Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Consideration of Naval invasion of Israeli waters by Turkish Government

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)

Treatment of IDF soldiers by Turkish Doctors on board the Mavi Marmarra

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)

If so, find a reliable source for Turkish doctors who treated IDF soldiers and put it in yourself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Government Apology to Turkey

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)

There is a mention of the apology at the end of the section headed "Israel–Turkey diplomatic crisis": "Following a telephone apology from Netanyahu to Erdoğan on 22 March 2013,...." —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In what way was this not an act of piracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

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)

Hi, the article already states that Erdoğan called to raid state terrorism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

POV description of the UN's Palmer report

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)

The article written by Russell Buchan is NOT an opinion piece but an analysis of the report, published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and is therefore considered a RS. The quote is an analysis of the report, and it reflects the language and spirit of the report, as judged by an expert and as reviewed by peers. It is *NOT* an opinion and it will stay put. Engelo (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia community as a whole will determine whether or not it stays put. It was also inaccurately worded to appear as if it were describing the findings of the report. "The report also found." If the opinion piece by Russel Buchan conveys the "language and spirit of the report" it would make more sense to link directly to the report itself, particularly as the analysis you posted is behind a paywall. Given that the UN report concluded that the Gaza blockade is legal, I doubt that it will align with Buchan's opinion/analysis. I agree that reliable sources should be added. I added several reliable sources regarding the UNHCR and you immediately deleted them. I'm attempting to assume good faith, but at present, your editing has not conveyed impartiality. Drsmoo (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to remove a piece of evidence, you need to give an argument why it should be removed. Until now you have not given such an argument, except by labeling a peer-reviewed paper with the words "opinion piece". Labeling a paper published in an academic journal as an "opinion piece" does not turn it into an opinion piece. In fact, labeling is not an argument, and where there's no argument, I see no possibility to give a counter-argument or to open a discussion. Furthermore, there is no contradiction between the panel's (controversial) claim that the blockade was legal and the fact that the "panel concluded 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" (that is an exact quote from the article mentioned). Since this quote does not contradict anything else we know, since it is relevant in this context and since it comes from a reliable source, I cannot see any reason to remove this piece of evidence. Engelo (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying is simply not true, that isn't what the Palmer report concluded, at all.

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

"Section 81: The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."

With regard to capturing a ship on the high seas:

"Section 69: In sum, there is a clear tendency in international law supporting an expansive view with respect to the applicability of human rights treaties outside the territory of States parties to the relevant conventions. What is important is the State’s exercise of effective control in a specific situation. This would include the situation of the capture of a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas in the enforcement of a blockade."

"Section 82: The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

Summary:

"Section 70: There is nothing in international customary law, or in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), that would generally prohibit the use of force on the high seas, as long as force is only used in self-defence, in line with Articles 2(4) and 51 of the U.N. Charter and Articles 88 and 301 UNCLOS (ius ad bellum)."

"Section 72: The blockading power is entitled to board a neutral merchant vessel if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is breaching a blockade. The blockading power has the right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in br each of a blockade. Breach could occur outside the blockade zone, including on the high seas where there is evidence of the vessel’s intention. If there is clear resistance to the interception or capture, the blockading power may attack the vessel, after giving a prior warning. The level of force used to enforce the above- mentioned rights must be proportionate; in particular, it must be limited to the level necessary to achieve the military objective."

You can read the rest of the report at the link, if you think anything important was left out.

There's simply no reason to believe the opinion/analysis says what you claim it does. As it clearly contradicts what the report says. Feel free, however, to write out the contents in context, or provide a screenshot/pdf. However, again, it's unclear why anyone would need a journal describing a primary source when the primary source is readily available and written in clear language. Currently we have two competing sources, one, the Palmer report, which says the blockade, and its application to the Mavi Marmara was legal, and another your source, which no one can read, claiming the opposite.

I'll also add that, if we're going to be including reliable sources that criticize the Palmer report, we will be including reliable sources that criticize the UNHCR and it's report.Drsmoo (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Drsmoo for your comments. Let's first get the terminology clear. Within Wikipedia I am not familiar with the term "Dubious sources". There is something called WP:RS. Now, a question to you: is a paper published in a peer-reviewed, established academic journal considered WP:RS? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is yes. If we can at least agree that this document is an RS, we do not have to invent a new terminology and use sloppy language. SECOND. I have read the report. I have read the analysis of the report and its interpretation in the hand of experts. Let us focus on three claims:

1. The blockade is legal. This is a very controversial claim, contested by various authors, in academia and elsehwere. But that is of no interest at the moment.
2. It is ok to use force to enforce a legal blockade. I think this claim is uncontroversial, but remember that force should be used only as a last resort.
3. What Israel did in the Mavi Marmara in 31 May 2010 was unlawful for various reasons.

Now, I think that you are claiming that there is a contradiction between the third claim and the first two claims. If I understand you correctly, it is not possible to say that Israel's actions against the MM were unlawful if we accept that it is ok to use force to enforce a legal blockade, which the Gaza blockade was, according to the report. I will stop here and allow you to answer to make sure I understand your argument. Engelo (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thing,Drsmoo you write: "There's simply no reason to believe the opinion/analysis says what you claim it does." Basically you are saying that there is no reason to believe me, suggesting that I am not telling the truth. I should ask you to send me your email (confidentially of course) and I will send you the article. You can then check whether the article says what I claim it does. Since you are making a false accusation against my person, I shall demand an apology in this forum Engelo (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I intend to revert the "dubious" comment you added to the paragraph. You need to be very clear what exactly is dubious? If you claim that it is dubious that the article says what I said it does, I am happy to send you the article. If you are saying that the article is not a RS, I am happy to discuss that. If you say that what the article claims is wrong, you need to provide evidence to that effect - something that you have not done until now. Thanks Engelo (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point what relevant portion of the paper you used for your assertions in our article?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Here is the entire paragraph on page 265 taken from International and Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 61 / Issue 01 / January 2012. Numbers refer to footnotes.

