UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Eurytus]

Yeah, keep barking.

I take it you don't have an answer then......

Look, the UHNRC is a very problematic body. This has been discussed at length in previous threads and I have no wish to go over all of it again. Note, that a vast majority of it's resolutions are against Israel. Given that I'm sure not even Shryke thinks that Israel is the no.1 Human Rights Violator in the world, I think it's pretty clear something is rotten in the kingdom of UHNRC.

Issuing resolutions against dictatorships or military juntas is not going to get much done. However resolutions might sway governments in democracies, or failing that they might influence the people who vote in said democracies and it is they who decide the government.

And Israel are certainly right up there when it comes to human rights abusing democracies.

[Eurytus]

I would advise all of you to look at the source of this report before giving it a "stamp of approval" simply because it originated from a UN body. It came from an internationally recognized biased source (the notorious HRC), and is not considered the official UN investigation (which will take months more to produce its final findings and has both Turkish and Israeli representatives in it).

The current report you are all squabbling over is little more than a politicised HRC report. This is why it is generally ignored.

When you are unable to refute the report you attack the source. A failed argument and seems to happen an awful lot when the UN speaks out about Israel.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Issuing resolutions against dictatorships or military juntas is not going to get much done.

So what? I don't think Israel tends to comply with most resolutions either, but that doesn't stop them from getting passed. Not passing resolutions simply because you don't think really nasty countries or organizations will comply results in the bizarre situation of the lesser offender being cited more often for abuses. That hands a huge propaganda victory to the even worse abusers who happen to be dictatorships or juntas, and gives them even less incentive to moderate their behavior.

[davos]

The right to self-defense is absolute.

No, its not. For example does a nation that perceives a potential future threat, real or imagined, from another nation have the right to invade and occupy that nation to eliminate that possible danger (and, not I'm not referencing Israel's destruction of the Egyptian air-force at the commencement of the 6 Day War. There was clear evidence of a real and imminent threat. Completely different situation) Very few would think this was justified, yet could be justified if the right to self-defense was absolute. To carry it further, one nation borders another who is not overtly hostile but with which it has significant disagreements. Would that nation have the right to destroy the other because their disagreements could potentially lead to future hostility at a moment that the first nation might not be in as good a position to respond. Even fewer would think agree that is ok but could also be justified if the right of self-defense was indeed absolute.

I put forth these examples with the intention of showing the fallacy in your statement. If carried through to its logical extremes it falls apart as ridiculous. Of course there are limitations on the right of self-defense. If there weren't it could be used to justify almost anything. The question is what those limits are. I firmly believe that elements of the flotilla incident being discussed here did cross that line as has the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Now, I will allow that Israel (both the nation and the people that make it up) may in general see that line differently than the rest of the world. I can understand that. This is a nation that has survived, particularly for the first 40 or 50 yrs of its existence, surrounded by extremely hostile nations. It lived under the real threat of annihilation for years. I acknowledge this history and how it has affected the current mind set in Israel. The reality though is that threat has faded a great deal in recent years. Regardless, there are things that are never justified. Its unique situation does not give Israel a carte-blanche to commit atrocities and to violate basic human rights in the name of self defense.

2) Really? Nobody's starving to death in Africa anymore? I would say my "continuum of evil" is spot on.

People starving to death in hordes>Some isolated malnurishment problems

No one's claiming that there are not people starving in Africa or that the nightmare situations in parts of that country are not more severe than what is being experienced in the Gaza strip. Just because there are situations that are more evil in the world does not make what is occurring in Gaza ok. People, especially children, are suffering and they are doing so as a direct result of the actions of Israel. I think moral outrage is the appropriate reaction. If Israel changed is policies the situation in Gaza could improve quickly.

[Eurytus]

So what? I don't think Israel tends to comply with most resolutions either, but that doesn't stop them from getting passed. Not passing resolutions simply because you don't think really nasty countries or organizations will comply results in the bizarre situation of the lesser offender being cited more often for abuses. That hands a huge propaganda victory to the even worse abusers who happen to be dictatorships or juntas, and gives them even less incentive to moderate their behavior.

I hear this same sort of argument when people complain about the fact that we dare to hold the US or UK military to a higher standard when it comes to how they should behave than the terrorists they're fighting.

Its nonsense.

Israel claim to be a progressive "first world" democratic nation. Quite clearly we have a right to expect more from them than we would Kim Jong-il.

Nor do I think that dictatorships or juntas score "propoganda victories" through not having resolutions passed. Who thought better of Saddam or his ilk because they avoided a resolution? Outside of his inner circle?

[Ser Reptitious]

Samalander,

1) Use national police forces outside the borders of the nation? Isn't that a violation of international law? (everyone says "sure, Israel has every right to defend itself", but whenever we do something in our defense they have some bone to pick with what we actually did).

2) This is the best marine infantry force the country has.

1) The boarding of the ship occurred in international waters, so Israel is already on thin ground if you want to make a strict legality argument. But aside from that, I'm pretty sure the IDF also has some crowd-control units, given their deployment in the occupied territories.

