UN experts: Israel flotilla raid broke int'l law

[soguks]

By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writer Frank Jordans, Associated Press Writer


GENEVA – A report by three U.N.-appointed human rights experts Wednesday said that Israeli forces violated international law when they raided a Gaza-bound aid flotilla killing nine activists earlier this year.

The U.N. Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory was unlawful because of the humanitarian crisis there, and described the military raid on the flotilla as brutal and disproportionate.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded late Wednesday by saying the Human Rights Council had a "biased, politicized and extremist approach."

Israel has maintained that its soldiers acted in self-defense when they shot and killed eight Turkish activists and one Turkish-American aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31.

"The Human Rights Council blamed Israel prior to the investigation and it is no surprise that they condemn after," said Andy David, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, referring to the 47-member body's resolution in early June condemning the raid.

Moderator's Warning:

Edited to comply with Fair-Use

 

[Apocalypse]

Two things to note:

1) This committee is not the formal UN investigation committee, but the UNHRC investigation committee.
The UNHRC is an anti-Israeli organization that has dealt with Israeli issues more than it did with every other country in the world combined, and it is also the one behind the infamous Goldstone committee.

2) Israel has not cooperated with the UNHRC committee (and does with the UN committee), and hence it was not given any of the evidence on the incident and was 'depending' entirely (if at all) on activists' testimonies and on what is known from the press.

 

[Degreez]

Two things to note:

1) This committee is not the formal UN investigation committee, but the UNHRC investigation committee.
The UNHRC is an anti-Israeli organization that has dealt with Israeli issues more than it did with every other country in the world combined, and it is also the one behind the infamous Goldstone committee.

2) Israel has not cooperated with the UNHRC committee (and does with the UN committee), and hence it was not given any of the evidence on the incident and was 'depending' entirely (if at all) on activists' testimonies and on what is known from the press.

UNHRC being "biased" against Israel has what do with the panel's findings exactly? Sir Desmond Silva was a former UN Chief War Crimes Prosecutor in Sierra Leone. Karl Hudson-Phillips was a former judge for the International Criminal Court. Mary Shanthi Dairiam is prominent woman's human rights activist and was a former Consultant to UNIFEM.

Do you have any evidence that these three people were not impartial in their investigation? If so, please present it.

Edit: For those of you who care to even read the 56-page document before commenting on it, there is a link here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Here are some interesting parts:

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the
severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of
reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting
disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and as such the
interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

Lo and behold! The blockade was illegal, as has been stated by every notable NGO like Amnesty International, ICRC, and Human Rights Watch. As such, the enforcement of the blockade on the high seas was illegal.

 

[soguks]

maybe the UN tomorrow will say that Israeli raid is illegal, and we will see that some Israelis say that The UN is an anti-Israel organisation ! according to you, who is not your enemy in this world , tell me pls !? is it them or you becoming enemy or made so for no reason ?

 

[Hoplite]

1) This committee is not the formal UN investigation committee, but the UNHRC investigation committee.
The UNHRC is an anti-Israeli organization that has dealt with Israeli issues more than it did with every other country in the world combined, and it is also the one behind the infamous Goldstone committee.

What are you basing your "anti-Israel" comments on?

2) Israel has not cooperated with the UNHRC committee (and does with the UN committee), and hence it was not given any of the evidence on the incident and was 'depending' entirely (if at all) on activists' testimonies and on what is known from the press.

Why has Israel refused cooperation?

 

[Apocalypse]

What are you basing your "anti-Israel" comments on?

The disproportional activity of the council.
It has dealt with Israeli issues more than it did with every other country upon earth, combined.

Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[4][5][6] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration.[7]

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why has Israel refused cooperation?

Israel has experience with the council from even before the Goldstone committee.
It recognizes the council as an anti-Israeli body that exists solely to promote its anti-Israeli agenda in extreme ways.
It doesn't cooperate with it because it would give it more legitimacy when it'd be reaching its pre-designed conclusions.
Israel does however cooperate with the UN committee on the incident.

 

[alexa]

That you Degreez. I skimmed most of this before I went to sleep last night. This is the first independent report.

