Turkey submits Mavi Marmara compensation bill

[Phoenall]

I just find it completely unsurprising that you would defend lies, falsehoods and would defend the obvious intentions of the flotilla'ists with such nonsense as: "OK, but it was well known that there were no weapons on those ships."

That is true. The flotilla had no weapons being shipped to Gaza.

Even Israel knew this but continues the lie of "security". Of course lying is one of Israel's pillars of existence.

And yet the evidence shows there were weapons on the vessels all the way from Iran. These included grad rockets and mortars

Links?

Here you are

The Karin A ship was part of the flotilla? It must be an old flick. Fatso Sharon was in it.

How much did it cost Israel to set up that prop. That stuff looked like it was made of plastic.

So even when faced with the evidence and the truth you still deny it

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is true. The flotilla had no weapons being shipped to Gaza.

Even Israel knew this but continues the lie of "security". Of course lying is one of Israel's pillars of existence.

And yet the evidence shows there were weapons on the vessels all the way from Iran. These included grad rockets and mortars

Links?

Here you are

The Karin A ship was part of the flotilla? It must be an old flick. Fatso Sharon was in it.

How much did it cost Israel to set up that prop. That stuff looked like it was made of plastic.

So even when faced with the evidence and the truth you still deny it

What evidence? A 15 year old video by Israel?

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, provoke Israel to do something stupid (easy to do) and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Israel still has egg on its face for shooting up a civilian aid ship in international waters.

Tinmore, what are you arguing FOR here? What moral or legal principles are you supporting?

That civilians should be permitted to attempt to run military blockades?
That civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons and yet still be considered civilians?
That civilians attacking with lethal weapons should be not defended against and must not be harmed in any way?
That it is morally correct to provoke a stronger national and military power in order to force them to kill people and thus look bad?

 

[Phoenall]

And yet the evidence shows there were weapons on the vessels all the way from Iran. These included grad rockets and mortars

Links?

Here you are

The Karin A ship was part of the flotilla? It must be an old flick. Fatso Sharon was in it.

How much did it cost Israel to set up that prop. That stuff looked like it was made of plastic.

So even when faced with the evidence and the truth you still deny it

What evidence? A 15 year old video by Israel?

Better than your islamonazi propaganda that you pass of as being the only reality. I see your muslim reporter now has 4 sources for his lies

 

[Hossfly]

It changes your post, how?

Did you forget what you wrote in post 41?

You wrote: "OK, but it was well known that there were no weapons on those ships."

Apparently, the antagonists on the phony aid flotilla ship never got the email about the "well known" and "no weapons", nonsense.

Ya Allah, tinmore. Completely contradicting your own statements gives no one a reason to believe you're anything but a propagandist.

Of course that was in reference to weapons going to Gaza.

That did not mean that there were no kitchen utensils or broomsticks on board.

I see you're an aspiring Olympic swimmer - the backstroke.

The cache of weapons depicted on the previous page are clearly not as you hope to now sidestep, waffle and backstroke around.

Are you implying that the flotilla was going to deliver kitchen utensils and broom handles to Hamas?

I just find it completely unsurprising that you would defend lies, falsehoods and would defend the obvious intentions of the flotilla'ists with such nonsense as: "OK, but it was well known that there were no weapons on those ships."

That is true. The flotilla had no weapons being shipped to Gaza.

Even Israel knew this but continues the lie of "security". Of course lying is one of Israel's pillars of existence.

Aren't you mistaken, Tinmore? The savage goons were your friends who attacked the IDF commandoes.
Since you appear to know everything that goes on in the area, could you list for us the ship's manifest so that we can see all the "humanitarian" aid going into Gaza?
jt2

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, provoke Israel to do something stupid (easy to do) and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Israel still has egg on its face for shooting up a civilian aid ship in international waters.

Tinmore, what are you arguing FOR here? What moral or legal principles are you supporting?

That civilians should be permitted to attempt to run military blockades?
That civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons and yet still be considered civilians?
That civilians attacking with lethal weapons should be not defended against and must not be harmed in any way?
That it is morally correct to provoke a stronger national and military power in order to force them to kill people and thus look bad?

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

 

[Hossfly]

Indeed, provoke Israel to do something stupid (easy to do) and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Israel still has egg on its face for shooting up a civilian aid ship in international waters.

Tinmore, what are you arguing FOR here? What moral or legal principles are you supporting?

That civilians should be permitted to attempt to run military blockades?
That civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons and yet still be considered civilians?
That civilians attacking with lethal weapons should be not defended against and must not be harmed in any way?
That it is morally correct to provoke a stronger national and military power in order to force them to kill people and thus look bad?

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

Tinmore, you sound just like a second grader. "Mama, he hit me." "Mama, she looked at me."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, provoke Israel to do something stupid (easy to do) and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Israel still has egg on its face for shooting up a civilian aid ship in international waters.

Tinmore, what are you arguing FOR here? What moral or legal principles are you supporting?

