9 September 2011, Hurriyet Daily News http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com (Turkey)
Ibrahim Kalin*
The Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara aid ship bound for Gaza on May 31, 2010, has proven to be a turning point in Turkish-Israeli relations. After the fundamentally flawed Palmer-Uribe report was leaked to the media on Sept. 1 and the Netenyahu government refused to apologize for the brutal execution of nine Turks, including one U.S. citizen whom Roger Cohen of the New York Times called “the forgotten American,” relations have hit a very low point. But the way the Israeli government has responded to the crisis and its refusal to respect international law and uphold the principle of justice has implications beyond bilateral relations and underscores Israel’s dismal failure to grasp the dynamics of the new Middle East. It is also a failure to understand Turkey’s resolve to protect the rights of its citizens.
The killing of nine people 78 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza in international waters is by any standards illegal and immoral. The Palmer Report acknowledges this by saying that Israeli commandos used “excessive force” and the government of Israel failed to provide any credible explanation for the killings from close range. Before a Cabinet meeting this week, Mr. Netanyahu said, “We need not apologize” for the killings, choosing a path of defiance that makes Israel all the more isolated and cornered in the world.
The Palmer-Uribe Report’s claim that the siege of Gaza is legal is essentially wrong and goes beyond its mandate. If the siege is legal, as the report claims, then the occupation of Palestine is legal too because the siege, which has been in effect since 2007, is an extension of the occupation. But the universally accepted fact, established by scores of reports and resolutions, is that the occupation of Palestine including the siege of Gaza is illegal, inhuman and immoral.
Turkey has dismissed the Palmer-Uribe Report because its conclusion about the siege contradicts previous statements and reports by the United Nations, including the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council and statements by the U.N. secretary-general. Furthermore, the Palmer Report, contrary to some claims, is not a legally binding document to be voted on at the U.N. nor is the panel a court that can issue a juridical view on Gaza. But by giving a carte blanche to Israel’s piracy in international waters, it has disregarded international law and undermined the fundamental principles of justice and freedom for all including the Palestinians.
The Netenyahu government’s refusal to issue a formal apology to Turkey has led to a swift reaction from Turkey. Prime Minister Erdoğan ordered the implementation of five measures against Israel including the lowering of diplomatic relations and freezing of military agreements. “No country is above the law,” said Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, referring to the big elephant in the room, which is the Israeli exceptionalism in regional and global politics. PM Erdoğan described Israel as acting “like a spoiled child in the face of all U.N. decisions.” The prime minister also said Turkey has no quarrel with the people of Israel and Jews around the world. And he is proven to be right: Despite the tensions between the two countries, there has been no disturbance among the Turkish Jewish community.
Refusing to apologize and then claiming to want to repair relations with Turkey, as Mr. Netenyahu said recently, is not only an oxymoron but also self-delusional. As PM Erdoğan has declared on various occasions, Turkish-Israeli relations will not be normalized until and unless Turkey’s three conditions are met. Turkey keeps the door of diplomacy open, but it is up to Israel to pass through it or close it.
The Netenyahu government’s defiant yet eventually self-destructive approach is indicative of the eclipse of Israeli strategic thinking. Israeli politicians fail to understand that the fundamental values of the new Middle East spearheaded by the Arab Spring are no longer occupation, dictatorship and alienation but justice, freedom and rule of law. No policy that does not take these values seriously can have legitimacy. Policies of occupation, dispossession and humiliation will no longer be covered up and justified by petty dictators in the Middle East. This should be a wakeup call for Israel to end the occupation and have a serious reassessment of its strategic priorities.
By risking losing Turkey, Israel misreads history and ends up cornering itself not only in the Middle East but also in the U.S. According to former U.S. Defense Secretary Gates, “Netanyahu is not only ungrateful [for the billions of dollars of aid from the U.S.] but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation.”
I wonder what it will take to wake up the Israeli leaders from their slumber.
*İbrahim Kalın is senior adviser to the prime minister of Turkey
Mostrando postagens com marcador Palmer Report. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Palmer Report. Mostrar todas as postagens
domingo, 11 de setembro de 2011
MYTHS AND FACTS ON THE PALMER REPORT
8 September 2011, Gisha http://www.gisha.org גישה (Israel)
This week we address some common myths and misconceptions which have emerged over the past days following the release of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (in other words, the Palmer Report). These are myths which we identified in the report itself, in the Israeli and Turkish positions as they are summarized in the report, as well as in public debate (mainly in the media) sparked by the report.
Myth: The commission determined that Israel’s closure of Gaza is legal.
Fact: The commission determined that Israel’s naval blockade is legal. The commission argued that an assessment of the legality of the naval blockade can be conducted independently of the question of the legality of the overall closure policy. We disagree with this assessment and believe that restrictions on movement, whether by land, sea or air, constitute a single policy, the components of which cannot be reviewed independently. The legality of the overall closure policy was left as an open question by the panel, however, a recommendation was made to Israel that it continue easing restrictions on movement “with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population” in Gaza (par. 156).
Myth: The Palmer Commission was a formal panel of inquiry, charged with the authority to summon witnesses and whose findings can be considered thorough and binding by law.
Fact: The commission was established by the UN Secretary-General on August 2, 2010, to review the “circumstances and context” related to the May 2010 flotilla incident. The panel stressed in its report that it was not “acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability” (Summary, par. 1). Moreover, it states that, “its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities” much in the same way as the recommendations of the Goldstone report were not legally binding. The panel did not have a mandate to summon witnesses, it was meant to work by consensus and no live testimony was heard. The panel formed its report drawing from the information supplied from Turkish and Israeli domestic inquiries and representatives chosen by each country.
Myth: The maritime closure began in January 2009.
Fact: Israel did indeed declare a naval blockade in 2009, but it has blocked sea access to Gaza since 1967 by virtue of its authority as an occupying power. Gisha’s position is that the laws of occupation continue to apply to the Gaza Strip following the implementation of Israel’s Disengagement Plan in 2005, since Israel still controls key aspects of life in the area. The laws of occupation permit Israel to decide through which channels goods and people will enter and leave the Gaza Strip, however they also impose upon Israel an obligation to allow movement, subject to specific security inspections, and to facilitate normal life in the occupied territory.
Myth: “Israel is the Occupying Power in Gaza, and cannot blockade the borders of the territory it occupies” (Summary of the Interim and Final Reports of Turkey’s National Investigation, par. 23e).
Fact: Gisha’s position is that Israel has the authority (under the law of occupation and not the law of naval blockade!) to determine by which routes goods and people enter and leave the occupied territory, while at the same time bearing an obligation to allow movement and access in such a way that facilitates normal life.
Myth: Bringing in goods via the sea isn’t possible anyway because there is no deep sea port in Gaza, and therefore the naval blockade is not related to the restrictions on movement of civilians and civilian goods (see par.78).
Fact: While it’s true that there is currently no deep sea port, the report fails to note that Israel bombed the site of a planned seaport in September 2001, where construction had already begun. Since that time, and despite a promise made in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, Israel has refused to provide guarantees to the international donors who wish to fund construction of a port that it will not bomb the site again, thus preventing it from being built. Blocking access via the sea is an inherent part of Israel’s overall closure policy.
Myth: “The blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip: there is no evidence that Israel deliberately imposed restrictions on bringing goods into Gaza with the sole or main purpose of denying them to the civilian population” (from the Summary of the Report of Israel’s National Investigation, par. 47e).
