Turkey, the flotilla and Israel: UN report deserves calm reading

[Violet_Crumble]

When the UN Human Rights Council commissioned a report on the Mavi Marmara flotilla disaster, Israel dismissed any findings in advance because the Council mandated a search for "violations" in an Israeli "attack". When the report was published on 23 September, the Israeli Foreign Ministry denounced what it called a "biased, politicized and extremist approach". A commentator in Israeli daily Yedioth Ahranoth went so far as to declare that it "served as a lesson in diplomatic and political cynicism, and the end of the dream known as the UN" (24 September).

For sure, the Human Rights Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel, and its disregard for the actions of many of the world's worst human rights abusers, not least among its 47 members, has done great damage to the body’s credibility. Even the Council's rapporteurs themselves rejected the wording of their original Council mandate because of "justified criticism" of its "bias" against Israel.

But anyone wanting to learn more of what happened in the eastern Mediterranean on the night of 31 May should set aside the hour or so it takes to study the 56-page document. Even the United States, explaining its lone vote against the report in the Council on 29 September, did not criticize its contents. Based on interviews with 112 passengers from 20 countries, the account of the flotilla's challenge to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, and the lethal Israeli commando operation against it, is thorough, unemotional and consistent with such facts as are publicly known. Despite Israeli non-recognition and non-cooperation with the rapporteurs, it is respectful to the Israeli official the panel did meet, takes such official Israeli statements that have been published into account and by no means leaves the international flotilla without blame.

For instance, the report notes the fundamental tension between the political and humanitarian objectives of the organizers. It points out that organizers were fully aware of the Israeli intention to use force well before the interception, casting more doubt on the wisdom of their decision to actively resist any Israeli attack, especially after Israel offered to send the goods to Gaza under neutral supervision. The account further details differences between the contract crew of the Mavi Marmara, who did not want trouble, and the organizers, including the Turkish NGO that owned the ship, who were determined to resist and started cutting up iron bars with which they later fought back against the Israeli attempt to seize the vessel. On the night itself, many activists perceived the sound of stun grenades and other explosions in the night as attack by live fire. But the panel was "not satisfied" by reports that Israeli commandos used live ammunition in a first attempt to seize the Mavi Marmara from the sea.

At the same time, the step-by-step account raises important questions about the rapidity, lethality and sustained nature of the Israeli commandos' use of force against civilians in international waters. During the seizure of the Mavi Marmara, it asserts that Israelis used live fire from a helicopter to clear the top deck of resisting activists before any soldiers landed. It finds no evidence of any firearms brought on board by or used by the activists, as some Israeli officials have claimed. It shows that force used in Israeli takeovers of three other vessels in the flotilla was also disproportional. It lays out abuses by Israeli troops and officials during several subsequent stages, including failure to treat several injured properly, degrading treatment of tied-up prisoners during the long, hot passage by sea to the Israeli port of Ashdod, an improper parading of the detained activists to jeering Israeli onlookers on the quayside, attempts to force activists to sign self-incriminating documents, cases of unaccountable Israeli seizure of activists' cameras, computers, cellphones, cash and property, and severe beatings of activists that continued to draw blood even as they were about to be deported from Ben Gurion International Airport.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/Pope-Cyprus-The-UN-s-first-Mavi-Marmara-report-deserves-calm-reading.aspx

[oberliner]

1. A lot of great info in this article

Thanks for posting!

People ought to look at the linked document as well if they have the time to do so.

[shira]

2. What info do you find great in this article? The report is garbage. See here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x333172#333504

[oberliner]

3. Here are a few interesting points

1. That the behavior of the UNHRC (disproportionate focus on Israel, disregard for other serious human rights abusers) has done "great damage" to its credibility.

2. That Israel offered to transport the humanitarian aid on the ships to Gaza under neutral supervision - but that the flotilla organizers rejected this offer.

3. That were was a "fundamental tension" between the political and humanitarian objectives of the organizers.

4. The the Turkish NGO who owned the ship were "determined to resist" and the organizers "started cutting up iron bars" with the attention of using them against the Israelis.

5. That Gaza did not have a port that was equipped to receive the cargo that was on the vessel.

6. That one of the activists on the boat had been previously convicted of hijacking a Russian ferry in 1996.

7. That members of the IHH were planning for a violent confrontation with the Israelis who they knew were going to board the ship.

8. That three Israeli soldiers were badly beaten by the people on the ship, at least one showing evidence of having been attacked with knives and/or metal rods.

9. That on the ship that had a specific "no resistance" policy, there was no violence from the Israeli side.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Just wondering why you don't include anything critical of Israel...

Is there a reason for that?

