Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.169.176.190 (talk) at 20:08, 1 June 2010 (→‎Turkish reaction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Demonstrations

As I mentioned in the talk page on the main article There has been a lot of demonstrations around the world. In Sweden more than 21 different demonstrations with the one in Gothenburg with more than 4000 people (reference: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.380323-protest-samlade-tusentals).

There is photos of that demonstration in the commons: File:Demonstration against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010 (4).jpg to mention one.

Could someone with more wikipedia experience please add this or to the Swedish reactions or start a new category for demonstrations? Averater (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this page

I'm not entirely convinced this page should exist. As a significant contributor to the 2010 Thai military crackdown, I took note that there was no page for international reaction. The reasoning behind the decision was that it violated several Wikipedia standards, including the following: 

* WP:MEMORIAL
* WP:RECENT


Even though the Israeli-Arab conflict often evokes powerful emotions from readers, using the precedent set in that article, it is my belief that this article should be considered for deletion.

See Talk:2010_Thai_military_crackdown#International_Reaction for the arguments used. And, if this article is let to stand, why it was not allowed to stand in the case of the 2010 Thai military crackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixer Fixer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let the truth speak. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to scrap this page too. Publishing anti-Semitic comments about the raid from known terrorism-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships like Iran lends credence to those comments that they don't deserve. Plus, who's to say that Israel wasn't justified in acting to stop the attempted violation of the blockade? The ships in question that tried to run the blockade were attempting to aid and abet a group that supports terrorism and has repeatedly attacked Israel without provocation while using its own people as human shields against retaliatory action. 24.68.199.81 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with this page, indeed the international reaction to Israeli action is very important, especially since close allies like Turkey, Britain and USA have all re-acted negatively. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, this page is solely an anti-Israel propaganda page trying to convince people of Israel's wrong doing. This page needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.162.116 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply. WP covers recent and breaking events - and certainly ones major enough to feature on the main page. If this wasn't here, it would need to be incorporated back into the main article. But feel free to try for an WP:AFD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, there are more international reactions to this incident than to the Thai crisis. Voicing demands, condemnations etc. are more forceful and relevant reactions than expressing the wish for non-violence, as was the general position of most international countries and organizations with regard to the Thai crisis. The incident is generally not being regarded as a (mostly) internal affair of one country.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situations has "strong reactions" and that means also different countries responds differently. Reactions with "standard template" about condemnation and condolences should be avoided (I would prefer listed as other countries). The common issue with reaction list is that the reaction message have the same meaning. --Kslotte (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page draws more parallels from Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake than the Thai Military Crackdown. I think it should remain. The article so far has remained matter-of-fact and has not breached NPOV (as far as I can tell). Should it do so, then it's certainly cause for considering deletion. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