Fact: Sweeping restrictions on movement of people and goods to and from Gaza were imposed in June 2007 and articulated in a September 2007 decision by the Israeli Security Cabinet. The cabinet decision refers to a need to restrict movement in order to respond to Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza and the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, however the restrictions are not imposed in order to confront a concrete security threat but rather as a means to exert pressure on the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. The concept of using “economic warfare” as a means of pressure has been confirmed on numerous occasions in statements made by public officials, as well as by the Israeli Justice Ministry in a statement to the Israeli Supreme Court.
Israel’s closure of the Gaza Strip impacts each and every one of its residents, more than half of whom are children, regardless of whether they are personally involved in violent acts against Israel or not. For this reason, the closure constitutes collective punishment, in violation of international law.
Myth: Israel ended its closure of Gaza after the 2010 flotilla incident.
Fact: Some key aspects of Israel’s closure policy have been eased. In July 2010, Israel removed a ban on the entrance of consumer goods and raw materials, however, it continues to restrict export, entrance of construction materials and movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank. These restrictions continue to paralyze the economy of Gaza and cause substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, Israel continues to violate its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful. In order to bring its policy into compliance with international law – meaning that security interests are protected while obligations to civilians in Gaza are maintained – Israel must allow export, entrance of construction materials, and travel between Gaza and the West Bank, subject only to individual security checks.
This week we address some common myths and misconceptions which have emerged over the past days following the release of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (in other words, the Palmer Report). These are myths which we identified in the report itself, in the Israeli and Turkish positions as they are summarized in the report, as well as in public debate (mainly in the media) sparked by the report.
Myth: The commission determined that Israel’s closure of Gaza is legal.
Fact: The commission determined that Israel’s naval blockade is legal. The commission argued that an assessment of the legality of the naval blockade can be conducted independently of the question of the legality of the overall closure policy. We disagree with this assessment and believe that restrictions on movement, whether by land, sea or air, constitute a single policy, the components of which cannot be reviewed independently. The legality of the overall closure policy was left as an open question by the panel, however, a recommendation was made to Israel that it continue easing restrictions on movement “with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population” in Gaza (par. 156).
Myth: The Palmer Commission was a formal panel of inquiry, charged with the authority to summon witnesses and whose findings can be considered thorough and binding by law.
Fact: The commission was established by the UN Secretary-General on August 2, 2010, to review the “circumstances and context” related to the May 2010 flotilla incident. The panel stressed in its report that it was not “acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability” (Summary, par. 1). Moreover, it states that, “its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities” much in the same way as the recommendations of the Goldstone report were not legally binding. The panel did not have a mandate to summon witnesses, it was meant to work by consensus and no live testimony was heard. The panel formed its report drawing from the information supplied from Turkish and Israeli domestic inquiries and representatives chosen by each country.
Myth: The maritime closure began in January 2009.
Fact: Israel did indeed declare a naval blockade in 2009, but it has blocked sea access to Gaza since 1967 by virtue of its authority as an occupying power. Gisha’s position is that the laws of occupation continue to apply to the Gaza Strip following the implementation of Israel’s Disengagement Plan in 2005, since Israel still controls key aspects of life in the area. The laws of occupation permit Israel to decide through which channels goods and people will enter and leave the Gaza Strip, however they also impose upon Israel an obligation to allow movement, subject to specific security inspections, and to facilitate normal life in the occupied territory.
Myth: “Israel is the Occupying Power in Gaza, and cannot blockade the borders of the territory it occupies” (Summary of the Interim and Final Reports of Turkey’s National Investigation, par. 23e).
Fact: Gisha’s position is that Israel has the authority (under the law of occupation and not the law of naval blockade!) to determine by which routes goods and people enter and leave the occupied territory, while at the same time bearing an obligation to allow movement and access in such a way that facilitates normal life.
Myth: Bringing in goods via the sea isn’t possible anyway because there is no deep sea port in Gaza, and therefore the naval blockade is not related to the restrictions on movement of civilians and civilian goods (see par.78).
Fact: While it’s true that there is currently no deep sea port, the report fails to note that Israel bombed the site of a planned seaport in September 2001, where construction had already begun. Since that time, and despite a promise made in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, Israel has refused to provide guarantees to the international donors who wish to fund construction of a port that it will not bomb the site again, thus preventing it from being built. Blocking access via the sea is an inherent part of Israel’s overall closure policy.
Myth: “The blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip: there is no evidence that Israel deliberately imposed restrictions on bringing goods into Gaza with the sole or main purpose of denying them to the civilian population” (from the Summary of the Report of Israel’s National Investigation, par. 47e).
Fact: Sweeping restrictions on movement of people and goods to and from Gaza were imposed in June 2007 and articulated in a September 2007 decision by the Israeli Security Cabinet. The cabinet decision refers to a need to restrict movement in order to respond to Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza and the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, however the restrictions are not imposed in order to confront a concrete security threat but rather as a means to exert pressure on the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. The concept of using “economic warfare” as a means of pressure has been confirmed on numerous occasions in statements made by public officials, as well as by the Israeli Justice Ministry in a statement to the Israeli Supreme Court.
Israel’s closure of the Gaza Strip impacts each and every one of its residents, more than half of whom are children, regardless of whether they are personally involved in violent acts against Israel or not. For this reason, the closure constitutes collective punishment, in violation of international law.
Myth: Israel ended its closure of Gaza after the 2010 flotilla incident.
Fact: Some key aspects of Israel’s closure policy have been eased. In July 2010, Israel removed a ban on the entrance of consumer goods and raw materials, however, it continues to restrict export, entrance of construction materials and movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank. These restrictions continue to paralyze the economy of Gaza and cause substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, Israel continues to violate its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful. In order to bring its policy into compliance with international law – meaning that security interests are protected while obligations to civilians in Gaza are maintained – Israel must allow export, entrance of construction materials, and travel between Gaza and the West Bank, subject only to individual security checks.
terça-feira, 6 de setembro de 2011
EL INFORME PALMER/URIBE ENCUBRE LOS CRÍMENES DE ISRAEL
4 Septiembre2011, Rumbo a Gaza http://www.rumboagaza.org (España)
Por desgracia, el Informe Palmer/Uribe sobre el incidente de la Flotilla el 31 de mayo de 2010, filtrado al The New York Times el 1 de septiembre, es un esperado lavado de cara de los crímenes de Israel.
A pesar de que culpa a las fuerzas israelíes por el uso excesivo de la fuerza cuando asaltaron nuestros buques civiles con destino a Gaza, erróneamente justifica el bloqueo israelí de Gaza, arroja dudas sobre las intenciones de los organizadores de la flotilla, y no busca la responsabilidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos.
El panel Palmer/Uribe estaba viciado desde su inicio. El nombramiento del ex-presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe como el vicepresidente del Grupo Especial arroja serias dudas sobre la integridad e imparcialidad del propio grupo. La íntima asociación de Uribe con las prácticas militares y paramilitares para asesinar civiles en Colombia y el desprecio notorio hacia los defensores de los derechos humanos hace que su nombramiento en el Grupo sea problemático. Por otra parte, el gobierno de Uribe está en el registro de los que abogan una mayor cooperación militar con Israel [1].