That civilians should be permitted to attempt to run military blockades?
That civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons and yet still be considered civilians?
That civilians attacking with lethal weapons should be not defended against and must not be harmed in any way?
That it is morally correct to provoke a stronger national and military power in order to force them to kill people and thus look bad?

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

So, YES, to all my questions then.

YES, civilians should be permitted to attempt to run a military blockade.
YES, civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons.
YES, civilians should not be harmed, even when they are attacking LEOs and military personnel.
YES, it is morally correct to provoke a military power.

Let me frame it in a different manner what it is that you are arguing:

IF civilians attempt to run a military blockade and are stopped by military enforcement officers (which is perfectly legal, see RoccoR 's post) the civilians are not responsible for initiating the events and the military enforcement officers are, in fact, perpetrating an attack on civilians. In other words, civilians bear no responsibility for the consequences of running a blockade and are immune from any actions taken by a nation to enforce a blockade. Therefore, a blockade becomes impossible to enforce. You are, in effect, saying that civilians (or people who present at least nominally as civilians) must be permitted to run a blockade.

IF civilians arm themselves with lethal weapons and are confronted with LEOs acting in their legal capacity, the civilians are not responsible for initiating the events and the military enforcement officers are, in fact, perpetrating an attack on civilians. In other words, the civilians bear no responsibility for the consequences of arming themselves and of using those arms. Therefore, being armed becomes impossible to defend against. You are, in effect, saying that civilians are permitted to arm themselves and use those arms.

IF civilians use lethal force against military personnel, the civilians are not responsible for initiating the events nor the consequences of using lethal force, therefore the full responsibility for responding to a lethal attack falls to the defender. Therefore, it becomes impossible to defend against lethal force.

Seriously, THINK about what you are arguing here. You are arguing that "civilians" are immune from the consequences of their behavior, and can, therefore, act with impunity.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

Great weeping Christ!
The ships were boarded according to maritime law.
The passengers did the attacking.
The attack was overcome.
That is all.
What do you think you are proving, besides ignorance?

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

The blockade itself is the military necessity -- to prevent weapons from being brought into the territory.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

Can you give us a good reason, Tinmore, why the IDF commandoes couldn't have boarded and peacefully inspected the ship? Why did some of the passengers attack these commandoes? Some were even looking forward to becoming shahids.

Gaza Flotilla Confrontation

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, provoke Israel to do something stupid (easy to do) and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Israel still has egg on its face for shooting up a civilian aid ship in international waters.

Tinmore, what are you arguing FOR here? What moral or legal principles are you supporting?

That civilians should be permitted to attempt to run military blockades?
That civilians should be permitted to attack LEOs and military personnel with lethal weapons and yet still be considered civilians?
That civilians attacking with lethal weapons should be not defended against and must not be harmed in any way?
That it is morally correct to provoke a stronger national and military power in order to force them to kill people and thus look bad?

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

Read the maritime laws again tinman, and see who was the aggressor here.

OR ARE YOU DOING YOUR USUAL TRICK OF DENYING THE JEWS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

There is a list of goods that are banned during a blockade and Israel has only banned goods from that list from entering gaza. The list was posted last year and detailed what is internationally accepted as dual use goods, and hence banned. Israel allows through goods that are on the list as dual use, but has banned no goods that are not on the list. The fact that weapons were found, and seen to be deployed by watching the passenger videos shows that Israel was legally within the remit of Maritime law regarding blockades at sea to take the action they did. If I was in charge I would have counter claimed $100 trillion for the cost of enforcing the blockade and the attempted murder of the IDF officer by islamonazi terrorists. I would refuse point blank to pay a penny to any of the families of the terrorists killed legally by the IDF boarding party as they were hoping to be injured/killed so they would be hero's/martyrs.

The fact the flotilla set out with the stated intention of breaching the blockade is grounds enough for military involvement to halt the vessels. There is one of your "facts" destroyed


Here is another from the passengers video




Did you see the illegal banned slingshots that were found, they are banned in most civilised nations because they are a deadly weapon that can kill..


HOW IS IT YOU LEAVE YOURSELF OPEN TO BEING SHOWN A PROPAGANDIST EVERY TIME YOU POST ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

Great weeping Christ!
The ships were boarded according to maritime law.
The passengers did the attacking.
The attack was overcome.
That is all.
What do you think you are proving, besides ignorance?

His own stupidity and brainwashing

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

Your original premise was a farce. It's mere supposition and conjecture.

You have since revised your original premise when it was shown to be false.

But beside your false premise, you're still defending the actions of the flotilla'ists. They were seeking a confrontation and they initiated the steps to make it happen. How lucky for you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud. How many times do we have to cut'n'paste this explanation.

It was Israel that was the attacking party.

(REFERENCE)

As stated in Posting #20 of this discussion Thread.

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
​

(COMMENT)

In order for the Blockade to be a true "Blockade" under the San Remo Manual, it must be effective (obvious to the outside observer). It cannot be the case of selective enforcement.