Would it be possible to update the image to include Sudan? --candle•wicke 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Why was the map removed? How it is WP:OR? All the sources are in the article. Such maps exist on International recognition of Kosovo, International reaction to the Gaza War etc.Bless sins (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Collecting the countries into this article may be a small bit WP:OR, but putting them on the map is not. --Kslotte (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete it. But I assume there is two issues; 1. keeping it up-to-date, 2. lack of additional value a map would give. --Kslotte (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Keeping things up to date is something that's inherent with all info in wikipedia. It's everyone's responsibility, but of course, I will take a special interest in keeping the map updated.
2. The map summarizes things. It also gives a graphical representation of reactions (just as graphs give a graphical representation of figures).Bless sins (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Map should be removed on the basis of violating WP:NPOV. The map on International reaction to the Gaza War includes (1) States that endorsed the Israeli position/defined Israel's action as falling within its right to defense, (2) States that condemned Hamas action only, (3) States that endorsed the Hamas position/defined Hamas' actions as falling within its right of resistance, (4) States that condemned Israeli action only, (5) States that called for an end to hostilities and condemned neither/both belligerents, and (6) States that have made no official statement on the conflict. The current Map only includes "Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla." This clearly prejudices the image, and the article as a whole (especially) due to the prominent place in which it is situated; visible the moment the page is loaded. This too contrasts with the map on International reaction to the Gaza War. Considering these facts, I'm removing the map. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the WP:OR discussion about it, I must agree it is indeed also OR due to the nature of the terminology used, i.e. "Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla." According to Criticism, “Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual.” For example, Iran has never actually performed a criticism of Israel; they have merely denounced it continually without any analysis or evaluation. While that is a worthwhile reaction to note and record, it cannot be properly defined as criticism. There are certainly more subtle examples, but Iran is the archetypal example of a nation which will not recognize anything Israel does as meritorious and seeks a negative stance on all of its actions.
So either due to violation of NPOV, due to the violation of OR, due to the misleading terminology, or a combination of all of the above, the Map should be, and was, removed. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi anon. Most images are one sided. For example, consider this image produced by the IDF. Or the image of an anti-Israeli protest. You can balance the image with another image. Or, even better, you can neutralize the image instead of removing it.
"Criticism" was mildly putting the condemnation that came from the shaded countries. Since, you insist, I'll use the terms "denounced Israel" and "condemned Israel". That would satisfy you?Bless sins (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should it? It sounds like that deletion discussion argument - WP:OTHERSTUFF. What does the content in the article on the Gaza War have to do with the content in this article? Shouldn't a consensus be reached to remove it first? It seems as though you have decided to remove it several times due to your own opinion alone. There is no consensus for removal on this talk page. There doesn't appear to be any for removal on the other page either. Perhaps it is not perfect but it won't be improved if it is constantly removed. --candle•wicke 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This is not like the Gaza war, where Israeli civilians were victims of rocket attacks (and hence many countries came out to support Israel). There have been no reactions "supporting" Israel here. The most pro-Israeli reactions have said (US and Canada) "we need more information to make a comment".Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A strong distinction may be made between nations condemning the actions immediately, those waiting to actually base their answers on real information (and may in the end condone Israel’s actions), those which condemned Israel yet called the flotilla a provocation, those which only referred to the flotilla as a provocation and deplored the loss of life, those which only called the flotilla a provocation, those which only deplored the loss of life, and those which have said nothing so far.
By listing only those that criticize or condemn Israel, without acknowledging these important subtle, yet distinct, variations violates NPOV.
I removed the Map for the simple reason that it is the only way to get attention to a blatant violation of NPOV. If I just argued it was NPOV in the Discussion it may well have been days (if ever) before any sort of agreement was reached, meanwhile another Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident will make a (further) mockery of Wikipedia.
To be blunt, it is far better for that map not to exist than to violate NPOV, especially when NPOV on an article like this may lead to actual deaths. I lack the know-how regarding altering the Map appropriately, if you know how then go ahead. Also, just because consensus wasn’t reached to remove doesn’t mean it was reached to keep, looks like someone just went ahead and put it up without getting agreement regarding exactly what it should look like or include, so I reverted it back to the status quo.
Furthermore, a criticizing nation may differ fantastically from a condemning nation. For example, imagine theoretical Nation X says, “Israel was completely justified in their actions, however, most people aren’t well versed in the details of international maritime laws which clearly stipulate Israel was permitted to intercept the flotilla in international waters when attempting to break its blockade. Therefore Israel should have waited until the flotilla was in its territorial waters before intercepting, in order to avoid a PR nightmare.” That it a criticism of Israel’s actions by Nation X, it’s hardly a condemnation though. Meanwhile anyone who looks at your map will believe that Nation X condemns Israel’s actions, which is almost the complete opposite of their actual perspective. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify which nation, "Nation X" is. You are imagining scenarios that may not exist.
Also, what other editors and I have to do with Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident beats me.
"I lack the know-how regarding altering the Map appropriately" That is no excuse to delete maps created by others. If you don't know, then learn, don't delete.
But perhaps most ridiculous is your threat that the alleged "NPOV on an article like this may lead to actual deaths." So are you accusing wikipedians (myself included) of being murderers?