Además de los problemas en la composición del Grupo Especial, su conclusión no ha sido llegar a la verdad de lo sucedido o buscar justicia para las víctimas, si no el llegar a un compromiso político con el fin de reparar las relaciones entre Israel y Turquía. El mandato del Grupo Especial se limita a examinar los informes de las investigaciones nacionales de Turquía e Israel, y no a entrevistar a los testigos o a llevar una objetiva y profunda investigación. Este es un intento político de eclipsar la única investigación del informe independiente e imparcial sobre el ataque a la flotilla flotilla, el cual fue encargado por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos (A/HRC/15/21) y llevada a cabo por tres expertos sobre los derechos humanos de renombre internacional. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones de este informe, publicado el 23 de septiembre 2010, aún no se han debatido en las Naciones Unidas.
Uno de los hallazgos más indignantes de este Grupo Especial es que Israel tenía derecho a imponer el bloqueo naval de Gaza como una “legítima medida de seguridad.”
Este hallazgo ignora completamente el hecho de que el bloqueo naval forma parte de un fuerte régimen que numerosos organismos de derechos humanos, incluyendo varias agencias de la Naciones Unidas, han declarado ilegal. Además, ignora la evidencia incontrovertible de que el bloqueo naval y el cierre total no va dirigido a la seguridad, sino más bien de ejercer presión sobre la población de Gaza. Los dirigentes israelíes han señalando que el propósito del bloqueo es una guerra económica -para mantener la economía de Gaza al borde del colapso con el fin de presionar a la población civil a rebelarse contra el gobierno de Hamas [2].
Utilizar a civiles como forma de presionar a un gobierno viola el derecho internacional humanitario, que prohíbe dañar a civiles intencionalmente, y constituye un castigo colectivo, prohibido por la Cuarta Convención de Ginebra.
El informe de Palmer/Uribe erróneamente identifica a IHH como el “grupo de líderes involucrados en la planificación de la flotilla”, nos acusa (a los organizadores de la Flotilla de la Libertad) de actuar imprudentemente, y pone en duda el carácter humanitario de nuestra acción (páginas 46-48) . Seis organizaciones no gubernamentales, organizaciones internacionales de la sociedad civil, todas teniendo el mismo peso y responsabilidad, organizaron la Flotilla de la Libertad I. Nuestra acción fue una forma legítima de acción directa no violenta. Rechazamos la posición del Panel de que los soldados israelíes se enfrentaron a “una violencia organizada.” A lo que los comandos fuertemente armados se enfrentron, mientras trataban de tomar por la fuerza el Mavi Marmara en alta mar, eran actos legítimos de autodefensa no armada por parte de un puñado de pasajeros, actuando en contra de una agresión injustificada.
A pesar de que nuestros buques llevaban 10.000 toneladas de carga, muy necesaria para el pueblo de Gaza, nosotros hemos manifestado reiteradamente que nuestro objetivo es romper el bloqueo ilegal de Gaza y no simplemente entregar dicha ayuda. La crisis humanitaria que existe en Gaza es el resultado de una política deliberada, ilegal e inmoral. Desafiar esa política buscando poner fin a la causa del sufrimiento de la gente es humanitario.
Aunque el informe correctamente penaliza a Israel por usar una fuerza excesiva contra civiles desarmados, no exige la rendición de cuentas. El informe señala que Israel no ha sido responsable de lo que las pruebas forenses muestran: a la mayoría de los nueve voluntarios muertos les dispararon varias veces, incluso en la espalda, o de cerca, o de los constantes abusos sufridos por otros voluntarios en las manos de las fuerzas israelíes. La recomendación del informe para que Israel simplemente exprese su pesar por el incidente es un insulto a las víctimas y sus familias, y atenta gravemente contra los derechos humanos y ley humanitaria.
Por último, el informe no aborda el tema de que las restantes cuatro naves de la Flotilla de la Libertad I estén todavía bajo captura en Israel, como también la negativa a devolver a los pasajeros el valor de más de un millón de dólares en dinero y equipos, incluyendo cámaras y videos de probado valor.
Damos la bienvenida a la decisión de Turquía de reducir las relaciones con Israel, la expulsión del embajador israelí y la cancelación de los vínculos militares, así como su declaración de que tomará medidas legales contra los israelíes responsables del ataque a la flotilla. Tales sanciones son necesarias para poner fin a la impunidad con que Israel ha estado violando los derechos humanos palestinos y el Derecho internacional.
Coalición Internacional de la Flotilla de la Libertad
[1] Véase “Colombia busca ampliar los vínculos de Israel“, 28 de abril 2010, Jerusalem Post.
[2] Véase por ejemplo, “Wikileaks: Israel pretende mantener la economía de Gaza está al borde del colapso“, de 5 de enero 2011, Haaretz, al informar sobre un cable de la Embajada de EE.UU. en Tel Aviv diciendo que los oficiales oficialidad israelíes desean que la economía de Gaza “funcione en el nivel más bajo posible pero tratando de evitar una crisis humanitaria”.
Por desgracia, el Informe Palmer/Uribe sobre el incidente de la Flotilla el 31 de mayo de 2010, filtrado al The New York Times el 1 de septiembre, es un esperado lavado de cara de los crímenes de Israel.
A pesar de que culpa a las fuerzas israelíes por el uso excesivo de la fuerza cuando asaltaron nuestros buques civiles con destino a Gaza, erróneamente justifica el bloqueo israelí de Gaza, arroja dudas sobre las intenciones de los organizadores de la flotilla, y no busca la responsabilidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos.
El panel Palmer/Uribe estaba viciado desde su inicio. El nombramiento del ex-presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe como el vicepresidente del Grupo Especial arroja serias dudas sobre la integridad e imparcialidad del propio grupo. La íntima asociación de Uribe con las prácticas militares y paramilitares para asesinar civiles en Colombia y el desprecio notorio hacia los defensores de los derechos humanos hace que su nombramiento en el Grupo sea problemático. Por otra parte, el gobierno de Uribe está en el registro de los que abogan una mayor cooperación militar con Israel [1].
Además de los problemas en la composición del Grupo Especial, su conclusión no ha sido llegar a la verdad de lo sucedido o buscar justicia para las víctimas, si no el llegar a un compromiso político con el fin de reparar las relaciones entre Israel y Turquía. El mandato del Grupo Especial se limita a examinar los informes de las investigaciones nacionales de Turquía e Israel, y no a entrevistar a los testigos o a llevar una objetiva y profunda investigación. Este es un intento político de eclipsar la única investigación del informe independiente e imparcial sobre el ataque a la flotilla flotilla, el cual fue encargado por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos (A/HRC/15/21) y llevada a cabo por tres expertos sobre los derechos humanos de renombre internacional. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones de este informe, publicado el 23 de septiembre 2010, aún no se han debatido en las Naciones Unidas.
Uno de los hallazgos más indignantes de este Grupo Especial es que Israel tenía derecho a imponer el bloqueo naval de Gaza como una “legítima medida de seguridad.”
Este hallazgo ignora completamente el hecho de que el bloqueo naval forma parte de un fuerte régimen que numerosos organismos de derechos humanos, incluyendo varias agencias de la Naciones Unidas, han declarado ilegal. Además, ignora la evidencia incontrovertible de que el bloqueo naval y el cierre total no va dirigido a la seguridad, sino más bien de ejercer presión sobre la población de Gaza. Los dirigentes israelíes han señalando que el propósito del bloqueo es una guerra económica -para mantener la economía de Gaza al borde del colapso con el fin de presionar a la población civil a rebelarse contra el gobierno de Hamas [2].
