The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Roudy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah big mouth with the low IQ just loves to post crap from his favorite website "Global Compost". Like they say, garbage in, garbage out. Ha ha ha.

 

[Phoenall]

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

UN Palmer report: blockade of Gaza legal

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

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

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

The Palmer report unequivocally found that: "Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law." The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

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

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

And in fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Panel definitely showed its lack of legal expertise.

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

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

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

It's all you got!

It is enough as it is the only one that has the UN backing and was accepted as being legal.

 

[Roudy]

That's right big mouth, opinion pieces from global compost don't count. LOL

 

[P F Tinmore]

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


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

Denial is for angry short boys.

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

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

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

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

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

The conlusions of the panel are



The Panel finds:

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

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

in the future.


ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is

subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces

a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade

was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons

from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the

requirements of international law.

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

participants from a number of countries.

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

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

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

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

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

for escalation.



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

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

manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and

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

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

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

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

their actions.

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great

distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior

to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

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

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

demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the

type of confrontation that occurred;




For more read here

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

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

The conlusions of the panel are



The Panel finds:

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

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

in the future.


ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is

subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces

a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade

was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons

from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the

requirements of international law.

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

participants from a number of countries.

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

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

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

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

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

for escalation.



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

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

manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and

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

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

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

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

their actions.

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great

distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior

to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

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

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

demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the

type of confrontation that occurred;




For more read here

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

What was gravely flawed was a propaganda stunt that should never have been undertaken.

The flotilla was intended to be antagonistic and the perps got a confrontation, just as they expected and a smack down, just as they deserved.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

The conlusions of the panel are



The Panel finds:

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

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

in the future.


ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is

subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces

a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade

was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons

from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the

requirements of international law.

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

participants from a number of countries.

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

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

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

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

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

for escalation.



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

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

manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and

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

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

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

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

their actions.

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great

distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior

to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

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

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

demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the

type of confrontation that occurred;




For more read here

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

The Panel only reviewed information given to it by Israel and Turkey. It did no independent investigation of its own. It did not talk to anyone that were present during the incident. The Panel did not have any legal experts in international maritime law.

With all that being said, the Panel ADMITS its findings are not to be construed as a legal document. Don't tell me you missed their disclaimer, from your own link?

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

 

[Hollie]

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

The conlusions of the panel are



The Panel finds:

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

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

in the future.


ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is

subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces

a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade

was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons

from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the

requirements of international law.

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

participants from a number of countries.

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

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

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

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

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

for escalation.



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

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

manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and

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

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

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

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

their actions.

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great

distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior

to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

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

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

demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the

type of confrontation that occurred;




For more read here

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

The Panel only reviewed information given to it by Israel and Turkey. It did no independent investigation of its own. It did not talk to anyone that were present during the incident. The Panel did not have any legal experts in international maritime law.

With all that being said, the Panel ADMITS its findings are not to be construed as a legal document. Don't tell me you missed their disclaimer, from your own link?

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

And yet, Shortstop,

1) the publicity stunt was a disaster for the pointless flotilla'ists,

2) the Palmer Report had no need to make a determination of law because maritime law is already established,

3) the summary section of the report Indicates that there is nothing in maritime law that prohibits the action of the Israeli Navy,

4) you're still an angry, self-hating short boy.

Boo-yaw, shortstop.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Does it change the truth of the reality?

[

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

(COMMENT)

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts. Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry. In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual). This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation. In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

The UNHRC, with a disproportionate focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, having disregarded every single case of Palestinian acts of terrorism, human rights violations, and war crimes, had demonstrated itself to be unquestionably destructive to its integrity in the discharge of public duties. The UNHRC has proven itself to be totally unreliable in the realistic assessment if applicable law and encouraging Arab Palestinians to violate both elements of Customary Law and International Human Rights Law. If was go back a half century, the UN did not condemn the Arab Palestinians for the July 1965 attack when Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir. If we go back 45 years, the UN did not condemn the February 1970 bombing of SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we go back 40-to-45 years, we see that the UN did not condemn or hold tribunals for:

– May 1972: PFLP, part of the PLO, dispatches members of the Japanese Red Army to attack Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, killing 27 people.

