![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Despite the claim that the flotillas purpose was to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, inspection at Ashdod Port revealed that the Mavi Marmara carried weapons and supplies for making weapons in its cargo hold. Among the ones found were slingshots, large knives, clubs, gas masks, and chemicals commonly used in IED's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.149.158 ( talk) 22:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
this article takes its heading from the Hate flotilla. Why not metion it illegaly entered Israeli territory and had known terrorist on board who started the confrontatiion. MagicKirin11 ( talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This comment is biased and inaccurate. The bias is demonstrated by the first sentence containing an ad hominem against the flotilla. Inaccurate because it was attacked on the high seas and never entered Israeli territory until forced to do so by armed military personnel after they had killed 9 passengers and seriously injured more than 50 others.
The vague comment about a terrorist is indecipherable but the Cultures of Resistance film shows quite clearly that the commandos started firing their riot guns before they were attacked. So the IDF started the violent 'confrontation', not some imagined terrorist on board. Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1) Erdinç Tekir – IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, was involved in the violent 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release of Chechen terrorists from Russian prisons . He was convicted & sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years.
2) Raed Salah- Leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, previously convicted by Israeli court for raising money for Hamas
3) Hilarion Capucci -Syrian convicted by an Israeli court of smuggling arms to the Palestine Liberation Army and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
4) Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.
5)Hussein Orush, from the Turkish IHH organization, intended to assist al-Qaeda activists into the Strip via Turkey.
6) Ahmed Omemun (51) from Morocco, who also has French citizenship, is a Hamas member.
7) Amin Abu-Rashid, 43, chief fundraiser of Hamas in Western Europe
8) Yasser Muhammed Sabag, Syrian intel officer working with Iran and others according to Serbian news agency FOCUS (He was an active member of Abu Nidal terrorist organization)
By refusing to list these convicted criminals and current terrorists, the Wikipedia page is showing a clear bias.
This list is not complete because many of the names were never released to the public.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18040
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/10/archbishop_gets_award_for_armi.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/176279#.UtVFIPabr8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.143 ( talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The first two sources are famously partisan and unreliable and the third contains unproven allegations. These claims appear to have malicious intent i.e. they are intended to portray the flotilla in a bad light and belittle the humanitarian aims (after all there were 10,000 tons of aid on the flotilla and much of it either did not reach Gaza or was not fit for use after Israel finally released it). Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Bultn ( talk) 09:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Because the flotilla ignored legal instruction from Israel. 64.134.64.118 ( talk) 13:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It was not piracy because it does not meet the definition which specifically states "a private ship or a private aircraft". I.e. state actors are not included. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm Article 101 'Definition of piracy'.
It should correctly be called 'state terrorism'. There are plenty of reasons for this:
The blockade was not correctly notified.
Various contraventions of Geneva Convention IV which renders the blockade illegal (see UNHRC report).
San Remo requires warning to be given prior to attack whereas the IDF just turned up and began firing their riot guns.
Ships carrying humanitarian aid must be allowed to pass (can be subjected to inspection but the Flotilla offered to accept UN inspection on the high sea and this was ignored). (N.b. the IDF admitted at Ashdod that there were no weapons on board the ships.)
Not legal to attack a civilian ship in this fashion, the Flotilla was after all carrying women and non-combatants and the Mavi Marmara had an infant on board. The semi-automatic riot guns believed to firing pepper spray or even impact balls were fired indiscriminately at the ship right from the start. Stun grenades were thrown at the Mavi Marmara (an unarmed civilian vessel) within about 30 seconds of the start of the attack. These are very dangerous fireworks which caused one man on the Challenger I to lose the sight in one eye. Since the ship was being attacked by heavily armed terrorists (whose weapons included Uzi sub-machine guns, Glock pistols and even a grenade launcher on one of the inflatables circling the ship) it had a legal right to defend itself, using as it did fire hoses, chairs and iron bars. (N.b. Axes were never used, they were just removed from the fire stations by the IDF for their photo shot at Ashdod.) Hardly a match for the weapons the terrorists were using as the end result showed. Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Turkish Doctors who treated IDF soldiers injured in the raid. I think to be fair we need this to be mentioned. Not everyone on the ship was there with ill-intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Israeli Government's apology to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara raid and subsequent loss of life. I think to be neutral this needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the Secretary General's report. For example, using a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. There is also no criticism of the UNHCR report, or the organization itself, despite plenty being available. The article previously falsely describes the Palmer report as being a "response to" the UNHCR report," despite the Palmer report being prepared before the UNHCR report was published. The article also recently used non-sources such as counterpunch. In addition, the most recent edit is contrary to what the Palmer report found. What was linked to was an opinion piece in a journal written by Russell Buchan, not the Palmer report.
My version of the paragraph would be as follows:
On On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found the Israeli blockade to be legal, recognizing that the IDF were met with "organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers" and therefore force was necessary for self-defense,[1] but stated that "the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable".[2]
Drsmoo ( talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Israel justified its interception of theflotilla on the basis of international humanitarian law; during times of armed conflict international humanitarian law permits a State to impose and enforce a naval blockade against vessels on the high seas that have expressed an intention to run the blockade. Whether or not Israel’s interdiction of the Maviwas permissible under international law has caused considerable controversy. Indeed, three high profile reports have been published examining the legality of the incident.2 Most recently, in September 2011 the Palmer Report was published (named after the Chair of the four member Panel, Sir Geoffrey Palmer). 3 Established at the behest of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, the Panel responsible for compiling this report was required to‘(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and (b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future’.4 Importantly, the Panel notes that it‘is not a court'and 'was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability’. 5 This being said, however, the Panel explains that it reached its conclusions in relation to the facts, circumstances and context of the incident‘against the backdrop of the exposition of the principles of public international law’ 6 that were set out by the Chair and ViceChair of the Panel in Appendix I to the Report.7 Thus, the Panel inevitably sought to apply principles of international law to the facts as the Panel determined them to be. All in all, the Panelfinds that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was lawful. However, the Panel also concludes that the enforcement of the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful and that Israel’s treatment of the crew members whilst they were detained was in violation of international human rights law.8
The article makes no mention of Retired Admiral of the Turkish Fleet, Nusret Guner's statement that he was awaiting orders for a Naval Invasion of Israeli waters and that the Turkish Government was considering a Military offensive. There is also no mention of the speculation at the time that Turkish officials were allegedly seeking Nuclear cover from Pakistan in the event that Israel launched a nuclear attack on Turkey in response to any Turkish Naval invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 08:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Neither source used says "execution style", stop adding it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Y ildirim, a 31-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back.Çetin Topçuo ğ lu Çetin Topçuo ğ lu, a 54-year-old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, brahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot . He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front.Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United St ates citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax,left leg and foot. GGranddad ( talk) 12:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkness Shines: Can you tell me where the sentence says they were shot deliberately in the back? It says deaths were caused by gunshots, some...from the back. First you protested about the "execution style", which I amended. Now you protest about "from the back". All the while, the whole sentence has been removed from the lead. I am exhausting my supply of WP:AGF here. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I wish to protest very strongly against the changes being made to the lead by Darkness Shines. These two edits are particularly egregious. Please read WP:PRESERVE. Under ARBPIA, I am unable to revert these multiple changes. Inconvenient information like "executions", "shot in the back" and "broken bones" should not be removed willy-nilly. The "broken bones" part is not available in the source quoted, but it is indeed availabe in the UN report which we were discussing. If you are unsure of something, add a citation needed tag. Not every sentence in the lead even needs a citation, per WP:LEAD.
This, saying there was "no humanitarian aid on board", to the lead is unjustifiable as well. It directly contradicts the second sentence in the lead and contradicts the section Gaza_flotilla_raid#The_flotilla confirmed by multiple sources. Adding such a bald statement in wikipedia's voice is unjustifiable.
The lead is a summary, the product of long discussions and consensus. It is illegitimate to tamper with it like this. If you have issues, add your content to the sections first, build consensus. Instead of acting like this. Kingsindian ( talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I propose the following changes to the first two edits made. This would meet DS's objections, as far as I can see.
For the first point, I have dispensed with "point blank and shooting from behind" stuff and directly quoted the UN report. For the second, I have just summarized the Gaza_flotilla_raid#Detention of activists section for the last line.