Utilizar a civiles como forma de presionar a un gobierno viola el derecho internacional humanitario, que prohíbe dañar a civiles intencionalmente, y constituye un castigo colectivo, prohibido por la Cuarta Convención de Ginebra.
El informe de Palmer/Uribe erróneamente identifica a IHH como el “grupo de líderes involucrados en la planificación de la flotilla”, nos acusa (a los organizadores de la Flotilla de la Libertad) de actuar imprudentemente, y pone en duda el carácter humanitario de nuestra acción (páginas 46-48) . Seis organizaciones no gubernamentales, organizaciones internacionales de la sociedad civil, todas teniendo el mismo peso y responsabilidad, organizaron la Flotilla de la Libertad I. Nuestra acción fue una forma legítima de acción directa no violenta. Rechazamos la posición del Panel de que los soldados israelíes se enfrentaron a “una violencia organizada.” A lo que los comandos fuertemente armados se enfrentron, mientras trataban de tomar por la fuerza el Mavi Marmara en alta mar, eran actos legítimos de autodefensa no armada por parte de un puñado de pasajeros, actuando en contra de una agresión injustificada.
A pesar de que nuestros buques llevaban 10.000 toneladas de carga, muy necesaria para el pueblo de Gaza, nosotros hemos manifestado reiteradamente que nuestro objetivo es romper el bloqueo ilegal de Gaza y no simplemente entregar dicha ayuda. La crisis humanitaria que existe en Gaza es el resultado de una política deliberada, ilegal e inmoral. Desafiar esa política buscando poner fin a la causa del sufrimiento de la gente es humanitario.
Aunque el informe correctamente penaliza a Israel por usar una fuerza excesiva contra civiles desarmados, no exige la rendición de cuentas. El informe señala que Israel no ha sido responsable de lo que las pruebas forenses muestran: a la mayoría de los nueve voluntarios muertos les dispararon varias veces, incluso en la espalda, o de cerca, o de los constantes abusos sufridos por otros voluntarios en las manos de las fuerzas israelíes. La recomendación del informe para que Israel simplemente exprese su pesar por el incidente es un insulto a las víctimas y sus familias, y atenta gravemente contra los derechos humanos y ley humanitaria.
Por último, el informe no aborda el tema de que las restantes cuatro naves de la Flotilla de la Libertad I estén todavía bajo captura en Israel, como también la negativa a devolver a los pasajeros el valor de más de un millón de dólares en dinero y equipos, incluyendo cámaras y videos de probado valor.
Damos la bienvenida a la decisión de Turquía de reducir las relaciones con Israel, la expulsión del embajador israelí y la cancelación de los vínculos militares, así como su declaración de que tomará medidas legales contra los israelíes responsables del ataque a la flotilla. Tales sanciones son necesarias para poner fin a la impunidad con que Israel ha estado violando los derechos humanos palestinos y el Derecho internacional.
Coalición Internacional de la Flotilla de la Libertad
[1] Véase “Colombia busca ampliar los vínculos de Israel“, 28 de abril 2010, Jerusalem Post.
[2] Véase por ejemplo, “Wikileaks: Israel pretende mantener la economía de Gaza está al borde del colapso“, de 5 de enero 2011, Haaretz, al informar sobre un cable de la Embajada de EE.UU. en Tel Aviv diciendo que los oficiales oficialidad israelíes desean que la economía de Gaza “funcione en el nivel más bajo posible pero tratando de evitar una crisis humanitaria”.
Rapport Palmer : L’ONU DOIT DIRE LE DROIT ET NON LE PIETINER
3 septembre 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)
AFPS
Le rapport de l’ONU [1] relatif aux événements tragiques, survenus le 31 mai 2010, lors de la première « Flottille de la paix », considère que « le blocus de Gaza est légal » et que la réaction armée meurtrière israélienne dans les eaux internationales faisant 9 morts a été simplement « excessive ».
Ce rapport constitue donc une sérieuse régression relativement au droit international édicté par l’ONU sur ce sujet : il n’est acceptable ni dans la forme ni sur le fond.
Le blocus de Gaza, mis en place unilatéralement par les dirigeants israéliens sans le moindre accord de l’ONU, constitue une violation flagrante et évidente des Conventions de Genève, en ce qu’il constitue une « punition collective » de tous les Palestiniens de Gaza, comme l’avait déclaré le Haut Commissariat aux Droits de l’Homme des Nations unies en août 2009. Il est donc bel et bien illégal, selon précisément le droit international.
Par ailleurs qualifier d’« excessive » la réaction israélienne aboutissant à causer la mort de 9 civils innocents à bord d’un bateau turc se trouvant dans les eaux internationales constitue un déni du droit international : selon ce dernier, il s’agit tout simplement d’un « crime de guerre ». D’ailleurs, la résolution 1860 du Conseil de sécurité n’assurait-elle pas clairement accueillir « favorablement les initiatives » visant à alléger ce blocus.
Israël a évidemment salué immédiatement le contenu et les auteurs de ce rapport sur la Flottille contrairement au rapport Goldstone que les autorités de ce pays ont refusé et auquel la communauté internationale n’a donné aucune suite.
Ce rapport, rappelons-le, accusait Israël – et l’accuse toujours – de « crimes de guerre, voire de crimes contre l’humanité » perpétrés lors de la guerre de Gaza, dite « Plomb durci », qui a fait 1.400 morts parmi la population gazaouie. Quand le droit international est violé, Israël crie victoire. Quand il est précisé, Israël le refuse sèchement.
Il est temps que les Nations unies disent le chemin de la paix, spécialement au Proche-Orient, et n’encouragent pas, au contraire, ceux qui la refusent jour après jour et qui devraient être sanctionnés. On n’instaurera pas la stabilité internationale et la paix au Proche-Orient sur la mise en miettes du droit international, mais au contraire en affirmant ce dernier contre vents et marées et a fortiori en l’appliquant. De ce point de vue, l’adhésion pleine et entière de l’Etat de Palestine à l’ONU s’inscrit pleinement dans cette démarche qui, à l’inverse du rapport Palmer, légitimera l’organisation internationale.
Le bureau national, le 3 septembre 2011
Communiqué
[1] Deux des 4 rédacteurs se sont opposés à ce rapport tandis qu’un troisième n’est autre que l’ancien président de Colombie, M. Uribe, qui a été imposé par les israéliens qui n’avaient accepté la commission qu’à cette condition
AFPS
Le rapport de l’ONU [1] relatif aux événements tragiques, survenus le 31 mai 2010, lors de la première « Flottille de la paix », considère que « le blocus de Gaza est légal » et que la réaction armée meurtrière israélienne dans les eaux internationales faisant 9 morts a été simplement « excessive ».
Ce rapport constitue donc une sérieuse régression relativement au droit international édicté par l’ONU sur ce sujet : il n’est acceptable ni dans la forme ni sur le fond.
Le blocus de Gaza, mis en place unilatéralement par les dirigeants israéliens sans le moindre accord de l’ONU, constitue une violation flagrante et évidente des Conventions de Genève, en ce qu’il constitue une « punition collective » de tous les Palestiniens de Gaza, comme l’avait déclaré le Haut Commissariat aux Droits de l’Homme des Nations unies en août 2009. Il est donc bel et bien illégal, selon précisément le droit international.