– Sep 1972: Munich Massacre —11 Israeli athletes are murdered at the Munich Olympics by a group calling themselves “Black September,”said to be an arm of Fatah, operating under Arafat's direct command.

– Mar 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans, including United States ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

– Apr 1974: 11 people are killed by Palestinian terrorists who attack apartment building in Kiryat Shmona.

– May 1974: PLO terrorists infiltrating from Lebanon hold children hostage in Ma'alot school. 26 people, 21 of them children, are killed.

– Jun 1974: Palestinian National Council adopts “Phased Plan,” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirms its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a “just and lasting peace” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

– Nov 1974: PLO takes responsibility for the PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis are killed.

– Nov 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly.

– Mar 1975: Members of Fatah attack the Tel Aviv seafront and take hostages in the Savoy hotel. Three soldiers, three civilians and seven terrorists are killed.
​

The list goes on and on; right up to the present day when the UN does not investigate the violations of customary and humanitarian laws the Arab Palestinians violated in connection with the lead-up and during the last Gaza conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, et al,

Does it change the truth of the reality?

[

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

(COMMENT)

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts. Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry. In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual). This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation. In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

The UNHRC, with a disproportionate focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, having disregarded every single case of Palestinian acts of terrorism, human rights violations, and war crimes, had demonstrated itself to be unquestionably destructive to its integrity in the discharge of public duties. The UNHRC has proven itself to be totally unreliable in the realistic assessment if applicable law and encouraging Arab Palestinians to violate both elements of Customary Law and International Human Rights Law. If was go back a half century, the UN did not condemn the Arab Palestinians for the July 1965 attack when Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir. If we go back 45 years, the UN did not condemn the February 1970 bombing of SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we go back 40-to-45 years, we see that the UN did not condemn or hold tribunals for:

– May 1972: PFLP, part of the PLO, dispatches members of the Japanese Red Army to attack Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, killing 27 people.

– Sep 1972: Munich Massacre —11 Israeli athletes are murdered at the Munich Olympics by a group calling themselves “Black September,”said to be an arm of Fatah, operating under Arafat's direct command.

– Mar 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans, including United States ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

– Apr 1974: 11 people are killed by Palestinian terrorists who attack apartment building in Kiryat Shmona.

– May 1974: PLO terrorists infiltrating from Lebanon hold children hostage in Ma'alot school. 26 people, 21 of them children, are killed.

– Jun 1974: Palestinian National Council adopts “Phased Plan,” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirms its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a “just and lasting peace” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

– Nov 1974: PLO takes responsibility for the PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis are killed.

– Nov 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly.

– Mar 1975: Members of Fatah attack the Tel Aviv seafront and take hostages in the Savoy hotel. Three soldiers, three civilians and seven terrorists are killed.
​

The list goes on and on; right up to the present day when the UN does not investigate the violations of customary and humanitarian laws the Arab Palestinians violated in connection with the lead-up and during the last Gaza conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

When you address the content of what was said, it is not an ad hominem.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the umpteenth time your response has been --- a drop in the bucket.

Billo_Really, et al,

Does it change the truth of the reality?

[

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

(COMMENT)

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts. Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry. In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual). This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation. In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

The UNHRC, with a disproportionate focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, having disregarded every single case of Palestinian acts of terrorism, human rights violations, and war crimes, had demonstrated itself to be unquestionably destructive to its integrity in the discharge of public duties. The UNHRC has proven itself to be totally unreliable in the realistic assessment if applicable law and encouraging Arab Palestinians to violate both elements of Customary Law and International Human Rights Law. If was go back a half century, the UN did not condemn the Arab Palestinians for the July 1965 attack when Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir. If we go back 45 years, the UN did not condemn the February 1970 bombing of SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we go back 40-to-45 years, we see that the UN did not condemn or hold tribunals for:

– May 1972: PFLP, part of the PLO, dispatches members of the Japanese Red Army to attack Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, killing 27 people.

– Sep 1972: Munich Massacre —11 Israeli athletes are murdered at the Munich Olympics by a group calling themselves “Black September,”said to be an arm of Fatah, operating under Arafat's direct command.

– Mar 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans, including United States ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

– Apr 1974: 11 people are killed by Palestinian terrorists who attack apartment building in Kiryat Shmona.