DS can give his opinion on this version. Anyone else can bung it in if they feel it is fine. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
References
I have removed one paragraph from the lead. First of all, it comes from Daily Kos blog, obviously not RS. Secondly, it is just based on the Palmer report, which the subsequent paragraph also summarizes. Third, it is misleading, stating that the Palmer report found the blockade illegal (it did not find the naval blockade illegal). However, I have added a sentence to the end of subsequent paragraph regarding the naval blockade - from the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article.
In September 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released its report on the Israeli boarding and seizure of the vessels. The report found that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal, and therefore, the boarding and seizure of the vessels was illegal, that the detention of the passengers was illegal, that the confiscation of the passengers' possessions was illegal and there was willful killing on the part of the Israeli commandos. [1] [2] [3] better source needed
Kingsindian ( talk) 10:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
References
www2.ohchr.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Can someone who has access to the book by Schwartzwald, Jack L. (2012). Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation's History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders. McFarland. tell me who he cites for the claim that there were 50 paid mercenaries on the Mavi Marmara? page 196-7. Perhaps DS can also enlighten me on this point. Kingsindian ( talk) 00:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a perfectly reliable secondary source, cheers. Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is apparent (to me at least) that DS has no grounds at all to add this paragraph except that he thinks it should be there. I have already given versions of the first two edits, which might be acceptable to DS, in the previous section. The third edit should be dumped altogether. After the stuff over 1RR yesterday, I am afraid to touch anything. But someone else can put it in if they want, or give comments. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone tell me more about this source?
and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death". [1]
References
Who is it citing, and in what context is the "martyr's death" quote uttered? Kingsindian ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be kept in this article?
It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part, [1] and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death". [2]
I have reverted this . If some guy was on the flotilla and then wrote a book and then in the future joined ISIS, what on Earth does this have to do with the flotilla? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Drsmoo: I have moved the paragraph back to after the Palmer report. This is a different report, by an independent panel of 5 experts, reporting to the UNHRC, and talking about the legality, and in response to the Palmer report. It is not useful to move it together with the earlier report, which was mostly about testimonies by the passengers involved, though it also rendered an opinion on the blockade. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Its the sources who make the connection if the sources about the commission mention the EU and US responses that its WP:DUE to include them.-- Shrike ( talk) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Drsmoo: There are two separate issues here:
Fine, so we agree on this issue. I have now removed the extra cruft of UNHRC vote of 30-1 and US/EU responses etc. now that the overall issue of NPOV seems resolved. If you have any objections, let me know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be added to this article?
In 2014 prominent member of IHH, Yakup Bülent Alnıak who had been aboard the Mavi Marmara and who had written a book on the incident was killed in an American airstrike in Syria. [1] According to reports from Turkey and quoted by YNet News, Alnıak had joined the Islamic State and had taken part in combat missions, other reports claim he had joined the Al Nusra Front, [2] and the Turkish publication World Bulletin claimed Alnıak was there to distribute food to those in need. And another report claimed he was there to research a book. He is survived by a wife and two children. [3] [4]
(Some discussion here). Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Note. This RfC was started by a self-confessed long-term sock of a banned user - see [10] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Do not include in the lead. 7 editors opposed inclusion, 4 supported inclusion and 1 was opposed/supportive dependent on other article content. The main argument in support was based on WP:NPOV, but a good counter-argument was made that, since the proposed text focuses on criticism of the UNHCR resolution and omits mention of any positive response to it, whether the text actually conforms to NPOV is at least questionable. The resolution appears to have passed comfortably, so it must have found favour somewhere. So, I don't see that any argument has been made which is strong enough to overturn the numerical result of the poll.
Should the following statement be included in the lead?
The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. The United States expressed concern about the tone, content and conclusions of the report and the European Union stated that it should be transferred to the UN Secretary-General's investigation. [1] [2] 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
*Yes Per NPOV, some criticism of the report needs to be in the lede. I have no issue with "The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions." line being dropped.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - self-confessed sock of banned user
[11] struck
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
05:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is similar to a controversy in US politics some years ago, when a US President placed importance on "the meaning of 'is'". Words should be used in a way such that they mean what people think they mean.
The ongoing blockade of Gaza is not legal. The UN report reached the difficult conclusion that it had been legal when it was first implemented, which relied on evidence like "the rate of rocket attacks had decreased some time after the blockade was implemented, which is evidence that the blockade really was for self-defense". The report did not say that the blockade is legal, because the evidence that it would still be a necessary and immediate reaction to an act of aggression, over a year after it was first implemented, would have been much harder to defend legally. This is why the report recommended that Israel immediately report its use of force, in the form of the blockade, to the United Nations Security Council as required by nations engaging in self-defense by the UN Charter.
The report mentioned the Caroline affair, and the conclusion that was reached regarding it that the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". A year-long blockade is not an instant response; it is not a timescale that prevents deliberation or, most importantly, referral of the dispute to the UN Security Council.
Other relevant information:
There is a widespread misconception that the United Nations report on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal. Even reputable organizations such as the New York Times have made this mistake.
The report did not say this. The report concluded that the imposition of a blockade on 3 January 2009 was legal and justified as a measure of self-defence, in direct response to rocket attacks from Gaza.
However, the terms of the United Nations charter, frequently linked in the report, only allows the use of force in self-defence until the United Nations Security Council "has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". If a nation is not under immediate attack, acts of self-defence are not allowed. This includes the maintenance of a naval blockade.
While the Gaza Strip and Israel are currently at war, the naval blockade by Israel was illegal during the substantial periods of time in which no rockets were being fired towards Israel.
Israel considers the legal basis for its control of the territorial waters around the Gaza Strip, as well as the airspace of the Palestinian territories, to be the Oslo Accords, and specifically the Gaza-Jericho agreement.
Palestine can revoke the authority it has granted Israel to control its territorial waters and airspace, which would cause Israel to have no legal basis to infringe on the territory of Gaza unless Israel is under immediate and direct attack, with no other way to prevent these attacks from occurring.
Links: UN Report on the Freedom Flotilla http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdfU.N. Report Finds Israeli Blockade Legal but Raid Flawed http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html
Self-Defence clause of the United Nations charter
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml#article51
I would have edited the page myself, but it is protected. When the lede says that the UN report concluded that the blockade "was legal", this is misleading because it can easily be misinterpreted to mean "the blockade at the moment the Gaza flotilla was attacked", as this is the event that many people are interested in. It should be changed to indicate that this was probably not the intent of the authors of the report, as this would have been wrong and they clearly referenced the legal aspects of the situation (such as the use of force only being authorized for self-defense, and then only when the UN Security Council is notified so it can resolve the situation) that are the reason saying "the blockade was legal when the raid took place" would have been wrong. 2601:8:9780:1EE:7CB2:F4A5:44F7:BE5E ( talk) 00:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Further misleading statements (this is the same editor as previous comment): Under #Legal assessments, it says "In September 2011, a United Nations report concluded that the Israeli naval blockade was legal, but that the Israeli action was "excessive"." As described previously, we cannot support the conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was legal at the moment of the raid. So the "but" is not appropriate here, as the conclusion that the use of force was excessive does not in any way contradict the conclusion that the blockade was legal on ~03 Jan 2009. This needs to be rewritten to prevent the inappropriate conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was still legal in 2010. It didn't say that it was illegal then, but it also didn't say that having a blockade for this length of time was justified by the facts (that the ongoing blockade "is" legal); it did not examine situations that were outside of its mandate, though involved parties may have mistakenly thought that it did. Note that an "illegal" characterization of the blockade, since the investigation found that it otherwise satisfied the requirements for a blockade when used in wartime, depends on the UN Charter which makes the overall action of prolonged conflict "illegal", given the definition of "customary rules used by nations" to determine whether something is illegal. If the investigation was not tasked to determine whether the conflict itself was legal, which would involve examining the period before Jan 03 2009 (just after Israel invaded Gaza, with lots of rocket attacks going on) it would likely have found that it was not, but people who knew that the UN Charter prohibits war might have felt that there was no need for an investigative committee to answer that question, and those who didn't know that may have assumed that sufficient issues were being examined to reach the conclusion they wished the investigation to reach. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 ( talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The section #UN_Palmer_Report also makes this mistake. 'The commission determined Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal,[306] but stated that the "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force[...]"'