Deaths of nine passengers and wounding of at least 50 other passengers
117. During the operation to secure control of the top deck, the Israeli forces landed soldiers from three helicopters over a fifteen-minute period.71 The Israeli forces used paintballs, plastic bullets and live ammunition, fired by soldiers from the helicopter above and soldiers who had landed on the top deck. The use of live ammunition during this period resulted in fatal injuries to four passengers,72 and injuries to at least nineteen others, fourteen with gunshot wounds. Escape points to the bridge deck from the top deck were narrow and restricted and as such it was very difficult for passengers in this area to avoid being hit by live rounds. At least one of those killed was using a video camera and not involved in any of the fighting with the soldiers. The majority of gunshot wounds received by passengers were to their upper torsos in the head, thorax, abdomen and back. Given the relatively small number of passengers on the top deck during the incident, the Mission is driven to the conclusion that the vast majority were in receipt of gunshot wounds.
118 Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doğan received a bullet in the face and İbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain. Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs.

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

Moderator's Warning:

Edited to comply with Fair-Use

It really makes for sickening reading including saying as expected that some of the killings were executioner styled killings. It also removes the illusion that only people on the MM were seriously injured. None were killed but they were subject to kickings, beatings, burnings and fractures despite putting up no fight.

If this is the way the Israeli Army operates towards civilians, and we must assume it is as their own report has found no fault with them apart from possibly a fault in operation, it is certainly not a way most western democracies would find acceptable for their government to act.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

The idea of international law should be against international law

 

[Apocalypse]

It's also interesting to note that since the UNHRC have had no access to the evidence on the incident they seem to have depended entirely on the witnesses account in their reports and have fully adapted them, as the absolute majority of their 'findings' are being based entirely on the activists words. ("The activist doctors have found no bullet wounds in the three soldiers they've examined during the incident, hence we conclude that live fire was not used")

I wonder if and when the other two investigations (that have an access to the evidence) reach completely different conclusions, this anti-Israeli body will finally be exposed for what it is and dismantled.

 

[alexa]

Who is this other UN inquiry you have mentioned Apocalypse? It seems odd that it should have too.

 

[Apocalypse]

Who is this other UN inquiry you have mentioned Apocalypse? It seems odd that it should have too.

Who? You mean what.
There are two inquiries with the letters 'UN' in them, one from this UNHRC body which was also responsible for goldstone and dozens of other anti-Israeli decisions and committees in the past, and there is the UN investigation coming from the UN general assembly headed by representatives from New Zealand, Turkey and Israel.
The latter is the formal UN investigation committee, and Israel cooperates with it, hence it has access to evidence.

 

[PeteEU]

Who is this other UN inquiry you have mentioned Apocalypse? It seems odd that it should have too.

It has been set up by Ban Key Moon, the UN General Sec. Israel is partly cooperating with this inquiry and the IDF/Israel government propoganda arm has been all over the news today condemning this OP posted report as biased (which it is, since Israel refused to cooperate with the lawyers and investigators), while talking up the Ban K. Moon enquiry.

But I will wager that Israel will call that biased too when the report is released, since Israel is refusing access to the military personnel who did the attack and if the report finds Israel at fault, then well.. the same old thing from Israel.

 

[Apocalypse]

But I will wager that Israel will call that biased too when the report is released, since Israel is refusing access to the military personnel who did the attack and if the report finds Israel at fault, then well.. the same old thing from Israel.

That Israel does not give them information on the soldiers that were taking part in this operation really has nothing to do with its findings.
It cannot possibly affect the conclusions one way or another.
As long as it is being based on the evidence and not on the activists' claims it should be fine.

 

[alexa]

It has been set up by Ban Key Moon, the UN General Sec. Israel is partly cooperating with this inquiry and the IDF/Israel government propoganda arm has been all over the news today condemning this OP posted report as biased (which it is, since Israel refused to cooperate with the lawyers and investigators), while talking up the Ban K. Moon enquiry.

But I will wager that Israel will call that biased too when the report is released, since Israel is refusing access to the military personnel who did the attack and if the report finds Israel at fault, then well.. the same old thing from Israel.

