UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Galactus]

The HRC's record, the fact that it set the mandate, and the one-sided conclusions of the investigations are the reason.

You can't dismiss a report based on it's conclusions, UNLESS the conclusions do not follow from the evidence. Nor can you dismiss it based on it's source. You're making some pretty darn elementary logical missteps. (which does not mean that your conclusion isn't neccessarily correct, but your reasoning is bugfuck crazy)

Heck, if you would just say "Due to the fact that Israel won't talk to these guys their evidence is irretrievably tainted and thus any conclusion is bound to be suspect." I think most people would agree, or if you would read the report and say, point out where the report is incorrect (either because they're drawing false conclusions from their evidence, or you have different evidence)

But this is just silly. There are probably a ton of ways you can criticize this report legitimately, but this? This is just fucking stupid.

Seriously "This report is wrong because the conclusions are wrong"? What the fuck? That's not how it works. Now, extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence, but that just means you have to go deeper into the reasoning and try to pick it apart. You can't just dismiss it because it's conclusions are not to your liking.

[TrueMetis]

Pre-emptive strike, as you termed it, is a strike preceding an imminant attack. When armies ammas at your borders, then the attack is... imminant, prompting you to "pre-empt" it.

No as I termed it it's when they think it's imminent not when you know it's imminent. Especially as placing large amount of troops on someone's border would be viewed by many as an act of war in of itself.

[Yoadm]

No as I termed it it's when they think it's imminent not when you know it's imminent. Especially as placing large amount of troops on someone's border would be viewed by many as an act of war in of itself.

The direct definition of a pre-emptive strike is a strike before an imminent attack. This is precisely what happened, so Im not sure what you are going on about.

You can't dismiss a report based on it's conclusions, UNLESS the conclusions do not follow from the evidence.

First of all, they do not, in many cases, derive from the evidence, but that is a problematic thing to say in the first place since what do you consider evidence? Do you blindly accept all testimonies? Some? How do you treat conflicting claims? In the commisions case, they accepted all claims damning to Israel, ignoring other claims.

Example: Some passengers claimed the IDF shot them on the deck before landing. OK. Ignoring the fact that it is utterly illogical to shoot at the deck before landing with... paintball guns, ignoring that had this been the practice, there would have been other casualties in the other... NON IHH controlled ships.. ignoring that footage indicates otherwise.. some activists themselves claimed this was not the case. The commisions conclusion? That the IDF shot on the deck. This alone gives you a taste of their bias. But forget that, moving on:

They claimed Israel's blockade of Gaza was unlawfull and illegal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, depends on which international law expert you ask. But point is: It is hardly a black and white issue and there is no one answer to this. It depends on whether a non-internal state of armed conflict is taking place between Israel and Gaza. If a state of armed conflict does exist, then a blockade is lawfull. If not, then it isnt. In this sense, Israel is allso hypocritical because it terms the Gaza sanctions part of an 'armed conflict' only when it suits it. But the commision is doing the same: On the one hand they claim that Israel is an occupier and in a state of armed conflict with Hamas, and thus has to adher to specific resolutions dealing with armed conflict... yet they claim the blockade is illegal, deriving from incidents where a conflict is not termed an international armed conflict. This is allmost comically dishonest. I expect Israel to be biased in its own favour, I don't expect a commision that is supposed to find the middle-ground and the truth.

If you want more examples, simply ask.

But this is just silly. There are probably a ton of ways you can criticize this report legitimately, but this? This is just fucking stupid.

Im criticizing it based on two things you want to separate and treat individually. The reason Im dismissing the commision is that it was both formed and its mandate set by an organization with an extremely anti-israeli agenda, coupled with the findings corroberating my suspicion of the commision not being impartial.

Seriously "This report is wrong because the conclusions are wrong"?

Because the conclusions echo one narrative perfectly and ignore anything that doesnt fit it.

[TrueMetis]

The direct definition of a pre-emptive strike is a strike before an imminent attack. This is precisely what happened, so Im not sure what you are going on about.

Apparently we have different definitions of preemptive then.

[Swordfish]

I didn't make that statement. I've said that I am disgusted by the concept. I've said that I didn't support the US-led PS on Iraq. I've said that I would be horrified if the US preemptively attacked North Korea. And I responded to one of your scenario involving a country saying "Hey, I'm going to hit you."

