The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Hossfly]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

Don't tell Billo or he'll blow a gasket.

 

[Phoenall]

The right to independence and sovereignty are related to territorial integrity. In order to have them, you must first have "territory." The political conditions, during the mandate period, did not grant these rights to the Arab Palestinian. You cannot pinpoint a time in which the Powers-that-be recognized these rights and how they were to be applied. The powers-that-be did not grant any such rights to the Palestinians.

The Powers-that-be did not recognize the Palestinians to have any sovereign or independent territory in the eight centuries before the Great War (WWI). Nor did the surrender instruments grant any special or specific rights, holdings, or authority (with the exception of undefined civil and religious) to the Arab Palestinian at the conclusion of the Great War (WWI).

So what legal right had these "powers that be" to grant or deny any rights of the Palestinians? the Palestinians had territory based at the very least on ius soli and ius sanguinis; their rights were the same as any other conquered/liberated peoples. Just because Great Britain tried to "square the circle" to create a Jewish homeland in their country does not remove nor negate these rights.

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" at the time of the mandate. The label "Palestinian" was a late 1960's invention of Arafat in a failed attempt to assign a national identity to arab squatters.

1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. 486

As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence , the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2007/QafishehM/these.pdf​

Changing the paper's source does not alter the contents or the manipulations by the author. He alters international law and treaties to meet with his islamonazi POV making this work of fiction not even fit to be used as toilet paper. The authors of the Mandate and Treaty of Lausanne did not include Palestine for a reason, they had other plans for that area.
Now read the citizenship order again, only this time in full. A clue is they became BRITISH PALESTINIANS

 

[Phoenall]

The right to independence and sovereignty are related to territorial integrity. In order to have them, you must first have "territory." The political conditions, during the mandate period, did not grant these rights to the Arab Palestinian. You cannot pinpoint a time in which the Powers-that-be recognized these rights and how they were to be applied. The powers-that-be did not grant any such rights to the Palestinians.

The Powers-that-be did not recognize the Palestinians to have any sovereign or independent territory in the eight centuries before the Great War (WWI). Nor did the surrender instruments grant any special or specific rights, holdings, or authority (with the exception of undefined civil and religious) to the Arab Palestinian at the conclusion of the Great War (WWI).

So what legal right had these "powers that be" to grant or deny any rights of the Palestinians? the Palestinians had territory based at the very least on ius soli and ius sanguinis; their rights were the same as any other conquered/liberated peoples. Just because Great Britain tried to "square the circle" to create a Jewish homeland in their country does not remove nor negate these rights.

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" at the time of the mandate. The label "Palestinian" was a late 1960's invention of Arafat in a failed attempt to assign a national identity to arab squatters.

1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. 486

As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence , the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2007/QafishehM/these.pdf​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.

What is your point?

Then how could it apply to Palestine if Palestine was not part of its remit. It could not define Palestine or the Palestinians because it did not mention them deliberately

 

[Challenger]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

I've never said the blockade wasn't legally constituted and if it was a propaganda stunt (and I agree it was), the IDF should have waited until the ship breached the blockade zone before acting; then there could be no argument. Up to that point, regardless of declared intent, the flotilla could have turned around or altered course having made a propaganda point. Oh, the IDF never found any Islamic terrorists on board, just civilian activists, 5 of whom they murdered, according to the Turkish authorities.

 

[Phoenall]

The right to independence and sovereignty are related to territorial integrity. In order to have them, you must first have "territory." The political conditions, during the mandate period, did not grant these rights to the Arab Palestinian. You cannot pinpoint a time in which the Powers-that-be recognized these rights and how they were to be applied. The powers-that-be did not grant any such rights to the Palestinians.

The Powers-that-be did not recognize the Palestinians to have any sovereign or independent territory in the eight centuries before the Great War (WWI). Nor did the surrender instruments grant any special or specific rights, holdings, or authority (with the exception of undefined civil and religious) to the Arab Palestinian at the conclusion of the Great War (WWI).

So what legal right had these "powers that be" to grant or deny any rights of the Palestinians? the Palestinians had territory based at the very least on ius soli and ius sanguinis; their rights were the same as any other conquered/liberated peoples. Just because Great Britain tried to "square the circle" to create a Jewish homeland in their country does not remove nor negate these rights.

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" at the time of the mandate. The label "Palestinian" was a late 1960's invention of Arafat in a failed attempt to assign a national identity to arab squatters.

1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. 486

As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence , the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2007/QafishehM/these.pdf​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

Doen't mention a Jewish national home or Israel either, what's your point?