From the report, page 7: "The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues". Page 5, para iii: "all aspects of (Security Council resolution 1860) should be implemented", which according to its Wikipedia article includes an "immediate and durable ceasefire". For the lazy, page 5 para vi. states "The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter. This will enable the Council to monitor any implications for international peace and security." This does sort of show a flaw in the report, because the Security Council is actually supposed to actively stop conflicts, not just "monitor" them; if one side is the aggressor, then (as long as the attacked party is part of the UN, and even if it isn't the UN's rules allow the Security Council to prevent conflicts) the UN is supposed to take action, whether through military or other means, to restore peace. If acts of self-defense are taking place, then by definition a state of international peace does not exist.
The tasks for the panel are on page 11, para 6.
(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and
(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future.
As the panel stated on page 7, determining whether the blockade was still legal, or legality of anything else, was not one of the tasks. The report noted a reduction in rocket attacks compared to when the blockade was implemented, and used this as evidence that the blockade, on 3 Jan 2009, was in self-defense (concluding that it supported the 'self-defense' explanation, though others might disagree on the reason for a reduction in rocket attacks); it did not examine any evidence or make the conclusion that rocket attacks at the time of the blockade were sufficient to justify a blockade in self-defense, especially considering that (though the panel does not seem to have mentioned this) the UNSC is supposed to be the one that uses force when other means fail, other than for "immediate action" etc. The mention in the UN Charter of nations ensuring that airplanes are available for enforcement actions shows the view of the timescale in which the founders of the UN hoped that future conflicts would be resolved, though of course this hasn't worked out in practice.
On page 14, the summary of the Turkish report says that it states that the blockade started in 2007 by including the land crossings (which, it must be mentioned, Egypt is also part of). If the UN investigation had used this definition, it likely would not have been able to conclude that "the blockade was legal". Page 15, the Turkish explanation for why the blockade is illegal does not mention the UN Charter, which may seem consistent given that Israel was not trying to make people think that it was acting in self-defense when it increased restrictions on land crossings in 2007.
Note that, on page 28, the Israeli report found that "the imposition of the naval blockade was lawful". Contrast with the Turkish conclusion: on page 14, "The Turkish Commission does not accept that Israel’s naval blockade is lawful", page 15, "Israel’s blockade is illegal". The fact that the Israeli report uses the past tense, as opposed to present tense for the Turkish report, is why the UN report recommended a review of the necessity of the blockade by Israel in addition to its other recommendations (which, as noted, imply that only reason to report ongoing acts of self-defense to the UNSC is so it can "monitor" the situation).
To explain how easy it is to be confused by the report, on page 38, the report states "Turkey considers that the naval blockade was illegal and that the interception of the flotilla vessels on the high seas[...]". Here, it uses "blockade was illegal" to refer to the time of the flotilla raid, but elsewhere, in both the panel's conclusions and the Israeli response to the report's conclusions, "blockade was legal" refers to its imposition on 03 Jan 2009.
On page 44, para 81, where the panel concludes "naval blockade was legal. In this regard, the Panel reaches a different conclusion to that of the Turkish investigation into the incident." This is misleading because Turkey was more concerned with the practical consequences of whether the blockade was legal on the day of the flotilla raid and at present; the conclusion that the blockade was also illegal on 03 Jan 2009, by linking it to the earlier restrictions which would not satisfy the "immediate action" test referenced in the UN report, was only incidental. The UN report differs with the Turkish one on whether the blockade was legal on 03 Jan 2009; it does not differ on whether the blockade is legal because the UN report does not make a statement on whether the blockade is legal. As another example of the limited scope of the investigation, on page 41, para 73, it states regarding a specific issue, "This conclusion goes no further than is necessary for the Panel to carry out its mandate. What other implications may or may not flow from it are not before us"; as noted before, the panel stated that determining legal issues was not one of its tasks. This is why it felt it was acceptable to offer a legal opinion, which it recognized carried no legal authority, on the blockade at one point of time but not at another, even though the panel's members may have been aware that their wording was misleading.
Again, the statements at the end differ in their use of tense. Israeli statement: 'Israel's view that the "naval blockade was legal," that it "was imposed[...]" "complied". Turkish report: "Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful." It then says "Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful.", which might just be the 'change of tense of quotation to match time period of quotation' that is common in English or might be a deliberate avoidance of "is", but either way shows how easy it is to confuse "was a year ago and still is" with "was two years ago and might no longer be", especially when the UN report itself uses the same "was" for both of these situations.
2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 ( talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated, but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to respond to this or fix the article (which is blocked from editing for anonymous users). How to fix the situation which leads to conflict between Israel and Palestine: [12] Note that it seems most likely that Adam Lanza learned of that proposal through the Wikipedia talk page for the Aurora shooting, given his research into a particular type of event. 50.135.249.113 ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit removing the findings of the five member UN panel on the blockade. I do not accept your reasoning that the part which was removed earlier (the reaction of countries to the UNHRC report) is in any way symmetrical to the edit you made. The edit mentioning the responses by the various countries on the UNHRC report was simply a political response on the matter by the various countries. This is, by contrast, a statement by an expert panel of dedicated rapporteurs on the topic. If you wish to argue against inclusion, please do so on a separate basis, on its own merits. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if we are simply talking about the weight of the opinion by itself: I don't understand your point. As we discussed earlier, both the UNHRC original report and the panel opinion are kept together in the lead, and it is made clear that the panel was composed of UNHRC special rapporteurs. The Palmer report is given its own section. The UNHRC inquiry report is not the same as the panel of experts: that inquiry commission was composed of different people. The panel opinion is only about the narrow question about the legality of the blockade. These are experts on the various issues relating to the topic and I find their opinion of enough weight to include in the lead. Moreover, the opinion of the Palmer report about the legality of the (naval) blockade is very much in the minority. So I do not see any POV issue here. Indeed, if we only give two opinions, one "legal" and one "illegal", it would be false balance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Offline 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of the expert to the Turkel Commission 'Wolf Heintschel von Heineg' to 'Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg'. The doubled consonants 'ff' and 'gg' are part of the professor's name (cf. his german Wikipedia article). 91.16.106.100 ( talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The UNHRC report does indeed find that the helicopter fired live rounds on Mavi Marmara prior to the soldiers landing on the deck, but the Palmer report, which was written after the UNHRC one, does not. I think the article should point this out. Neutral Point of View, and all. (Earlier, I was confused, due to there being two UN reports about the incident. Sorry about that!) Mspaaz ( talk) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?=191718{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eurasiareview.com/palmer-inquiry-whitewashes-blockade-oped-06092011/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/folkrattsprofessorn-israel-har-brutit-mot-internationell-ratt-1.1115594When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The use of photographs in this article is distinctly non-NPOV. Of the 24 photos in this article, the majority are clearly intended to suggest that the flotilla was primarily an armed attack rather than a delivery of relief. Examples:
There are more issues, but this really needs to be cleaned up. The bias is extreme and this article cannot be considered NPOV as long as these photos and captions remain as they are. 24.170.207.189 ( talk) 17:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Many of the photos come from the IDF Flickr account which should not be used in the first place; not even an attribution is given. Many of the photos were added by an editor who from what I saw, used to do little else but add photos from the IDF Flickr account. I count no less than 16 photos sourced to the IDF Flickr account on this article, which is ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I am, at the least, deleting the photos which have supporting description in the text. I expect there will be still be some of them left; one should really get photos from neutral sources, but since only the IDF photos are left, the media did use only those, IIRC. The captions should be changed as well; I'll do it later. I'll list below a few which I removed:
Right now I have removed less than half of the photos from the IDF Flickr account. It's debatable whether they should be used at all, but for now, I'm not touching them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This guy is priceless! What does NPOV stand for? Not Nazi Point of View, I hope. Mspaaz ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the photo caption of activists preparing to "attack" IDF soldiers: defend dɪˈfɛnd/Submit verb verb: defend; 3rd person present: defends; past tense: defended; past participle: defended; gerund or present participle: defending 1. resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger. "we shall defend our island, whatever the cost" synonyms: protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen; More antonyms: attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.47.146 ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. In the lead, instead of “nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid...” it should say “In the battle that ensued after the activists attacked Israeli soldiers, nine activists were killed... one seriously.” 2. In the lead, instead of “extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.” It should say “extra-legal, arbitrary and summery execution, though Israel disputes this.” 3. In the lead, instead of “A UNHRC report...” it should cut down on the length - that paragraph is needlessly longer than any other paragraph - and add a sentence saying, “the UNHRC has been plagued by Anti-Israel bias- it has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.” Ajackson12 ( talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Have anyone heard about recent flotilla of freedom? [13] and [14]. -- Mhhossein talk 19:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The article calls the UN Secretary-General at the time "Ki-Moon". This is his forename. His surname is "Ban". (It is normal Korean practice to place the surname first.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The section attributing, rather insinuating, that a Turkish Judge dismissed a case due to irate "Islamists" is worded to simply biased the reader in favour of the murder defendants, and must be stopped. The cited journalistic piece (not an AIPAC source) DOES NOT engage in such ditsy prose, thus the section reflects misrepresentation by the contributing wikipedian. 126.3.54.112 ( talk) 15:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "activists" to "terrorists". It is mentioned that the people who were killed wanted to be "Shaheed" and attacked with knives and iron bars... Therfore they are terrorists and not plain activists. Yaking1936 ( talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add the names of the civilians killed in the raid in international waters by Flotilla 13 of the Israeli Navy
Ibrahim Bilgen Ali Haydar Bengi Cevdet Kiliçlar Çetin Topçuoglu Necdet Yildirim Fahri Yaldiz Cengiz Songür Cengiz Akyüz Furkan Dogan Ugur Suleyman Soylemez 2601:5C1:8202:91E0:58B1:E74F:69FE:93C8 ( talk) 05:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@
AmirahBreen: Can you explain the reason for these massive changes in long standing text? (also why did you warn me about 1RR when you broke the rule yourself?; not only that, you also completely disregarded WP:BRD. You should've worked on these numerous changes on your sandbox before implementing them.) -
Daveout
(talk)
01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Kindly expalin what major pov shifts you can see, in total 523 characters were removed and these are the photographs which are primary source. My earlier changes were simply moving text to it's proper place, how can that change the POV of an article, it just makes it more readable. Amirah talk 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I came across this article last night and found that the article had a very long and confusing lede. There was also much contentious POV text in the lede which IMO had been placed at the top of the article to draw attention to a particular POV. In a series of text moves I have moved the text from the lede (after the initial lede paragraph) and History section to it's appropriate places in the article. While I was working on the article another editor started reverting my edits saying that I should have sought consensus on the talk page before making these changes.