I still don't understand Pete why there are two UN inquiries. Can you break it down for me. I did a search but could get no information. This inquiry clearly could tell a lot even without Israel's information and when people withold information as Israel did not only of all the video and recordings which she removed from the boat but also concerning injuries to her soldiers it does not look good.

Anyway, are these two UN inquiries in opposition to each other or are they looking at different aspect or what? Thank you.

 

[Apocalypse]

I still don't understand Pete why there are two UN inquiries.

It's because even the UN acknowledges that the UNHRC is not a trustworthy body.
Ban ki-Moon has condemned the UNHRC for its disproportional focus on Israel, along with the EU, the US, Israel, etc.
Fortunately it is a toothless organization, and its 'findings' would share the same end as Goldstone I.

 

[alexa]

It's because even the UN acknowledges that the UNHRC is not a trustworthy body.
Ban ki-Moon has condemned the UNHRC for its disproportional focus on Israel, along with the EU, the US, Israel, etc.
Fortunately it is a toothless organization, and its 'findings' would share the same end as Goldstone I.

Can you provide a link for this?

I would think law though would remain law

"There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the fourth Geneva convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," the report said.

"A series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/23/un-panel-israel-war-crimes

 

[Apocalypse]

Can you provide a link for this?

Already did in this thread.

Here's the post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...tilla-raid-broke-intl-law.html#post1059001609

 

[alexa]

For something as important as this I would need a proper source. Please give source with quote where Moon is condemning UNHRW.

If it is a 'toothless' organisation then that would surely simply mean it cannot do anything to sanction those responsible for what it finds. That does not take away what it did find. The report does not deny what Israel says or the film Israel put out. It also believes that when the convoys first tried to board the MM they were not using live fire. That seems to suggest balance.

However it accepts that the people believed that live fire was being used and says that having seen what the situation was, the resistance by civilians to being boarded the IDF should have gone back to the drawing board.

How the IDF acted once it was aboard the MM and indeed other boats is as they have described. The IDF's actions completely disproportionate and did not respect that these were civilian boats. Killings were indiscriminate, indeed it is believed all on the top deck were shot and many trying to escape. In addition some of people already incapacitated through injury were shot again or kicked. Some people were simply killed execution style None of that can you hide from.

Now I am going out.

 

[Apocalypse]

For something as important as this I would need a proper source. Please give source with quote where Moon is condemning UNHRW.

I just did.
Apparently you aren't familiar with Wikipedia, but if you'd follow the link I've given you'd be able to click on the small numbers that appear in the end of every statement in the article.
Those numbers refer you to the citation for every claim or statement that is made.

If it is a 'toothless' organisation then that would surely simply mean it cannot do anything to sanction those responsible for what it finds. That does not take away what it did find. The report does not deny what Israel says or the film Israel put out. It also believes that when the convoys first tried to board the MM they were not using live fire. That seems to suggest balance.

The report does actually entirely deny Israel's version and claims it is filled with "contradictions" without pointing to those contradictions, saying that this is why it won't depend on it.
A common 'trick' by extremely biased organizations such as the UNHRC.
By saying that it is fortunate that it is a toothless organization I'm saying that it is a good thing that they cannot practice their agenda beyond posting ridiculous reports that have no connection to reality and pretend to being a legitimate organization.

How the IDF acted once it was aboard the MM and indeed other boats is as they have described. The IDF's actions completely disproportionate and did not respect that these were civilian boats. Killings were indiscriminate, indeed it is believed all on the top deck were shot and many trying to escape. In addition some of people already incapacitated through injury were shot again or kicked. Some people were simply killed execution style None of that can you hide from.

The IDF have acted in a perfect way considering the circumstances.
They have boarded a ship they have believed to be carrying human right activists, while in reality it was carrying armed insurgents that have assaulted the soldiers even before they have boarded the ship.
I couldn't expect them to do anything different, and I can only show my regrets that they were not equipped with actual weapons such as assault rifles so they could at least show deterrence and end the situation without any casualties.