– May 1974: PLO terrorists infiltrating from Lebanon hold children hostage in Ma'alot school. 26 people, 21 of them children, are killed.

– Jun 1974: Palestinian National Council adopts “Phased Plan,” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirms its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a “just and lasting peace” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

– Nov 1974: PLO takes responsibility for the PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis are killed.

– Nov 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly.

– Mar 1975: Members of Fatah attack the Tel Aviv seafront and take hostages in the Savoy hotel. Three soldiers, three civilians and seven terrorists are killed.
​

The list goes on and on; right up to the present day when the UN does not investigate the violations of customary and humanitarian laws the Arab Palestinians violated in connection with the lead-up and during the last Gaza conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.

(COMMENT)

I'm thinking that is anything but the truth or a valid comparison. The idea that policy of selective enforcement against the Jewish People and the State of Israel in favor of the Arab Palestinians (that lost a war to suppress Jewish self-determination under UN Guidance more than half a century ago) is simply a different form of 1939 anti-semitism and demonstrates by deed that much of the UN cannot be trusted; not then in 1948 and not now in 2015. And certainly the Arab Palestinian cannot be trusted to act according under the rule of law; not as it was then and not as it is now.

Anyone who thinks that the open Arab Palestinian mentality HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1972 Olympic Massacre; 1982 in which Two American citizens, Anne Van Zanten and Grace Cutler, were killed when the PLO bombed a Jewish restaurant in Paris; the twin family murders in 1993/94 of Yitzhak Weinstock, (whose family came from Los Angeles) was killed in a drive-by shooting --- and --- Nachshon Wachsman, (whose family came from New York) was kidnapped and then murdered --- by HAMAS in both cases; the 2002 Palestinian bombing when a woman triggered a massive explosion in downtown Jerusalem killing one elderly Israeli and injuring more than 150, including American Mark Sokolow, his wife, and 16 and 12-year-old daughter or; Kristine A. Luken, was violently attacked by Palestinians and killed while hiking in a beautiful forested area west of Jerusalem on December 18, 2010; is right on track. Nor can I see a change in mentality in the hostile Arab Palestinian in 2014 when 16 year old Naftali Frankel, a U.S. citizen, was one of three Israeli teenagers kidnapped and murdered while hitchhiking from a yeshiva in Gush Etzion. NOR can we see a change --- when Rabbi Moshe Twersky (60), Aryeh Kupinsky (43), and Rabbi Kalman Zeev Levine (55) were brutally murdered in a terrorist attack at Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem during morning prayers. The terrorists, who it was later revealed were associated with the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, entered the Synagogue at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, axes, and guns, and began firing and slashing wildly at the individuals involved in prayers. A British-Israeli citizen named Avraham Shmuel Goldberg (68) was also killed in the attack.

Whether we look at the Palestinian in the day-by-day frame, year-by-year frame of decade-by-decade frame, we see that the international community, and especially the UN Humanitarian activities, have chosen to support the brutality and murder (a published policy of Jihad and armed struggle) of the Palestinian over the defensive measures of the Israel; criminalized supporting Security Council Resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005). When Arab Palestinian leaders knowing act, apply methods, and practice terrorism --- knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts --- but are left unchallenged by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council --- and instead challenge Israel for defensing its sovereignty --- then we can see that the International Rule of Law is twisted and intimidated by these terrorists have coerced the process in order to achieve political objectives.

It will not be long before the backlash against the Arab Palestinian (just another brand name for Islamic Terrorist) will build momentum and make the name of Arab Muslim synonymous with Islamic Extremist. Just recently, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia welcomed any agreement that would guarantee the inability of Iran to possess nuclear weapons, explaining that Tehran supports terrorism and instability in the region. However, HAMAS has a direct relationship to Iran (Tehran):

Hamas must keep a channel of dialogue open with Iran and Hezbollah in order to keep receiving funds from Tehran, they argue. Too dramatic an overture to Saudi Arabia could mean an emptying of the coffers; Hamas only managed to resume full salary payments to its workers this month, after a four-month hiatus, because Iran resumed its financial support.
SOURCE: Times of Israel --- Battle for Gaza --- BY AVI ISSACHAROFF July 25, 2015
​

Saudi Arabia sees that:

• Iran supports terrorism and instability
• Iran supports HAMAS
• Iran provides funding to pay HAMAS employees

It does not take a Rhodes Scholar or a Graduate from Oxford to see the relationships, and the dependencies here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts.

