Turkey wants unrestricted access to Gaza from Israel

[Ankit Kumar]

Good if both the government's agree then its ok .
But I think it would be unwise on Israel's part to let any nation or organisation have an unchecked access to Gaza which in the past and at present is also proving fatal for Israeli lives.

 

[TurAr]

Since Ships to Gaza refused to stop, they are by definition a military objective.

Richelieu, baby girl, stop making things up. Stop being in denial and suck it up just like how Israel had and move on.

 

[F-15I]

Seriously what are we doing with Gaza? Don't wr have anything else to do? We should worry about the Turkmens not Palestinians. Saudi Arabia can help them.

this is the question of decade, believe me that arab nations take care of them very well and our government sends them all product that they need and we did not closed the terminal gate like egypt did.
they have no financial problems, it's just their choice how to spend the money (hamas in this case).
like you said you should take care of turkmens in syria right now it's more necessary for turkey.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So to summarize:
Ships to Gaza stated their intent to break the blockade.
This entitles Israel to inspect the ships on International Waters.
The ships refused to stop for inspection, making them a military objective,
and no longer a civilian craft. Passengers still civilian.
Captain of the ship becomes a war criminal, for not stopping.
Some of the crew resisted the boarding, and then lost their civilian status.
Unless they have uniforms or other signs showing them to be enemy combatants
they are war criminals.
Turkey can through escorting the ships take the responsibility for the cargo.
The crew may not been aware of International Law,
but that is then a result of the incompetent organizers of Ships to Gaza,
which has not educated them on International Law.

Which is basically what I said from the beginning.

Then again, Ships to Gaza was never about helping the people in Gaza.
Its goal was to provoke exactly what happened.
Once the cargo was in Israel, Gaza leaders did not want it.

 

[TurAr]

So to summarize:
Ships to Gaza stated their intent to break the blockade.
This entitles Israel to inspect the ships on International Waters.
The ships refused to stop for inspection, making them a military objective,
and no longer a civilian craft. Passengers still civilian.
Captain of the ship becomes a war criminal, for not stopping.
Some of the crew resisted the boarding, and then lost their civilian status.
Unless they have uniforms or other signs showing them to be enemy combatants
they are war criminals.
Turkey can through escorting the ships take the responsibility for the cargo.
The crew may not been aware of International Law,
but that is then a result of the incompetent organizers of Ships to Gaza,
which has not educated them on International Law.

Which is basically what I said from the beginning.

Then again, Ships to Gaza was never about helping the people in Gaza.
Its goal was to provoke exactly what happened.
Once the cargo was in Israel, Gaza leaders did not want it.

To summarize: You are a poor delusional fella refusing the crystal clear facts and evidences and making up your own facts. You couldn't manage to accept the very basic reality on the ground which was accepted even by the Israel's right wing government two freakin years ago.

I imagine it can be hard to overcome your obsessions and delusions but at least try doing it. Start with reading the relevant articles of the San Remo Manual in my previous posts instead of going thorugh all the irrelevant pages hoping to find something against me.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

To summarize: You are a poor delusional fella refusing the crystal clear facts and evidences and making up your own facts. You couldn't manage to accept the very basic reality on the ground which was accepted even by the Israel's right wing government two freakin years ago.

I imagine it can be hard to overcome your obsessions and delusions but at least try doing it. Start with reading the relevant articles of the San Remo Manual in my previous posts instead of going thorugh all the irrelevant pages hoping to find something against me.

You quoted everything but the relevant parts.



SECTION VI: CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
...
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

The Ships to Gaza announced their intention to breach the blockade
a long time before the boarding took place.
How can you fail to acknowledge Israels right to inspect in International Waters???

60. The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:
...
(e) refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;

It is an established fact that the ships refused to stop.

Those two points makes your posting redundant.
The ship is no longer civilian when Israel attempts to board.

Please continue sticking Your head into the ground...

 

[TurAr]

You quoted everything but the relevant parts.



SECTION VI: CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
...
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

The Ships to Gaza announced their intention to breach the blockade
a long time before the boarding took place.
How can you fail to acknowledge Israels right to inspect in International Waters???

60. The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:
...
(e) refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;

It is an established fact that the ships refused to stop.

Those two points makes your posting redundant.
The ship is no longer civilian when Israel attempts to board.

Please continue sticking Your head into the ground...

Do you have some comprehension problems or what? Should I bang your head on each and every article one by one in order to be able to penetrate into that thick skull of yours?


***39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

How is this not relevant? Enlighten us on how Israel managed to distinguish between the civilians and combatants when there were not a single combatant in the entire ship and yet 10 people was murdered.

***40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Please do tell us how did murdering 10 activists and seizing some the ship's kitchen knifes offer a "definite military advantage" to Israel.

