Talk:MV Mavi Marmara

Merger proposal

It seems unlikely that List of participants of the Gaza flotilla will become a useful standalone article; are there any objections to merging it over here instead? Jminthorne (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would make that article unreadable, with excessive level of details. Better to separate it. Marokwitz (talk)

Whilst clearly this ship is most notable for its involvement in this incident, the article should primarily be about the ship. I would agree with Marokwitz that such information is better in a separate article. Adambro (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Kslotte (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing citation tag

Seeing as there are no outstanding {{fact}} tags for this page I'll remove the citation tag at the top of the page. Can't see anything else needing citation and the stub tag covers the lack of general information --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a clash

-- I believe that most of the content below is more of opinions and a chat than a constructive discussion about this article. -- The subject is heavily loaded politically and it is really hard to keep it within rules of Wikipedia. -- Yet, when I added my own remark here saying that this was a violent naval demonstration against Israel rather than a peaceful mission, as claimed by the organisers, my comment was classified as 'Wandalism', was removed and I was blocked from accessing this discussion page. -- Please read the language of the text below and judge yourself if it fits within limits of Wikipedia policy.

It was a war crime. IDF footage shows a small number of unarmed passengers on the top deck attacking the Israelis in defense of the women and children below decks. In the al-Jazeera footage taken below, the firing of Israelis at civilians can be heard.

Stop calling it a fucking "clash". It was an act of piracy on the high seas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.213 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 June 2010

If you want to discuss changing the name by which Wikipedia refers to the incident then Talk:Gaza flotilla clash would probably be the best place to start. Quite how someone can be "unarmed" whilst attacking the Israeli forces with metal bars as is clearly shown on video, or how that would actually protect the women and children below decks is beyond me though. Adambro (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

you seem to forget the Israelis used ,live ammunition, only then was their resistance on the Marmara...we now know the israelis were killing certiain activists, as a list of names has been found. Most of the dead had shots to the head, 19 year lold Dogan had 4 bullets in his head. So how cn you think the attack by the israelis is justified? What beyond me is why youre defending whats clearly a crime. Jalusbrian (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely wrong: 'On 31 May 2010, while en route to Gaza, commandos from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) boarded the MV Mavi Marmara in international waters after warnings that a naval blockade was in force, and were attacked by the Turkish activists.Nine activists were killed and up to sixty activists and ten IDF soldiers were injured.'

The shayetet 13 commandos, who have a background in italian fascism, attacked the Mavi Marmara first with sound grenades and rubber and live bullets...from above in helicopters and below in zodiacs. The boarding being in international waters was illegal and so the activists were in their legal right to repel them. Not 9 but 15 to 19 were killed by the israelis shayetet 13, with at leat 6 bodys being dumped over board, according to survivors.WE lean that 5 of the dead wer shot in the back, one, 19 year old Dogen, with 4 bullet wounds to the head. These deaths look more like gangland executions. Wikis main problen is anybody can make up anything they like...The passage i highlighted is bad journalism. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalusbrian, your comments are lies, from the first word to the last one.

No, indeed not. I would be very surprised if Jalusbrian is lying. I had believed that only 9 of the humanitarian activists were murdered prior to reading his comment. But, having read them, they make sense. Israel would try to minimize the political fallout however they could, and dumping some of their victims' bodies into the sea is one of the first steps they might have taken.

Dogon Furkan, the US citizen who was murdered, was 19 years old. Before killing him with bullets fired point-blank into his face, the Israeli soldiers had rendered him helpless by shooting him in the back of the legs. It was while he was lying in pain on the deck that the Israelis turned him face-up, held him prone by stepping on his chest with their combat boots, and then shooting him in the head. It was completely unnecessary in military terms, done purely for hate and for the value of "the propaganda of the deed."

And, oh, "Israel says that has found knives, metal and wood sticks in the ship." My word, how brave those people on the ships must be to anticipate fighting Israeli commandos armed with fully automatic uzis by using only knives, wood sticks and pieces of metal. Israel's attempt at self-justification makes very poor comedy.

Israel has been lying and falsifying evidence since the piracy occurred. One of their early efforts was altering an audiotape of radio transmission in order to make it seem as if someone on the Freedom Flotilla had made antisemitic comments. Jenab6 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish or Comoran?

Does anyone know for sure? Sources differ. At first this article and all sources said Turkish, and most sources still do. The article now says Comoros, citing a source - in Turkish. [1] and [2] say Turkey, while [3] and [4](used in article) say Comoros. digital-seas has different info; are there 2 different ships with the same or similar names? At this point I think we should say Turkey or Comoros, with cites to each.John Z (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This ship was Turkish-flagged, it was used by Istanbul Municipality. Later it was bought by IHH and they used a Comoros flag instead of a Turkish flag. I provided a Hurriyet link in Turkish: " İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nce 24 Mart 2010’da ihaleye çıkarılan ve İHH tarafından 1 milyon 800 bin TL’ye satın alınıp 589 yolcu ve personelle birlikte Gazze’ye yardım götüren Mavi Marmara Gemisi, Komor Adaları’nın bayrağını taşıyor. Denizcilik Müsteşarlığı İstanbul Bölge Başkanı Cemalettin Sevli, “Tamamen gemi sahiplerinin tercihi�? dedi.

