UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[The Progressive]

All witnesses are biased. My issue is that a biased investigation choses to either believe or disbelieve specific witness accounts and can thus create two completely different stories.

That's really your issue and does not invalidate the validity of the witnesses testimonies. The video/audio recordings and witnesses testimonties corroborate each other and give a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

[Yoadm]

Have you even read the report, Yoadm?

I have, and your question is a bit surprising since I've commented on specific incidents outlined in the report.

That's really your issue and does not invalidate the validity of the witnesses testimonies. The video/audio recordings and witnesses testimonties corroborate each other and give a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

First of all, all witnesses are biased, including the commando's. It's about sorting out the witness stories, fantasy and bias from truth. The commitee's blind acceptance of many of the accusations, despite the video recordings proving otherwise is one of the major qualms I have with it. By the way, just to make sure you arn't making stuff up: Which specific video corroberates which testimony?

[ljkeane]

I assume you read the chapter. It deals with the international mandate that the commision enjoyes, like not being hindered by an outside power, or protection for the members and witnesses. In other words, it outlines the different protections afforded to the committee, but none of it deals with the parameters of the investigation itself, formed by the UNHRC.

What? It sets out exactly how they investigated the incident, precisely what you were asking for. The manner in which it's done is entirely consistent with other similar reports I've read so I'm decidedly unconvinced by your objection to the report on that basis.

[Yoadm]

What? It sets out exactly how they investigated the incident, precisely what you were asking for. The manner in which it's done is entirely consistent with other similar reports I've read so I'm decidedly unconvinced by your objection to the report on that basis.

I've outlined precisely what the chapter deals with. The different rights and protections afforded to the commitee, not the parameters of the investigation itself. That was never published. If you claim otherwise, then I would love to see a quote dealing with it.

[ljkeane]

I've outlined precisely what the chapter deals with. The different rights and protections afforded to the commitee, not the parameters of the investigation itself. That was never published.

Actually no, it deals with what evidence they received and how it was evaluated. You know, the 'methodology' of their investigation rather unsurprisingly.

[Yoadm]

Actually no, it deals with what evidence they received and how it was evaluated. You know, the 'methodology' of their investigation rather unsurprisingly.

I see you have read the topic of the chapter. Did you keep reading? Apart from making general statements regarding the taking of witness accounts, the number of witnesses questioned and their nationality, there is no reference to the questioning itself, the treatment of the witness as hostile or not, how to deal with different kinds of testimonies, cross-examination, etc.. There are specific parameters of how one deals with witnesses or an investigation itself. From the same material, you can produce two completely different stories. Indeed, none of this explains, for instance, why the commision chose to believe unfounded stories of the IDF shooting at the deck before landing, while ignoring the footage proving otherwise, and the testimony by the Lebanese journalist who claimed no shooting took place untill after the beatings. It allso does not explain why the commision termed the Gaza conflict an armed conflict and not an internal one, yet judged the blockade according to what internal conflict standards. It reeks, basically.

[The Progressive]

Seriously, this is what was stated on methodology:

"19. Different sources of information were made available to the Mission, including the

evidence of eyewitnesses, forensic reports and interviews with medical and forensic

personnel in Turkey, as well as written statements, video film footage and other

photographic material relating to the incident.

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 eyewitnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with

government officials. In light of the seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media

storage devices and the subsequent disclosure of only 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 it.

21. Taking into consideration the resources and limited time available, the Mission

travelled to Istanbul, Ankara and Iskenderun in Turkey, Amman in Jordan and London in

the United Kingdom in order to interview witnesses, hold meetings with government

officials and conduct an inspection of the ship Mavi Marmara, in which nine passengers

died on 31 May 2010. The Mission was able to contact several persons with information

bearing on the matters under enquiry. A total of 112 witnesses6 were interviewed by the

Mission, either by all of its members at the same time or by individual members. In

addition written statements were received from several persons through their attorneys.