I had no reason to suspect that making such changes would bring about a lack of consensus, but asked the editor to discuss their problem on the talk page. Instead they continued to revert my edits, three times in less than an hour I think, before opening a discussion on the talk page.
If you compare the current version of the article [15] to the version before I started editing, [16] you can see that no major changes where made regarding text removal or addition, but this morning my edits were reverted again by another editor accusing me of having made major POV changes without having first discussed before on the talk page. I have not changed the POV of the article, but have made it more readable and less confusing, so that both POV's can now be seen, through text moves to appropriate sections. Insisting that an article be left in an unreadable condition could also be seen as a POV tactic.
I also feel that there could be article ownership issues with the editor who initially objected to me working on the article for no good reason. I think it should be perfectly obvious to anybody who looks at the two versions before and after of what I am saying. I understand that in a lengthy article the lede may be a little longer, but not that POV text should be picked out and placed at the top of the article followed by a long history section which didn't speak about the history of the incident at all, but continued whith the POV tactics which had been used in the lede to push a particular POV in a confusing and unreadable manner so that most readers would never get down to reading the text below, which had been written in an orderly way with proper headings and subheadings according to WP:MOS.
Regarding the photos I removed in a short series of edits, as my reason are explained in the edit summary, they are primary sources as they are published by the Israeli army, in an article which has allegations against the Israeli army, with contentious text and the photo's themselves are not therefore credible evidence of what the text claims they are. Amirah talk 14:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The lede section is too long, it is also NPOV and confuses the article. What is under the first paragraph should be moved down into the article under appropriate headings and sub-headings. See: MOS:LEAD 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.' Amirah talk 12:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Information in the history section which is not about the history of the incident, but the incident itself, should be moved to appropriate sections. Amirah talk 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have taken this text out due to NPOV, the text did not accurately reflect the sources. [18] Amirah talk 12:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The photographs taken and published by the Israeli Defence Force should be removed from this article for NPOV reasons. Amirah talk 12:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Daveout, I clarified the second image was removed for NPOV issues. Not for non-free issues. Can you clarify why you restored it? Do you think the section on the boarding, which resulted in ten deaths on one side and ten injuries on the other side, should only contain propaganda images released by the IDF? nableezy - 15:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The external link to Palmer Report is showing up as '404 Not found' on the UN website. The report is also used as a cited source in Refs 2, 5, 15, 86, 215, 216, 301, 307, and 340 . Can anyone provide a link to this report? Amirah talk 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to ask why the article does not have an infobox. The first paragraph of the lede says that the article is about a military operation and there is a template for 'Infobox military operation' but it hasn't been used.
There is statistical information repeated in the first ('Nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid and ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, one seriously.') and second ('During the struggle, nine activists were killed, including eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish American, and many were wounded. On 23 May 2014, a tenth member of the flotilla died in hospital after being in a coma for four years. Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously.') paragraphs of the lede which would normally be placed in the infobox, as well as being found in the main text of the article.
I'd also suggest an internal Wikipedia link to the word ' Military operation' in the lede and a note at the top of the article to say 'This article is about the military operation, for 2010 flotilla see Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Amirah talk 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says, 'Israel had warned the flotilla to abort their mission, describing it as a provocation.' I can't see evidence of this in the main article, particularly the last part of the sentence 'describing it as provocation'. There shouldn't be any need for references in the lede as the lede is a summary of the main article. Exactly how and when was this warning given? Was the word 'provocation' actually used? I can't read the source as I am not a subscriber so if anyone can read it then please share if it says in the source. Amirah talk 17:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lede starts 'Israel has offered Turkey $20 million in compensation for the raid.'
The section on Gaza flotilla raid#Israel–Turkey diplomatic crisis also mentions compensation, in the first, second and last paragraphs. There is some repetition here.
Perhaps the issue of 'compensation' deserves a sub-heading in the article to make it easier to find.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-offers-turkey-20m-recompense-1.5318246 says that Israel offered compensation to 'nine families and to those wounded', but it is not mentioned in the article as to whether the wounded were ever offered compensation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-israel-compensation-idUSKBN19E166 mentions that compensation eventually went to ten families. I would suggest including this. Nine activist died in the raid and one four years later.
https://m.dw.com/en/israel-pays-turkey-20-million-over-flotilla-raid-official/a-35936896 says that 'Turkey waived its right to seek legal redress against the Israeli soldiers involved in the raid' in return for compensation. Is this clear in the article? Under /info/en/?search=Gaza_flotilla_raid#2016_dismissing_of_the_case it actually says that 'Turkish courts finally dismissed the cases brought before them, under extraordinary security measures due to the "angry and disappointed Islamists" involved'. The source https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/12/turkey-how-erdogan-wins-with-losing-hand.html actually says that 'the judge adjourned a session' due to their anger not that he dismissed the case due to that. It says that he dismissed the case due to the agreement signed between Turkey and Israel.
Amirah talk 17:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg claims a non-free content rationale here, but it is an obvious failure of our non-free content use policy, namely that Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). This image is used in the same manner as the original, to depict the events, and as such it may not be used here. This is doubly true given we have plenty of free images available. nableezy - 23:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Other non-free pictures, such as this one and this one, are also "blatant failures of WP:NFCC", whatever that means (I believe they can only be used in this specific article). Either we remove all of them or none. Selective removal based on WP:NFCC is POV and makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:281:0:0:98C0:507F ( talk) 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh User:Daveout, the news that NY Daily News prints is reliable. Editorials are the opinions of the editorial board, and are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSEDITORIAL, particularly where it says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. There are exceptions to this obviously, such as the work of established experts in the field they are writing in, but no, the editorial board is not a reliable source. If this material is accurate it will have been printed as factual in an actual reliable source. Please self-revert your edit. nableezy - 01:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
There having been no justification for the reinsertion of what WP:RSEDITORIAL says is very much not a reliable source, I am removing it again. nableezy - 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
03:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
08:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Despite the claim that the flotillas purpose was to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, inspection at Ashdod Port revealed that the Mavi Marmara carried weapons and supplies for making weapons in its cargo hold. Among the ones found were slingshots, large knives, clubs, gas masks, and chemicals commonly used in IED's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.149.158 ( talk) 22:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
this article takes its heading from the Hate flotilla. Why not metion it illegaly entered Israeli territory and had known terrorist on board who started the confrontatiion. MagicKirin11 ( talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This comment is biased and inaccurate. The bias is demonstrated by the first sentence containing an ad hominem against the flotilla. Inaccurate because it was attacked on the high seas and never entered Israeli territory until forced to do so by armed military personnel after they had killed 9 passengers and seriously injured more than 50 others.
