may be argued that the West Bank is ready for statehood, it appears pretty clear that Gaza is not, as it is still run by Hamas - a recognised terrorist organisation that continues to launch rockets and mortars in Israel. The Palmer report acknowledged the threat to Israel posed by Hamas terrorists, in stating that:

Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza toward Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased, some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.

The Palmer report goes on to highlight the dangers posed by Hamas, and repudiates those who deny that Israel is involved in something resembling a state of war with Hamas, or those who claim that Israel is somehow still "occupying" Gaza, despite having no presence on the ground inside that territory. The Palmer report stated:

It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza's status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities... it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict… Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza.

Those who argue that the UN should grant the Palestinians a state without a peace agreement with Israel therefore have to answer these questions: do they really want to create a new state which will be co-run by the very terrorists described in the UN Security Council's own flotilla report as waging war on Israel in a way that targets Israeli civilians in contravention of international law? Should Hamas be rewarded for doing so with a declaration inviting them to join the "international community" of civilised nations as part of a Palestinian unity government?

The Palmer Report is not binding and was not commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade. Its "Mission", was to ease Israeli-Turkey relations and that's it.

There were no experts in international law on the whole Panel.

The unusually small inquiry panel itself lacked credibility. It was chaired by former New Zealand prime minister and international environment law expert Geoffrey Palmer. Astonishingly, the only other independent member was its vice-chair, the former president of Colombia. Alvaro Uribe’s notorious history as a human rights abuser who called human rights advocates such as Amnesty International “rats,” as well as his legacy of seeking out the closest possible ties to and defense of Israel while in office, make him wildly inappropriate for such an assignment. The panel was rounded out with two members appointed by Israel and Turkey, each of whom appended a partisan dissent to the report.​

And since the Panel had no experts, their comments on the legality of the blockade are not credible.

"the report of the Palmer Commission is severely flawed from an international law perspective. The most significant finding of the report is its most dangerous and legally dubious: the conclusion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, in effect since mid-2007, was somehow, despite being severely harmful to the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, a legitimate act of self-defense. The report gives considerable attention to the illegal rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian militants mainly associated with Hamas, and notes, appropriately, that “stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people.” But while that justifies protective action, it does not make the case for a valid claim of self-defense under international law."​

The Panel definitely showed its lack of legal expertise.

"The report ignores altogether the crucial fact that a unilateral ceasefire had been observed by Hamas ever since the end of the Gaza War in early 2009. An earlier joint Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire had been declared in July 2008, and had led to a virtual halt in rocket attacks until it was broken by Israel in November of that year, in a lethal assault on Gaza that led to a crumbling of the ceasefire and thereafter to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead on December 27, 2008. The Palmer report cannot be legally persuasive on the central issue of self-defense without addressing the relevance of these ceasefires that gave Israel a viable security alternative to blockade and force. The fact that the word “ceasefire” does not even appear in the 105-page document underscores why this report is so unconvincing except to Israel’s partisans.

Instead of trying diplomacy, which had shown itself effective, Israel relied on a naval blockade, which prevented every boat from reaching the Gaza Strip, establishing a military siege, cruelly confining all Gazans, children, women and men (more than 50 percent of Gaza’s population is below the age of 15) living under occupation in what amounts to an open-air prison. Such a blockade is a massive and sustained example of collective punishment, unequivocally prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."​

But I do understand why you keep pushing this Palmer Report.

It's all you got!

I have the official impartial UN report and you have opinions from assholes such as yourself whining about the findings of the report. It's all you got.