Par ailleurs qualifier d’« excessive » la réaction israélienne aboutissant à causer la mort de 9 civils innocents à bord d’un bateau turc se trouvant dans les eaux internationales constitue un déni du droit international : selon ce dernier, il s’agit tout simplement d’un « crime de guerre ». D’ailleurs, la résolution 1860 du Conseil de sécurité n’assurait-elle pas clairement accueillir « favorablement les initiatives » visant à alléger ce blocus.
Israël a évidemment salué immédiatement le contenu et les auteurs de ce rapport sur la Flottille contrairement au rapport Goldstone que les autorités de ce pays ont refusé et auquel la communauté internationale n’a donné aucune suite.
Ce rapport, rappelons-le, accusait Israël – et l’accuse toujours – de « crimes de guerre, voire de crimes contre l’humanité » perpétrés lors de la guerre de Gaza, dite « Plomb durci », qui a fait 1.400 morts parmi la population gazaouie. Quand le droit international est violé, Israël crie victoire. Quand il est précisé, Israël le refuse sèchement.
Il est temps que les Nations unies disent le chemin de la paix, spécialement au Proche-Orient, et n’encouragent pas, au contraire, ceux qui la refusent jour après jour et qui devraient être sanctionnés. On n’instaurera pas la stabilité internationale et la paix au Proche-Orient sur la mise en miettes du droit international, mais au contraire en affirmant ce dernier contre vents et marées et a fortiori en l’appliquant. De ce point de vue, l’adhésion pleine et entière de l’Etat de Palestine à l’ONU s’inscrit pleinement dans cette démarche qui, à l’inverse du rapport Palmer, légitimera l’organisation internationale.
Le bureau national, le 3 septembre 2011
Communiqué
[1] Deux des 4 rédacteurs se sont opposés à ce rapport tandis qu’un troisième n’est autre que l’ancien président de Colombie, M. Uribe, qui a été imposé par les israéliens qui n’avaient accepté la commission qu’à cette condition
segunda-feira, 5 de setembro de 2011
HISTORIC DECLARATION BY PALESTINIANS, ISRAELIS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAELI SOCIAL PROTEST, ANTI-COLONIAL STRUGGLE
5 September 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC) המרכז לאינפורמציה אלטרנטיבית
http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)
Some 20 political parties and social movements from both sides of the Green Line issued an historic declaration in support of the social protests currently rocking Israel and their necessary linkage to the struggle against Israel’s occupation and colonial policies.
Together for putting an end to occupation and racism, in support of the struggle of the Palestinian people to attain their national rights and against national and social oppression.
Even in light of the encouraging developments in the Middle East, the wave of social protests and the awakening of the peoples’ struggles for freedoms and the right to live in dignity, the Palestinian people still live under the yoke of the Israeli occupation, despite their persistent and ongoing struggle for freedom. The international community, for its part, demonstrates its helplessness and does not lend a hand to support the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice.
The protest movements and the winds of change blowing in the Arab world have aroused excitement throughout the world amongst freedom seekers, encouraging many to adopt the model of popular struggle. These protest movements have had a deep impact on various groups in Israel, amongst both Jews and Palestinians, and made an important contribution to the rise of the popular protest movement within Israel for social justice.
Moved by our aspiration to attain a just and fair peace in the region, a peace that is truly essential for the peoples of the region and can assist in promoting the struggle for justice and progress for everyone, we – Palestinian and Israeli social and political forces, representatives of women’s associations and young people from both sides of the Green Line – emphasise the need for a joint struggle, with the goal of liberating the peoples of the region from colonialism and hegemony, particularly that of Zionism, halting the occupation and Israeli military aggression and supporting the just struggle of the Palestinian people for fulfillment of its right for self-determination in accordance with the decisions of the international community.
We look forward to the liberation of all the region’s peoples from dictatorship, ruling tyranny and from all forms of national, social and economic oppression. Therefore, we the signatories on this document, emphasise:
1. We support the Palestinian September initiative in the United Nations, the body which carries responsibility for laying the foundations of peace internationally, in order to demand full membership for Palestine in the UN and recognition of a Palestinian state in the borders of 4 June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to strengthen the efforts to end the occupation of the Palestinian people’s lands, with preservation of the right of the Palestinian people to oppose the occupation and the right of return of the refugees in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194. In this context, we emphasise that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, deriving its legitimacy both from the Palestinian people in the homeland and exile and from the recognition it received from the Arab League and the United Nations.
The UN initiative is a legitimate step. The United Nations must fulfill its responsibility to realize its responsibility to establish peace and justice on the international level. This is a step that strengthens the rights of the Palestinian people and in no way represents a threat to Israel, despite the great efforts of the Israeli government to present this step to the Israeli people as a declaration of war or harming the legitimacy of the existence of Israel.
2. We understand that one of the primary reasons for the social and economic distress of citizens in Israel, in addition to the capitalist economic policies, is the continuation of the occupation and excessive security budgets, which Israel’s government seeks to justify as needed for defending the security of the settlements on the one hand and the state borders on the other. We therefore believe that an end to the occupation and establishment of a fair and just peace are essential for a life of peace and welfare.
We welcome the participation and integration of the Palestinian population in Israel in the social protest. This is an important opportunity to present before various groups within Israeli society the distresses of the Palestinians and the injustices caused to them, so that these groups can take responsibility in the struggle against the marginalizing policies and ongoing discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel, for putting an ending to confiscation of lands and full equality, and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian lands that were occupied in 1967.
We warn again the familiar attempts by the occupation government to evade the crises and its internal crises and the pressure of the protest waves through the politics of fear which point to an external threat: Whether by presenting the Palestinian appeal to the UN as a “danger” or by military actions, as we have witnessed in the past few days in light of the harsh escalation in bloodletting of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
3. We recognize the right of the Palestinian people, living under occupation, to make use of all the legitimate forms of resistance in accordance with international norms for removing of the occupiers from its land and for self determination. In this context, we emphasise the importance of the joint popular struggle of Palestinians and Israelis. A popular joint struggle is one of the central guiding principles in the struggle against the occupation, the settlements, racism, colonialism, against policies of exclusion, weakening, impoverishment, and racist separation within Israel.
September 2011
Signed: Political parties, social organizations and young women and men Palestinian and Israeli activists (in alphabetical order)
Association of Palestinian Democratic Youth (Palestine)
Association of Progressive Students (Palestine)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Israel)
Democratic Teachers’ Union (Palestine)
Democratic Union of Professionals in Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Women’s Movement in Israel (Israel)
Israeli Communist Party (Israel)
National Campaign for Return of the Bodies of Arab and Palestinian Martyrs Captured by the Israeli Government (Palestine)
Palestinian People’s Party (Palestine)
Popular Campaign for the Boycott of Israeli Products (Palestine)
Progressive Workers’ Union (Palestine)
Tarabut-Hithabrut – Arab-Jewish Movement for Social and Political Change (Israel)
The Alternative Information Center (Palestine/Israel)
Union of Palestinian Farmers’ Unions (Palestine)
Union of One World for Justice (Palestine)
Union of Palestinian Working Women (Palestine)
Workers’ Unity Bloc (Palestine)
http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)
Some 20 political parties and social movements from both sides of the Green Line issued an historic declaration in support of the social protests currently rocking Israel and their necessary linkage to the struggle against Israel’s occupation and colonial policies.