[oberliner]

5. Did you have trouble finding anything critical of Israel in the article?

If so, I can put together a list for you as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Please answer the question I asked you, Oberliner n/t

[oberliner]

10. Sure

The reason is because of the perspective of the poster to whom I was responding.

I tried to find things from the article that I thought that poster might think were interesting considering that poster's criticism of the report itself from the perspective that it is biased against Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Thanks for answering...

I did wonder if that might be the reason. Anyway, I hope most DUers will take the time to read the report before judging it...

[shira]

7. Now I understand, thanks. I just don't have patience for anything the bigoted UNHRC...

...or its hired guns have to say about Israel.

[azurnoir]

13. the bigoted UNHRC ?

you do realize that the US is part of the UNHRC ? And hired gunscan you explain that comment please are you insinuating that Goldstone was paid to to find the results he did and that those who participated in this current report on the Mavi Mamara were also paid to for their findings?

[shira]

16. Yeah, bigoted b/c it's majority ruled by corrupt, murderous tyrannies like Libya, China, Cuba

Not that the hypocrisy on display from these countries, who have the utmost contempt for the victims of their own oppression, makes much of a difference to those who'd rather focus on Israel to the exclusion of far greater atrocities elsewhere throughout the world.

And of course the UNHRC knew exactly what they were going to get with Goldstone and the Flotilla commission. Based on the history of the UNHRC and its predecessor which was disbanded by Kofi Annan for also being bigoted, it's preposterous to believe the UNHRC left things to chance - as if any one of their Israel commissions could ever report and rule favorably for Israel. :eyes:

What else besides blind bigotry explains such a ridiculous report?

Some of the more glaring faults of the report include the omission of any reference to the real causes of power outages in the Gaza strip (clause 31), the declaration that there is a “severe humanitarian situation in Gaza” (clause 53) and that a humanitarian crisis existed on 31/05/2010 in Gaza (clause 261), together with an ‘interesting’ definition of starvation (clause 52). The assumption that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation (clause 51), together with the reliance upon testimonies from such partisan sources as Richard Falk and Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) (clause 179) sets the scene for some of the more fanciful claims made by the writers of the report. These include the defining of the ‘Free Gaza’ movement as a human rights organization (clause 76) and the IHH as a “humanitarian organization”, the dismissal of readily available footage of some of the Mavi Marmara’s passengers’ Jihadi calls to martyrdom with a description of “some bravado”, the description of what went on aboard the ships as “passive resistance”, “non-violence” and “symbolic resistance” (clause 102), the claim that “at no stage was a request made by the Israeli navy for the cargo to be inspected” (clause 109) and the claim that the replies to Israeli navy radio communications which we have all heard and which referred to Auschwitz and the 9/11 terror attack did not come from the ships’ passengers (clause 110). The report even descends to the ridiculous level of describing “excessive air conditioning” in the vans in which detainees were transported (clause 195), the noise in the prison in which they were held (clause 197) and the number of armed soldiers present at the airport before their deportation (clause 202) as deliberate intimidation upon the part of Israel and makes the unsubstantiated claim that detainees were photographed for “trophy pictures” (clause 190) and exposed to “hostile crowds” (clause 185).

http://cifwatch.com/2010/09/26/mob-rule-at-the-un-human-rights-council/

Only willfully blind or oblivious people could find such a stupid, bigoted report credible.

[Tripmann]

18. Cifwatch again? LOL!. More right wing israeli propaganda for us to laugh at. Cheers

[shira]

20. LOL....that article is written by an Israeli Liberal who always votes Meretz. Good try deflecting.

The report is sheer idiocy.

Deal with it.

[Tripmann]

21. The report shows you have been excusing a state sponsored execution of an american kid.

And using DU to defame said kid.

[shira]

22. The UN report is crap to nearly all Israel's Liberals. n/t

[Tripmann]

23. So the coroner is an anti-semite??

[shira]

24. Where did I imply that? Do you trust all info coming out of Turkey? n/t

[Tripmann]

26. I trust when a kid whos been shot is fired at point blank while he's on the ground in the face that

its an execution.

How can you excuse this filth?

[shira]

27. So you trust what's coming out of Turkey. If Dogan was executed at close range...

....then that is reprehensible and the killer(s) should be held accountable.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

29. Why do you trust Turkey's account? Any reason? I already said if Dogan was executed...

...then that is reprehensible and the crime should be prosecuted. As it is, there's very good reason not to trust Turkey and many so-called "eyewitnesses" in light of clear video evidence that shows much of their testimony to be false and unreliable.

[Tripmann]

30. Why should I trusrt the account of the guys pulling the trigger when they're not allowed to testify

by the people who put them on the deck of the boat, who confiscated evidence and blacked out the media from any other version of events then what they spoonfed the media.