2) Be that as it may, it clearly was the wrong unit for the job if it specializes in ship sinkings.

[TrueMetis]

2) This is the best marine infantry force the country has.

That's doesn't put the Israeli military in a very good light. If that the best you have to offer then if the U.S. every cuts you off you are screwed.

[Samalander]

1) The boarding of the ship occurred in international waters, so Israel is already on thin ground if you want to make a strict legality argument.

2) But aside from that, I'm pretty sure the IDF also has some crowd-control units, given their deployment in the occupied territories.

1) Again, using military forces to enforce a lawful blockade is perfectly legal. Of course, the legality of the blockade itself seems to depend on which side of the argument one is on.

2) Yeah, but they wouldn't know port from starboard. They might also get sea-sick. You get the picture. plus, who the hell knew crowd-control would be required?

[Ser Reptitious]

Samalander,

1) Again, using military forces to enforce a lawful blockade is perfectly legal. Of course, the legality of the blockade itself seems to depend on which side of the argument one is on.

2) Yeah, but they wouldn't know port from starboard. They might also get sea-sick. You get the picture. plus, who the hell knew crowd-control would be required?

1) My point is, they simply could have waited until the boat had entered Israeli territorial waters (or Gaza's territorial waters, which is controlled through occupation by Israel).

2) sea-sick? :stunned: That's the best you can come up with? :lol: I'm pretty sure IDF soldiers are a bit hardier than that!

As for who knew that crowd-control would be required, it's a matter of logically anticipating a situation: the IDF must have known that in order to stop the vessel it may well have to be boarded. Foreseeing that this boarding might entail some form of crowd-control should not exactly come as a surprise.

[Lightning Lord]

Well, if you don't think Israel has a right to defend itself, then you want to see it destroyed. There are no other options.

This is wholly absurd. As has been noted by others before me. Since I find the concept of a pre-emptive strike repulsive, we're just not going to agree on this, ever.

I have no wish for Israel to be destroyed. None. That doesn't mean they get freedom to do what they want and call it self-defense.

[Spastic Plastic]

Well, if you don't think Israel has a right to defend itself, then you want to see it destroyed. There are no other options.

It's okay, son. It's okay. Take a deep breath and count to ten.

*Escorts Samalander to his padded cell*

[Samalander]

Since I find the concept of a pre-emptive strike repulsive, we're just not going to agree on this, ever.

Come on, Are you telling me you wouldn't sleep better at night if the US pre-emptively struck and destroyed all the missile silos of your northern neighbour?

[TrueMetis]

Come on, Are you telling me you wouldn't sleep better at night if the US pre-emptively struck and destroyed all the missile silos of your northern neighbour?

Canada has missile silos? Dude we don't even have a hundred working fighter jets. Any missile silos in Canada were built by the U.S.

[Lightning Lord]

Come on, Are you telling me you wouldn't sleep better at night if the US pre-emptively struck and destroyed all the missile silos of your northern neighbour?

Yes. That is exactly what I am telling you. I cannot accurately state just how disgusted, appalled, enraged I would be if that happened.

[Lightning Lord]

Canada has missile silos? Dude we don't even have a hundred working fighter jets. Any missile silos in Canada were built by the U.S.

I'm assuming he's referring to my present location: South Korea and the northern neighbor being Kim Jong Il's place.

I could be mitaken. I'm less perturbed about the prospect of going after Canuckistan. ;)

[Lord O' Bones]

:rolleyes:

Fine. Nobody, except for special snowlflake Lord O' Bones who refuses to draw a pattern from previous behavior, would expect any less.

So much smug. So much fail.

[TrueMetis]

I'm assuming he's referring to my present location: South Korea and the northern neighbor being Kim Jong Il's place.

I could be mitaken. I'm less perturbed about the prospect of going after Canuckistan. ;)

He said US so I just assumed. Not that North Korea is doing all that well in the missile department either.

ETA though I shouldn't assume considering the U.S. has military forces fucking everywhere. If most of the U.S. forces around the world where recalled they could solve the deficit.

[mormont]

I've already said I think there is legitimate disagreement on that point. I understand and respect the argument that they shouldn't have seized the ship at all if it meant using deadly force.

I think this is the essence of the disagreement you and I have. I don't have the time or inclination to get into the level of detailed argument of the sequencing of events, the various tactics that may/may not/could/should have been tried (other than to note, once more, the absurdity of suggesting that the Israeli military possess only one or at most two methods of stopping or diverting a ship without sinking it).

But in the end, what I think this particular disagreement hinges on is strategic priorities. If we accept for the sake of argument that you're correct that there was no alternative to boarding again, and we accept that it was foreseeable that doing this would create a high risk of civilian deaths, then the issue becomes 'what was the IDF's overriding priority here?' Was it to avoid fatalities, or was it to avoid a propaganda defeat? If the former, then there's no way the attempt should have been made. Since the attempt was made, either there was a catastrophic misjudgment of the risks involved - which would suggest incompetence and possibly also a culture in the IDF that disregards or downplays risk to life - or the overriding strategic priority was to avoid a propaganda defeat, even if that meant a high chance of fatalities on board the Mavi Marmara. Either is completely unacceptable. And that's even before we get into discussions of the legality of the blockade, the testimony of the witnesses, the physical evidence suggesting mistreatment, etc.

