Turkish court charges senior IDF officials over Gaza flotilla deaths

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Oh, you mean the IDF's story.

Anyway, it seems that Turkey has not been placated with Israel's denials of responsibility, nor the amount of reparations offered - in short, the entire way the Israeli government has handled this incident.

At least they stick up for their citizens, which is much more than the U.S. did for Furkan Dogan.

Beyond the Pale: The Murder of Furkan Dogan

So you're saying those on the ship didn't know about the blockade? When you roll the dice you take your chances.

[Boiler 43,423]

Vaguely Darwinian.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So you're saying those on the ship didn't know about the blockade? When you roll the dice you take your chances.

Didn't know about the blockade ? Where did I say that ?

The whole purpose of the flotilla was to break the illegal blockade of Gaza. Defying an illegal blockade is not only legal, it is an act of morality (despite what the government of Israel claims.) The Mavi Marmara was also in international waters, on a course headed directly away from Israel, at the time the Israelis initiated an attack with deadly force.

From the U.N. report from its fact-finding mission:

Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United States 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. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.

...

261. The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade.

262. Certain results flow from this conclusion. Principally, the action of the Israel Defense Force in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas in the circumstances and for the reasons given was clearly unlawful. Specifically, the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

263. Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances.

264. The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Hopefully, Turkey will now forward the charges to Interpol.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Cut and paste the things that fit your agenda all you like Wife, the September 2011 UN Palmer Report found the naval blockade to be legal.

That of course doesn't necessarily mean it is either good or the right thing to do, but the UN's conclusion was it was legal.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Cut and paste the things that fit your agenda all you like Wife, the September 2011 UN Palmer Report found the naval blockade to be legal.

That of course doesn't necessarily mean it is either good or the right thing to do, but the UN's conclusion was it was legal.

As you should know, the Palmer Report was not a determination of legality, as it states in the opening Summary:

In light of the information so gathered, the Panel has examined and identified the facts, circumstances and context of the incident and considered and recommended ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. In so doing it was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities.

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

The Palmer Report was not an investigation, but rather a panel of 4 people (one Israeli, one Turk, one former Colombian president who is also an accused war criminal, and Palmer) who were handpicked to try to smooth over the dispute over the attack on the Flotilla, and get Israel and Turkey to be friends again. This is in contract to the U.N. report I linked, which was the result of an actual fact-finding mission and official investigation.

Edited May 31, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Boiler 43,423]

Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and ETHAN BRONNER

UNITED NATIONS — 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.

The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

The 105-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was completed months ago. But its publication was delayed several times as Turkey and Israel sought to reconcile their deteriorating relationship and perhaps avoid making the report public. In reactions from both governments included in the report, as well as in interviews, each objected to its conclusions. Both said they believed that the report, which was intended to help mend relations, would instead make reconciliation harder.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened in the 2010 episode. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.

The report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law.

The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman.

Israel considers the report to be a rare vindication for it in the United Nations. A United Nations Security Council statement at the time assailed the loss of life, and Israel faced widespread international condemnation. It thought that by offering to negotiate an agreement with Turkey that would stop the report’s publication, Turkish officials might soften their position.

But the two countries’ negotiations, which focused on some kind of apology from Israel and compensation for the victims — eight Turks and an American of Turkish descent — ended in failure. Israel says it is willing to express regret and pay compensation. But the Turks want a full apology. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said he believed that apologizing would demoralize Israeli citizens and broadcast a message of weakness. Aides said he might reconsider at a later date if the Turks eased their demands.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return Turkey’s ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.

The report does recommend that Israel make “an appropriate statement of regret” and pay compensation, but the Turks say that formula does not express sufficient remorse.

The United Nations investigation into the events on the ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was sailing under a Turkish flag and was the largest of six vessels that were commandeered by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, was led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. He was aided by Álvaro Uribe, a former president of Colombia, along with one representative from Israel and another from Turkey.

The report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza.

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “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.”