Actually it does in the section that brings up the treaty of Sevres for the Turkish to agree and sign

Seems that ratboy has a penchant for lying all the time when it comes to abusing Israel

Treaty of S vres - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

Read it again ratboy and see the second clause Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked making the boarding legal

 

[Phoenall]

This is what he wrote

As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced.

So what do you think he wrote ?

 

[Phoenall]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

I've never said the blockade wasn't legally constituted and if it was a propaganda stunt (and I agree it was), the IDF should have waited until the ship breached the blockade zone before acting; then there could be no argument. Up to that point, regardless of declared intent, the flotilla could have turned around or altered course having made a propaganda point. Oh, the IDF never found any Islamic terrorists on board, just civilian activists, 5 of whom they murdered, according to the Turkish authorities.

So were are the news headlines from the last month showing these alleged murders then ?

 

[Challenger]

So what legal right had these "powers that be" to grant or deny any rights of the Palestinians? the Palestinians had territory based at the very least on ius soli and ius sanguinis; their rights were the same as any other conquered/liberated peoples. Just because Great Britain tried to "square the circle" to create a Jewish homeland in their country does not remove nor negate these rights.

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" at the time of the mandate. The label "Palestinian" was a late 1960's invention of Arafat in a failed attempt to assign a national identity to arab squatters.

1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. 486

As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence , the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2007/QafishehM/these.pdf​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

Doen't mention a Jewish national home or Israel either, what's your point?

Actually it does in the section that brings up the treaty of Sevres for the Turkish to agree and sign

Seems that ratboy has a penchant for lying all the time when it comes to abusing Israel

Treaty of S vres - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Lausanne treaty has 143 articles, which article references the treaty of Sevres? Enlighten us all with your brilliance.....I won't hold my breath.

 

[Hollie]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

I've never said the blockade wasn't legally constituted and if it was a propaganda stunt (and I agree it was), the IDF should have waited until the ship breached the blockade zone before acting; then there could be no argument. Up to that point, regardless of declared intent, the flotilla could have turned around or altered course having made a propaganda point. Oh, the IDF never found any Islamic terrorists on board, just civilian activists, 5 of whom they murdered, according to the Turkish authorities.

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

 

[Challenger]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

I've never said the blockade wasn't legally constituted and if it was a propaganda stunt (and I agree it was), the IDF should have waited until the ship breached the blockade zone before acting; then there could be no argument. Up to that point, regardless of declared intent, the flotilla could have turned around or altered course having made a propaganda point. Oh, the IDF never found any Islamic terrorists on board, just civilian activists, 5 of whom they murdered, according to the Turkish authorities.

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

Confrontation, not a massacre.

 

[Billo_Really]

Don't tell Billo or he'll blow a gasket.

You Israeli kiss-asses are funny. You keep pushing that flawed Palmer Report, like it's the Old Testament. Unfortunately for you Israeli butt-munchers, it's not. It is a fatally flawed document, that wasn't even intended to determine the legality of the blockade. They were commissioned to resolve the problems with Israel-Turkish relations, following the illegal attack on the Mavi Marmara.

I'm sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

"Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute."​

They met in New York with committee members that were partisan to Israel.

"The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. "​

Which means, you cannot use this Report as a legal document.

"The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues."​

No shit, Sherlock!

"Israel’s summary was based on the Turkel Commission’s report for which the Panel notes that original material was not provided."​

Which means what they read, was vetted by the Hasbara propaganda machine.

"It also observes that Turkel has completely ignored the report of the UNHRC FFM (to which it formed an opposing opinion on the legality of the blockade)."​

The UNHRC-FFM, BTW, was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade and found it not only to be illegal, but a war crime of "collective punishment".

So take your little Palmer Report, wrap it around Phoeny, shove it up Hollie's racist, lying ass and see if she dances better.

 

[Billo_Really]

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

I understand you are a vicious, vindictive *****, with no connection to reality.

The blockade is illegal; the boarding of the Mavi Maramara was illegal; and your contention that it is okay to collectively punish 1.5 million people who have committed no crime, just shows you are sick in the head!

You are about as scum as one human being can get.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ah man, I missed Sharknado3 tonight!

Fuckin' Jooo's...

 

[Phoenall]

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

The operative phrase here is "breaching a blockade" a declaration of intent to breach is not an actual breach. Had the Mavi Marmarra crossed a hypothetical line into the blockaded area, article 98 could be invoked with impunity, however that was not the case at the time.