We're not idodts, so don't insult our intelligence shira.

NOBODY even attempts to back you up anymore,

[shira]

31. Video evidence shows Turkey and many Marmara "eyewitnesses" lied. Of course, no amount of evidence

....is good enough for those who live to condemn, slander, and slime Israel.

You choose to believe liars.

Good for you.

Now ask yourself, if what Israel did on the Marmara was so bad then why would anyone feel the need to lie about any of it? :shrug:

[Tripmann]

36. Oh yes ,the minute of footage from the hour long op supplied by the guys pulling the trigger

Nobodys believing it shira

[shira]

40. The UN, Turkey, and Marmara activists have lied repeatedly...are you denying that? n/t

[Tripmann]

53. Why use DU to defend a right wing governments killing of an american child? Its just sick.

[shira]

61. You're condemning the IDF based on testimony from untrusty, dubious sources. Why? n/t

There are 2 other commissions that are also investigating.

Why not wait for their conclusions before trusting the unreliable UN?

[Tripmann]

67. Are you claiming the autopsy report is a lie?

[whosinpower]

64. So you admit the possibility of a crime being committed

At least that is something. As for me - I read the report - the entire 66 pages. I'll be interested to see Turkel's report and the UN report as well.

I have learned NOT to necessarily trust political bloggers who tell me what a report says or does not say.

The "clear" video evidence you bring up constantly is but a tiny snippet of the entire 45 minute event. If the israeli's released all of it, it would be much better to fully understand what went on and coordinate the footage with eyewitness accounts. They did not release it to this mission - one can hope that they will for the Turkel inquiry.

And, if it is found that Dogan was executed extra judiciary style - then the criminal should be charged. I am glad we agree on that.

[azurnoir]

32. yes you are correct that the UNHRC has many "questionable" 3rd world countries

of the 47 current members 34 are African, Asian, or Latin American/Caribbean countries and 13 are Western or European. Does having 3rd world countries bother you, it seems to and why is it that you leave out that the US, Switzerland, Belgium, and the UK along with other western countries are also members? I must ask what countries would pass your "whiff" test here? as a reminder of UNHRC members here is once again the list as you to only be able to remember 3 of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Members

now as to CIF watch that is an opinion site which ostensibly came into existence to refute a blog of a single publication that being the Gaurdians "Comment is Free" blog but now seem to be expanding their scope and while of course they are free to express their opinion they are hardly anything official or really even expert they have an opinion that is all, nothing more nothing less

[shira]

33. The number of UNHRC member states that are not free or only partially free totally outnumber free

...nations. That's the problem. They withhold basic human rights from their own people. But maybe you have no problem with that...

As to CIFWatch, that article I posted points to the false, idiotic arguments made by the UN commission on the flotilla. The author of that piece is a lifelong liberal in Israel, votes for Meretz, etc. You should know better than to 'shoot the messenger'. If there's anything in her article factually incorrect or disingenuous, then present your case. It appears you can't dispute what she wrote so you have nothing better than to counter with logical fallacies.

[bemildred]

34. It is always a stirring sight when you defend human rights of non-Palestinians. nt

[shira]

37. I'd faint if you ever defended Palestinian human rights in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza....

[bemildred]

39. Direct hit!

:rofl:

[azurnoir]

35. Many countries withhold all or some Human Rights rom their citizens

some would say the US does that as my having a problem with it do you mean in general or should that bar them from the UNHRC if so then again who passes your test? If it is the former you do not know my opinion so please stop stating it as if you do.

now as to CIFwatch author of the article it seems to be someone who calls herself? Israelinurse which being an internet user name could in reality be anyone and as to being a Meretz voter that too can be claimed many claim to be liberals or even when it comes to DU Democrats to justify or add credence to what could be otherwise called bigoted opinions

as to your name calling that too speaks for itself

[shira]

38. The USA is a free country and only free countries should vote on universal human rights...

I'm not sure why you believe it's perfectly legitimate for countries like Libya, Cuba, and China passing human rights resolutions against free countries.

IsraeliNurse is legitimately a liberal, as is AKUS and several others at CiFW. I understand Israeli Zionist Liberals don't rate to many here but so what.

[bemildred]

42. The USA is a decadent empire.

There is no such thing as a "free country", there are just countries that do a better or worse job of respecting/failing-to-prosecute exercise of individual rights at the moment.

[shira]

43. Do you believe a UNHRC dominated by tyrannies like China,Libya can be trusted to make legit rulings

Kofi Annan disbanded their predecessor for good reason. Let's not pretend the current version isn't as bad.