I've been involved in a discussion about the map on the main page of the event. The more I look at it the bigger of a problem I have. For example, look at the UK response to currently in this article

"The United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary William Hague said he "deplored" the loss of life and called on Israel to open border crossings for aid access. Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Israel's actions had been "rightly condemned around the world". She called on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza, and expressed her "deep sadness" at the loss of life on the flotilla. In Belfast, protests were held in front of the City Hall to condemn Israel's actions and to call for an end to the siege of Gaza."

I don't understand why you label the entire UK as condemning Israel when that has only come from Scotland and Ireland. This map seems to be more of an editorial than a fact.

If the map is to be included it should be clear, factual, and non-editorial. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Eh, "actual deaths"? Hasn't that already happened here? Not my map. At least three/four different have placed it in the article in the first place from what I can see. One of them was me when I thought you were "accidentally removing" it in that way in which content in general tends to disappear. Here are the diffs for the four times you removed it. (1) (2) (3) (4) --candle•wicke 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the map only one time ... just now, and from the main article not this one. Also the only reason for removal there is because its accuracy is highly dubious.Zuchinni one (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its appropriate for you to say "accuracy is highly dubious". UK was the only dubious country you brought up. I have provided evidences for the UK (here it is again). But, as good faith measure, I removed the UK from the map.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through several nations and compared it to the map, it’s accurate in very few cases. For example, France is on the map indicating they criticized/condemned the “Israeli raid”, when in reality Nicolas Sarkozy only condemned "the disproportionate use of force" against the flotilla, not the raid itself. The UK “‘deplored’ the loss of life”, which is neither a criticism nor condemnation. Portugal “condemned the ‘excessive use of force against civilian targets’", not the raid itself. Etc. There are others, but those three major European powers stand out a bit.
I’m not sure who wrote some of those comments, so I’ll answer at large. Nation X is a theoretical example demonstrating the distinction in terms. The Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident are all highly publicized incidents of claimed Israeli massacres which resulted in riots, property damage (and loss of life? Not sure.) – all of which were eventually proven beyond a doubt by the global community to have been either fabricated completely, blown incredibly out of proportion, or have had key facts left out intentionally. Let us not make this another such incident. Report on it, yes, but report on it with a conscience. I’m sorry, I’m not a wikiholic and know every function of this site. I yield to the greater editing knowledge of ye folk who have learnt how. Removing something clearly erroneous is better than waiting to try and get someone to fix it (if one cannot fix it themselves) and provide wrong information to the masses in the meantime
Candlewicke, by actual deaths I mean additional ones. Such as through riots occurring throughout the world, I did already refer you to the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident, right? It’s a volatile situation, and indicating mass agreement of the world fans the flames, if it were undeniably true that’d be one thing, but it’s not. Especially due to the lack of clarity in the Map. Ok, that’s a bit of a stretch regarding inciting deaths due to a wiki page. I got worked up and lashed out, my apologies, the rest of the reasoning is still cogent though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both France and Portugal condemned Israeli military's disproportionate use of force. That's pretty much the same as condemning the raid. Or, if you want to make it more literal, its the same as condemning "Israeli actions". That should satisfy the definition, right?Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Bless sins, there’s a big distinction there that you’re missing. Condemning the methodology is vastly different than condemning the act itself. It’s like condemning cheating to get an A on a test, and thereby condemning getting A’s at all. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree, or not, that Israel's supposed use of disproportionate force can be classified as an "action" by Israel? All the countries are condemning what Israel actually ended up doing.
Also, I request that you not bring far-fetched analogies into this discussion (it was only minutes ago you were accusing editors of inciting violence). Let's stick to what's relevant, shall we?Bless sins (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, while I do believe you are editing in good faith I think that this map is looking more and more like original research. It really should be removed. I'm sorry, I know that you have put a lot of work in it. But it just doesn't belong here right now. The condemnation is not necessarily equal in all cases and many nations have condemned the violence or the deaths, but not necessarily the action of Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was accusing editors of possibly inciting violence - because they were. Have you not seen large angry rallies resulting as a result of this event, some becoming violent? If there’s someone on the fence who reads a wiki page that incites them due to how it is framed, then yes, that editor has incited violence. Not intentionally, but yes. I did apologize for being sharp-tongued with that, the rest of my points are still valid though, including the analogies.
Yes, use of force can be classified as an “action by Israel”. However, saying a nation condemns Israeli action is all inclusive, it includes all of Israel’s actions in this matter, it indicates other aspects besides for the degree of force used. For example, Portugal seemingly (based on the body of the article) *only* “condemned the ‘excessive use of force against civilian targets’”. So what about everything else Israel did, perhaps Portugal agrees with it. As a whole that could indicate Portugal supported Israeli action, just not one particular *act* which was condemned. So no, using “condemned Israeli action” is not accurate and is misleading. Continuing with Portugal as an example, what if Israel had done everything else the same, except instead of boarding the ships, they simply clogged the propellers and tugged them to Ashdod. Portugal might have congratulated Israel on successfully defusing a tense issue with no bloodshed, as might many other nations have. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zuchinni one, can you give reason as to why this map is original research? "many nations have condemned the violence or the deaths, but not necessarily the action of Israel" Which nations have done that, that I indicated otherwise on the map? You mentioned UK, I removed it. You have yet to mention another country.Bless sins (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Some Turkey-Isreal reactions: [1] (source from main article) --Kslotte (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Note WP:MOSFLAG: "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance" and "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations". The article need some clean-up. --Kslotte (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. It didn't exist yesterday after all. All articles are like that at the start, particularly with several contributors. :) --candle•wicke 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Law