***41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

Share your thinking process with us on how you made a military objective out of a humanitarian ship if it is infact a bit more complicated than: "They refused to stop, and BAM, they suddenly became a military objective as their cargo suddenly turned into weapons of mass destruction.

***42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

While you are at it also shed some light on how these rules was in compatible with Israel's actions like shooting 19 years old kid Furkan Doğan 5 times, of two being in the head from 45cm distance.

And also explain to us why dying after 4 year coma cannot be considered as unnucessary suffering.

Turk Injured in Gaza Flotilla Dies After Four-year Coma - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz

***46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;

(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;

• 
  
  
  • 
    (c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
    
    • 
      (d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Finally also be kind enough to share your opinions on the bold parts and explain how they are irrelevant in our context.

Some additional info from the manual just for you:

• 
  (g) warship means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing the character and nationality of such a ship, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of that State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline;
  (h) auxiliary vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, that is owned by or under the exclusive control of the armed forces of a State and used for the time being on government non-commercial service;
  (i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Do you have some comprehension problems or what? Should I bang your head on each and every article one by one in order to be able to penetrate into that thick skull of yours?


***39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

How is this not relevant? Enlighten us on how Israel managed to distinguish between the civilians and combatants when there were not a single combatant in the entire ship and yet 10 people was murdered.

***40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Please do tell us how did murdering 10 activists and seizing some the ship's kitchen knifes offer a "definite military advantage" to Israel.

***41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

Share your thinking process with us on how you made a military objective out of a humanitarian ship if it is infact a bit more complicated than: "They refused to stop, and BAM, they suddenly became a military objective as their cargo suddenly turned into weapons of mass destruction.

***42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

While you are at it also shed some light on how these rules was in compatible with Israel's actions like shooting 19 years old kid Furkan Doğan 5 times, of two being in the head from 45cm distance.

And also explain to us why dying after 4 year coma cannot be considered as unnucessary suffering.

Turk Injured in Gaza Flotilla Dies After Four-year Coma - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz

***46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;

(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;

• 
  
  
  • 
    (c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
    
    • 
      (d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

Finally also be kind enough to share your opinions on the bold parts and explain how they are irrelevant in our context.

Some additional info from the manual just for you:

• 
  (g) warship means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing the character and nationality of such a ship, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of that State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline;
  (h) auxiliary vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, that is owned by or under the exclusive control of the armed forces of a State and used for the time being on government non-commercial service;
  (i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service;

Once the ships refuse to stop, they become a military objective. Article 39-41,46 is no longer relevant.
The Geneva convention states that presence of civilians in a military objective does not render it immune
to attack.

As been described, the boarding was not violent in the beginning, thus not disproportionate,
but turned nasty when the crew made violent resistance,
which makes them lose their status as protected persons.
Boarding a vessel which refuses to stop is not indicriminate action. There goes (42).

Shooting an enemy soldier from 200 meters or 45 centimeters is not a crime.
If he has made resistance, that is what he is, legally.
If he is not making resistance, why did he not back away from the soldiers?

In a melee, you do not expect a thorough examination of who is civilian and who is not.
The fault lies entirely with the the crew which makes armed resistance while dressed
as civilians.This is highly illegal, and they are responsible for collateral deaths.

It would have been so much better, if Ships to Gaza had followed the law.

Do You deny that Ships to Gaza announced they planned to breach the blockade?
Do You deny that they refused to stop?

 

[TurAr]

Once the ships refuse to stop, they become a military objective. Article 39-41,46 is no longer relevant.
The Geneva convention states that presence of civilians in a military objective does not render it immune
to attack.

As been described, the boarding was not violent in the beginning, thus not disproportionate,
but turned nasty when the crew made violent resistance,
which makes them lose their status as protected persons.
Boarding a vessel which refuses to stop is not indicriminate action. There goes (42).

Here is the definition of military objective:

40. Military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Take your time and read it as many times as you need.

As been described, the boarding was not violent in the beginning, thus not disproportionate,
but turned nasty when the crew made violent resistance,
which makes them lose their status as protected persons.
Boarding a vessel which refuses to stop is not indicriminate action. There goes (42).

Are you gonna keep repeating the same thing over and over again? Here you go:

ECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage

There wasn't any "military objectives" on the ship but even if there was, dropping soldiers in the middle of an angry mob isn't exactly a smart way to avoid any collateral damage wouldn't you agree?

You are oversimplifying it as always:

"They didn't stop so they must be war criminals."
"They throw stones to Israel's invading commandos those damn bloodthirsty terrorists"

Just cut it out will you?

Shooting an enemy soldier from 200 meters or 45 centimeters is not a crime.
If he has made resistance, that is what he is, legally.
If he is not making resistance, why did he not back away from the soldiers?

He wasn't a soldier you inbred moron and no they are obviously not the same thing as the latter is something called execution.