Unfortunately, the "facts" the Panel considered, were only based on the Turkel Commissions' Report, which was nothing more than an Israeli hasbara propaganda piece.

Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry.

But in the case of the UNHRC-FFM, they did have on their Commission, experts in international and maritime law, backed up by many legal organizations contributing to the report.

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

In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual).

You are FULL OF SHIT!

"55. It might be suggested that a belligerent in an armed conflict has a right to visit, inspect and control the destinations of neutral vessels on the high seas, irrespective of any declared blockade. Whilst there is some controversy on this issue, the San Remo Manual and a number of military manuals take the view that the right may only be exercised upon reasonable suspicion that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy. The Mission takes the view that a right of interference with third States’ freedom of navigation should not lightly be presumed.

56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel would be a reasonable suspicion that it:

• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort (belligerent right of capture); or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter)."​

This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation.

I just proved it wasn't. The principle difference was the Palmer Commission, did not do any independent investigation. It was nothing more than an hasbara hit piece.

In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

No, there was no reasonable grounds to think that at all. This is what you fuckers do all the time. It's Israeli Propaganda 101. Discredit the source. But I will give you credit for going the extra mile in order to mask your ad hominiem by making up your own fact for discreditation.

I'm not interested in your following data dump...

The UNHRC, with a disproportionate focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, having disregarded every single case of Palestinian acts of terrorism, human rights violations, and war crimes, had demonstrated itself to be unquestionably destructive to its integrity in the discharge of public duties. The UNHRC has proven itself to be totally unreliable in the realistic assessment if applicable law and encouraging Arab Palestinians to violate both elements of Customary Law and International Human Rights Law. If was go back a half century, the UN did not condemn the Arab Palestinians for the July 1965 attack when Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir. If we go back 45 years, the UN did not condemn the February 1970 bombing of SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we go back 40-to-45 years, we see that the UN did not condemn or hold tribunals for:

– May 1972: PFLP, part of the PLO, dispatches members of the Japanese Red Army to attack Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, killing 27 people.

– Sep 1972: Munich Massacre —11 Israeli athletes are murdered at the Munich Olympics by a group calling themselves “Black September,”said to be an arm of Fatah, operating under Arafat's direct command.

– Mar 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans, including United States ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

– Apr 1974: 11 people are killed by Palestinian terrorists who attack apartment building in Kiryat Shmona.

– May 1974: PLO terrorists infiltrating from Lebanon hold children hostage in Ma'alot school. 26 people, 21 of them children, are killed.

– Jun 1974: Palestinian National Council adopts “Phased Plan,” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirms its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a “just and lasting peace” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

– Nov 1974: PLO takes responsibility for the PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis are killed.

– Nov 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly.

– Mar 1975: Members of Fatah attack the Tel Aviv seafront and take hostages in the Savoy hotel. Three soldiers, three civilians and seven terrorists are killed.
​

The list goes on and on; right up to the present day when the UN does not investigate the violations of customary and humanitarian laws the Arab Palestinians violated in connection with the lead-up and during the last Gaza conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe your efforts would be better served discussing the pros and cons of "alien putty"?

Least Respectfully,
b

This ones for Hollie, in case she doubts anything I've said...

 

[Roudy]

^^^^
Did anybody read what that ignorant big mouth just blabbered? Not me.

He usually has a hissyfit when confronted with the wealth of accurate facts that Rocco brings to this board.

 

[Hollie]

^^^^
Did anybody read what that ignorant big mouth just blubbered? Not me.

He usually has a hissyfit when confronted with the wealth of accurate facts that Rocco brings to this board.

The little shortstop does tend to babble on in order to try and prop up his Islamic terrorist heroes.

Ultimately, the blockade was both legal and effective at reducing the weapons and ammunition that shortstops's heroes use to attack Israel. Shorty does get incensed when Israel gets a big win as was the case with the silly flotilla charade.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the umpteenth time your response has been --- a drop in the bucket.

Billo_Really, et al,

Does it change the truth of the reality?