Prof Ove Bring of Uppsala and Stockholms Universities, advisor to the Foreign Department of Sweden, claims that the Israeli attack is a clear violation of international Public International Law in peace time, and that the security zone of Israel is something that the Israel have set up by themselves. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3741823 Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Buhl et al from Center for Militære Studier (CMS) at Københavns Universitet agrees with the statements by Ove Bring above http://politiken.dk/udland/article984082.ece .. although it is not clear to me how this belongs in this very specialized sub-article MX44 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some development of Gaza flotilla clash#Legality of raid, I believe it instead belongs to that article. We might collect statements con and pro on the talk page there, to prepare one or a few sentences in that article. I'll copy your source to there. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I want to add material regarding the international law: LINK: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57jmsu?opendocument QUOTE FROM LINK: " Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomentality (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't applicable since it only applies during war. // Liftarn (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also
"In addition, the Manual lists vessels that are specifically exempt from capture, on the basis of either treaty law or customary law:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;"
also in SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
"102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. "
but it's a moot point since it's WP:OR anyway unless you have a reliable source for it. // Liftarn (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Countries

As discusssed above regarding the map, combining criticism and condemnation together is inappropriate and gives the wrong impression. Additionally, many of those nations currently listed in that category don't actually fit. Such as France, the UK, and Portugal (to name 3 major European powers). How about revert it back to how it was rather than rewrite the same information from the map in a different format, information already being discussed here regarding its questionable clarity and accuracy? 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit of info to Spain, but I am unable to add the source. I took it from europapress. If anyone could add it I would be grateful, if not, I will do it myself tonight. Leirus (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, NPOV, lede (lead section)