[bemildred]

44. UNHRC is not a court, it does not make "rulings".

I consider that a great deal of public whining about human rights is a good thing, regardless of source, regardless of what particular parties choose to ignore, it shows that somebody cares about the substance of human rights, the rights of humans to go about their legitimate business in life without being molested.

[shira]

45. They do more harm than good ignoring the vast majority of horrendous abuses in their own countries.

In addition, it's not as though their work against Israel is honest or credible. So in addition to ignoring far worse elsewhere, they waste time putting together Iranian style PRESS-TV reports against Israel and it's our tax dollars funding that.

I suspect that if their target was any country besides Israel, you might have an actual problem with the UNHRC.

[bemildred]

46. They still don't make rulings.

What they do is complain about stuff. It carries no legal weight. Ignoring some issues in favor of others is not the same thing as being wrong. "Many true words were spoken through false teeth." Since Israeli military persons clearly do commit human rights abuses, even though most are no doubt good fellows, it's a good thing somebody is keeping an eye on them. We want to minimize abuse of innocent Palestinians as much as possible, the way I see it.

[oberliner]

52. Some have presented it otherwise

Google this topic and many headlines indicate that Israel has been "found guilty" by the UNHRC.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I only spotted a few like that. Surely people don't believe things just coz a headline says so?

A few headlines that aren't right doesn't make what Bemildred said any less correct. Anyone who thinks that the UNHRC makes legal rulings that are binding really is quite ignorant of what the role and powers of that particular body is...

[bemildred]

57. That is not my problem.

I don't ask for much, but I will not be put in the position of defending other posters arguments and claims, their propaganda and butchered language. If you can't keep it clear who you are "discussing" things with, you ought not be posting. What I said was correct. That's the end of it as far as I am concerned.

[oberliner]

58. I agree with you

I think everyone needs to be made clear on what the UNHRC is and does.

[shira]

59. But the UNHRC isn't really pro-Palestinian as much as they are anti-Israel

Are you okay with the UNHRC focusing nearly 100% on alleged Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights vs. next to 0% on Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and Syrian... violations of Palestinian human rights?

I mean, if the UNHRC is going to mostly advocate for Palestinians while virtually ignoring the rest of the world, wouldn't it make sense to at least focus 50% on Israel and 50% on the way Palestinians are treated in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, etc?

If not, why not?

[shira]

63. Also, consider that the UNHRC recently praised Sri Lanka for killing 20,000 civilians.

Therefore, in addition to ignoring severe human rights violations worldwide and ignoring HR violations against Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza under Arab tyrannies, the UNHRC goes out of its way to praise Sri Lanka for butchering 20,000 citizens.

But it's worth it to 'get' Israel?

:eyes:

[bemildred]

68. Was that a "ruling", or what?

But anyway, wasn't it nice of them to focus their attention somewhere besides Israel?

[oberliner]

69. Sri Lanka: UN Rights Council Fails Victims

(Geneva) - The United Nations Human Rights Council on May 27 passed a deeply flawed resolution on Sri Lanka that ignores calls for an international investigation into alleged abuses during recent fighting and other pressing human rights concerns, Human Rights Watch said today. The council held a special session on May 26 and 27, 2009, on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, a week after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by government forces.

"The Human Rights Council did not even express its concern for the hundreds of thousands of people facing indefinite detention in government camps," said Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "The council ignored urgent needs and wasted an important chance to promote human rights."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/27/sri-lanka-un-rights-council-fails-victims

[bemildred]

71. So it was a "resolution" then?

Like when Congress votes to support motherhood or condemn the perfidy of Iran, but meaning even less because the Congress holds real power and the UNHRC does not, all the UNHRC can do is make noise.

[oberliner]

73. I guess so

Pretty lame though if you ask me.

[bemildred]

74. Isn't that what I said? nt

[oberliner]

76. Not disagreeing with you

Just some more detail on the Sri Lanka report.

This group has some problems.

[azurnoir]

47. Are there any third world countries that meet your standards?

I believe every country deserves a voice and I would not mind seeing Israel on the UNHRC

as to you claims about CIFwatches posters that too is your opinion

[shira]

60. Free nations get to vote on the UNHRC, otherwise it's a farce. As to the article...

...at CiFW by IsraeliNurse, the fact is that the UNHRC's report is factually inaccurate and basically worthless for reasons given in the paragraph cited. The fact that you're unable to refute anything therein goes to show it's more than opinion you disagree with. The facts simply do not matter to you.

[azurnoir]

62. the fact is I have not bothered to refute anything

which is different than being unable and as to the report being factually inaccurate that will really never be known because IDF destroyed most of the video evidence that was taped by the people on board the ship

[whosinpower]

65. I am amazed

CIFwatch includes a link to the 15th session of UNHRC.