Together for putting an end to occupation and racism, in support of the struggle of the Palestinian people to attain their national rights and against national and social oppression.
Even in light of the encouraging developments in the Middle East, the wave of social protests and the awakening of the peoples’ struggles for freedoms and the right to live in dignity, the Palestinian people still live under the yoke of the Israeli occupation, despite their persistent and ongoing struggle for freedom. The international community, for its part, demonstrates its helplessness and does not lend a hand to support the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice.
The protest movements and the winds of change blowing in the Arab world have aroused excitement throughout the world amongst freedom seekers, encouraging many to adopt the model of popular struggle. These protest movements have had a deep impact on various groups in Israel, amongst both Jews and Palestinians, and made an important contribution to the rise of the popular protest movement within Israel for social justice.
Moved by our aspiration to attain a just and fair peace in the region, a peace that is truly essential for the peoples of the region and can assist in promoting the struggle for justice and progress for everyone, we – Palestinian and Israeli social and political forces, representatives of women’s associations and young people from both sides of the Green Line – emphasise the need for a joint struggle, with the goal of liberating the peoples of the region from colonialism and hegemony, particularly that of Zionism, halting the occupation and Israeli military aggression and supporting the just struggle of the Palestinian people for fulfillment of its right for self-determination in accordance with the decisions of the international community.
We look forward to the liberation of all the region’s peoples from dictatorship, ruling tyranny and from all forms of national, social and economic oppression. Therefore, we the signatories on this document, emphasise:
1. We support the Palestinian September initiative in the United Nations, the body which carries responsibility for laying the foundations of peace internationally, in order to demand full membership for Palestine in the UN and recognition of a Palestinian state in the borders of 4 June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to strengthen the efforts to end the occupation of the Palestinian people’s lands, with preservation of the right of the Palestinian people to oppose the occupation and the right of return of the refugees in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194. In this context, we emphasise that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, deriving its legitimacy both from the Palestinian people in the homeland and exile and from the recognition it received from the Arab League and the United Nations.
The UN initiative is a legitimate step. The United Nations must fulfill its responsibility to realize its responsibility to establish peace and justice on the international level. This is a step that strengthens the rights of the Palestinian people and in no way represents a threat to Israel, despite the great efforts of the Israeli government to present this step to the Israeli people as a declaration of war or harming the legitimacy of the existence of Israel.
2. We understand that one of the primary reasons for the social and economic distress of citizens in Israel, in addition to the capitalist economic policies, is the continuation of the occupation and excessive security budgets, which Israel’s government seeks to justify as needed for defending the security of the settlements on the one hand and the state borders on the other. We therefore believe that an end to the occupation and establishment of a fair and just peace are essential for a life of peace and welfare.
We welcome the participation and integration of the Palestinian population in Israel in the social protest. This is an important opportunity to present before various groups within Israeli society the distresses of the Palestinians and the injustices caused to them, so that these groups can take responsibility in the struggle against the marginalizing policies and ongoing discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel, for putting an ending to confiscation of lands and full equality, and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian lands that were occupied in 1967.
We warn again the familiar attempts by the occupation government to evade the crises and its internal crises and the pressure of the protest waves through the politics of fear which point to an external threat: Whether by presenting the Palestinian appeal to the UN as a “danger” or by military actions, as we have witnessed in the past few days in light of the harsh escalation in bloodletting of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
3. We recognize the right of the Palestinian people, living under occupation, to make use of all the legitimate forms of resistance in accordance with international norms for removing of the occupiers from its land and for self determination. In this context, we emphasise the importance of the joint popular struggle of Palestinians and Israelis. A popular joint struggle is one of the central guiding principles in the struggle against the occupation, the settlements, racism, colonialism, against policies of exclusion, weakening, impoverishment, and racist separation within Israel.
September 2011
Signed: Political parties, social organizations and young women and men Palestinian and Israeli activists (in alphabetical order)
Association of Palestinian Democratic Youth (Palestine)
Association of Progressive Students (Palestine)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Israel)
Democratic Teachers’ Union (Palestine)
Democratic Union of Professionals in Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Women’s Movement in Israel (Israel)
Israeli Communist Party (Israel)
National Campaign for Return of the Bodies of Arab and Palestinian Martyrs Captured by the Israeli Government (Palestine)
Palestinian People’s Party (Palestine)
Popular Campaign for the Boycott of Israeli Products (Palestine)
Progressive Workers’ Union (Palestine)
Tarabut-Hithabrut – Arab-Jewish Movement for Social and Political Change (Israel)
The Alternative Information Center (Palestine/Israel)
Union of Palestinian Farmers’ Unions (Palestine)
Union of One World for Justice (Palestine)
Union of Palestinian Working Women (Palestine)
Workers’ Unity Bloc (Palestine)
PALMER REPORT'S FATAL FLAWS
2 September 2011, Palestine Chronicle http://palestinechronicle.com (USA)
By Julie Webb-Pullman* - Gaza
The most fundamental fault of the Palmer Report on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident(1) is its one-eyed view of security. The second is its exceeding of the Terms of Reference (TOR).
While the Report upholds, and goes into considerable detail about, Israel’s right to security and the firing of weapons into Israel from Gaza and the killing of 25 Israeli’s since 2001, it COMPLETELY IGNORES Gaza’s – or the Palestinian - right to security, it ignores the innumerable military attacks on Gaza by Israel which according to an Israeli Human Rights group (2) have killed more than 4500, with 41 Israeli air strikes in the last week alone killing another 17, and it ignores Israel’s continuous invasions and incursions into Palestinian territory contrary to international law, and in breach of some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions.
If the claimed purpose of the Palmer Report is in fact to “avoid similar incidents in future” it would be more appropriate to address the ROOT CAUSE of the incident, which is Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and ongoing military assaults on Gaza, even the weapons for which are disproportionate - while Gazan groups use homemade, inaccurate and usually ineffective weapons rarely resulting in injury, let alone death, Israel favours extremely high-tech, accurate, brutally effective – and ILLEGAL – weapons that almost always maim and kill.
Cause and Effect
The Palmer Panel, and the United Nations, would do better to prevail upon Israel to observe international law, as embodied in some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions and numerous international conventions, than do irrelevant book reviews that do nothing but give Israel more ammunition to legitimise its genocide.
It needs to be re-stated – rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, and efforts by international civil society to alleviate the suffering caused by the illegal siege of Gaza, are EFFECTS directly flowing from the ROOT CAUSE, Israel’s persistent and ongoing refusal to observe international law, or even internationally-determined borders.
Enforcement of UNSC Resolutions, not a glorified “book review,” are what is required to “avoid similar incidents in future.”
The TOR
The TOR makes it clear the Report was never intended to be anything but a Clayton’s exercise. They state: (and I don’t know where number 1 disappeared to – it was not in the copy I have)
The panel:
2 (a) will receive and review interim and final reports of national investigations into the incident; that is, do a “book review” and call it a Report, which the international community is expected to swallow, and “move on”.
(b) may request such clarifications and information as it may require from relevant national authorities. Not obtain or assess original or direct evidence, not even obtain witness testimonies or examine or cross-examine witnesses – merely have a chat to the ‘points of contact’ of the ‘relevant national authorities’.