[

From Phoeny's link:
...[the Panel] was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.​

Boo-yah, bitches!

Now go back under your scumbag rocks.

(COMMENT)

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts. Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry. In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual). This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation. In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

The UNHRC, with a disproportionate focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, having disregarded every single case of Palestinian acts of terrorism, human rights violations, and war crimes, had demonstrated itself to be unquestionably destructive to its integrity in the discharge of public duties. The UNHRC has proven itself to be totally unreliable in the realistic assessment if applicable law and encouraging Arab Palestinians to violate both elements of Customary Law and International Human Rights Law. If was go back a half century, the UN did not condemn the Arab Palestinians for the July 1965 attack when Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir. If we go back 45 years, the UN did not condemn the February 1970 bombing of SwissAir flight 330, bound for Tel Aviv, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we go back 40-to-45 years, we see that the UN did not condemn or hold tribunals for:

– May 1972: PFLP, part of the PLO, dispatches members of the Japanese Red Army to attack Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, killing 27 people.

– Sep 1972: Munich Massacre —11 Israeli athletes are murdered at the Munich Olympics by a group calling themselves “Black September,”said to be an arm of Fatah, operating under Arafat's direct command.

– Mar 1973: Palestinian terrorists take over Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The next day, two Americans, including United States ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel, and a Belgian were shot and killed. James J. Welsh, an analyst for the National Security Agency from 1969 through 1974, charged Arafat with direct complicity in these murders.

– Apr 1974: 11 people are killed by Palestinian terrorists who attack apartment building in Kiryat Shmona.

– May 1974: PLO terrorists infiltrating from Lebanon hold children hostage in Ma'alot school. 26 people, 21 of them children, are killed.

– Jun 1974: Palestinian National Council adopts “Phased Plan,” which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory evacuated by Israel, to be used as a base of operations for destroying the whole of Israel. The PLO reaffirms its rejection of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a “just and lasting peace” and the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

– Nov 1974: PLO takes responsibility for the PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis are killed.

– Nov 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly.

– Mar 1975: Members of Fatah attack the Tel Aviv seafront and take hostages in the Savoy hotel. Three soldiers, three civilians and seven terrorists are killed.
​

The list goes on and on; right up to the present day when the UN does not investigate the violations of customary and humanitarian laws the Arab Palestinians violated in connection with the lead-up and during the last Gaza conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's violations.

(COMMENT)

I'm thinking that is anything but the truth or a valid comparison. The idea that policy of selective enforcement against the Jewish People and the State of Israel in favor of the Arab Palestinians (that lost a war to suppress Jewish self-determination under UN Guidance more than half a century ago) is simply a different form of 1939 anti-semitism and demonstrates by deed that much of the UN cannot be trusted; not then in 1948 and not now in 2015. And certainly the Arab Palestinian cannot be trusted to act according under the rule of law; not as it was then and not as it is now.

Anyone who thinks that the open Arab Palestinian mentality HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1972 Olympic Massacre; 1982 in which Two American citizens, Anne Van Zanten and Grace Cutler, were killed when the PLO bombed a Jewish restaurant in Paris; the twin family murders in 1993/94 of Yitzhak Weinstock, (whose family came from Los Angeles) was killed in a drive-by shooting --- and --- Nachshon Wachsman, (whose family came from New York) was kidnapped and then murdered --- by HAMAS in both cases; the 2002 Palestinian bombing when a woman triggered a massive explosion in downtown Jerusalem killing one elderly Israeli and injuring more than 150, including American Mark Sokolow, his wife, and 16 and 12-year-old daughter or; Kristine A. Luken, was violently attacked by Palestinians and killed while hiking in a beautiful forested area west of Jerusalem on December 18, 2010; is right on track. Nor can I see a change in mentality in the hostile Arab Palestinian in 2014 when 16 year old Naftali Frankel, a U.S. citizen, was one of three Israeli teenagers kidnapped and murdered while hitchhiking from a yeshiva in Gush Etzion. NOR can we see a change --- when Rabbi Moshe Twersky (60), Aryeh Kupinsky (43), and Rabbi Kalman Zeev Levine (55) were brutally murdered in a terrorist attack at Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem during morning prayers. The terrorists, who it was later revealed were associated with the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, entered the Synagogue at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, axes, and guns, and began firing and slashing wildly at the individuals involved in prayers. A British-Israeli citizen named Avraham Shmuel Goldberg (68) was also killed in the attack.