When the Freedom Flotilla of Six Ships (2010) attempted to run the blockade, it essentially demanded enforcement measures to be taken.

The IDF Navy was not the aggressor (attacker or instigator of the assault). It was taken those measures necessary to enforce the blockade under Paragraph 95 of the Sam Remo Manual.

You interpretation of the events are seen through the blurred eyes of the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

Your original premise was a farce. It's mere supposition and conjecture.

You have since revised your original premise when it was shown to be false.

But beside your false premise, you're still defending the actions of the flotilla'ists. They were seeking a confrontation and they initiated the steps to make it happen. How lucky for you.

My original premise is true.

Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla.​

It was not about weapons or inspections. It never was. All of the materials on those ships was inspected by the port authorities of the ports of departure. The flotilla offered a peaceful inspection of the ships but Israel refused and attacked.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This has been well disseminated world-wide. The standard "Notice To Mariners"

​

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration,...​

Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.​

Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?

Then there are things not allowed in like window glass, books, chocolate, toys, pasta, and on, and, on, and on.

Nothing is allowed in to support domestic manufacturing and agriculture.

Exports are not allowed.

Students cannot travel to study.

There is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal.

Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

(REFERENCES)

TIMES OF LONDON
A foreign journalist notices the Egyptian blockade of Gaza
BY ADAM LEVICK ON JUNE 23, 2015 •

CAMERA, in two blog posts earlier in the year, cited examples of how media outlets find inventive ways to avoid mentioning the fact that the “total Egyptian blockade has isolated the Gaza Strip far more than the Israeli blockade, under which goods andpeople do cross“.

Though CAMERA in those particular cases was citing reports by Agence France Presse (AFP) and The New York Times, British media reports on the deprivation in Gaza also routinely ignore the Egyptian blockade. (These reports also fail to inform readers that Israel’s blockade is only partial, and allows into Gaza, on a daily basis, large quantities of food, consumer goods and construction material, despite the fact that much of this “humanitarian aid” is diverted by Hamas for military purposes.)

All of this renders the following June 22nd Times of London report (paywall) by Gregg Carlstrom quite extraordinary.
​

Carlstrom then makes a broader point:

While the international focus has been on the intermittent closures of the Erez crossing between Gaza and Israel, and the partial Israeli blockade of the territory, the restrictions imposed by Gaza’s other land neighbour, Egypt, are far more severe. Compared with Israel, which opens Erez for a limited number of people and goods for five days each week, the Rafah crossing to Egypt is almost completely sealed. Until this month it has been open for only five days this year, allowing only 2,517 Palestinians to travel out of Gaza. That compares with Erez, which 4,100 people used in one week of this month

The recent closure of Rafah is the worst in nearly a decade. President Sisi, Cairo’s pro-western military ruler, accuses Hamas of sponsoring jihadists across the border.
​

​

(COMMENT)

Both Israel and Egypt understand and enforce very similar restrictions on the material that crosses the border into Gaza.

YOUR QUESTION •∆• "Could you provide a copy of that declaration specifying the date of commencement and the duration?"

ANSWER: Commencement 03UTC1700JAN09 of 7100 03 January 09 Duration: Indefinitely
​

YOUR QUESTION •∆• "Do you mean like there is material for a network of tunnels. They have more than enough rockets. There are plenty of guns and amo. That kind of effective?"

ANSWER: The "effective" implementation is a question of fact; not a question of success or failure of the tactical application.
​

The rhetoric that "there is no military necessity for any of this. It is just the collective punishment that makes the blockade illegal" is wrong from several perspectives; including but not limited to:

The naval blockade and the companion ground containment are instruments to suppress the unrestrained exploitation of unrestricted travel and commerce (import/export). It is not a retaliation against a population for their past history of criminal, jihadist, insurgent and terrorist activity (which is all quite extensive). It is a countermeasure to prevent the material support to such activities --- the means to direct further hostilities directed towards Israel (and its citizens) by those Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) that have adopted the means of armed struggle as the only solution to the Question of Palestine.

YOUR PREMISE: •∆• Then back to my original premise. Everybody, including Israel, knew that there were no weapons to Gaza on the flotilla. There was no military necessity to attack those ships.

No, Everybody does not know that. What contraband is onboard (if any) cannot be known until the ships are boarded and searched. Further, the enforcement of the blockade is about a number of issues, the most important of which is the means of sealing off Gaza to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving in an unrestricted manner.

While this theory may have been heard by many people, the "military necessity" was to "effectively enforce" the blockade (Para 95), not to create a precedent for passage or succumb to the extortion and intimidation presented by the "criminals, jihadists, insurgents and terrorists" that have decided to use force and the threat of force to achieve through coercion, that which they purposely choose not to pursue by peaceful means.
​

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I almost shed a tear over that video.

The "real" inside story is.

(COMMENT)

If the Pro-Palestinian Activists did not want a confrontation, then they should not have attempted to violate the law and run the blockade.

The real story is that the Pro-Palestinian Activist were not there to provide aid to Gaza; but, to create a media storm.

Most Respectfully,
R