Komor’dan dünyaya kınama mesajı

GAZZE’ye insani yardım götürürken İsrail’in saldırısına uğrayan Komor bandıralı Mavi Marmara gemisi için İstanbul’daki Komor Fahri Konsolosluğu BM, AB ve NATO üyesi ülkelere kınama mektubu yolladı. Konsolosluk yetkilileri, Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ve Başbakan Erdoğan’dan gelecek her türlü ricaya Komor’un açık olduğunu belirterek, “Yapılan saldırıyı şiddetle kınıyoruz�? dediler."Kavas (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the marine traffic site clarifies things and you are probably right (don't read turkish). But there is also this from the Free Gaza Movement, which should be well informed.John Z (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That the ship is Comoran does not nescessarily mean that it was flagged Comoran at the time of the incident. Temporarily reflagging when chartered is not uncommon:

Concept and definitions: We could consider bareboat charter registration as a legal arrangement whereby the nationality of the bareboat charterer, as owner of the ship pro hac vice, ("acting owner"), is allocated to the ship and evidenced by flying the flag of that nation during the life of the charter party1 ...

Bareboat Charter Registration in the light of International Instruments.pdf

So wether Israel has gone to war with Comora or some other party is still up in the air untill we know the fine print of the economic arrangements surrounding .. or get hold of a recent close up of the stern. MX44 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought there might be some fine print legal matter involved; so if there is no objection I'll add a parenthetical comment (Turkish-flagged according to the Free Gaza Movement and other sources).John Z (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Kavas, I think you are probably right, but I am not absolutely sure - see MX44's comment above. It may depends on fine print in contracts and maritime law, and I don't think anyone here is a qualified lawyer who has seen the relevant documents. I think Free Gaza's statement is worth mentioning, especially since many other sources continue to say Turkish-flagged.John Z (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Free Gaza is not the best of RS. I know most would not assume they are being manipulative (I wouldn't be shocked though with their previous disruption here on Wikipedia) but I would assume there is some sort of mistake on their part if the majority of specialized sources say it is Comoran. It would be an easy mistake if one of their people was updating their page and press stuff and assumed it was Turkey since there were so many of them on board and where they were sailing from. Even Murray (who wrote about Turkey and Israel and war now) has acknowledged the error.[5] Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Free Gaza may not be the most reliable source generally, but this is a case where there opinion holds weight. (Don't know of any disruption by them here at wikiland). The best sources would be IHH themselves (or even better, their maritime legal counsel) - or the governments of Turkey or the Comoros - but these don't seem to exist, and Free Gaza looks like the closest thing to the horse's mouth. Craig Murray says appears to be Comoros - it appears that way to me too, but I think there still is some doubt - free gaza, e-ships, lots of news sources, and legal complexities alluded to by MX44. As Murray says, reflagging, if unnecessary, would be an extraordinarily foolish act. I'd still like to put these doubts in text, but would be satisfied just putting it in the note.John Z (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

since when isnt Free Gaza a reliable source? Are U a A reliable source for anything? Is the US government reliable? The israelis arent relaliable at all. JUST who is reliable??Jalusbrian (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I work in Shipping and have access to Equasis ship database (http://www.equasis.org), a query there about the ship shows that it is under Comoros flag since 1/May/2010. I believe it's one of the most reliable sources available. Regards. Steloukos (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ex british ambassador and head of Foreign Office Maritime Section Craig Murray says, on his blog, the flag was changed from Turkish to Commoros just before sailing...He asks why was this done? Jalusbrian (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary and extraordinarily frustrating state of affairs. Whether Mavi Marmara was reflagged to a Comoran ship or whether it remained a ship registered in Turkey, is likely to have profound implications for the judicial issue. Not for the Israeli action as it remains the same no matter what the flag state of Mavi Marmara was, but hugely for that flag state. It would be truly surprising if Comores were to charge Israel for unlawful warfare but Turkey could and probably would. We desperately need well-informed Tutkish suources to explain the true status of Mavi Marmara and why it was reflagged if it indeed sailed under the Comoran flag. Indeed, we need to know the status of all ships that participated in the action. Rachel Corrie seemed to have sailed under Cambodian flag instead of Irish flag, which also raises questions on the protection (or lack of) the activists: one could argue that such a policy gave an incentive for the Israelis to use force as they - assuming that they knew the true flags of the ships - could count on the unlikelihood of any judicial repercussions. (juhavs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhavs (talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera says it is Turkish-flagged. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/20106418259346423.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.63 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Home port?

I've seen pictures of the Mavi Marmara where the home port on her stern says "Istanbul", but on the life jackets from the recent flotilla, it appears that the home port is Moroni on the Comoros. --84.16.208.64 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is simple - the ship was originally registered in Istanbul but its home port was apparently changed to the Comoros when the IHH bought it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst

Wikipedia is reeking like hell with rabid racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.231.90 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)