The vague comment about a terrorist is indecipherable but the Cultures of Resistance film shows quite clearly that the commandos started firing their riot guns before they were attacked. So the IDF started the violent 'confrontation', not some imagined terrorist on board. Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1) Erdinç Tekir – IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, was involved in the violent 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release of Chechen terrorists from Russian prisons . He was convicted & sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years.
2) Raed Salah- Leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, previously convicted by Israeli court for raising money for Hamas
3) Hilarion Capucci -Syrian convicted by an Israeli court of smuggling arms to the Palestine Liberation Army and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
4) Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.
5)Hussein Orush, from the Turkish IHH organization, intended to assist al-Qaeda activists into the Strip via Turkey.
6) Ahmed Omemun (51) from Morocco, who also has French citizenship, is a Hamas member.
7) Amin Abu-Rashid, 43, chief fundraiser of Hamas in Western Europe
8) Yasser Muhammed Sabag, Syrian intel officer working with Iran and others according to Serbian news agency FOCUS (He was an active member of Abu Nidal terrorist organization)
By refusing to list these convicted criminals and current terrorists, the Wikipedia page is showing a clear bias.
This list is not complete because many of the names were never released to the public.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18040
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/10/archbishop_gets_award_for_armi.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/176279#.UtVFIPabr8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.143 ( talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The first two sources are famously partisan and unreliable and the third contains unproven allegations. These claims appear to have malicious intent i.e. they are intended to portray the flotilla in a bad light and belittle the humanitarian aims (after all there were 10,000 tons of aid on the flotilla and much of it either did not reach Gaza or was not fit for use after Israel finally released it). Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Bultn ( talk) 09:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Because the flotilla ignored legal instruction from Israel. 64.134.64.118 ( talk) 13:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It was not piracy because it does not meet the definition which specifically states "a private ship or a private aircraft". I.e. state actors are not included. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm Article 101 'Definition of piracy'.
It should correctly be called 'state terrorism'. There are plenty of reasons for this:
The blockade was not correctly notified.
Various contraventions of Geneva Convention IV which renders the blockade illegal (see UNHRC report).
San Remo requires warning to be given prior to attack whereas the IDF just turned up and began firing their riot guns.
Ships carrying humanitarian aid must be allowed to pass (can be subjected to inspection but the Flotilla offered to accept UN inspection on the high sea and this was ignored). (N.b. the IDF admitted at Ashdod that there were no weapons on board the ships.)
Not legal to attack a civilian ship in this fashion, the Flotilla was after all carrying women and non-combatants and the Mavi Marmara had an infant on board. The semi-automatic riot guns believed to firing pepper spray or even impact balls were fired indiscriminately at the ship right from the start. Stun grenades were thrown at the Mavi Marmara (an unarmed civilian vessel) within about 30 seconds of the start of the attack. These are very dangerous fireworks which caused one man on the Challenger I to lose the sight in one eye. Since the ship was being attacked by heavily armed terrorists (whose weapons included Uzi sub-machine guns, Glock pistols and even a grenade launcher on one of the inflatables circling the ship) it had a legal right to defend itself, using as it did fire hoses, chairs and iron bars. (N.b. Axes were never used, they were just removed from the fire stations by the IDF for their photo shot at Ashdod.) Hardly a match for the weapons the terrorists were using as the end result showed. Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Turkish Doctors who treated IDF soldiers injured in the raid. I think to be fair we need this to be mentioned. Not everyone on the ship was there with ill-intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Israeli Government's apology to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara raid and subsequent loss of life. I think to be neutral this needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the Secretary General's report. For example, using a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. There is also no criticism of the UNHCR report, or the organization itself, despite plenty being available. The article previously falsely describes the Palmer report as being a "response to" the UNHCR report," despite the Palmer report being prepared before the UNHCR report was published. The article also recently used non-sources such as counterpunch. In addition, the most recent edit is contrary to what the Palmer report found. What was linked to was an opinion piece in a journal written by Russell Buchan, not the Palmer report.
My version of the paragraph would be as follows:
On On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found the Israeli blockade to be legal, recognizing that the IDF were met with "organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers" and therefore force was necessary for self-defense,[1] but stated that "the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable".[2]
Drsmoo ( talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Israel justified its interception of theflotilla on the basis of international humanitarian law; during times of armed conflict international humanitarian law permits a State to impose and enforce a naval blockade against vessels on the high seas that have expressed an intention to run the blockade. Whether or not Israel’s interdiction of the Maviwas permissible under international law has caused considerable controversy. Indeed, three high profile reports have been published examining the legality of the incident.2 Most recently, in September 2011 the Palmer Report was published (named after the Chair of the four member Panel, Sir Geoffrey Palmer). 3 Established at the behest of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, the Panel responsible for compiling this report was required to‘(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and (b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future’.4 Importantly, the Panel notes that it‘is not a court'and 'was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability’. 5 This being said, however, the Panel explains that it reached its conclusions in relation to the facts, circumstances and context of the incident‘against the backdrop of the exposition of the principles of public international law’ 6 that were set out by the Chair and ViceChair of the Panel in Appendix I to the Report.7 Thus, the Panel inevitably sought to apply principles of international law to the facts as the Panel determined them to be. All in all, the Panelfinds that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was lawful. However, the Panel also concludes that the enforcement of the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful and that Israel’s treatment of the crew members whilst they were detained was in violation of international human rights law.8
The article makes no mention of Retired Admiral of the Turkish Fleet, Nusret Guner's statement that he was awaiting orders for a Naval Invasion of Israeli waters and that the Turkish Government was considering a Military offensive. There is also no mention of the speculation at the time that Turkish officials were allegedly seeking Nuclear cover from Pakistan in the event that Israel launched a nuclear attack on Turkey in response to any Turkish Naval invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 08:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Neither source used says "execution style", stop adding it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Y ildirim, a 31-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back.Çetin Topçuo ğ lu Çetin Topçuo ğ lu, a 54-year-old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, brahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot . He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front.Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United St ates citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax,left leg and foot. GGranddad ( talk) 12:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkness Shines: Can you tell me where the sentence says they were shot deliberately in the back? It says deaths were caused by gunshots, some...from the back. First you protested about the "execution style", which I amended. Now you protest about "from the back". All the while, the whole sentence has been removed from the lead. I am exhausting my supply of WP:AGF here. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I wish to protest very strongly against the changes being made to the lead by Darkness Shines. These two edits are particularly egregious. Please read WP:PRESERVE. Under ARBPIA, I am unable to revert these multiple changes. Inconvenient information like "executions", "shot in the back" and "broken bones" should not be removed willy-nilly. The "broken bones" part is not available in the source quoted, but it is indeed availabe in the UN report which we were discussing. If you are unsure of something, add a citation needed tag. Not every sentence in the lead even needs a citation, per WP:LEAD.
This, saying there was "no humanitarian aid on board", to the lead is unjustifiable as well. It directly contradicts the second sentence in the lead and contradicts the section Gaza_flotilla_raid#The_flotilla confirmed by multiple sources. Adding such a bald statement in wikipedia's voice is unjustifiable.
The lead is a summary, the product of long discussions and consensus. It is illegitimate to tamper with it like this. If you have issues, add your content to the sections first, build consensus. Instead of acting like this. Kingsindian ( talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I propose the following changes to the first two edits made. This would meet DS's objections, as far as I can see.
For the first point, I have dispensed with "point blank and shooting from behind" stuff and directly quoted the UN report. For the second, I have just summarized the Gaza_flotilla_raid#Detention of activists section for the last line.