Whether we look at the Palestinian in the day-by-day frame, year-by-year frame of decade-by-decade frame, we see that the international community, and especially the UN Humanitarian activities, have chosen to support the brutality and murder (a published policy of Jihad and armed struggle) of the Palestinian over the defensive measures of the Israel; criminalized supporting Security Council Resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005). When Arab Palestinian leaders knowing act, apply methods, and practice terrorism --- knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts --- but are left unchallenged by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council --- and instead challenge Israel for defensing its sovereignty --- then we can see that the International Rule of Law is twisted and intimidated by these terrorists have coerced the process in order to achieve political objectives.

It will not be long before the backlash against the Arab Palestinian (just another brand name for Islamic Terrorist) will build momentum and make the name of Arab Muslim synonymous with Islamic Extremist. Just recently, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia welcomed any agreement that would guarantee the inability of Iran to possess nuclear weapons, explaining that Tehran supports terrorism and instability in the region. However, HAMAS has a direct relationship to Iran (Tehran):

Hamas must keep a channel of dialogue open with Iran and Hezbollah in order to keep receiving funds from Tehran, they argue. Too dramatic an overture to Saudi Arabia could mean an emptying of the coffers; Hamas only managed to resume full salary payments to its workers this month, after a four-month hiatus, because Iran resumed its financial support.
SOURCE: Times of Israel --- Battle for Gaza --- BY AVI ISSACHAROFF July 25, 2015
​

Saudi Arabia sees that:

• Iran supports terrorism and instability
• Iran supports HAMAS
• Iran provides funding to pay HAMAS employees

It does not take a Rhodes Scholar or a Graduate from Oxford to see the relationships, and the dependencies here.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is the umpteenth time your response has been --- a drop in the bucket.​

Your post listed 60 or so deaths over several years.

Israel has had better days than that. Too many of them.

My assessment is correct.

BTW, what is the rest of that blabber about?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Wow! I think you made a series of mistakes here.

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts.

Unfortunately, the "facts" the Panel considered, were only based on the Turkel Commissions' Report, which was nothing more than an Israeli hasbara propaganda piece.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. That is not the case at all. The Palmer Panel reviewed all the available information at the time. And nothing has com to light since the Palmer Panel Report that actually changes the facts.

Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry.

But in the case of the UNHRC-FFM, they did have on their Commission, experts in international and maritime law, backed up by many legal organizations contributing to the report.

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

​

(COMMENT)

All the members of the Palmer Panel held degrees in law. And in fact, on of the members was a sitting Head of State. The Panel understood quite well both the legal and the political ramifications of a flotillia that was attempting to cause an international political incident for propaganda purposes.

In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual).

You are FULL OF SHIT!

"55. It might be suggested that a belligerent in an armed conflict has a right to visit, inspect and control the destinations of neutral vessels on the high seas, irrespective of any declared blockade. Whilst there is some controversy on this issue, the San Remo Manual and a number of military manuals take the view that the right may only be exercised upon reasonable suspicion that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy. The Mission takes the view that a right of interference with third States’ freedom of navigation should not lightly be presumed.

56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel would be a reasonable suspicion that it:

• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort (belligerent right of capture); or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter)."​

(COMMENT)

This makes my point specifically and most dramatically; as these are the very paragraphs which I based comment upon. The UNHRC specifically states that they understood the San Remo Manual position (relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 --- which by the way IS the International Humanitarian Law under the International Commission of the Red Cross for such purposes) that: "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." And the UNHRC simply did not want to apply that legal standard, which is the only legal stand that specifically addresses blockades being run by Merchant Shipping (without regard to whether or not it is a third party --- but applies to any nation or party to the Treaty).

This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation.

I just proved it wasn't. The principle difference was the Palmer Commission, did not do any independent investigation. It was nothing more than an hasbara hit piece.

(COMMENT)

In fact you did not. What you demonstrated it that the UNHRC will ignore standing International Law of the Sea applicable to Armed Conflict. That is something that the UNHRC has no authority of legal stand to do. There is nothing in the Charter for the UNHRC that permits any activity to the HRC that allows it to supersede either Customary or International Law to achieve its political agenda.