And I KNOW you will not dirty yourself to actually click on that particular link - but I just wanted to let you know that the UNHRC did an AWFUL lot more than just focus on Israel....

59 reports! 59 reports and guess what - only 2 - count em - 2 focused on Israel and the Gaza situation.

Whew.......that there is a whole lot of bigotry....spread ALL AROUND THE GLOBE.

[shira]

66. Dream became a nightmare

Incredibly, about 80% (!) of the Council's censures were devoted to Israel. This is an unbelievable figure: Meanwhile, tyrannies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and others were never condemned by the UNHRC. North Korea, one of the darkest regimes of the 21st century, was condemned once. Sudan, where genocide has been committed for years, was addressed in two UNHRC resolutions, none of which held the Sudanese government accountable (one actually praised it for its "progress" on human rights.)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3959776,00.html

Israel at the UN: Progress Amid A History of Bias

Of 10 emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan.

For decades, Israel was the only member state consistently denied admission into a regional group. The Arab states continue to prevent Israeli membership in the Asian Regional Group, Israel’s natural geopolitical grouping. As a result, Israel sought entry into the Western and Others Group (WEOG) and in May 2000 was granted admission to that regional group in New York, but not in Geneva, the seat of several U.N. bodies and subsidiary organizations. Israel's participation in the U.N., therefore, is still limited and it is restricted from participating in U.N. Geneva-based activities.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wAq_JKgsoiwJ:www.adl.org/international/Israel-UN-1-introduction.asp&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

[polly7]

70. That's all you have to defend deliberate murder in international waters?

That's sad.

[whosinpower]

72. Go to the UN page and check the facts Shira

There have been 13 special sessions - not 10. Yes- Israel is called out on six occasions.

13th session - focused on Haiti
12th session - occupied Palistine and East Jerusalem
11th session - focused on Sri Lanka
10th session - focused on the global and economic crisis
9th session - occupied Palistine and Gaza
8th session - focused on Congo
7th session - focused on food crisis and food prices
6th session - palistine and israeli military incursions
5th session - focused on Myanmar
4th session - focused on Darfur
3rd session - Israeli military incursions into palistinian territory
2nd session - focused on Lebanon
1st session - palistine


Is that still one sided? Yeah - BUT - it isn't 80 percent and it is not 6 out of 10 - it is 6 out of 13. And of the 59 reports submitted during the 15th session - 2 were focused on the Israeli/palistinian situation. That is not 80 percent either. Dropping 3 special sessions makes it sound better for the point the author wishes to make - but is not entirely forthcoming. I thought perhaps the author missed the last 13 - in case the article was written some time ago - but in order for there to be 6 special sessions - he would of had to have included session 12. And if he started counting at session 4 - then he would of dropped the first three special sessions that did involve Israel.....

[shira]

75. Good catch, but the UN is still very bigoted and dominated by freeper nations that make a farce...

....of human rights worldwide and actually set the cause backwards.

[issy98]

25. Yet some do

Why the hell do they support such a bigoted org.?

[shira]

41. They can't ever admit the UNHRC is bigoted. They adore how the UN treats Israel. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Just curious, but have you read the report that was in the OP?

I'd be interested to know what, if anything, yr objecting to specifically in it...

[hayu_lol]

8. Many of the answers we all sought are in this...

investigation. Time-consuming but well worth the time. The findings, considering the amount of material covered, seem to be both well-backed and well-documented.

Questions remain however.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. What answers were 'we' seeking? And what questions remain?

I'm reading the report in between other things right now, so just in case I don't get through it all, I thought I'd ask...

[azurnoir]

12. it is worth a read and not as lengthy as the Goldstone report

it is also quite concise in its critique of the situation

[hayu_lol]

14. This report is probably the best we can get that has...

attempted, and sometimes succeeded, in being impartial.

Israel takes it's earned licks, but so does the 'other side of the story.'

Does take some extended reading time but worth the effort.

Two important points surfaced in the report:

Gaza does not have a port suitable for unloading the cargo on board these ships.

Had the flotilla, on their own volition, headed directly for the port of Ashdod, the boardings would not have been necessary. They would have been escorted but not boarded.

These two facts show clearly that the mission was not humanitarian but political.

[azurnoir]

15. IMO the flotilla was both humanitarian and political

one does negate the other, as to Israel delivering the aid some of that aid including school supplies and toys for children were forbidden to enter Gaza at the time of the flotilla, it was only in the aftermath of the raid that Israel loosened some of those restrictions, as to there not being a suitable port the ship could have been off loaded the old fashioned way where by the ship comes in as close to shore as it can then the cargo is loaded into smaller boats and brought ashore that way it was done with another free gaza vessle last year, as to the boarding itself the activist aboud the boats had every reason to believe Israel intended to confiscate the cargo and as I pointed out some of it was 'forbidden'.