DS can give his opinion on this version. Anyone else can bung it in if they feel it is fine. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
References
I have removed one paragraph from the lead. First of all, it comes from Daily Kos blog, obviously not RS. Secondly, it is just based on the Palmer report, which the subsequent paragraph also summarizes. Third, it is misleading, stating that the Palmer report found the blockade illegal (it did not find the naval blockade illegal). However, I have added a sentence to the end of subsequent paragraph regarding the naval blockade - from the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article.
In September 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released its report on the Israeli boarding and seizure of the vessels. The report found that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal, and therefore, the boarding and seizure of the vessels was illegal, that the detention of the passengers was illegal, that the confiscation of the passengers' possessions was illegal and there was willful killing on the part of the Israeli commandos. [1] [2] [3] better source needed
Kingsindian ( talk) 10:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
References
www2.ohchr.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Can someone who has access to the book by Schwartzwald, Jack L. (2012). Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation's History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders. McFarland. tell me who he cites for the claim that there were 50 paid mercenaries on the Mavi Marmara? page 196-7. Perhaps DS can also enlighten me on this point. Kingsindian ( talk) 00:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a perfectly reliable secondary source, cheers. Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is apparent (to me at least) that DS has no grounds at all to add this paragraph except that he thinks it should be there. I have already given versions of the first two edits, which might be acceptable to DS, in the previous section. The third edit should be dumped altogether. After the stuff over 1RR yesterday, I am afraid to touch anything. But someone else can put it in if they want, or give comments. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone tell me more about this source?
and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death". [1]
References
Who is it citing, and in what context is the "martyr's death" quote uttered? Kingsindian ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be kept in this article?
It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part, [1] and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death". [2]
I have reverted this . If some guy was on the flotilla and then wrote a book and then in the future joined ISIS, what on Earth does this have to do with the flotilla? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Drsmoo: I have moved the paragraph back to after the Palmer report. This is a different report, by an independent panel of 5 experts, reporting to the UNHRC, and talking about the legality, and in response to the Palmer report. It is not useful to move it together with the earlier report, which was mostly about testimonies by the passengers involved, though it also rendered an opinion on the blockade. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Its the sources who make the connection if the sources about the commission mention the EU and US responses that its WP:DUE to include them.-- Shrike ( talk) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Drsmoo: There are two separate issues here:
Fine, so we agree on this issue. I have now removed the extra cruft of UNHRC vote of 30-1 and US/EU responses etc. now that the overall issue of NPOV seems resolved. If you have any objections, let me know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be added to this article?
In 2014 prominent member of IHH, Yakup Bülent Alnıak who had been aboard the Mavi Marmara and who had written a book on the incident was killed in an American airstrike in Syria. [1] According to reports from Turkey and quoted by YNet News, Alnıak had joined the Islamic State and had taken part in combat missions, other reports claim he had joined the Al Nusra Front, [2] and the Turkish publication World Bulletin claimed Alnıak was there to distribute food to those in need. And another report claimed he was there to research a book. He is survived by a wife and two children. [3] [4]
(Some discussion here). Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Note. This RfC was started by a self-confessed long-term sock of a banned user - see [10] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Do not include in the lead. 7 editors opposed inclusion, 4 supported inclusion and 1 was opposed/supportive dependent on other article content. The main argument in support was based on WP:NPOV, but a good counter-argument was made that, since the proposed text focuses on criticism of the UNHCR resolution and omits mention of any positive response to it, whether the text actually conforms to NPOV is at least questionable. The resolution appears to have passed comfortably, so it must have found favour somewhere. So, I don't see that any argument has been made which is strong enough to overturn the numerical result of the poll.
Should the following statement be included in the lead?
The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. The United States expressed concern about the tone, content and conclusions of the report and the European Union stated that it should be transferred to the UN Secretary-General's investigation. [1] [2] 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
*Yes Per NPOV, some criticism of the report needs to be in the lede. I have no issue with "The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions." line being dropped.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - self-confessed sock of banned user
[11] struck
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
05:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is similar to a controversy in US politics some years ago, when a US President placed importance on "the meaning of 'is'". Words should be used in a way such that they mean what people think they mean.
The ongoing blockade of Gaza is not legal. The UN report reached the difficult conclusion that it had been legal when it was first implemented, which relied on evidence like "the rate of rocket attacks had decreased some time after the blockade was implemented, which is evidence that the blockade really was for self-defense". The report did not say that the blockade is legal, because the evidence that it would still be a necessary and immediate reaction to an act of aggression, over a year after it was first implemented, would have been much harder to defend legally. This is why the report recommended that Israel immediately report its use of force, in the form of the blockade, to the United Nations Security Council as required by nations engaging in self-defense by the UN Charter.
The report mentioned the Caroline affair, and the conclusion that was reached regarding it that the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". A year-long blockade is not an instant response; it is not a timescale that prevents deliberation or, most importantly, referral of the dispute to the UN Security Council.
Other relevant information:
There is a widespread misconception that the United Nations report on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal. Even reputable organizations such as the New York Times have made this mistake.
The report did not say this. The report concluded that the imposition of a blockade on 3 January 2009 was legal and justified as a measure of self-defence, in direct response to rocket attacks from Gaza.
However, the terms of the United Nations charter, frequently linked in the report, only allows the use of force in self-defence until the United Nations Security Council "has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". If a nation is not under immediate attack, acts of self-defence are not allowed. This includes the maintenance of a naval blockade.
While the Gaza Strip and Israel are currently at war, the naval blockade by Israel was illegal during the substantial periods of time in which no rockets were being fired towards Israel.
Israel considers the legal basis for its control of the territorial waters around the Gaza Strip, as well as the airspace of the Palestinian territories, to be the Oslo Accords, and specifically the Gaza-Jericho agreement.
Palestine can revoke the authority it has granted Israel to control its territorial waters and airspace, which would cause Israel to have no legal basis to infringe on the territory of Gaza unless Israel is under immediate and direct attack, with no other way to prevent these attacks from occurring.
Links: UN Report on the Freedom Flotilla http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdfU.N. Report Finds Israeli Blockade Legal but Raid Flawed http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html
Self-Defence clause of the United Nations charter
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml#article51
I would have edited the page myself, but it is protected. When the lede says that the UN report concluded that the blockade "was legal", this is misleading because it can easily be misinterpreted to mean "the blockade at the moment the Gaza flotilla was attacked", as this is the event that many people are interested in. It should be changed to indicate that this was probably not the intent of the authors of the report, as this would have been wrong and they clearly referenced the legal aspects of the situation (such as the use of force only being authorized for self-defense, and then only when the UN Security Council is notified so it can resolve the situation) that are the reason saying "the blockade was legal when the raid took place" would have been wrong. 2601:8:9780:1EE:7CB2:F4A5:44F7:BE5E ( talk) 00:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Further misleading statements (this is the same editor as previous comment): Under #Legal assessments, it says "In September 2011, a United Nations report concluded that the Israeli naval blockade was legal, but that the Israeli action was "excessive"." As described previously, we cannot support the conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was legal at the moment of the raid. So the "but" is not appropriate here, as the conclusion that the use of force was excessive does not in any way contradict the conclusion that the blockade was legal on ~03 Jan 2009. This needs to be rewritten to prevent the inappropriate conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was still legal in 2010. It didn't say that it was illegal then, but it also didn't say that having a blockade for this length of time was justified by the facts (that the ongoing blockade "is" legal); it did not examine situations that were outside of its mandate, though involved parties may have mistakenly thought that it did. Note that an "illegal" characterization of the blockade, since the investigation found that it otherwise satisfied the requirements for a blockade when used in wartime, depends on the UN Charter which makes the overall action of prolonged conflict "illegal", given the definition of "customary rules used by nations" to determine whether something is illegal. If the investigation was not tasked to determine whether the conflict itself was legal, which would involve examining the period before Jan 03 2009 (just after Israel invaded Gaza, with lots of rocket attacks going on) it would likely have found that it was not, but people who knew that the UN Charter prohibits war might have felt that there was no need for an investigative committee to answer that question, and those who didn't know that may have assumed that sufficient issues were being examined to reach the conclusion they wished the investigation to reach. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 ( talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The section #UN_Palmer_Report also makes this mistake. 'The commission determined Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal,[306] but stated that the "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force[...]"'