In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

No, there was no reasonable grounds to think that at all. This is what you fuckers do all the time. It's Israeli Propaganda 101. Discredit the source. But I will give you credit for going the extra mile in order to mask your ad hominiem by making up your own fact for discreditation.

(COMMENT)

This is a case of "probable cause" --- wherein the apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused agency (the UNHRC) has intentionally --- under the color of law and in the name of the UN, overwritten or reinterpreted Customary and International Law, which it had no right to do. It is not an ad hominem attack, it is a "direct accusation." Remember: "The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted." [Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court --- Part III General principles of Criminal Law] The UNHRC cannot imply that the Blockade is illegal if it follows the requirements outlined in the San Remo Manual and it cannot impose a NEW STANDARD "upon "reasonable suspicion" that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy" when the San Remo standard is something else. The UNHRC cannot make new law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, et al,

Wow! I think you made a series of mistakes here.

Just because the Panel did not have it as part of its warrant and commission, does not change the facts.

Unfortunately, the "facts" the Panel considered, were only based on the Turkel Commissions' Report, which was nothing more than an Israeli hasbara propaganda piece.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. That is not the case at all. The Palmer Panel reviewed all the available information at the time. And nothing has com to light since the Palmer Panel Report that actually changes the facts.

Most of the quasi-Investigations by the UN (directed specifically against Israel) are performed by Humanitarians activities and not either professional personnel with investigative experience or event experience in the specific realm under inquiry.

But in the case of the UNHRC-FFM, they did have on their Commission, experts in international and maritime law, backed up by many legal organizations contributing to the report.

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

​

(COMMENT)

All the members of the Palmer Panel held degrees in law. And in fact, on of the members was a sitting Head of State. The Panel understood quite well both the legal and the political ramifications of a flotillia that was attempting to cause an international political incident for propaganda purposes.

In the case of the Blockade, the UN Human Rights Commission that concluded the blockade to be illegal, did NOT use the standard law relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (ie the San Remo Manual).

You are FULL OF SHIT!

"55. It might be suggested that a belligerent in an armed conflict has a right to visit, inspect and control the destinations of neutral vessels on the high seas, irrespective of any declared blockade. Whilst there is some controversy on this issue, the San Remo Manual and a number of military manuals take the view that the right may only be exercised upon reasonable suspicion that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy. The Mission takes the view that a right of interference with third States’ freedom of navigation should not lightly be presumed.

56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel would be a reasonable suspicion that it:

• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort (belligerent right of capture); or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter)."​

(COMMENT)

This makes my point specifically and most dramatically; as these are the very paragraphs which I based comment upon. The UNHRC specifically states that they understood the San Remo Manual position (relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 --- which by the way IS the International Humanitarian Law under the International Commission of the Red Cross for such purposes) that: "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." And the UNHRC simply did not want to apply that legal standard, which is the only legal stand that specifically addresses blockades being run by Merchant Shipping (without regard to whether or not it is a third party --- but applies to any nation or party to the Treaty).

This is the principle difference between the outcome of the two independent investigation.

I just proved it wasn't. The principle difference was the Palmer Commission, did not do any independent investigation. It was nothing more than an hasbara hit piece.

(COMMENT)

In fact you did not. What you demonstrated it that the UNHRC will ignore standing International Law of the Sea applicable to Armed Conflict. That is something that the UNHRC has no authority of legal stand to do. There is nothing in the Charter for the UNHRC that permits any activity to the HRC that allows it to supersede either Customary or International Law to achieve its political agenda.

In fact the UNHRC Investigation is a case in which there is reasonable grounds to assume the Commission intentionally corrupted their investigation in order to derive a conclusions that would reach an outcome that was not at variance with a predetermined announced decision they had already made.

No, there was no reasonable grounds to think that at all. This is what you fuckers do all the time. It's Israeli Propaganda 101. Discredit the source. But I will give you credit for going the extra mile in order to mask your ad hominiem by making up your own fact for discreditation.