As much as you want to defend your Islamic terrorist heroes, even the UN, in spite of its usual bias against Israel, declared the legitimacy of the blockade and tacitly acknowledged the intent of the flotilla loons as being a propaganda stunt.

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

I've never said the blockade wasn't legally constituted and if it was a propaganda stunt (and I agree it was), the IDF should have waited until the ship breached the blockade zone before acting; then there could be no argument. Up to that point, regardless of declared intent, the flotilla could have turned around or altered course having made a propaganda point. Oh, the IDF never found any Islamic terrorists on board, just civilian activists, 5 of whom they murdered, according to the Turkish authorities.

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

Confrontation, not a massacre.

And were was the massacre reported in the press in the last month ?

 

[Phoenall]

Don't tell Billo or he'll blow a gasket.

You Israeli kiss-asses are funny. You keep pushing that flawed Palmer Report, like it's the Old Testament. Unfortunately for you Israeli butt-munchers, it's not. It is a fatally flawed document, that wasn't even intended to determine the legality of the blockade. They were commissioned to resolve the problems with Israel-Turkish relations, following the illegal attack on the Mavi Marmara.

I'm sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

"Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute."​

They met in New York with committee members that were partisan to Israel.

"The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. "​

Which means, you cannot use this Report as a legal document.

"The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues."​

No shit, Sherlock!

"Israel’s summary was based on the Turkel Commission’s report for which the Panel notes that original material was not provided."​

Which means what they read, was vetted by the Hasbara propaganda machine.

"It also observes that Turkel has completely ignored the report of the UNHRC FFM (to which it formed an opposing opinion on the legality of the blockade)."​

The UNHRC-FFM, BTW, was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade and found it not only to be illegal, but a war crime of "collective punishment".

So take your little Palmer Report, wrap it around Phoeny, shove it up Hollie's racist, lying ass and see if she dances better.

Getting rattled again dildo because a UN commission found that the BLOCKADE WAS LEGAL. If it wasn't the UN would have forced Israel to lift it by now, why haven't they ?

 

[Phoenall]

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

I understand you are a vicious, vindictive *****, with no connection to reality.

The blockade is illegal; the boarding of the Mavi Maramara was illegal; and your contention that it is okay to collectively punish 1.5 million people who have committed no crime, just shows you are sick in the head!

You are about as scum as one human being can get.

And when your fantasy world ceases to exist the laws of this one will still make the blockade legal and the boarding of the Mavi Maramara legal under International law.

How are they being punished then, give details of the punishment dished out by the Israeli's ?

 

[Hollie]

I can understand that if you completely rewrite the actual events, "if they...."', "had they....", ".... but..... but.... but....", events would have unfolded differently.

The fact remains, the silly flotilla nonsense was a propaganda stunt that was ill-considered and designed to provoke a confrontation.

I understand you are a vicious, vindictive *****, with no connection to reality.

The blockade is illegal; the boarding of the Mavi Maramara was illegal; and your contention that it is okay to collectively punish 1.5 million people who have committed no crime, just shows you are sick in the head!

You are about as scum as one human being can get.

The blockade was not illegal, shortstop.

 

[Hollie]

Don't tell Billo or he'll blow a gasket.

You Israeli kiss-asses are funny. You keep pushing that flawed Palmer Report, like it's the Old Testament. Unfortunately for you Israeli butt-munchers, it's not. It is a fatally flawed document, that wasn't even intended to determine the legality of the blockade. They were commissioned to resolve the problems with Israel-Turkish relations, following the illegal attack on the Mavi Marmara.

I'm sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

"Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute."​

They met in New York with committee members that were partisan to Israel.

"The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. "​

Which means, you cannot use this Report as a legal document.

"The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues."​

No shit, Sherlock!

"Israel’s summary was based on the Turkel Commission’s report for which the Panel notes that original material was not provided."​

Which means what they read, was vetted by the Hasbara propaganda machine.

"It also observes that Turkel has completely ignored the report of the UNHRC FFM (to which it formed an opposing opinion on the legality of the blockade)."​

The UNHRC-FFM, BTW, was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade and found it not only to be illegal, but a war crime of "collective punishment".

So take your little Palmer Report, wrap it around Phoeny, shove it up Hollie's racist, lying ass and see if she dances better.

I dance just fine, sweetie.

I understand you find it galling that you're typically uninforned, unintelligent and absent the ability to reach informed conclusions but..... you could always hang yourself, with a very short rope.

 

[Hollie]

Ah man, I missed Sharknado3 tonight!

Fuckin' Jooo's...

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