From the report, page 7: "The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues". Page 5, para iii: "all aspects of (Security Council resolution 1860) should be implemented", which according to its Wikipedia article includes an "immediate and durable ceasefire". For the lazy, page 5 para vi. states "The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter. This will enable the Council to monitor any implications for international peace and security." This does sort of show a flaw in the report, because the Security Council is actually supposed to actively stop conflicts, not just "monitor" them; if one side is the aggressor, then (as long as the attacked party is part of the UN, and even if it isn't the UN's rules allow the Security Council to prevent conflicts) the UN is supposed to take action, whether through military or other means, to restore peace. If acts of self-defense are taking place, then by definition a state of international peace does not exist.
The tasks for the panel are on page 11, para 6.
(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and
(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future.
As the panel stated on page 7, determining whether the blockade was still legal, or legality of anything else, was not one of the tasks. The report noted a reduction in rocket attacks compared to when the blockade was implemented, and used this as evidence that the blockade, on 3 Jan 2009, was in self-defense (concluding that it supported the 'self-defense' explanation, though others might disagree on the reason for a reduction in rocket attacks); it did not examine any evidence or make the conclusion that rocket attacks at the time of the blockade were sufficient to justify a blockade in self-defense, especially considering that (though the panel does not seem to have mentioned this) the UNSC is supposed to be the one that uses force when other means fail, other than for "immediate action" etc. The mention in the UN Charter of nations ensuring that airplanes are available for enforcement actions shows the view of the timescale in which the founders of the UN hoped that future conflicts would be resolved, though of course this hasn't worked out in practice.
On page 14, the summary of the Turkish report says that it states that the blockade started in 2007 by including the land crossings (which, it must be mentioned, Egypt is also part of). If the UN investigation had used this definition, it likely would not have been able to conclude that "the blockade was legal". Page 15, the Turkish explanation for why the blockade is illegal does not mention the UN Charter, which may seem consistent given that Israel was not trying to make people think that it was acting in self-defense when it increased restrictions on land crossings in 2007.
Note that, on page 28, the Israeli report found that "the imposition of the naval blockade was lawful". Contrast with the Turkish conclusion: on page 14, "The Turkish Commission does not accept that Israel’s naval blockade is lawful", page 15, "Israel’s blockade is illegal". The fact that the Israeli report uses the past tense, as opposed to present tense for the Turkish report, is why the UN report recommended a review of the necessity of the blockade by Israel in addition to its other recommendations (which, as noted, imply that only reason to report ongoing acts of self-defense to the UNSC is so it can "monitor" the situation).
To explain how easy it is to be confused by the report, on page 38, the report states "Turkey considers that the naval blockade was illegal and that the interception of the flotilla vessels on the high seas[...]". Here, it uses "blockade was illegal" to refer to the time of the flotilla raid, but elsewhere, in both the panel's conclusions and the Israeli response to the report's conclusions, "blockade was legal" refers to its imposition on 03 Jan 2009.
On page 44, para 81, where the panel concludes "naval blockade was legal. In this regard, the Panel reaches a different conclusion to that of the Turkish investigation into the incident." This is misleading because Turkey was more concerned with the practical consequences of whether the blockade was legal on the day of the flotilla raid and at present; the conclusion that the blockade was also illegal on 03 Jan 2009, by linking it to the earlier restrictions which would not satisfy the "immediate action" test referenced in the UN report, was only incidental. The UN report differs with the Turkish one on whether the blockade was legal on 03 Jan 2009; it does not differ on whether the blockade is legal because the UN report does not make a statement on whether the blockade is legal. As another example of the limited scope of the investigation, on page 41, para 73, it states regarding a specific issue, "This conclusion goes no further than is necessary for the Panel to carry out its mandate. What other implications may or may not flow from it are not before us"; as noted before, the panel stated that determining legal issues was not one of its tasks. This is why it felt it was acceptable to offer a legal opinion, which it recognized carried no legal authority, on the blockade at one point of time but not at another, even though the panel's members may have been aware that their wording was misleading.
Again, the statements at the end differ in their use of tense. Israeli statement: 'Israel's view that the "naval blockade was legal," that it "was imposed[...]" "complied". Turkish report: "Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful." It then says "Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful.", which might just be the 'change of tense of quotation to match time period of quotation' that is common in English or might be a deliberate avoidance of "is", but either way shows how easy it is to confuse "was a year ago and still is" with "was two years ago and might no longer be", especially when the UN report itself uses the same "was" for both of these situations.
2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 ( talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated, but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to respond to this or fix the article (which is blocked from editing for anonymous users). How to fix the situation which leads to conflict between Israel and Palestine: [12] Note that it seems most likely that Adam Lanza learned of that proposal through the Wikipedia talk page for the Aurora shooting, given his research into a particular type of event. 50.135.249.113 ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit removing the findings of the five member UN panel on the blockade. I do not accept your reasoning that the part which was removed earlier (the reaction of countries to the UNHRC report) is in any way symmetrical to the edit you made. The edit mentioning the responses by the various countries on the UNHRC report was simply a political response on the matter by the various countries. This is, by contrast, a statement by an expert panel of dedicated rapporteurs on the topic. If you wish to argue against inclusion, please do so on a separate basis, on its own merits. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if we are simply talking about the weight of the opinion by itself: I don't understand your point. As we discussed earlier, both the UNHRC original report and the panel opinion are kept together in the lead, and it is made clear that the panel was composed of UNHRC special rapporteurs. The Palmer report is given its own section. The UNHRC inquiry report is not the same as the panel of experts: that inquiry commission was composed of different people. The panel opinion is only about the narrow question about the legality of the blockade. These are experts on the various issues relating to the topic and I find their opinion of enough weight to include in the lead. Moreover, the opinion of the Palmer report about the legality of the (naval) blockade is very much in the minority. So I do not see any POV issue here. Indeed, if we only give two opinions, one "legal" and one "illegal", it would be false balance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Offline 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of the expert to the Turkel Commission 'Wolf Heintschel von Heineg' to 'Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg'. The doubled consonants 'ff' and 'gg' are part of the professor's name (cf. his german Wikipedia article). 91.16.106.100 ( talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The UNHRC report does indeed find that the helicopter fired live rounds on Mavi Marmara prior to the soldiers landing on the deck, but the Palmer report, which was written after the UNHRC one, does not. I think the article should point this out. Neutral Point of View, and all. (Earlier, I was confused, due to there being two UN reports about the incident. Sorry about that!) Mspaaz ( talk) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?=191718{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eurasiareview.com/palmer-inquiry-whitewashes-blockade-oped-06092011/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/folkrattsprofessorn-israel-har-brutit-mot-internationell-ratt-1.1115594When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The use of photographs in this article is distinctly non-NPOV. Of the 24 photos in this article, the majority are clearly intended to suggest that the flotilla was primarily an armed attack rather than a delivery of relief. Examples:
There are more issues, but this really needs to be cleaned up. The bias is extreme and this article cannot be considered NPOV as long as these photos and captions remain as they are. 24.170.207.189 ( talk) 17:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Many of the photos come from the IDF Flickr account which should not be used in the first place; not even an attribution is given. Many of the photos were added by an editor who from what I saw, used to do little else but add photos from the IDF Flickr account. I count no less than 16 photos sourced to the IDF Flickr account on this article, which is ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I am, at the least, deleting the photos which have supporting description in the text. I expect there will be still be some of them left; one should really get photos from neutral sources, but since only the IDF photos are left, the media did use only those, IIRC. The captions should be changed as well; I'll do it later. I'll list below a few which I removed:
Right now I have removed less than half of the photos from the IDF Flickr account. It's debatable whether they should be used at all, but for now, I'm not touching them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This guy is priceless! What does NPOV stand for? Not Nazi Point of View, I hope. Mspaaz ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the photo caption of activists preparing to "attack" IDF soldiers: defend dɪˈfɛnd/Submit verb verb: defend; 3rd person present: defends; past tense: defended; past participle: defended; gerund or present participle: defending 1. resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger. "we shall defend our island, whatever the cost" synonyms: protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen; More antonyms: attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.47.146 ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. In the lead, instead of “nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid...” it should say “In the battle that ensued after the activists attacked Israeli soldiers, nine activists were killed... one seriously.” 2. In the lead, instead of “extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.” It should say “extra-legal, arbitrary and summery execution, though Israel disputes this.” 3. In the lead, instead of “A UNHRC report...” it should cut down on the length - that paragraph is needlessly longer than any other paragraph - and add a sentence saying, “the UNHRC has been plagued by Anti-Israel bias- it has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.” Ajackson12 ( talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Have anyone heard about recent flotilla of freedom? [13] and [14]. -- Mhhossein talk 19:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The article calls the UN Secretary-General at the time "Ki-Moon". This is his forename. His surname is "Ban". (It is normal Korean practice to place the surname first.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The section attributing, rather insinuating, that a Turkish Judge dismissed a case due to irate "Islamists" is worded to simply biased the reader in favour of the murder defendants, and must be stopped. The cited journalistic piece (not an AIPAC source) DOES NOT engage in such ditsy prose, thus the section reflects misrepresentation by the contributing wikipedian. 126.3.54.112 ( talk) 15:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "activists" to "terrorists". It is mentioned that the people who were killed wanted to be "Shaheed" and attacked with knives and iron bars... Therfore they are terrorists and not plain activists. Yaking1936 ( talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gaza flotilla raid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add the names of the civilians killed in the raid in international waters by Flotilla 13 of the Israeli Navy
Ibrahim Bilgen Ali Haydar Bengi Cevdet Kiliçlar Çetin Topçuoglu Necdet Yildirim Fahri Yaldiz Cengiz Songür Cengiz Akyüz Furkan Dogan Ugur Suleyman Soylemez 2601:5C1:8202:91E0:58B1:E74F:69FE:93C8 ( talk) 05:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@
AmirahBreen: Can you explain the reason for these massive changes in long standing text? (also why did you warn me about 1RR when you broke the rule yourself?; not only that, you also completely disregarded WP:BRD. You should've worked on these numerous changes on your sandbox before implementing them.) -
Daveout
(talk)
01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Kindly expalin what major pov shifts you can see, in total 523 characters were removed and these are the photographs which are primary source. My earlier changes were simply moving text to it's proper place, how can that change the POV of an article, it just makes it more readable. Amirah talk 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I came across this article last night and found that the article had a very long and confusing lede. There was also much contentious POV text in the lede which IMO had been placed at the top of the article to draw attention to a particular POV. In a series of text moves I have moved the text from the lede (after the initial lede paragraph) and History section to it's appropriate places in the article. While I was working on the article another editor started reverting my edits saying that I should have sought consensus on the talk page before making these changes.