But, since you insist on this useless exercise: If a massive army of evil, heavily-armed cannibals were marching towards my country of peaceful shepherds, if they were merely a hundred meters from the border town of 80 bajillion unarmed people that were all asleep and were going to be slaughtered in their beds and then eaten and the cannibals were all mute and deaf and illiterate so there was no way to communicate with them and the ONLY way to stop those 80 bajillion pacifist shepherds from being destroyed to a person was a preemptive strike...then yes, even though I abhor preemptive strikes, I would probably support an attack.

Probably???

[ljkeane]

They claimed Israel's blockade of Gaza was unlawfull and illegal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, depends on which international law expert you ask. But point is: It is hardly a black and white issue and there is no one answer to this. It depends on whether a non-internal state of armed conflict is taking place between Israel and Gaza. If a state of armed conflict does exist, then a blockade is lawfull. If not, then it isnt.

Come on, they clearly point out on what basis they think the blockade is illegal even if there is an armed conflict, quoting the San Remo manual you yourself have referenced several times in the past so I assume you have read it. Regardless of if you disagree with their conclusions if you're going to accuse people of being almost comically dishonest then mischaracterising their arguments in this manner doesn't help your case.

[Yoadm]

Come on, they clearly point out on what basis they think the blockade is illegal even if there is an armed conflict, quoting the San Remo manual you yourself have referenced several times in the past so I assume you have read it. Regardless of if you disagree with their conclusions if you're going to accuse people of being almost comically dishonest then mischaracterising their arguments in this manner doesn't help your case.

San remo deals with the laws of the seas (in reference to our previous discussion). They claimed that the blockade was illegal, all of it, meaning that even prevention of military application items are illegal, according to them. Thus, either there is an armed conflict going on and thus a blockade of enemy territory is legal, or its an internal conflict in which Israel can monitor its own borders. Evidentely, their definition of the state of the conflict between Israel and Gaza varies depending on the circumstance. So yes, that is comically dishonest.

[ljkeane]

San remo deals with the laws of the seas (in reference to our previous discussion). They claimed that the blockade was illegal, all of it, meaning that even prevention of military application items are illegal, according to them. Thus, either there is an armed conflict going on and thus a blockade of enemy territory is legal, or its an internal conflict in which Israel can monitor its own borders. Evidentely, their definition of the state of the conflict between Israel and Gaza varies depending on the circumstance. So yes, that is comically dishonest.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now.

[Yoadm]

You're just being deliberately obtuse now.

Hardly. San remo deals with the law of the sea, not with the general definition of armed conflict and blockades. Incase you haven't notice, there is both a land and sea blockade going on in Gaza. Judging whether the blockade is legal or not directly relates to whether the armed conflict between Hamas and Israel is internal or not (not whether it is an armed or not armed conflict, as you insinuated in your previous post). In the event that a conflict between Israel and Hamas is an IAC, then Israel has the right to blockade Gaza (Im not saying that the way in which the blockade is enforced is legal, that's another matter entirely). Both the London Declaration, the first international event to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does pretty much the same. Allso there is a history supporting the legitimacy of blockades during IAC (the US blockade of Cuba, for example). Now, the commision cannot on the one hand treat it as an IAC in order to justify claiming Israel is still an occupier of Gaza, and on the other hand treat it as an NIAC regarding the laws of blockade. It is exceedingly dishonest.

[ljkeane]

For fuck's sake the report directly quotes the San Remo Manual on the conditions under which a blockade is prohibited even during an armed conflict, it's not subtle about it. You're the one I'm finding comically dishonest at this stage.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(B) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

In particular a blockade is illegal if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other

objects essential for its survival; or

(B) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive

in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43

[Yoadm]

For fuck's sake the report directly quotes the San Remo Manual on the conditions under which a blockade is prohibited even during an armed conflict, it's not subtle about it.

Really? Well let's see your quotes then:

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(B) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

1: The Gaza blockade is not meant to starve Gaza's civilians. In fact, food and medicine is what got through on a daily basis even during the harshest parts of the blockade.

2: This quote deals with what kind of blockade is legal or not. The commision denied any kind was legal. Re-read my previous post:

In the event that a conflict between Israel and Hamas is an IAC, then Israel has the right to blockade Gaza (Im not saying that the way in which the blockade is enforced is legal, that's another matter entirely).

Yet you chose to ignore it. An international armed conflict makes a blockade legal. It doesnt nesseceraly make Israel's form of the blockade legal (that's up for debate), but it is irrelevant because the commision claimed that Israel has no right to blockade at all. Not under any circumstances. Meaning they deny it is an IAC. On the other hand, they treat it as an IAC when concluding Israel is an occupier. Am I getting through here? If not, Ill re-phrase one last time:

The commision did not criticise the manner in which the blockade was enforces (your quote deals precisely with what kind of blockade is legal or not), but rather that any form of blockade on Gaza was illegal, they did not specify any conditions. If it is illegal, then it means the commision consideres this a NIAC, in which case, it cannot claim Gaza is occupied. But it does. If Gaza is occupied, it cannot claim it is a NIAC. This is an example of the duality of the commisions findings.