In a melee, you do not expect a thorough examination of who is civilian and who is not.
The fault lies entirely with the the crew which makes armed resistance while dressed
as civilians.This is highly illegal, and they are responsible for collateral deaths.

As it was mentioned in the law, the examination on who is civillian and who is not was bound to be made by those who plan, decide and execute the attack PRIOR to setting it in motion. But clearly it wasn't the case in MM since they diceded to drop soldiers one by one right in the middle of an angry mob who was waiting them with iron bars.

So whenever I feel like killing someone, I should carry a gun and walk into a group of Fenerbahçe fans while wearing Galatasaray uniform after provoking them for hours from the safety of my personal helicopter. Then when they engage in "melee" combat with me, I can pull some shit like mozambique drill on the poor fvckers out of self defence. Eh?

Do You deny that Ships to Gaza announced they planned to breach the blockade?
Do You deny that they refused to stop?

Even after all the time I spared and all the things I wrote, you still didn't get it did you? Man it is no different than talking to a brick...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Here is the definition of military objective:

40. Military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Take your time and read it as many times as you need.



Are you gonna keep repeating the same thing over and over again? Here you go:

ECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage

There wasn't any "military objectives" on the ship but even if there was, dropping soldiers in the middle of an angry mob isn't exactly a smart way to avoid any collateral damage wouldn't you agree?

You are oversimplifying it as always:

"They didn't stop so they must be war criminals."
"They throw stones to Israel's invading commandos those damn bloodthirsty terrorists"

Just cut it out will you?



He wasn't a soldier you inbred moron and no they are obviously not the same thing as the latter is something called execution.



As it was mentioned in the law, the examination on who is civillian and who is not was bound to be made by those who plan, decide and execute the attack PRIOR to setting it in motion. But clearly it wasn't the case in MM since they diceded to drop soldiers one by one right in the middle of an angry mob who was waiting them with iron bars.

So whenever I feel like killing someone, I should carry a gun and walk into a group of Fenerbahçe fans while wearing Galatasaray uniform after provoking them for hours from the safety of my personal helicopter. Then when they engage in "melee" combat with me, I can pull some shit like mozambique drill on the poor fvckers out of self defence. Eh?



Even after all the time I spared and all the things I wrote, you still didn't get it did you? Man it is no different than talking to a brick...

Refusing to stop is making the ship a military objective.
Read article 60 ten times, and then maybe you get it.

You can't pick and choose from International Law.

 

[TurAr]

Refusing to stop is making the ship a military objective.
Read article 60 ten times, and then maybe you get it.

You can't pick and choose from International Law.

Cherry picking from the law is exactly what you are doing since the beginning of our discussion. Even in the post you are accusing me of doing it, you are doing it yourself.

Again, as stated in article 61, article 60 is SUBJECTED to several conditions and rules (articles 38-46) in order for it to be implemented in accordance with the international law. I went through most of those articles, several times in fact and explained why Israel couldn't meet those requirements, in hopes of maybe you could be reasoned with but I guess not.

I'm done wasting more of my time with you.

 

[Ceylal]

Turkish's unlimited access to Gaza...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Cherry picking from the law is exactly what you are doing since the beginning of our discussion. Even in the post you are accusing me of doing it, you are doing it yourself.

Again, as stated in article 61, article 60 is SUBJECTED to several conditions and rules (articles 38-46) in order for it to be implemented in accordance with the international law. I went through most of those articles, several times in fact and explained why Israel couldn't meet those requirements, in hopes of maybe you could be reasoned with but I guess not.

I'm done wasting more of my time with you.

And all these conditions were met.
The ships became a military objective when they refused to stop. That is 100% clear from the manual.
You keep on claiming it is not.

The purpose of inspection is to determine if there is any contraband onboard.
You demand that they should know what cargo was onboard before inspection,
and make decisions based on the actual cargo. - Ridiculous...

Israel has an undeniable right to inspect on International Waters,
and that is what they did.

You think it is criminal to send down troops one at a time into an angry mob.
Not at all, when trops are sent down, it is with the underlying threat of violence,
if there is resistance.

This is war, and You expect Rules of Engagement suitable for Football fans.
IHH choose to illegally resist, possibly because they did not understand
that Israel in fact had the right to inspect.

They resisted without indicating that they did not intended to behave like any neutral civilian.
It is pretty clear from the Geneva Convention, that they lose their status as a civilian.

 

[SSGcommandoPAK]

Turkey wants unrestricted access to Gaza from Israel - SERKAN DEMİRTAŞ

It’s been nearly a week since news broke about secret talks between Turkish and Israeli officials in a bid to accomplish the normalization process by sealing a long-negotiated deal. Having already secured a formal apology, Turkey has long been waiting for Israelto fulfill the remaining two conditions: paying compensation to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims and removing the blockade on Gaza.