'

[hayu_lol]

17. Obvious that we will not reach any sort of concensus...

on this thread.

Thanks Violet for making the effort to put this report in front of us all.

**for the naysayers, and we seem to have a lot of them, that when the goods(humanitarian)were delivered to Gaza, HAMAS refused to admit the cargo.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I think the primary motivation was to break the blockade...

That doesn't mean that providing humanitarian aid wasn't high on the list of priorities, though. If it wasn't, then there'd have been no need for the cargo ships in the flotilla. And I think the publicity is a major motivation as well, and that also drives the decisions and actions of Israel. I read in the report that Israel had the previous year allowed boats to dock in Gaza and they'd been smaller boats travelling alone with much less media attention. I'd say the decision to board the flotilla was helped in a large part due to the high level of publicity the flotilla was getting...

Hamas refusing to admit the cargo is wrong, considering there was a large amount of aid on the ships. I do recall seeing something about how Israel had removed the batteries from electric wheelchairs, making them useless, so if it was just those that were knocked back by Hamas, I can understand it, but not if it was everything. Of course, just like the organisers of the flotilla and Israel, for Hamas publicity and making a point seems to come in as the top priority when in fact it should be other things...

btw, after looking at the dog's breakfast that this thread has been turned into, I appreciate that you and one or two others are offering some constructive contributions to the discussion :)

[oberliner]

19. There is another UN report that I believe is still yet to be released

UN's Ban opens international Gaza flotilla probe

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 2 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon announced an international inquiry on Monday into Israel's deadly May 31 attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, after the Jewish state agreed to cooperate with the probe.

The investigation will be led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer as chairman and outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as vice chairman, Ban said in a statement. The panel also will have one Israeli and one Turkish member, who will be named shortly, U.N. officials said.

The four-person group will start work on Aug. 10 and submit its first progress report by mid-September, said Ban, who first proposed the inquiry soon after the flotilla incident.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02268231.htm

The above article mentions mid-September but I haven't seen anything yet from this report, have you?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, I haven't heard anything about it yet either...

I remember reading about it back when the announcement was made of that inquiry, and it would be interesting to read it when it comes out. If you spot it first, would you mind posting a link to it?

[oberliner]

51. Did find this

UN Gaza flotilla panel submits first report

NEW YORK – UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon received his first report from his appointed four-person Panel of Inquiry into the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident on Wednesday.

The report, which was not made public, was largely procedural in nature and was based on the two meetings the panel held in August and September of this year, an official from the secretary-general’s office said

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=188403

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I couldn't get to the article...

I got some login screen for premium content, and seeing it's JPost, I didn't bother registering...

I think it'll be interesting when the report is made public to compare it to the one from the fact-finding mission...

[azurnoir]

56. this is from the article the last 5 paragraphs

however there is little to nothing from the actual report


The report explains “the Panel’s understanding of the tasks at hand and the working methods it has unanimously adopted in order to carry out its mandate,” the official said, adding that proceedings “have been conducted in a positive and collegial manner.”

Members of the panel agreed that they will receive and review reports of national investigations into the May 31 incident from both Israel and Turkey. The panel also agreed to make requests to state-designated points of contact in Israel or Turkey, in the event that they require more information or clarification.

If information is required from other states besides Israel and Turkey, the panel determined that information will be sought through diplomatic channels.


These points implicitly address previously expressed concerns that the panel would be able to assume a subpoena power or would attempt to challenge national investigations into the incident.

“The Panel agreed that in the light of the information so gathered, it would examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident and make findings and recommendations for the prevention of similar incidents in the future,” a statement issued by the secretary- general’s office read, adding that Ban “was heartened that the Panel unanimously reported it had the means available to it to respond to the high international concern that has been expressed concerning the flotilla incident.”

[oberliner]

77. Kick - Have you done the reading yet?

Has the calm reading happened?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Yes. Have you? n/t

[oberliner]

79. Anything jump out at you?

Anything from the report worth commenting on besides what was covered in this article?

I haven't read it yet myself.

[Tripmann]

80. You should read the report oberliner. Its well balanced in its criticism of all involved in the

incident. Thats why the usual suspects screaming like rabid dogs about the UNHRC before they had even read the report have done themselves no favour. Its the fairest report all sides could reasonably expect, so 'goldstoning' the people writing it further isolates the apologists from intelligent discourse.

[oberliner]

81. It's on my to-do list

Not sure if it could be "the fairest report all sides could reasonably expect" if Israel did not cooperate.