[ljkeane]

2: This quote deals with what kind of blockade is legal or not. The commision denied any kind was legal. Re-read my previous post:

Wow, what part of 'the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited' if it meets either of the two criteria is difficult to understand? It's patently obvious that the report says it thinks the blockade is illegal because it meets criteria b.

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt,

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 that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be

considered illegal.

But this is going nowhere. Two of the members of the UNHRC Commission are internationally recognised experts on international law. You aren't. So I'm going to need something rather more substansive than your unfounded opinion to be persuaded that their interpretation is comically dishonest.

[Yoadm]

Wow, what part of 'the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited' if it meets either of the two criteria is difficult to understand? It's patently obvious that the report says it thinks the blockade is illegal because it meets criteria b.

No, because the report claimed that the whole blockade must be lifted. It did not say anything regarding what is prohibited and what is not in a blockade, so cut the straw-man. The blockade includes all military goods, yet it should all, according to to the commision, be lifted.

But this is going nowhere. Two of the members of the UNHRC are internationally recognised experts on international law. You aren't. So I'm going to need something rather more substansive than your unfounded opinion to be persuaded that their interpretation is comically dishonest.

Excuse me but this is not unfounded, I based it both on the Rome conference and San Remo. You are intentionally ignoring parts of my post. I will repeat: In an international armed conflict, belligerants have a right of blockade. This does not mean any blockade is legal, but the commision denounced the whole concept of a blockade in Gaza. If the commision claims a blockade is illegal it means that they consider this a non-international armed conflict. YET, on the other hand they consider Gaza occupied, tantamount to this BEING an international armed conflict (which includes fights against colonialism and occupation). This is an example of the dual interpetation of international law by the commision. You claim they are 'experts on international law', thus we should treat their words as gospel, yet you ignore their blatent twisting and duality of interpeting international law. Are you being more receptive now or should I repeat myself again?

[ljkeane]

If the commision claims a blockade is illegal it means that they consider this a non-international armed conflict.

:rofl: What part of 'the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade' do you have difficulty with?

Do you always have this much difficulty admitting you are wrong?

[Yoadm]

:rofl: What part of 'the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade' do you have difficulty with?

But there was no "if" in the commisions findings. They said that the whole concept of a blockade in Gaza is illegal. I allready answered that point twice: Are you being purposely dense?

[ljkeane]

But there was no "if" in the commisions findings. They said that the whole concept of a blockade in Gaza is illegal. I allready answered that point twice: Are you being purposely dense?

That would be because they conclude the blockade does meet that criteria, for example in the paragraph I quoted 3 posts back.

[Samalander]

:rofl: What part of 'the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade' do you have difficulty with?

Do you always have this much difficulty admitting you are wrong?

I'm not the great paragon of Law you two seem to be and I haven't read the report (partly as a point of principle, partly due to sloth). But it seems to me, the lay and uninformed observer, that Yoadm is saying something very simple: That in the report thay do not say Israel has no right to THIS blockade because we starved people (as you claim) but simply that we do not have the right to blockade, period. Now, to me, this seems to be a disagreement about facts, not interpertation. You two can't both be factually right. I suggest you each find the exact part of the report that supports your claim and cite it verbatim, while letting us all know on what page it appears.

[Yoadm]

That would be because they conclude the blockade does meet that criteria, for example in the paragraph I quoted 3 posts back.

You quoted it and it was irrelevant. The paragraph deals with what kind of blockade is legal or not. The commision denied the whole concept of a blockade on Gaza, not specific parameters.

The report was taken apart in another cite. It includes citations of international law for you to read if it interests you:

Even a quick glance at the UNHRC's report on the flotilla shows extraordinary duplicity in describing international law.

We had already posted at length a number of scholarly articles about the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0055.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

The UN Human Rights Council finds that it must completely make up new laws in order to accuse Israel of breaking them.

First, it accurately quotes San Remo to define what a legal blockade is:

51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(B ) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43

So far, so good. But look what comes next:

52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in LOAC refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause hunger.44

The bolded text is simply made up by the UNHRC and has zero to do with international law. There is nothing in international law that says that "destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage" is illegal under the laws of blockade.

