UN experts: Israel flotilla raid broke int'l law

[Hoplite]

Combat knives, pistols taken from the soldiers

And the people were going to formulate rebellion with...combat knives and some pistols? I know rednecks with more firepower than that, are you saying the IDF couldnt handle that sort of weaponry?

and the IDF investigation claimed to have evidence for assault rifles being brought on the board by the activists.

Evidence we havent seen and I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that it's going to be VERY suspect evidence, if we see it at all (Not counting on it)

You cant bank on what you cant see

 

[Degreez]

Apocalypse, do you or do you not have any evidence that Sir Desmond Silva, Karl Hudson-Phillips, and/or Mary Shanthi Dairiam were not impartial in their investigation?

 

[Apocalypse]

And the people were going to formulate rebellion with...combat knives and some pistols? I know rednecks with more firepower than that, are you saying the IDF couldnt handle that sort of weaponry?

Depends on what you consider as "handle".
Being thrown on a ship with over a hundred of people armed with cold weapons and stolen pistols that come to beat the crap out of you while you're holding a paintball rifle and even James Bond won't be able to get out of it without killing anyone.

Apocalypse, do you or do you not have any evidence that Sir Desmond Silva, Karl Hudson-Phillips, and/or Mary Shanthi Dairiam were not impartial in their investigation?

I have statistical evidence that the organization behind the investigation, the one that has set up the committee and the one that this people serve, is deeply partial.

 

[PeteEU]

I have statistical evidence that the organization behind the investigation, the one that has set up the committee and the one that this people serve, is deeply partial.

So you have nothing.....

 

[Apocalypse]

So you have nothing.....

The UNHRC has dealt with Israeli involved issues more than it did with every other nation combined.
The UNHRC's report on the incident has been in its majority fully relying on activists' testimonies and nothing more, since the committee has had no access to the evidence on the incident.

It's fine and dandy to simply reject the facts and claim that this is an impartial organization that seeks to actually do its destined job, but it's not, it's an anti-Israeli organization that exists for the purpose of documents like that.
Since it's also a toothless organization it can be dismissed, but this does say a lot about the UN for letting such organization exist even though it pretty much deals with one single state.

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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNHRC

 

[Winston Smith]

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.

None of those points are relevant to the legality of the blockade or the seizure. Neither is Apo's "statistical evidence" of bias, or any of the other arguments made here against the validity of the report.

No doubt these findings will meet the same fate as Goldstone in one sense--pro-Israelis will latch onto anything in them that supports their case while rejecting out of hand any evidence provided by non-Israeli witnesses.

 

[Apocalypse]

None of those points are relevant to the legality of the blockade or the seizure. Neither is Apo's "statistical evidence" of bias, or any of the other arguments made here against the validity of the report.

Unless you can point me to where did they really base their claim for illegality and what did they base it on, I am indeed certain that bias covers that as well.
After all most of their assumptions there were not even based properly, they've simply referred to one activist claiming one thing or another.
As to the legality of the blockade, they've simply claimed that "The blockade is illegal since there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza".
Not what you'd call a proper basing.

No doubt these findings will meet the same fate as Goldstone in one sense--pro-Israelis will latch onto anything in them that supports their case while rejecting out of hand any evidence provided by non-Israeli witnesses.

I'm afraid that right now the bigger risk for this organization lies from the formal UN investigation.
Would it reach different conclusions than this one, maybe we'd finally see this pathetic agenda-motivated organization thrown to the garbage where it belongs.

 

[Degreez]

I have statistical evidence that the organization behind the investigation, the one that has set up the committee and the one that this people serve, is deeply partial.

So you have an association fallacy. UNHRC's perceived "bias" does not magically extend to an impartial committee that was set up to investigate the matter.

 

[Apocalypse]

So you have an association fallacy. UNHRC's perceived "bias" does not magically extend to an impartial committee that was set up to investigate the matter.

When an organization is biased its committees and documents are biased.

 

[Degreez]

Unless you can point me to where did they really base their claim for illegality and what did they base it on, I am indeed certain that bias covers that as well.
After all most of their assumptions there were not even based properly, they've simply referred to one activist claiming one thing or another.
As to the legality of the blockade, they've simply claimed that "The blockade is illegal since there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza".
Not what you'd call a proper basing.

Have you even read the report?

2. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip
37. The humanitarian situation in Gaza resulting from the imposition of the blockade on
the Gaza Strip since June 2007 has been a matter of increasing concern for the international
community, including the Security Council. Following the Flotilla incident, the Security
Council qualified the situation in Gaza as “not sustainable”, stressing the full
implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860, in which it, inter alia, expressed “grave
concern [...] at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, emphasized “the need to ensure
sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and called for
the “unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance,
including food, fuel and medical treatment.” In the Presidential Statement, the Security
Council reiterated its “grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza” and stressed
“the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded
provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.” In addition, the
United States Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva said “we continue to believe the
situation in Gaza is unsustainable and is not in the interest of any of those concerned”.
38. In a United Nations joint statement issued on 31 May, Robert Serry, the United
Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Filippo Grandi,
Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
emphasized that “such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of
the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of
Gaza.” In a public statement issued on 14 June 2010, the ICRC described the impact of the
closure on the situation in Gaza as “devastating” for the 1.5 million people living there,
emphasizing that “the closure constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation
of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law”, saying the only sustainable
solution is a lifting of the closure.
39. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of July
2010, expressed its concern at the “effects of the blockade on the civilian population in the
Gaza Strip, including restrictions to their freedom of movement, some of which led to
deaths of patients in need of urgent medical care, as well as restrictions on the access to
sufficient drinking water and adequate sanitation.” It recommended that Israel lift the
military blockade of Gaza, insofar as it adversely affects the civilian population.
40. According to information provided to the Mission by the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the occupied Palestinian territory, the
blockade exacerbated the already existing difficulties of the population in Gaza in terms of
livelihoods and brought to new peaks the severe human dignity crisis resulting from the
deteriorated public services, widespread poverty, food insecurity, over 40 percent
unemployment and 80 percent aid dependence (i.e. some 80 percent of the population
receives humanitarian assistance, mainly food). People’s lives were reduced to a daily
struggle in an attempt to secure the most basic needs.
41. “Abject poverty" among refugees tripled since the imposition of the blockade from
100,000 to 300,000 and 61 percent of households are food insecure. There has been a shift
in diet (from protein rich to low cost and high carbohydrate foods), triggering concerns over
mineral and vitamin deficiencies. Moreover, Gaza has been affected by a protracted energy
crisis, with the power plant operating at 30 percent of its capacity, scheduled cuts of 8-12
hours per day, leaving households with partial food refrigeration. Services and utilities are
forced to rely on generators and UPS units vulnerable due to inconsistent supply of spare
parts.
42. Water and sanitation services have deteriorated and resulted in over 40 percent of
water loss due to leakages. On a daily basis, eighty million litres of untreated and partially
treated sewage is discharged into the environment. Polluted sea water has led to increased
health risks and as a result of sewage infiltrating into the aquifer only between five and ten
percent of the extracted water is safe. Challenges to the health system include the
impossibility to ensure that medical equipment is available and properly maintained, while
referral abroad is subject to long and arduous permit processing and medical staff is
prevented from upgrading knowledge and skills.

And on page one I gave their absolute reasoning on why the blockade was illegal.

 

[Degreez]

When an organization is biased its committees and documents are biased.

So guilt by association. That's flawed, fallacious reasoning. None of the members of the panel that was set up by UNHRC have any known biases and you have provided no evidence to contradict this besides a logical fallacy.

 

[Apocalypse]

Have you even read the report?

2. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip
37. The humanitarian situation in Gaza resulting from the imposition of the blockade on
the Gaza Strip since June 2007 has been a matter of increasing concern for the international
community, including the Security Council. Following the Flotilla incident, the Security
Council qualified the situation in Gaza as “not sustainable”, stressing the full
implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860, in which it, inter alia, expressed “grave
concern [...] at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, emphasized “the need to ensure
sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and called for
the “unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance,
including food, fuel and medical treatment.” In the Presidential Statement, the Security
Council reiterated its “grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza” and stressed
“the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded
provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.” In addition, the
United States Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva said “we continue to believe the
situation in Gaza is unsustainable and is not in the interest of any of those concerned”.
38. In a United Nations joint statement issued on 31 May, Robert Serry, the United
Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Filippo Grandi,
Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
emphasized that “such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of
the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of
Gaza.” In a public statement issued on 14 June 2010, the ICRC described the impact of the
closure on the situation in Gaza as “devastating” for the 1.5 million people living there,
emphasizing that “the closure constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation
of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law”, saying the only sustainable
solution is a lifting of the closure.
39. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of July
2010, expressed its concern at the “effects of the blockade on the civilian population in the
Gaza Strip, including restrictions to their freedom of movement, some of which led to
deaths of patients in need of urgent medical care, as well as restrictions on the access to
sufficient drinking water and adequate sanitation.” It recommended that Israel lift the
military blockade of Gaza, insofar as it adversely affects the civilian population.
40. According to information provided to the Mission by the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the occupied Palestinian territory, the
blockade exacerbated the already existing difficulties of the population in Gaza in terms of
livelihoods and brought to new peaks the severe human dignity crisis resulting from the
deteriorated public services, widespread poverty, food insecurity, over 40 percent
unemployment and 80 percent aid dependence (i.e. some 80 percent of the population
receives humanitarian assistance, mainly food). People’s lives were reduced to a daily
struggle in an attempt to secure the most basic needs.
41. “Abject poverty" among refugees tripled since the imposition of the blockade from
100,000 to 300,000 and 61 percent of households are food insecure. There has been a shift
in diet (from protein rich to low cost and high carbohydrate foods), triggering concerns over
mineral and vitamin deficiencies. Moreover, Gaza has been affected by a protracted energy
crisis, with the power plant operating at 30 percent of its capacity, scheduled cuts of 8-12
hours per day, leaving households with partial food refrigeration. Services and utilities are
forced to rely on generators and UPS units vulnerable due to inconsistent supply of spare
parts.
42. Water and sanitation services have deteriorated and resulted in over 40 percent of
water loss due to leakages. On a daily basis, eighty million litres of untreated and partially
treated sewage is discharged into the environment. Polluted sea water has led to increased
health risks and as a result of sewage infiltrating into the aquifer only between five and ten
percent of the extracted water is safe. Challenges to the health system include the
impossibility to ensure that medical equipment is available and properly maintained, while
referral abroad is subject to long and arduous permit processing and medical staff is
prevented from upgrading knowledge and skills.

And on page one I gave their absolute reasoning on why the blockade was illegal.

So they're basing their claims on the UN claims that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable.
Simply amazing, basing people's claims on another people's claims.
At no part of that passage you've quoted do they really go to explain in details the damage that the blockade causes to the civilian population and compare it with the damage that is being caused to the government, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

So guilt by association. That's flawed, fallacious reasoning. None of the members of the panel that was set up by UNHRC have any known biases and you have provided no evidence to contradict this besides a logical fallacy.

To suggest that an organization's bias has no effect over its documents and committees is a logical fallacy on its own right.

 

[Winston Smith]

Unless you can point me to where did they really base their claim for illegality and what did they base it on, I am indeed certain that bias covers that as well.
After all most of their assumptions there were not even based properly, they've simply referred to one activist claiming one thing or another.
As to the legality of the blockade, they've simply claimed that "The blockade is illegal since there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza".
Not what you'd call a proper basing.



I'm afraid that right now the bigger risk for this organization lies from the formal UN investigation.
Would it reach different conclusions than this one, maybe we'd finally see this pathetic agenda-motivated organization thrown to the garbage where it belongs.

Regarding the legal issues, see paragraphs 51-61 of the report.

 

[Degreez]

So they're basing their claims on the UN claims that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable.
Simply amazing, basing people's claims on another people's claims.

No, they base their claims on reports and data collected over 3 years of this illegal blockade.

At no part of that passage you've quoted do they really go to explain in details the damage that the blockade causes to the civilian population and compare it with the damage that is being caused to the government, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

The damage being caused to Hamas has been minimal. Hamas is still at the same capacity and capabilities it was at before the blockade was imposed. The damage caused to the civilian population is execessive in relation to the direct military advantage gained (the damage to Hamas).

To suggest that an organization's bias has no effect over its documents and committees is a logical fallacy on its own right.

Really?

Mind posting what fallacy that is? BTW, I never suggested what you posted above. You engaged in fallacious reasoning and I called you out on it. There aren't many other ways to intepret that.

 

[Winston Smith]

So they're basing their claims on the UN claims that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable.
Simply amazing, basing people's claims on another people's claims.
At no part of that passage you've quoted do they really go to explain in details the damage that the blockade causes to the civilian population and compare it with the damage that is being caused to the government, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

The details have already been explained by other independent organizations, but of course those reports are also dismissed as "biased."

To suggest that an organization's bias has no effect over its documents and committees is a logical fallacy on its own right.

A mere allegation of bias without anything more is an ad hominem fallacy. If you could show some way in which the committee's supposed bias has "affected its documents," you'd have an argument.

 

[Apocalypse]

Regarding the legal issues, see paragraphs 51-61 of the report.

Yes, paragraph 53:

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.

No citations given, no details on the evidence given.