However, a leaked document on Israeli media has suggested that the talks also included negotiations on some Hamas members allegedly residing in Turkey and carrying Israeli natural gas through pipelines via Turkey.

In a meeting with a senior government official, I had to chance to better understand how Turkey views these talks and whether this leaked information was real. Therefore, the information I will cite here is how Ankara regards the process:

From the very beginning of Israeli-Turkish negotiations, Turkey had insisted on three conditions and this position is still valid. Israel formally apologized to Turkey and is ready to pay the compensation as agreed. The last condition is the removal of the blockade on Gaza. Turkey’s condition from Israel is to get “unrestricted access” to Gaza for its all sorts of assistance to Palestinians. Turkey is determined to not accept any sort of restriction on Turkish assistance to Gaza.

The Hamas condition, as suggested by the Israeli media, does not exist. Ankara believes that Israel leaked this distorted information to the media with the purpose of measuring public reaction and to show Israeli public opinion that Israel is forcing Turkey to deport Saleeh al-Aruri, although this person was not in Turkey. Otherwise, ongoing talks of an agreement with Israel do not include anything on Hamas.

Hamas welcomes Turkey-Israel talks
As can be recalled, only a few days after the news broke about Turkish-Israeli talks, Hamas leader Khaleed Meshal paid a snap visit to Turkey and held talks with PresidentRecep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu.

Again according to information provided by the official, Hamas is not unhappy about the talks between Turkey and Israel. On the contrary, they are aware that Turkey’s access to Gaza to provide aid to Palestinians will be much more efficient and comprehensive in the case an agreement is secured. The timing of this visit was not directly related with this development, according to the official, recalling that Meshal paid numerous visits to Turkey in the past even at the most difficult times. Ankara does also recall that almost all international actors acknowledge the fact that Hamas should be part of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as the group will play a crucial role in the implementation of a potential agreement. Ankara also thinks the United States is also of this opinion on Hamas.

‘Israel should come to us for the pipe-line’
Another much-discussed aspect of these talks was whether the two parties have also tried to secure a deal on the transportation of Israeli reserves to European markets via Turkey through a pipeline.

The negotiated agreement does not envisage a partnership in the field of energy and this issue has nothing to do with a document that guarantees the fulfilment of Turkish conditions. This is an issue that can be discussed later; however, in that case, it must beIsrael who seeks Turkish willingness to join this project. It will not be the Turkish part that will run after Israeli reserves. Another point Ankara is drawing attention to is the fact that the demarcation of exclusive economic zones in the eastern Mediterranean has not been completed, meaning that cooperation between the two countries will take a while.

Why has Israel delayed the process?
Assessments in Ankara suggest that the rapprochement between Turkey and Israel has long been delayed because of the latter’s choices. The process could have been concluded in 2013 after Israel apologized to Turkey but the Gezi protests of June and July of the same year and the launch of a massive corruption and graft investigation into a number of senior government officials in December 2013 led Israeli to think the Justice and Development Party (AKP) was failing.

The coup d’état in Egypt staged by el-Sisi has been another factor in Israel’s change of mind, as they thought they had won a strong regional ally and therefore didn’t need Turkey for their regional interests.

Then came the elections both in Israel and in Turkey. Ankara believes that Israel lost its appetite for a deal in the aftermath of June 7 polls in which the AKP failed to get the required majority to form a single party government but had to change this stance after the Nov. 1 success of the AKP.

Will Turkey continue to slam Israel?
Ongoing talks between the parties have also witnessed an Israeli concern delivered on the Turkish part. It has been learned that Israeli officials have told their counterparts that “Turkey criticizes Israel very much. We are concerned if this would continue even after the deal.” For Ankara, however, normalization of ties with Israel does not necessarily mean that Turkey will cease criticizing Israel, especially if it holds operations in Gaza. The volume and the tone of the Turkish criticism will depend on Israeli attitude towards Palestinians, even in the new era between the two countries.
December/26/2015

Turkey is the most prominent and strong country in the middle east it should find a solution for the Palestine issue , Us Pakistani's are very far away that's the reason we cannot do anything for the Palestinian people . I was so heart broken when 3000 Palestinians were killed by Israel in 2014 and Turkey didn't do anything . no offence but if you guys would have taken some actions at that time hundreds of lives could have been saved .

 

[Adir-M]

Turkey is the most prominent and strong country in the middle east it should find a solution for the Palestine issue , Us Pakistani's are very far away that's the reason we cannot do anything for the Palestinian people . I was so heart broken when 3000 Palestinians were killed by Israel in 2014 and Turkey didn't do anything . no offence but if you guys would have taken some actions at that time hundreds of lives could have been saved .

lol kid what actions turkry can do?
pleas do me a favor and play star wars