Even worse, the footnote that it cites says this:

C. Pilloud and J. Pictet, Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1987), p.53 para 2089. See also Oxford English Dictionary definitions: “to deprive of or keep scantily supplied with food” or to “subdue by famine or low diet”.

They quote Pilloud and Pictet as if they say that "starvation" means to "cause hunger." Yet Pilloud and Pictet actually say:

The term starvation is generally understood to everyone. To use it as a method of warfare would be to provoke it deliberately, causing the population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food and supplies. It is clear that activities conducted for this purpose would be incompatable with the general principle of protecting the population, which the diplomatic conference was concerned to confirm and reinforce.

3 Starvation is defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973) of the action of starving or subjecting to famine, ie, to cause perish or hunger: "To deprive or to keep scantily supplied with food (p.2111)

The UNHRC is deliberately misinterpreting its own footnoted material to accuse Israel of starving Gaza with the blockade. Of course it doesn't mention the tons of food that arrive daily into Gaza via Israel itself, nor the fact that not a single Gazan has yet been documented to have starved to death in the past four years.

Since the UNHRC made up a specialized definition of the legality of a blockade, tailor made for Israel alone, it is no surprise that they conclude:

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.

The report goes on to the usual lies - claiming Gaza is occupied, saying that the IDF fired live ammunition from the helicopters before the first soldiers descended on the ship, and so forth. But here is a specific example where international law is being deliberately misinterpreted for the singular purpose of finding Israel guilty.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/unhrc-tramples-on-international-law-to.html

[ljkeane]

The commision denied the whole concept of a blockade on Gaza, not specific parameters.

Why don't you actually quote where they do that. It would be a good start.

[Yoadm]

More on the findings:

In the UNHRC report on the June flotillas, we have already seen how the Human Rights Council has no compunction about twisting international law specifically to demonize Israel.

Elsewhere in the report, we can see how much they twist easily verifiable facts as well.

Here is how they justify believing biased "eyewitnesses" over actual video evidence:

20. In ascertaining the facts surrounding the Israeli interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews with eye witnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with government officials. In light of seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and of the suppression of that material with the disclosure only of a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before us.

So when witnesses said one thing and video evidence showed something completely different, they chose to believe the the claims, disbelieve photographic evidence.

And how do we know that the witnesses are unreliable at best? Why, the UNHRC admits it! In paragraph 114:

The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope.

Why does the report even bring this up? Simple - because that's exactly what the very same "eyewitnesses" claimed, in contradiction to the video evidence released both by the IDF and by the activists themselves.

http://culturesofresistance.org/gaza-freedom-flotilla

Paragraph 114 proves that the UNHRC knows that the witnesses are unreliable but even so they judge them to be more trustworthy than direct, clear video evidence!

Even so, the UNHRC expects us to believe that "live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers" - as if the IHH fighters would have been standing on deck, as sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one before the IDF soldiers rappelled onto the deck. And that the helicopter was firing 9mm rounds onto the deck (all of the dead were killed by 9mm bullets.) And that the IDF soldiers would somehow have avoided firing their weapons as soon as they hit the deck and allowed themselves to be beaten up with metal clubs even though the IDF had, according to the UNHRC, already been using live fire. The entire narrative is utterly nonsensical.

The rule seems to have been, when the UNHRC had no direct and incontrovertible evidence that passengers were lying, they must have been telling the absolute truth, and that the veracity of the "eyewitnesses" were not the least bit harmed by proof that they were wrong.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-unhrcs-extreme-bias.html

In addition to the commisions blind acceptance of witness accounts despite those accounts suspected of being extremely biased, those accounts were actually debunked by a Turkish journalist who denied that the IDF fired at the deck before landing:

14. As the soldiers were taken hostage, shots were heard from the helicopter.9 According to Şefik Dinç, the commandos, who had until that point used plastic bullets, switched to live ammunition. Most of the people killed were on the upper deck; however, some were killed or injured on the lower decks as well. Doctors and several operatives who saw the dead claimed that two people had been shot dead in the head (p. 48).

But this is not all: A Lebanese journalist claims the same:

Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony.

The standoff lasted about 10 minutes until the Israelis opened fire, he said: "One man got a direct hit to the head and another one was shot in the neck."

But the account from Andre Abu Khalil, a cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, echoed other testimony, from both sides, that after an initial landing by a small group of commandos armed with anti-riot weapons was overpowered by activists wielding sticks, a second wave of marines stormed in, killing those in their way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG

And yet the report completely ignores their testimony, which varifies both the IDF's claims and the photographic evidence, and says that the IDF fired on the deck before landing!! This is beyond absurd.