The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[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.

Confrontation, not a massacre.

"Massacre", while intended to add melodrama, is overstating the facts. Your heroes went looking for a confrontation and got that, and more. Why are they whining when their provocation resulted in the confrontation they chose to pursue?

Its a bit of what we can describe as IAS (Incompetent Arab Syndrome). Arabs-moslems have this " thing" with attacking Israel and when they get their noses rubbed in the dirt with humiliating defeats, they run to the UN for cover seeking a hudna while they re-arm with the benefit of UN welfare dollars.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

 

[Hollie]

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.

 

[Challenger]

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.

"Massacre", while intended to add melodrama, is overstating the facts. Your heroes went looking for a confrontation and got that, and more. Why are they whining when their provocation resulted in the confrontation they chose to pursue?

Its a bit of what we can describe as IAS (Incompetent Arab Syndrome). Arabs-moslems have this " thing" with attacking Israel and when they get their noses rubbed in the dirt with humiliating defeats, they run to the UN for cover seeking a hudna while they re-arm with the benefit of UN welfare dollars.

Oh, OK. I was just following the Zionist press approach:

The Jewish Press Israeli-Druze Policeman First on Scene in Har Nof Massacre Fighting for His Life

Boston Jews mourn Jerusalem massacre victims at vigil The Times of Israel

So 5 dead Israelis is a Massacre, but 5 dead Turks is a Melodrama, OK I understand now.

 

[Hollie]

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.

"Massacre", while intended to add melodrama, is overstating the facts. Your heroes went looking for a confrontation and got that, and more. Why are they whining when their provocation resulted in the confrontation they chose to pursue?

Its a bit of what we can describe as IAS (Incompetent Arab Syndrome). Arabs-moslems have this " thing" with attacking Israel and when they get their noses rubbed in the dirt with humiliating defeats, they run to the UN for cover seeking a hudna while they re-arm with the benefit of UN welfare dollars.

Oh, OK. I was just following the Zionist press approach:

The Jewish Press Israeli-Druze Policeman First on Scene in Har Nof Massacre Fighting for His Life

Boston Jews mourn Jerusalem massacre victims at vigil The Times of Israel

So 5 dead Israelis is a Massacre, but 5 dead Turks is a Melodrama, OK I understand now.

When knucklehead flotilla'ists go looking for a confrontation, find it, and it goes badly for them, is that a "massacre" or a confirmation of Darwinian Theory?

 

[Roudy]

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

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

 

[toastman]

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?

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

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.

 

[Hollie]

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?

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

If you look in an urban dictionary for the definition of "Palestinians" it's listed as:

A term for the high-pitched screeching that accompanies continued Arab/Moslem demands for infidel welfare dollars to prop up the notion of an invented people with an invented identity,

See also:

Mo' money, mo' money. mo' money.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

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​

 

[Roudy]

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?

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.

No Palestine under Turkish rule for 700 years, dufus. Palestine and Palestinians are a 20th century invention.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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.............................

 

[toastman]

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?

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.

No, it didn't.

 

[toastman]

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?

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.

"The treaty delimited the boundaries of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey; formally ceded all Turkish claims on the Dodecanese Islands (Article 15); Cyprus (Article 20);[11]Egypt and Sudan (Article 17); Syria and Iraq (Article 3); and (along with the Treaty of Ankara) settled the boundaries of the latter two nations.[1]"


Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No mention of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

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

 

[aris2chat]

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

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

diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain

 

[Roudy]

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

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

diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?