 

[Apocalypse]

The details have already been explained by other independent organizations, but of course those reports are also dismissed as "biased."

So you admit that the UNHRC has not taken its time to even investigate the situation in Gaza and has depended on other people's claims?

A mere allegation of bias without anything more is an ad hominem fallacy.

The statistical evidence on the case is sufficing, they focus on Israel more than they do on every other country in the world combined, if that's not an evidence for bias I don't know what is.
Unless of course you're taking to the belief that Israel is more of a violator of human rights than every other country in the world combined.
To suggest that an organization's bias does not effect on its documents and reports is a logical fallacy.

 

[Winston Smith]

Yes, paragraph 53:



No citations given, no details on the evidence given.

True, they don't give the citations until the next paragraph. I don't see a huge problem with that.

 

[Apocalypse]

No, they base their claims on reports and data collected over 3 years of this illegal blockade.

They haven't referred to one single detail on the blockade taken by a facts finding mission.

The damage being caused to Hamas has been minimal. Hamas is still at the same capacity and capabilities it was at before the blockade was imposed. The damage caused to the civilian population is execessive in relation to the direct military advantage gained (the damage to Hamas).

I've seen no evidence for that claim, the affect on the civilian population was indeed minimal as none of the goods that were being blockaded were essential goods.

Really?

Mind posting what fallacy that is? BTW, I never suggested what you posted above. You engaged in fallacious reasoning and I called you out on it. There aren't many other ways to intepret that.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

-Wiki

 

[Apocalypse]

True, they don't give the citations until the next paragraph. I don't see a huge problem with that.

Apparently you haven't even read the document.
The next paragraph deals with the Geneva convention and claims that Israel collectively punishes the civilian population of Gaza.
Paragraph 53 however deals with claims that the situation in Gaza is dire (humanitarian crisis) and that it is caused because of the blockade.

 

[Winston Smith]

So you admit that the UNHRC has not taken its time to even investigate the situation in Gaza and has depended on other people's claims?

I don't know that it was their role to repeat the work of the Goldstone Committee. Are you suggesting that you'd have more confidence in their results if they had done their own field investigation?

The statistical evidence on the case is sufficing, they focus on Israel more than they do on every other country in the world combined, if that's not an evidence for bias I don't know what is.
Unless of course you're taking to the belief that Israel is more of a violator of human rights than every other country in the world combined.
To suggest that an organization's bias does not effect on its documents and reports is a logical fallacy.

Which fallacy is that?

 

[Winston Smith]

Apparently you haven't even read the document.
The next paragraph deals with the Geneva convention and claims that Israel collectively punishes the civilian population of Gaza.
Paragraph 53 however deals with claims that the situation in Gaza is dire (humanitarian crisis) and that it is caused because of the blockade.

From Paragraph 54: "The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, (45) the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (46) and most recently the ICRC (47) that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law."

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't know that it was their role to repeat the work of the Goldstone Committee.

The Goldstone Committee's role was also not the blockade on Gaza but the Gaza War, operation Cast Lead as we call it.

Are you suggesting that you'd have more confidence in their results if they had done their own field investigation?

I'd have more confidence in their claims were they being based on evidence.

Which fallacy is that?

You're implying that an organization's bias has no effect over the documents it releases.
This is a deductive fallacy, or logical fallacy, as you fail to note the connection between an organization's partiality and the results that this partiality will have on any claim or report.

 

[Apocalypse]

From Paragraph 54: "The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, (45) the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (46) and most recently the ICRC (47) that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law."

Nevertheless this paragraph:

54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No
protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism, are
prohibited.” The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition
of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected
Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip
leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined
by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since
1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza
Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment
in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.

Only refers to so-called evidence on a "collective punishment".
You've claimed they back their claims from par. 53 in this paragraph. They do not.

 

[Winston Smith]

The Goldstone Committee's role was also not the blockade on Gaza but the Gaza War, operation Cast Lead as we call it.

See Section 17 of the Goldstone Report, "The Impact of the Blockade and of the Military Operations on the People of Gaza and Their Human Rights."

I'd have more confidence in their claims were they being based on evidence.

They are.

You're implying that an organization's bias has no effect over the documents it releases.
This is a deductive fallacy, or logical fallacy, as you fail to note the connection between an organization's partiality and the results that this partiality will have on any claim or report.

It's entirely possible to be fair and biased at the same time.

Deductive fallacy has no place here, as we're not talking about a formal deductive argument. If you're accusing me of a fallacy in informal logic, please point out which one. An example would be an argument ad hominem, with which you're familiar.