3. In the light of the information so gathered the panel will:
(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; – which given the limited TOR can only be what the two national authorities ‘reported’ they were – a veritable exercise in Chinese Whispers (not sure of the politically-correct term for this, if there is one), which is not only a poor substitute for due process, but it is also very unlikely to establish the facts, circumstances and context of the incident such that any meaningful recommendations could be made;
(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. – the most obvious recommendation of all being OBSERVANCE BY ISRAEL OF ALL SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, such that defensive actions by Gaza, and humanitarian convoys to alleviate their suffering, are no longer necessary.
The Palmer Panel’s limited assessment of the evidence, and obsession with Israel’s right to security, seems to have blinkered them to this, the most obvious recommendation of all.
Did the Report Find the Naval Blockade is Legal?
While Israel, and lazy mainstream media, touts the Palmer Report as finding Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal, a closer reading shows no such thing.
If anything, the report shows that the Palmer panel exceeded their Terms of Reference (TOR) by the two chairs taking it upon themselves to lay the so-called “secure legal foundation” that served as the basis for their findings and recommendations despite acknowledgement they had no grounds to do so, then attributing legality to their subsequent considerations, findings or determinations.
In its own words, the panel states in paragraph 5 of its Introduction:
“It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability.” and
6. “It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.”
So why did it go on in Para 73 to make a determination that:
“The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade.”
And in paragraph 81, to state that:
“The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.” –
These findings are clearly outside the TOR, and are findings on which subsequent statements rely, such as in the Summary at:
ii, “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”
And,
viii. Attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade.
Appendicitis
These painful contradictions can be explained by the first appendix in the Report, stating that:
“the Chair and Vice-Chair provide our own account of the principles of public international law that apply to the events under review” in order to rest their findings and recommendations “on a secure legal foundation.” – of their own invention.
Of considerable importance is that they do not even require Israel to have fulfilled its obligation to declare this blockade by notifying it to the UN Security Council according to the processes outlined in Article 51 of the Charter, instead accept their posting it on a few Israeli websites!
This makes a mockery of both the TOR, and the considerable body of highly-qualified international legal opinion that disagrees with their position, and that they explicitly chose to ignore in preference to their own. This ensures that the supposed secure legal foundation for the Report, thus all finding and recommendations based on it, are but a Palmer/Uribe house of cards.
The Palmer Report not only exceeds its TOR, but it is internally inconsistent, and in conflict with other reputable legal bodies and opinions, including those of other UN agencies.
In keeping with the TOR, therefore, any legal determinations and findings should, like an acutely-inflamed appendix, be immediately removed from the final report before they irreparably harm the host.
Extra-territoriality of the Application of the Naval Blockade
A curious omission from their legal deliberations on the legitimacy of the naval blockade, inappropriate as they were, is the attack on the Mavi Marmara 72 nautical miles from the coast and 64 nautical miles from the blockade zone. This goes way beyond enforcing a legitimate naval blockade, which extends at most 20 nautical miles from the coast, into extra-territorial application of the Gaza blockade into international waters.
This has serious - and extensive - implications in international law, which the panel chooses not to discuss, but which are directly relevant to the prevention of further incidents.
Curious – and Unsupportable - Justifications
An example of one of the more curious justifications for not finding the naval blockade disproportionate is the statement in paragraph 78 that “the prospect of delivering significant supplies to Gaza by sea is very low” because of the lack of port facilities.
That the port facilities were destroyed by Israel in 2001 appears to them too insignificant to mention. That Gaza port has been used for literally THOUSANDS OF YEARS for the delivery of “bulk supplies” through Gaza to Europe, and back again. Large ships moored offshore and smaller vessels, of which there thousands here, transferred the goods to port. Gazans were doing this long before New Zealand even had human habitation, and they continued doing it up until late last century - I have spoken to Gazan men in their 50’s who recall watching this as a favorite past-time as children.
There is no reason such methods could not be occurring now – but for the naval blockade. That they might be “inefficient” methods in the panel’s view speaks more to their first world arrogance and failure to appreciate the conditions on the ground in Gaza, than it does to the need to get bulk supplies in to meet the very real desperate need that exists, as repeatedly and continuously stated by the numerous international NGOs and UN agencies working in Gaza.
Recommendation to Use Established Procedures
Any remaining shred of credibility is totally destroyed by this bizarre statement in paragraph 154 which flies in the face of all available evidence, that:
“... the Government of Israel has taken significant steps to ease the restrictions on goods entering Gaza since the 31 May 2010 incident.”
And with regard to future prevention, the even more bizarre recommendation in paragraph iv that:
“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
The panel has completely ignored not only the reality on the ground in relation to the so-called easing of restrictions, as reported by numerous NGOs (3), but also UN assessments such as that of OCHA published in March 2011, the Executive Summary of which stated:
“The partial lifting of import restrictions...increased the availability of consumer goods and some raw materials...However, due to the pivotal nature of the remaining restrictions, this relaxation did not result in a significant improvement in people’s livelihoods.”
And went on to say that despite 100 water and sanitation, education and health services. projects since being approved, “while the potential benefit of these projects, once implemented, is significant, due to the recurrent delays in implementation, the population has so far not experienced any improvement in the quality of services.”(4)
Finally, statements from both the Israeli and Turkish participants contained in the Appendix indicate that far from coming to the consensus decisions required of it, the Palmer Report is a Palmer/Uribe house of cards based on selective – and self-determined – legal determinations that exceed their TOR, and are one-eyed in the application of rights – to security, to self-defence, and to provide humanitarian aid as, when and where it is needed.
Most significantly, the selective condemnation of Gaza homemade rocket attacks, while failing to condemn Israel’s use of prohibited weapons against civilian targets in a clear and incontrovertible exercise of the collective punishment of a trapped population, beggars belief.
* Julie Webb-Pullman is a New Zealand activist and writer currently based in Gaza. She has written on social and political justice issues for New Zealand Independent News website SCOOP since 2003, as well as for websites in Australia, Canada, the US, and Latin America, and participated in several human rights observation missions. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Notes:
(1) Palmer Committee Final Report (2011) Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident.
(2) B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – Statistics. http://www.btselem.org/statistics.
(3) Amnesty International UK et al (2010) Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza.
(4) OCHA (2011) Special Focus: Easing the Blockade.
By Julie Webb-Pullman* - Gaza
The most fundamental fault of the Palmer Report on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident(1) is its one-eyed view of security. The second is its exceeding of the Terms of Reference (TOR).
While the Report upholds, and goes into considerable detail about, Israel’s right to security and the firing of weapons into Israel from Gaza and the killing of 25 Israeli’s since 2001, it COMPLETELY IGNORES Gaza’s – or the Palestinian - right to security, it ignores the innumerable military attacks on Gaza by Israel which according to an Israeli Human Rights group (2) have killed more than 4500, with 41 Israeli air strikes in the last week alone killing another 17, and it ignores Israel’s continuous invasions and incursions into Palestinian territory contrary to international law, and in breach of some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions.
If the claimed purpose of the Palmer Report is in fact to “avoid similar incidents in future” it would be more appropriate to address the ROOT CAUSE of the incident, which is Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and ongoing military assaults on Gaza, even the weapons for which are disproportionate - while Gazan groups use homemade, inaccurate and usually ineffective weapons rarely resulting in injury, let alone death, Israel favours extremely high-tech, accurate, brutally effective – and ILLEGAL – weapons that almost always maim and kill.