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

Engelo (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That final sentence contradicts multiple reliable sources.

This blatant WP:copyvio and I remove it immediately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters." http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2875308.html

"The United Nations Palmer Report on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident, to be published officially Friday, found that the Israeli commandos who boarded the Mavi Marmara on route to the Gaza Strip were met with "organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers," and so were "forced to use self defense." Nine Turkish activists died aboard the ship. Nevertheless, the report – obtained and published Thursday evening by New York Times - found that the Israeli forces used "excessive and unreasonable force," and emphasized that the loss of life on board the ship is "unacceptable." Moreover, it found that the treatment of the passengers by the IDF soldiers after the interception was "abusive." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-report-idf-soldiers-acted-in-self-defense-but-used-excessive-force-1.382001

"The Palmer report takes into account the findings of the two national inquiries and concludes that while the establishment of the blockade was lawful, the Israeli boarding operation appeared to use excessive force in dealing with the passengers and crew of Mavi Marmara." https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/516f4381-639f-42cf-ba83-ac4653b2e5ba/The-Gaza-Flotilla-Incident-and-the-Modern-Law-of-B.aspx

"A long-awaited U.N. report on a May 2010 Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound ship that killed nine Turks says that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip was legal, the New York Times reported on Thursday.http://www.france24.com/en/20110901-leaked-un-report-finds-israel-naval-blockade-gaza-strip-legal-flotilla-assault-2010/

"A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagewanted=all

There is a multitude of reliable sources interpreting the report as finding the raid legal but the force used excessive. Drsmoo (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Drsmoo please focus. It is ONE thing to say that the Palmer concluded that the blockade is legal and that it should be enforced. It is quite another thing to say that Palmer concluded that THE WAY Israel enforced the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful/unacceptable/unreasonable etc. These two statements DO NOT contradict one another, they can be both true at the same time. RS sources do in fact say that they are both true, and therefore we must accept them as both true at the same time. I see nothing here that is dubious. Engelo (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Drsmoo "There is a multitude of reliable sources interpreting the report as finding the raid legal" - Not ONE of the quotes above said that the raid itself on that night was legal. They say that the blockade was legal, they say that it is legal to enforce it. But not one of them says that Israeli actions in that night was legal. Let me give you an example. Imagine that Israel would enforce the blockade by murdering each one of the activists. The blockade would be legal. Enforcing it would be legal, but the specific actions of murdering each one of the activists would still be illegal. Get the drift? Engelo (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the only one I found, who claims that the raid was lawful was the Israeli rep who clearly distinguishes his position from the main body of the report, which use the words 'unreasonable', 'excessive', and 'unacceptable' - all of these are legal-talk, clearly understood by experts as synonyms for the illegality of the raid on that night. The fact that the Israeli rep distinguishes his position from the report is, in and of itself a sign that the core of the report holds a different view Engelo (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reference in the report to the enforcement of the blockade being unlawful. There are no other reliable sources that come to that conclusion either. The actual phrase used both in the report and in a consensus of reliable sources is "excessive and unreasonable." Additionally, your "please focus" quip is a personal attack, and I strongly advise you to remove it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that the article published in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly is not a RS? On what basis are you saying this? Can you say which of the guidelines of WP:RS is being violated here? Engelo (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This blatant WP:copyvio and I remove it immediately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Shrike I reformulated and we are back in business Engelo (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Engelo, thanks for a good series of edits. The section is essentially no longer POV. I changed "unlawful" to "excessive and unreasonable" to reflect the actual wording of the Palmer Report. "Unlawful" is not used, thus it making no sense to have it in quotes and assigned to the primary source. Drsmoo (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV template, dated June 2013, now? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Drsmoo said here at 03:52, 28 May 2014, "The section [emphasis by Anomalocaris] is essentially no longer POV." Then Drsmoo edited the article at 06:27, 7 June 2014‎ with comment "Restoring POV tag, the tag was placed a year ago, the recent changes were not addressing the reasons for the tag". The article has changed since the POV tag was first placed, so I suggest that supporters of the POV tag state the POV issue(s) with the article as it stands now, so the issues can be debated and addressed if necessary. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being removed. I'm not a long-time editor of this article. It seems fine to me. Drsmoo (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, by my edit I wasn't actually weighing in on this discussion, and I have edited this article before. I just generally remove tagcruft, without prejudice, that's more than ~a year old on sight. I've never quite gotten that idea through the uprights over at WP:PRESERVE but I still think it's a good rule of thumb. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Execution style"

Neither source used says "execution style", stop adding it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: At issue is the sentence: "some of them at point blank range or from behind, "execution style". edit. You removed the whole sentence. The source page 29:

• Case of Furkan Dogan: "..indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range"
• "All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body"
• Case of Ali Heyder Bengi: "There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back"

It is true that "execution style" as a phrase does not appear in the source, but there are plenty of phrases saying the same thing. "Summary execution" is used 3 times: twice on page 37 and once on page 38.

I would be happy to hear from you, why you removed the whole sentence which includes the "point blank and behind" phrase, and why you did not simply replace "execution style" with "summary executions". Kingsindian (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

People being shot at point blank range in close quarters combat in not surprising, summary execution is not execution style, and so the question here is really why you restored that, saying the sources supported it, when they obviously did not. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, the sources do not support your assertion that people were shot from behind. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)