Wouldn't the report that had the cooperation of all parties be more likely to be fairer?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. So where did you get this list from if you haven't read it yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=334057&mesg_id=334073

[oberliner]

88. From the article you posted

Did you not read it?

[Violet_Crumble]

91. You probably shouldn't talk about the contents of a report that you hadn't even read...

It comes across as a bit misleading, that's all...

[oberliner]

92. Did Hugh Pope misrepresent the content of the report in the OP you posted?

Is there a reason why I should not take the article you posted at face value? Is there something he included in his summary of the report that wasn't true?

[Violet_Crumble]

93. That's not the point. You should really read the report before commenting on it...

I'm not sure why you'd disagree on this...

[oberliner]

94. I haven't commented on the report - I commented on the article you posted

Which itself referenced particular components the report - I assume accurately.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. So, have you bothered reading the report yet? n/t

[Tripmann]

86. The side that refuses to cooperate cannot credibly have a problem with this report

Screaming 'extremist' etc. is bullshit. The world knows it.

[oberliner]

89. They can if they feel the UNHRC is biased

And many have expressed exactly such a sentiment.

They did agree to cooperate with another UN investigative team.

[Tripmann]

96. Yep, the team for the investigation that has no remit to apportion blame

Get back to me when you've actually read the report

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Yes. I suggest you read it n/t

[oberliner]

83. But you haven't posted anything about it

Why is that? Anything in the report worth discussing here? Anything you want to draw people's attention to if they don't have the inclination to read the whole thing?

[Violet_Crumble]

84. I have n/t

[oberliner]

87. Thanks for the link

Oh wait - there isn't one!

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Glad to be of assistance!

As I've discussed it in this thread and another one, I suggest you read through the threads :)

[oberliner]

95. And yet still no link - how is that being of assistance?

I see nothing in this thread nor in any other where you've discussed it.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. I was responding to yr thanks...

I see something in this thread. I suggest you try reading from the very first post to the very last and you'll spot it.

[shira]

99. Turkish journalist/author interviewed by Israeli TV, contradicts UN eyewitness Marmara testimony

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ipc_e130.htm

I guess the UN didn't get around to interviewing this guy. :eyes:

[azurnoir]

100. the same link was posted on Kos about 10 days ago

as a comment interesting discussion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/26/164923/630

[Tripmann]

101. The terrorism information centre israeli think tank??? LOL! Another fair and balanced source

Is the CAMERA site offline or something?

So thats stoptheism.org a couple of days ago, now terrorism-info.org today

:rofl:

I wonder how long links to sites called stopthezionists.org and israelimurderers.org would last around here......

[shira]

102. The Turkish journalist/author wrote a book which disputes UN findings against Israel.

You should watch the video from Israel channel 1.

[Tripmann]

103. And you should try use more credible sources of information than blatant propaganda sites.

[shira]

104. Here's the FreeGazaMovement on how they're anti-humanitarian and pro-war...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=334635&mesg_id=334751

They put the whole flotilla together.

Are they a credible enough source for you?

http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1032-on-the-right-of-resistance

In that article, you'll find they believe some suicide bombings are acceptable.

[Tripmann]

106. Well you believe dropping bombs on innocent women and children is acceptable.

So don't pass judgement too quickly.

[shira]

108. That's an absolute lie. So do you condemn the Free Gaza Movement now?

Also, in light of what you know now, do you still completely trust the testimony of those on the Marmara against the IDF?

[Tripmann]

110. So, now you consider israel droping bombs on innocent women and children during OCL unacceptable?

Whats changed in the last 12 hours since you refused to condemn it?

[shira]

112. You believe if the IDF goes after military targets and Hamas puts human shields there....

...it's Israel's fault, no matter what, if civilians are killed?

Hamas is not to blame?

[Tripmann]

115. One palestinian?? OCL killed hundreds of innocent women & children. You refuse to condemn this.

Yet you comment on a group saying suicide bombings are acceptable.

See the double standard yet?

[shira]

118. Answer the question. Hamas fires away at innocents, Israel reacts, Hamas deliberately hides behind

...civilians.

In your opinion, Israel can't defend for fear of harming innocents. Israelis should just take it.

Hamas can do whatever they want and Israel is not allowed to stop it.

Worse, if Israel goes for military targets and the combatant to civilian ratio killed is something like 1:2 or 1:3, those killed are entirely Israel's fault and not Hamas? Israel deliberately killed innocents as indiscriminately as Hamas? :shrug:

[shira]

119. I'll wait until you respond. If you evade these questions again, don't expect a response.

[Tripmann]

121. So,suicide bomber kills kids=unacceptable,fighter bomber kills kids=acceptable. Cheers.

[shira]

122. That's so fucked up. Equating legal self-defense with indiscriminate murder. Here's why you do it.

You can't apportion any blame to Hamas for deliberately using Palestinians as shields in their effort to maximize casualties.