Cause and Effect
The Palmer Panel, and the United Nations, would do better to prevail upon Israel to observe international law, as embodied in some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions and numerous international conventions, than do irrelevant book reviews that do nothing but give Israel more ammunition to legitimise its genocide.
It needs to be re-stated – rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, and efforts by international civil society to alleviate the suffering caused by the illegal siege of Gaza, are EFFECTS directly flowing from the ROOT CAUSE, Israel’s persistent and ongoing refusal to observe international law, or even internationally-determined borders.
Enforcement of UNSC Resolutions, not a glorified “book review,” are what is required to “avoid similar incidents in future.”
The TOR
The TOR makes it clear the Report was never intended to be anything but a Clayton’s exercise. They state: (and I don’t know where number 1 disappeared to – it was not in the copy I have)
The panel:
2 (a) will receive and review interim and final reports of national investigations into the incident; that is, do a “book review” and call it a Report, which the international community is expected to swallow, and “move on”.
(b) may request such clarifications and information as it may require from relevant national authorities. Not obtain or assess original or direct evidence, not even obtain witness testimonies or examine or cross-examine witnesses – merely have a chat to the ‘points of contact’ of the ‘relevant national authorities’.
3. In the light of the information so gathered the panel will:
(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; – which given the limited TOR can only be what the two national authorities ‘reported’ they were – a veritable exercise in Chinese Whispers (not sure of the politically-correct term for this, if there is one), which is not only a poor substitute for due process, but it is also very unlikely to establish the facts, circumstances and context of the incident such that any meaningful recommendations could be made;
(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. – the most obvious recommendation of all being OBSERVANCE BY ISRAEL OF ALL SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, such that defensive actions by Gaza, and humanitarian convoys to alleviate their suffering, are no longer necessary.
The Palmer Panel’s limited assessment of the evidence, and obsession with Israel’s right to security, seems to have blinkered them to this, the most obvious recommendation of all.
Did the Report Find the Naval Blockade is Legal?
While Israel, and lazy mainstream media, touts the Palmer Report as finding Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal, a closer reading shows no such thing.
If anything, the report shows that the Palmer panel exceeded their Terms of Reference (TOR) by the two chairs taking it upon themselves to lay the so-called “secure legal foundation” that served as the basis for their findings and recommendations despite acknowledgement they had no grounds to do so, then attributing legality to their subsequent considerations, findings or determinations.
In its own words, the panel states in paragraph 5 of its Introduction:
“It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability.” and
6. “It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.”
So why did it go on in Para 73 to make a determination that:
“The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade.”
And in paragraph 81, to state that:
“The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.” –
These findings are clearly outside the TOR, and are findings on which subsequent statements rely, such as in the Summary at:
ii, “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”
And,
viii. Attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade.
Appendicitis
These painful contradictions can be explained by the first appendix in the Report, stating that:
“the Chair and Vice-Chair provide our own account of the principles of public international law that apply to the events under review” in order to rest their findings and recommendations “on a secure legal foundation.” – of their own invention.
Of considerable importance is that they do not even require Israel to have fulfilled its obligation to declare this blockade by notifying it to the UN Security Council according to the processes outlined in Article 51 of the Charter, instead accept their posting it on a few Israeli websites!
This makes a mockery of both the TOR, and the considerable body of highly-qualified international legal opinion that disagrees with their position, and that they explicitly chose to ignore in preference to their own. This ensures that the supposed secure legal foundation for the Report, thus all finding and recommendations based on it, are but a Palmer/Uribe house of cards.
The Palmer Report not only exceeds its TOR, but it is internally inconsistent, and in conflict with other reputable legal bodies and opinions, including those of other UN agencies.
In keeping with the TOR, therefore, any legal determinations and findings should, like an acutely-inflamed appendix, be immediately removed from the final report before they irreparably harm the host.
Extra-territoriality of the Application of the Naval Blockade
A curious omission from their legal deliberations on the legitimacy of the naval blockade, inappropriate as they were, is the attack on the Mavi Marmara 72 nautical miles from the coast and 64 nautical miles from the blockade zone. This goes way beyond enforcing a legitimate naval blockade, which extends at most 20 nautical miles from the coast, into extra-territorial application of the Gaza blockade into international waters.
This has serious - and extensive - implications in international law, which the panel chooses not to discuss, but which are directly relevant to the prevention of further incidents.
Curious – and Unsupportable - Justifications
An example of one of the more curious justifications for not finding the naval blockade disproportionate is the statement in paragraph 78 that “the prospect of delivering significant supplies to Gaza by sea is very low” because of the lack of port facilities.
That the port facilities were destroyed by Israel in 2001 appears to them too insignificant to mention. That Gaza port has been used for literally THOUSANDS OF YEARS for the delivery of “bulk supplies” through Gaza to Europe, and back again. Large ships moored offshore and smaller vessels, of which there thousands here, transferred the goods to port. Gazans were doing this long before New Zealand even had human habitation, and they continued doing it up until late last century - I have spoken to Gazan men in their 50’s who recall watching this as a favorite past-time as children.
There is no reason such methods could not be occurring now – but for the naval blockade. That they might be “inefficient” methods in the panel’s view speaks more to their first world arrogance and failure to appreciate the conditions on the ground in Gaza, than it does to the need to get bulk supplies in to meet the very real desperate need that exists, as repeatedly and continuously stated by the numerous international NGOs and UN agencies working in Gaza.
Recommendation to Use Established Procedures
Any remaining shred of credibility is totally destroyed by this bizarre statement in paragraph 154 which flies in the face of all available evidence, that:
“... the Government of Israel has taken significant steps to ease the restrictions on goods entering Gaza since the 31 May 2010 incident.”
And with regard to future prevention, the even more bizarre recommendation in paragraph iv that:
“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
The panel has completely ignored not only the reality on the ground in relation to the so-called easing of restrictions, as reported by numerous NGOs (3), but also UN assessments such as that of OCHA published in March 2011, the Executive Summary of which stated:
“The partial lifting of import restrictions...increased the availability of consumer goods and some raw materials...However, due to the pivotal nature of the remaining restrictions, this relaxation did not result in a significant improvement in people’s livelihoods.”
And went on to say that despite 100 water and sanitation, education and health services. projects since being approved, “while the potential benefit of these projects, once implemented, is significant, due to the recurrent delays in implementation, the population has so far not experienced any improvement in the quality of services.”(4)
Finally, statements from both the Israeli and Turkish participants contained in the Appendix indicate that far from coming to the consensus decisions required of it, the Palmer Report is a Palmer/Uribe house of cards based on selective – and self-determined – legal determinations that exceed their TOR, and are one-eyed in the application of rights – to security, to self-defence, and to provide humanitarian aid as, when and where it is needed.
Most significantly, the selective condemnation of Gaza homemade rocket attacks, while failing to condemn Israel’s use of prohibited weapons against civilian targets in a clear and incontrovertible exercise of the collective punishment of a trapped population, beggars belief.
* Julie Webb-Pullman is a New Zealand activist and writer currently based in Gaza. She has written on social and political justice issues for New Zealand Independent News website SCOOP since 2003, as well as for websites in Australia, Canada, the US, and Latin America, and participated in several human rights observation missions. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Notes:
(1) Palmer Committee Final Report (2011) Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident.
(2) B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – Statistics. http://www.btselem.org/statistics.
(3) Amnesty International UK et al (2010) Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza.
(4) OCHA (2011) Special Focus: Easing the Blockade.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)