(COMMENT)

This is a case of "probable cause" --- wherein the apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused agency (the UNHRC) has intentionally --- under the color of law and in the name of the UN, overwritten or reinterpreted Customary and International Law, which it had no right to do. It is not an ad hominem attack, it is a "direct accusation." Remember: "The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted." [Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court --- Part III General principles of Criminal Law] The UNHRC cannot imply that the Blockade is illegal if it follows the requirements outlined in the San Remo Manual and it cannot impose a NEW STANDARD "upon "reasonable suspicion" that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy" when the San Remo standard is something else. The UNHRC cannot make new law.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, Rocco, it is my turn to blow a little smoke on the Issue.

But what justifies a blockade in non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? The London Declaration does not justify such a blockade, because it only applies to “war”– war being understood at the time as armed conflict between two states. Does the San Remo Manual justify it? The Manual is not a picture of clarity concerning when its rules apply, but it does not seem to contemplate non-international sea conflicts. Article 1 speaks of “the parties to an armed conflict at sea,” which does not seem to include NIAC, unless perhaps a rebel group has a navy. (Do any?) Article 2 parallels the Martens Clause in the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which only applies to IAC. Article 3 acknowledges the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but — as Marko Milanovic has pointed out — that right is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4), which only operates between states. And numerous articles in the Manual refer specifically to “belligerent States” (see, for example, 10, 20, 34).

Opinio Juris Blog Archive Why Is Israel s Blockade of Gaza Legal Updated - Opinio Juris​

And, of course, we have not yet determined that this is an international conflict. I say it is not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nonsense. That is not the case at all. The Palmer Panel reviewed all the available information at the time. And nothing has com to light since the Palmer Panel Report that actually changes the facts.

The Panel only reviewed evidence given to it from the two parties involved.

"...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."​

That's far from a comprehensive review.

All the members of the Palmer Panel held degrees in law. And in fact, on of the members was a sitting Head of State. The Panel understood quite well both the legal and the political ramifications of a flotillia that was attempting to cause an international political incident for propaganda purposes.

Some of the Panels members had a serious conflict of interest, like the former President of Columbia, Mr. Uribe.

"There were surprised reactions to the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel. During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report."​

And none of the members were experts in international maritime law.

This makes my point specifically and most dramatically; as these are the very paragraphs which I based comment upon. The UNHRC specifically states that they understood the San Remo Manual position (relative to International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 --- which by the way IS the International Humanitarian Law under the International Commission of the Red Cross for such purposes) that: "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." And the UNHRC simply did not want to apply that legal standard, which is the only legal stand that specifically addresses blockades being run by Merchant Shipping (without regard to whether or not it is a third party --- but applies to any nation or party to the Treaty).

That part of the San Remo Manual doesn't apply. The maritime ships were not breaching the illegal blockade. They were stopped in international waters.

In fact you did not. What you demonstrated it that the UNHRC will ignore standing International Law of the Sea applicable to Armed Conflict. That is something that the UNHRC has no authority of legal stand to do. There is nothing in the Charter for the UNHRC that permits any activity to the HRC that allows it to supersede either Customary or International Law to achieve its political agenda.

Wrong. I demonstrated the UNHRC reviewed all relative laws regarding this issue. You said they didn't take into consideration the San Remo Manual and I proved they did.

This is a case of "probable cause" --- wherein the apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused agency (the UNHRC) has intentionally --- under the color of law and in the name of the UN, overwritten or reinterpreted Customary and International Law, which it had no right to do. It is not an ad hominem attack, it is a "direct accusation." Remember: "The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted." [Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court --- Part III General principles of Criminal Law] The UNHRC cannot imply that the Blockade is illegal if it follows the requirements outlined in the San Remo Manual and it cannot impose a NEW STANDARD "upon "reasonable suspicion" that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy" when the San Remo standard is something else. The UNHRC cannot make new law.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no probable cause. The ships cargo had been inspected several times by state agencies and it was clear they were carrying nothing but humanitarian aid.

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^^
Did anybody read what that ignorant big mouth just blabbered? Not me.

He usually has a hissyfit when confronted with the wealth of accurate facts that Rocco brings to this board.

Maybe you two should get a room?

 

[Kondor3]

...The ships cargo had been inspected several times by state agencies and it was clear they were carrying nothing but humanitarian aid.

Doesn't matter.

Try to run a Naval Blockade... get the shit kicked out of you.

Simple.