You're still a big fan of the anti-humanitarian, warmongering Free Gaza Movement and it doesn't matter to you that the UNHRC report on the Marmara is slanderous and bigoted.

======

Is it because once you condemn these orgs for who and what they are and what they do, Israel's actions are put into proper context and the IDF is seen in a more favorable light?

Is that what keeps you from apportioning blame to Hamas and the FGM?

[Tripmann]

123. So now its human shields=unacceptable, dropping bombs on human shields=acceptable. As long as its

your side dropping the bombs of course.

[shira]

126. No, unlike you I don't think Israelis should take Hamas rockets and die.

Hamas is responsible for most of the civilian casualties during OCL.

Your side thinks it's okay for Hamas to maximize Palestinian suffering so that Israel can be blamed.

And if the FGM is a bunch of hateful, bigoted warmongering anti-humanitarians, you pretend they're not because that makes Israel look bad. So they're peaceful humanitarians.

That's all okay because your side says so.

[Tripmann]

127. So you find the 'response' which killed hundreds of innocent women & children acceptable.Fair enough

[shira]

114. Still waiting for you to apportion blame to Hamas for human shielding and denounce FGM warmongers.

[shira]

105. The link shows this guy on Israeli TV clearly contradicting the UNHRC report. n/t

[Tripmann]

107. The link on terrorism-info.org??

:rofl:

How credible would it be for somebody to post a link to a site called zionistmurderers.org?

Well, be prepared to be held to the same standard.

[shira]

109. You think the video from Israel channel 1 at the link is fake? n/t

[Tripmann]

111. I think you need to stop directing members of DU to RW zionist propaganda sites.

[shira]

113. There's nothing more Rightwing than your support for a pro-war, anti-humanitarian org like the FGM

...as well as the freepers within the IHH who cheerlead for Hamas.

Of course, you think all Israel's liberal zionists are rightwinger, so why should anyone take you seriously?

[Tripmann]

116. LOL! Why would I think a liberal is right wing? You should read first what you're posting sweetheart

[shira]

117. Because they're Liberal Zionists, thus they're Rightwingers to you and the Gideon Levy crowd.

[shira]

120. Still having trouble condemning extreme Rightwing warmongering groups like Hamas & FGM?

It's puzzling how a so-called liberal trusts far Rightwing FGM bigoted slander WRT the Marmara incident.

[Tripmann]

124. I'm not the person round here refusing to condemn stuff sweetheart. Its on record for all to see. Ta

[shira]

125. You won't condemn Hamas and the FGM because that takes away from demonizing Israel.

Hatred blinds.

I suggest you seek help.

[Tripmann]

128. Says the person who refuses to condemn the deaths of hundreds of innocent women and children cos its

her side doing the killing

[Violet_Crumble]

129. This report states clearly that there wasn't one sole motivation for the flotilla..

There are some 'supporters' of Israel who are falsely claiming that the motivation for the flotilla wasn't a humanitarian one. This is clearly misleading, as it's clear from reading the report that there wasn't one motivation, and that there were humanitarian motivations as well as the main one of breaking the blockade.

79. The stated aims of the Flotilla, as testified by the leaders of the Free Gaza
Movement and IHH, were threefold: (a) to draw international public attention to the
situation in the Gaza Strip and the effect the blockade; (b) to break the blockade; and (c) to
deliver humanitarian assistance and supplies to Gaza. All participants interviewed by the
Mission shared their aims, although most placed emphasis on the delivery of humanitarian
aid.

80. The Mission notes a certain tension between the political objectives of the flotilla
and its humanitarian objectives. This comes to light the moment that the Government of
Israel made offers to allow the humanitarian aid to be delivered via Israeli ports but under
the supervision of a neutral organization. The Mission also notes that the Gaza Strip does
not possess a deep sea port designed to receive the kind of cargo vessels included in the
flotilla, raising practical logistical questions about the plan to deliver large quantities of aid
by the route chosen. Whilst the Mission is satisfied that the flotilla constituted a serious
attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, it seems clear that the primary
objective was political, as indeed demonstrated by the decision of those on board the
Rachel Corrie to reject a Government of Ireland-sponsored proposal that the cargo in that
ship to be allowed through Ashdod intact.

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

For anyone who hasn't read the report yet, it really is worth reading...

[oberliner]

130. The leader of the FGM claims the motivation for the flotilla wasn't humanitarian

I doubt that Huwaida Arraf would call herself a "supporter" of Israel - quotes or no.

Yet she has very clearly said that the motivation for the flotilla was political rather than humanitarian.