The report is hard on the flotilla, asserting that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” It said that while a majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of the I.H.H. Humanitarian Relief Foundation, the Turkish aid group that primarily organized the flotilla. It said, “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly I.H.H.”

It also said that the Turkish government tried to persuade the organizers to avoid an encounter with Israeli forces, but that “more could have been done.”

Regarding the boarding of the ship, the Palmer committee said Israel should have issued warnings closer to the moment of action and should have first turned to nonviolent options.

The report assailed Israel for the way in which the nine passengers were killed and others were injured. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel,” it says. The report does, however, acknowledge that once on board the commandos had to defend themselves against violent attack. The report also criticizes Israel’s subsequent treatment of the passengers, saying it “included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.”

Like so many elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the events on the Mavi Marmara produced two competing narratives, each full of self-justification and contempt for the other.

An official Israeli investigation found not only that Israel’s naval blockade was legal but that everything done by Israel, from the actions of its commandos to the treatment of the passengers afterward, was honorable and appropriate. The flotilla organizers, it said, included 40 members of a “hard-core group” who were not properly checked before boarding in Turkey.

A Turkish investigation came to precisely the opposite conclusion. It asserted that the blockade was illegal in all aspects, amounting to collective punishment of the Palestinians of Gaza. It said all of the people on board were civilians, all had been checked out and were unarmed and therefore subject to protection from any invasion under international humanitarian law.

The Turks also concluded that Israeli commandos used live fire before landing, leading to death and injury; the Israelis said they had not. The Palmer committee said it was unable to determine who was right.

Those critical of Israeli actions toward Gaza have viewed the blockade that began officially in January 2009 as part of a siege imposed by Israel on Gaza after Hamas took full control there in 2007. That siege, which has eased considerably in the past year, prevented the movement of most goods and people.

But the Palmer committee said that while it had concerns about that policy and urged that it be loosened further, it saw the naval blockade as a purely security-oriented tool that had been imposed to stop weapons from arriving in Gaza by sea. It also expressed strong concern about the thousands of rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza in recent years. It said that because Gaza’s port could not handle large ships, a naval blockade had little impact on the supply of civilian goods.

Neil MacFarquhar reported from the United Nations, and Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and ETHAN BRONNER

UNITED NATIONS — 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.

The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

The 105-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was completed months ago. But its publication was delayed several times as Turkey and Israel sought to reconcile their deteriorating relationship and perhaps avoid making the report public. In reactions from both governments included in the report, as well as in interviews, each objected to its conclusions. Both said they believed that the report, which was intended to help mend relations, would instead make reconciliation harder.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened in the 2010 episode. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.

The report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law.

The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman.

Israel considers the report to be a rare vindication for it in the United Nations. A United Nations Security Council statement at the time assailed the loss of life, and Israel faced widespread international condemnation. It thought that by offering to negotiate an agreement with Turkey that would stop the report’s publication, Turkish officials might soften their position.

But the two countries’ negotiations, which focused on some kind of apology from Israel and compensation for the victims — eight Turks and an American of Turkish descent — ended in failure. Israel says it is willing to express regret and pay compensation. But the Turks want a full apology. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said he believed that apologizing would demoralize Israeli citizens and broadcast a message of weakness. Aides said he might reconsider at a later date if the Turks eased their demands.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return Turkey’s ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.

The report does recommend that Israel make “an appropriate statement of regret” and pay compensation, but the Turks say that formula does not express sufficient remorse.

The United Nations investigation into the events on the ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was sailing under a Turkish flag and was the largest of six vessels that were commandeered by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, was led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. He was aided by Álvaro Uribe, a former president of Colombia, along with one representative from Israel and another from Turkey.

The report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza.

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “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.”

The report is hard on the flotilla, asserting that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” It said that while a majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of the I.H.H. Humanitarian Relief Foundation, the Turkish aid group that primarily organized the flotilla. It said, “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly I.H.H.”

It also said that the Turkish government tried to persuade the organizers to avoid an encounter with Israeli forces, but that “more could have been done.”