The lead section is a disgrace. It does not reflect the article content, or the reality, is written in obscure words, and could have been assembled by Israeli Government PR. The reaction is in fact, as seen below the lede, almost universally negative, and condemnatory of Israel's actions, with a few countries noting that the convoy might have been a bi provocative (but not denying that it was legal, or that Israel's actions, the Occupation, and the current blockade, are all illegal. 194.186.53.229 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's "lead", not "lede".
Second, The words are basic English, hardly obscure in the least.
Third, The reaction is actually very politically written, with careful nuances by governments - all of which clearly was missed by you due to your in depth understanding of English. For example, a nation criticizing the degree of force Israel used is not condemning the act itself nor the use of force, only the degree of it. A nation regretting the loss of life isn't saying that perhaps the loss wasn't justified, just that it's regrettable regardless of why someone is killed. A nation summoning an Israeli ambassador for questioning isn't denouncing Israel, they're asking for an explanation, and then may agree with the explanation. Etc.
Forth, if you read the article there is a very strong argument that Israel's actions were in fact legal under international maritime laws, and that the flotilla was not.
Fifth, referring to it as "the Occupation" indicates you are highly POV, though you are seemingly too prejudiced to realize that.
Sixth, the blockade is legal.
Seventh, the Israeli blockade doesn't include Southern Gaza, i.e. the Gaza-Egypt border, which remains closed more often than the Israel-Gaza border, yet you blame Israel rather than Egypt.
Eighth, the flotilla was specifically violating a blockade area, whether you agree with the blockade being there or not, and was therefor illegal - not merely 'a bit provocative'.
Ninth, your alterations to the lead resulted in an automatic flag by Wikipedia that you were using "weasel words" WP:WEASEL. I'm atually not sure if it was an automatic flag, you might have flagged yourself, in which case thank you for saving me the effort. -Signature 08:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, be polite and do not present your opinions as facts. The legality of the blockade is in question and there are certainly issues with the lead. I myself am trying to figure how to make it look more coherent... Leirus (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I yield, viewing it as certainly illegal is similarly wrong though. The other eight objections are objectively valid though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of lead changes

over the last few hours there has been an edit war on the lead. instead, lets keep the status quo and discuss any changes. In my opinion, this one before the frequet warring is most neutral as it expressly divides what each said in summation.Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed.Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above regarding the terminology of the map, the term "condemnation" here is too variable to be fairly applied through a listing of all nations. Additionally, the status quo was merely the first line, the listing of nations came substantially afterward and has been debated ever since. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited to be similar to that of the main article subsection of the same name, seems reasonable for the Lead of a breakaway article to be similar to the summary written in the main article. Additionally, since edits are much more carefully written there and have undergone greater scrutiny, it ought to have already passed acceptability requirements and consensus. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its sourced and specific information. All the countries have specifically used the word "condemn" or otherwise criticzed the actions.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction in Pakistan is missing

For updating this will be helpful. Google news.--yousaf465' 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan, is this appropriate?

[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction in Azerbaijan

Here's what's written in the article: "In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[54]"

First of all, why is the personal opinion of this guy being presented here as the Azerbaijani reaction to this clash? He's just a political scientist - he can't speak on behalf of anything or anyone except himself. Second, if you want something really official, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement in which it voiced its concern, called for an investigation, expressed its wish that those responsible for the attack be punished, reiterated its readiness to provide humanitarian aid to Palestine, and once again stated its position concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, i.e. that Azerbaijan, literally, 'supports the (co)-existence of two sovereign states with equal rights: Israel and Palestine'. Here's the link: http://day.az/news/politics/212019.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is the opinion of a political scientist not that of official Azerbaijan. Here is the official position of Azerbaijan, [3], [4]. I added this in the reaction of Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing opinions inside Israel

I believe it should be mentioned that even inside Israel there are a lot of voices opposing the raid, with labels raging from "fiasco" to "a sea of madness". See for example thefirst page of Haaretz newspaper, 31 May. Almost all of the articles are negative towards the raid operation. I'm not sure as to how to insert this in the article, I might give it a try later on, but those of you more knowledgeable of the whole thing maybe would do a better job. --Steloukos (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish reaction

Turkish reactions need to go either to the Other countries or the Non-EU members sections. --87.202.65.120 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i think it should be in the European/Non-EU members section, because, although Turkey isn't a EU country it's an European country which continues entry negotiations with the EU.

International Federation of Journalists reaction ?

According to their head they sent a letter to the belligerent party.--yousaf465' 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365496134"