In assessing the evidence and information available to it, the Mission paid particular

attention to the content of the evidence and demeanour of the persons appearing before it in

deciding whether, and if so, what part of the information provided should be accepted.

More weight of necessity was accorded to such evidence if believed than to information

from other sources. In addition, with respect to information in the nature of hearsay

evidence, due regard was paid, giving to it such weight as the circumstances merited.

Matters were decided on the basis of the preponderance and quality of the evidence so as to

satisfy all the members of the Mission in order that they felt sure of their conclusions.

In all, very sensible and objective parameters for any investigation. Your objection is so friviously and bizzare, Yoadm.

[Yoadm]

Seriously, this is what was stated on methodology:

In all, very sensible and objective parameters for any investigation. Your objection is so friviously and bizzare, Yoadm.

As I wrote above, they outline issues like the rights and protections of the committee, the number of witnesses, their nationality, the sources of information available to them (video, forensic, witness), etc.. It's all very general and technical, and completely avoids how the witnesses are interviewed, how they are treated, the parameters for examining conflicting information. Basically, read up on what I explained above which was lacking in the report:

There is no reference to the questioning itself, the treatment of the witness as hostile or not, how to deal with different kinds of testimonies, cross-examination, etc.. There are specific parameters of how one deals with witnesses or an investigation itself. From the same material, you can produce two completely different stories. Indeed, none of this explains, for instance, why the commision chose to believe unfounded stories of the IDF shooting at the deck before landing, while ignoring the footage proving otherwise, and the testimony by the Lebanese journalist who claimed no shooting took place untill after the beatings. It allso does not explain why the commision termed the Gaza conflict an armed conflict and not an internal one, yet judged the blockade according to what internal conflict standards. It reeks, basically.

[ljkeane]

I see you have read the topic of the chapter. Did you keep reading?

Since it doesn't mention anything about the protecting witnesses etc I'm not particularly sure why you're questioning whether I kept reading.

Apart from making general statements regarding the taking of witness accounts, the number of witnesses questioned and their nationality, there is no reference to the questioning itself, the treatment of the witness as hostile or not, how to deal with different kinds of testimonies, cross-examination, etc..

It sets out how they evaluated witnesses and goes into a level of detail that is perfectly standard for this sort of report. I suspect that rather like the Goldstone report the entire transcripts of the evidence they received and possibly video of the hearings are available somewhere and you can search through the UN website if you want but I'm more than convinced that what is available in the report are perfectly reasonable 'parameters' of their investigation.

To be blunt I think you're making your objections up as you go along now and they're completely unjustified so I'll leave it at that.

[The Progressive]

Yoadm,

So you want like an instruction book describing every little details, including interview transcripts, annotated notes and investigative memos, about this investigation?

I think perhaps you're confused about the meaning of the word "parameter".

[Yoadm]

Since it doesn't mention anything about the protecting witnesses etc I'm not particularly sure why you're questioning whether I kept reading.

Are you sure you read it?

(g) Protection should be guaranteed of victims and witnesses and all those who

are in contact with the Mission in connection with the inquiry. No such person shall,

as a result of such contact, suffer harassment, threats, acts of intimidation, illtreatment

or reprisals.

It sets out how they evaluated witnesses and goes into a level of detail that is perfectly standard for this sort of report.

It states on very general terms that witnesses were interviewed, specific numbers, their nationality, etc.. Not the way they form their investigation or interview the witnesses. It is completely lacking.

I suspect that rather like the Goldstone report the entire transcripts of the evidence they received and possibly video of the hearings are available somewhere and you can search through the UN website if you want but I'm more than conviced that what is available in the report are perfectly reasonable 'parameters' of their investigation.

Then Im sorry if you feel that general technical terms which ignore, for instance, how a witness is dealt with, examined, his information varified, etc.. can be considered investigative parameters. Rather, they supplied general information, not how the witnesses were investigated.

To be blunt I think you're making your objections up as you go along now and they're completely unjustified so I'll leave it at that.