The thing that worries me is that Israel is fast becoming its own worst enemy. It needs to handle incidents such as this much better.

[Yoadm]

Ahhhh, the classiest defense of them all. You can't argue with anything in the report, so you denounce the source.

It must be so difficult to be so unbiased all the time!

If this is your response, you are totally ignorant of the HRC, which initiated this report and set its investigative parameters:

Council's position on Israel

The UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticised by mainly Western countries for focusing too much on Israel.[18] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel and had been the only country the UN Human Rights Council had specifically condemned.[19][20] By comparison, toward Sudan, a country with severe human rights abuses in Darfur as documented by the Council's work groups, it has only expressed "deep concern."[19]

The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of possible human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session (Israel is the only country on earth it voted on to do so). The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as Darfur.[21]

At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the Council announced the establishment of a High-Level Commission of Inquiry charged with probing allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[22] The resolution was passed by a vote of 27 in favour to 11 against, with 8 abstentions. Before and after the vote several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting the resolution solely at Israel and failing to address Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece. The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel,"[23] as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah.

On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.[24][25] Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day), noting the Commission's "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[26]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations in criticising the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. A UN statement said, "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." The European Union, Canada and the United States attacked the singling-out of Israel's role in the Palestinian territories for continued special investigation, under the deal reached in Geneva two days earlier.

The Geneva meeting aroused further controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, carried forward from the defunct Commission.[3]The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.[4][5]

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush highlighted points such as "dictatorship... [in] Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration," "the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. ... In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. ... In Zimbabwe, ordinary citizens suffer under a tyrannical regime. ... In Sudan, innocent civilians are suffering repression – and in the Darfur region, many are losing their lives to genocide."

The president added: "The goals I've outlined today cannot be achieved overnight – and they cannot be achieved without reform in this vital institution. The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran – while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council."[6]

Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.

As of January 24, 2008, Israel has been condemned 15 times in less than two years since the council was established. Myanmar (formerly Burma), has also been condemned by the council.

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

Overall, up untill now, over 70% of the council's resolutions were against Israel, while nations like Cuba, Sudan and Syria are practically excempt because the member states of the UNHRC (Arab, Muslim and non-aligned), use their numerical weight to protect themselves, while futering their agenda's (in the Arab and Muslim world's case, bashing Israel).

This is the organization which initiated this report, it set the investigative parameters and chose the members of the investigation. This is why the real UN report is months from being finished, and it is the only one treated as credible.

[Yoadm]

And yet none of the people saying this can come up with any evidence to back this assertion up.

Where is the evidence of prior anti-Israeli bias on the part of Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips from Trinidad and Tobago, Sir Desmond de Silva of the UK or Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia?

One might almost think you were attempting to smear the writers of the report because it came to findings you don't like....

Actually, there is very little effort needed to prove that the UNHRC is a joke of an organization. Unfortunately, some people naively think that anything that has the "UN" stamp attached to it is automatically unbiased. Much of the HRC is made up of a solid group of muslim or non-aligned countries. The former is interested first and foremost in using the organization to deflect criticism from it, and secondly, to bash Israel. The latter tends to go along for political reasons. That is why it's a joke of an organization. Look at their resolutions if you don't believe it. So, they initiated the investigation, chose the members, and created the investigative parameters. It's the main reason the 'findings' simply reiterated word by word the claims of the IHH activists, including claims that are either totally improbable, or have no evidence to back them up. The commision purposely ignored the IHH's role in the violence and the footage presented to it which produced a whole other story.

So, sorry, no go. Your smug attempt to lable me as 'defaming' any claim which isnt pro-Israeli has little to do with the HRC.

When you are unable to refute the report you attack the source. A failed argument and seems to happen an awful lot when the UN speaks out about Israel.

I tend to look into reports that have even an ounce of credibility in them. This report is little different than if the Arab League issued a statement regarding Israel. If a trial is a sham, it's a sham, there's very little to add to it, and you seem wholly ignorant of the HRC's history. Wait for the actuall UN report on the flotilla due in a few months.

But in the end, what I think this particular disagreement hinges on is strategic priorities. If we accept for the sake of argument that you're correct that there was no alternative to boarding again, and we accept that it was foreseeable that doing this would create a high risk of civilian deaths, then the issue becomes 'what was the IDF's overriding priority here?' Was it to avoid fatalities, or was it to avoid a propaganda defeat? If the former, then there's no way the attempt should have been made. Since the attempt was made, either there was a catastrophic misjudgment of the risks involved - which would suggest incompetence and possibly also a culture in the IDF that disregards or downplays risk to life

Or, and let's try the third option you didn't consider, IDF intelligence completely messed up with regards to the IHH, its intentions, and the opposition the commando's would face, leading to them boarding unprepared, with boarding plans aimed at dealing with passive activists, right into a riot where their lives were threatened. It is much more plausable that it was one big intelligence fvckup than anything else.