 

[CJ 2.0]

It's also interesting to note that since the UNHRC have had no access to the evidence on the incident they seem to have depended entirely on the witnesses account in their reports and have fully adapted them, as the absolute majority of their 'findings' are being based entirely on the activists words. ("The activist doctors have found no bullet wounds in the three soldiers they've examined during the incident, hence we conclude that live fire was not used")

Same as Goldstone. Adopting what was claimed by propaganda organs as true in the absence of evidence (which was not looked for) to the contrary.

All to score points in fora like this.

 

[Apocalypse]

Same as Goldstone. Adopting what was claimed by propaganda organs as true in the absence of evidence (which was not looked for) to the contrary.

All to score points in fora like this.

I think they've taken a strong risk here.
When they've created the Goldstone document they didn't have any trouble to manipulate the facts as there was no other international investigation being carried on on the subject.
In this case however we have the UN international investigation, that in the case where it would reach a different conclusion, it would be a strong evidence that something really stinks with this united nations so-called human rights council.

Nevertheless like the Goldstone document this too would soon sink as when a document does not depend on reality it would not be used to enforce a law.

 

[ido_]

I've read parts of the report yesterday, the turn of events and the description of how each of the deaths happened.
It is disturbing though in most cases the description of the injuries does show that the fire was aimed to the lower part of the body (bullet goes from the top to the bottom and the point the bullet hit from the waist down) but you have to keep in mind the the stories are the stories of one side only, I'm pretty sure Israel will have to answear those testamonies and evidence in the secretery general's investigation, and I'm pretty sure it will even things up.
One thing in this report I found very strange is that it claims Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition from the helicopter before the soldiers dropped on deck, yet later on it claims that the order to use live ammunition came after the troops encountered heavy ressistance and it even argues that this order wasn't necessary. It also claims that the use of live ammo should have ceased after Israel took over the upper deck and that releasing the 3 soldiers who were taken to the lower deck isn't reason enough to use live ammo - I completly disagree with it. From the troops POV thier commrads were taken under hostile control, they have no idea what was their fate and they needed to act quickly to get them released.
I do agree with the ruling that after the zodiacs encountered heavy resistance the high command should have reconsidered its actions, this claim was also raised by the Israeli investigation commitie

 

[CJ 2.0]

RubinReports: New Book By Eyewitness Turkish Journalist: Mavi Marmara Militants Planned Attack on Israeli Soldiers to Force Confrontation

exerpt:

We now have the definitive source on the Mavi Marmara affair and it proves Israel was right. The ship was controlled by radical Jihadists who planned to attack Israeli forces and provoke confrontation. The source is a book, including photos, by a Turkish journalist named Şefik Dinç who was on the ship.

He writes: “When everyone who had been assigned a task reported to their stations, clubs were taken out of a hiding place….In addition to the wooden clubs I’d seen earlier, there were now iron bars as well.” Those passengers not choosing to participate in the attack went down to lower decks. The first three soldiers who landed were beaten and dragged to the upper deck. When they tried to throw a soldier overboard, some non-Jihadi passengers intervened and stopped them; others sought to stop the beatings.

“IHH operatives and their supporters fired live ammunition as soon as the first soldiers descended from the helicopter. One IDF soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board the ship….IHH operatives used three weapons taken from the Israelis against other IDF soldiers. It appears that two of them were thrown into the sea, as were one or two non-IDF [guns], at least one of which was used to fire on the commandos descending from the helicopter.”


also see:

IHH



and then let me know how this gels with the BS "human rights" council's report.

 

[Hoplite]

We now have the definitive source on the Mavi Marmara affair and it proves Israel was right. The ship was controlled by radical Jihadists who planned to attack Israeli forces

With what? Scaffolding? Kitchen knives? No firearms or explosives were found on the ships.

If the objective was to get radicals into Gaza, why put them on a convoy that got WORLD WIDE attention and watched by human rights groups from Shanghai to Stilton? Not exactly a covert insertion.

 

[Apocalypse]

With what? Scaffolding? Kitchen knives? No firearms or explosives were found on the ships.

Combat knives, pistols taken from the soldiers, and the IDF investigation claimed to have evidence for assault rifles being brought on the board by the activists. (Which we'll know only after the current investigations end, since they take evidence from the IDF as well).