Regarding the boarding of the ship, the Palmer committee said Israel should have issued warnings closer to the moment of action and should have first turned to nonviolent options.

The report assailed Israel for the way in which the nine passengers were killed and others were injured. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel,” it says. The report does, however, acknowledge that once on board the commandos had to defend themselves against violent attack. The report also criticizes Israel’s subsequent treatment of the passengers, saying it “included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.”

Like so many elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the events on the Mavi Marmara produced two competing narratives, each full of self-justification and contempt for the other.

An official Israeli investigation found not only that Israel’s naval blockade was legal but that everything done by Israel, from the actions of its commandos to the treatment of the passengers afterward, was honorable and appropriate. The flotilla organizers, it said, included 40 members of a “hard-core group” who were not properly checked before boarding in Turkey.

A Turkish investigation came to precisely the opposite conclusion. It asserted that the blockade was illegal in all aspects, amounting to collective punishment of the Palestinians of Gaza. It said all of the people on board were civilians, all had been checked out and were unarmed and therefore subject to protection from any invasion under international humanitarian law.

The Turks also concluded that Israeli commandos used live fire before landing, leading to death and injury; the Israelis said they had not. The Palmer committee said it was unable to determine who was right.

Those critical of Israeli actions toward Gaza have viewed the blockade that began officially in January 2009 as part of a siege imposed by Israel on Gaza after Hamas took full control there in 2007. That siege, which has eased considerably in the past year, prevented the movement of most goods and people.

But the Palmer committee said that while it had concerns about that policy and urged that it be loosened further, it saw the naval blockade as a purely security-oriented tool that had been imposed to stop weapons from arriving in Gaza by sea. It also expressed strong concern about the thousands of rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza in recent years. It said that because Gaza’s port could not handle large ships, a naval blockade had little impact on the supply of civilian goods.

Neil MacFarquhar reported from the United Nations, and Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem.

Wishful headline writers proclaimed this in several publications. However, that doesn't make it true.

The report itself states it is not a determination of legality.

[Dan and Judy 614]

The whole purpose of the flotilla was to break the illegal blockade of Gaza.

did it work?

[Boiler 43,423]

Nope!

[Dan and Judy 614]

Madonna's concert for peace is today. Stock up on your gas

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Did it work ?

Let's see... the flotilla's purpose was to break the siege of Gaza - not in one single act of bravery of course, but by drawing world attention to the crisis of Gaza - Israel's brutal military enforcement of its illegal collective punishment of more than 1.5 million civilians, most of whom are children.

The flotilla organizers (and the rest of the world) anticipated that Israel would probably try to divert the ships. The difference between Israel and the rest of the world was: no civilized folks expected Israelis would go in and murder people.

So attention was drawn, and it was a debacle for Israel as far as world opinion.

Anyway, it seems Turkey has grown tired of Israel's refusal to settle this thing diplomatically, and has now formally issued charges. If Interpol gets involved, nobody expects Israel to hand over their guys. But it might make it difficult for the suspects to travel to certain countries. There goes summer in Nice !

[Boiler 43,423]

Interpol are not going to get involved in political games.

Have the Turks gone after the organisers of this charade?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Interpol are not going to get involved in political games.

Have the Turks gone after the organisers of this charade?

The organizers of the flotilla ? Why ? They're not charged with any crime.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Did it work ?

Let's see... the flotilla's purpose was to break the siege of Gaza - not in one single act of bravery of course, but by drawing world attention to the crisis of Gaza - Israel's brutal military enforcement of its illegal collective punishment of more than 1.5 million civilians, most of whom are children.

I think it's about time for Turkey to try again.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Wishful headline writers proclaimed this in several publications. However, that doesn't make it true.

The report itself states it is not a determination of legality.

Your post yesterday highlighted a quote from the last paragraph indicating the blockade was illegal, so it seemed you were selectively quoting and highlighting to make it appear that was the UN determination.