I had no reason to suspect that making such changes would bring about a lack of consensus, but asked the editor to discuss their problem on the talk page. Instead they continued to revert my edits, three times in less than an hour I think, before opening a discussion on the talk page.
If you compare the current version of the article [15] to the version before I started editing, [16] you can see that no major changes where made regarding text removal or addition, but this morning my edits were reverted again by another editor accusing me of having made major POV changes without having first discussed before on the talk page. I have not changed the POV of the article, but have made it more readable and less confusing, so that both POV's can now be seen, through text moves to appropriate sections. Insisting that an article be left in an unreadable condition could also be seen as a POV tactic.
I also feel that there could be article ownership issues with the editor who initially objected to me working on the article for no good reason. I think it should be perfectly obvious to anybody who looks at the two versions before and after of what I am saying. I understand that in a lengthy article the lede may be a little longer, but not that POV text should be picked out and placed at the top of the article followed by a long history section which didn't speak about the history of the incident at all, but continued whith the POV tactics which had been used in the lede to push a particular POV in a confusing and unreadable manner so that most readers would never get down to reading the text below, which had been written in an orderly way with proper headings and subheadings according to WP:MOS.
Regarding the photos I removed in a short series of edits, as my reason are explained in the edit summary, they are primary sources as they are published by the Israeli army, in an article which has allegations against the Israeli army, with contentious text and the photo's themselves are not therefore credible evidence of what the text claims they are. Amirah talk 14:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The lede section is too long, it is also NPOV and confuses the article. What is under the first paragraph should be moved down into the article under appropriate headings and sub-headings. See: MOS:LEAD 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.' Amirah talk 12:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Information in the history section which is not about the history of the incident, but the incident itself, should be moved to appropriate sections. Amirah talk 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have taken this text out due to NPOV, the text did not accurately reflect the sources. [18] Amirah talk 12:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The photographs taken and published by the Israeli Defence Force should be removed from this article for NPOV reasons. Amirah talk 12:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Daveout, I clarified the second image was removed for NPOV issues. Not for non-free issues. Can you clarify why you restored it? Do you think the section on the boarding, which resulted in ten deaths on one side and ten injuries on the other side, should only contain propaganda images released by the IDF? nableezy - 15:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The external link to Palmer Report is showing up as '404 Not found' on the UN website. The report is also used as a cited source in Refs 2, 5, 15, 86, 215, 216, 301, 307, and 340 . Can anyone provide a link to this report? Amirah talk 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to ask why the article does not have an infobox. The first paragraph of the lede says that the article is about a military operation and there is a template for 'Infobox military operation' but it hasn't been used.
There is statistical information repeated in the first ('Nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid and ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, one seriously.') and second ('During the struggle, nine activists were killed, including eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish American, and many were wounded. On 23 May 2014, a tenth member of the flotilla died in hospital after being in a coma for four years. Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously.') paragraphs of the lede which would normally be placed in the infobox, as well as being found in the main text of the article.
I'd also suggest an internal Wikipedia link to the word ' Military operation' in the lede and a note at the top of the article to say 'This article is about the military operation, for 2010 flotilla see Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Amirah talk 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says, 'Israel had warned the flotilla to abort their mission, describing it as a provocation.' I can't see evidence of this in the main article, particularly the last part of the sentence 'describing it as provocation'. There shouldn't be any need for references in the lede as the lede is a summary of the main article. Exactly how and when was this warning given? Was the word 'provocation' actually used? I can't read the source as I am not a subscriber so if anyone can read it then please share if it says in the source. Amirah talk 17:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lede starts 'Israel has offered Turkey $20 million in compensation for the raid.'
The section on Gaza flotilla raid#Israel–Turkey diplomatic crisis also mentions compensation, in the first, second and last paragraphs. There is some repetition here.
Perhaps the issue of 'compensation' deserves a sub-heading in the article to make it easier to find.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-offers-turkey-20m-recompense-1.5318246 says that Israel offered compensation to 'nine families and to those wounded', but it is not mentioned in the article as to whether the wounded were ever offered compensation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-israel-compensation-idUSKBN19E166 mentions that compensation eventually went to ten families. I would suggest including this. Nine activist died in the raid and one four years later.
https://m.dw.com/en/israel-pays-turkey-20-million-over-flotilla-raid-official/a-35936896 says that 'Turkey waived its right to seek legal redress against the Israeli soldiers involved in the raid' in return for compensation. Is this clear in the article? Under /info/en/?search=Gaza_flotilla_raid#2016_dismissing_of_the_case it actually says that 'Turkish courts finally dismissed the cases brought before them, under extraordinary security measures due to the "angry and disappointed Islamists" involved'. The source https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/12/turkey-how-erdogan-wins-with-losing-hand.html actually says that 'the judge adjourned a session' due to their anger not that he dismissed the case due to that. It says that he dismissed the case due to the agreement signed between Turkey and Israel.
Amirah talk 17:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg claims a non-free content rationale here, but it is an obvious failure of our non-free content use policy, namely that Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). This image is used in the same manner as the original, to depict the events, and as such it may not be used here. This is doubly true given we have plenty of free images available. nableezy - 23:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Other non-free pictures, such as this one and this one, are also "blatant failures of WP:NFCC", whatever that means (I believe they can only be used in this specific article). Either we remove all of them or none. Selective removal based on WP:NFCC is POV and makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:281:0:0:98C0:507F ( talk) 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh User:Daveout, the news that NY Daily News prints is reliable. Editorials are the opinions of the editorial board, and are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSEDITORIAL, particularly where it says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. There are exceptions to this obviously, such as the work of established experts in the field they are writing in, but no, the editorial board is not a reliable source. If this material is accurate it will have been printed as factual in an actual reliable source. Please self-revert your edit. nableezy - 01:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
There having been no justification for the reinsertion of what WP:RSEDITORIAL says is very much not a reliable source, I am removing it again. nableezy - 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
03:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
08:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)