To be blunt, you are full of it. In my first post in this thread, I have stated that the investigative parameters were not made public, and, surprise surprise, they werent. I did not backtrack, or add a claim that wasnt made before. Like I said, if you want to treat technical information like the number of witnesses questioned as a 'parameter for investigation', then you are either naive, or exceedingly dishonest.

Yoadm,

So you want like an instruction book describing every little details, including interview transcripts, annotated notes and investigative memos, about this investigation?

I think perhaps you're confused about the meaning of the word "parameter".

The way a witness is treated and how his information is varified is not a "little detail". It is a critical cornerstone of an investigation. Now, considering that there was more than one case in this report where witness accounts were ignored, others believed, or in other cases where international law was defined dually, each time according to a different case, then it is pretty obvious why the way the investigation was handled is critical, and why we should wait for the less politically oriented and mutually agreed upon commision report, set to be out in a few months.

[Galactus]

May I just say how glad I am to see that the debate has moved on to actually discussing the report?

Great job guys, seriously. This is one of the reasons I respect the people of this board. Kudos.

[ljkeane]

Are you sure you read it?

(g) Protection should be guaranteed of victims and witnesses and all those who

are in contact with the Mission in connection with the inquiry. No such person shall,

as a result of such contact, suffer harassment, threats, acts of intimidation, illtreatment

or reprisals.

That's not in chapter 1B, which would be what we are talking about.

To be blunt, you are full of it. In my first post in this thread, I have stated that the investigative parameters were not made public, and, surprise surprise, they werent. I did not backtrack, or add a claim that wasnt made before. Like I said, if you want to treat technical information like the number of witnesses questioned as a 'parameter for investigation', then you are either naive, or exceedingly dishonest.

Well if you don't think they qualify as investigative parameters I've never seen an official report for which the investigative parameters were published and I'm very confident that the report you are championing as unbiased also won't include parameters that meet the standard you are setting. So seriously I think you're clearly completely biased on this subject and I will leave it at that now.

[Galactus]

THAT is really the key argument. The argument that "well, Israel could have participated but chose not to, and so they can't bitch about the result" is a (very) quasi-legal argument that goes to whether Israel has a right to "object" to the conclusions. I say "quasi-legal" because it's the kind of argument one would make in a real courtroom, but of course the HRC is nothing of the sort.

As I see it, there's actually two separate questions here:

A) Is the report accurate/trustworthy?

B) Has it been carried out to the best of it's ability to achieve A?

Israel refusing to cooperate can at least be argued to compromise A, but it doesen't neccessarily compromise B. In any case, the investigation needs to proceed to the best of it's ability anyway, and form the conclusions of the vidence avilible to it.

[Yoadm]

That's not in chapter 1B, which would be what we are talking about.

We are talking about the methodology. Evidentely, you only read one of the pages dealing with it. Scroll down to page 58.

Well if you don't think they qualify as investigative parameters I've never seen an official report for which the investigative parameters were published and I'm very confident that the report you are championing as unbiased also won't include parameters that meet the standard you are setting.

I agree. Infact, I would wager that they won't be published. But what we do know is that, unlike the UNHRC report, the current investigation was formed while being analyzed by both sides who negotiated and agreed upon the parameters of the investigation. If both sides saw it as fair, and they did, then the parameters were probably far more balanced. Oh, and I never 'championed' the current report, nor did I say it was unbiased. What I do know is that it was mutually agreed upon, and not the birth child of an organization with a clear agenda on this issue.

So seriously I think you're clearly completely biased on this subject and I will leave it at that now.

Feel free to express your opinion.

As I see it, there's actually two separate questions here:

A) Is the report accurate/trustworthy?

B) Has it been carried out to the best of it's ability to achieve A?

Israel refusing to cooperate can at least be argued to compromise A, but it doesen't neccessarily compromise B. In any case, the investigation needs to proceed to the best of it's ability anyway, and form the conclusions of the vidence avilible to it.

And if the only conclusion they can form is one based on only one sides evidence? Should they make a claim knowing it simply echoes one side's narrative?

[ljkeane]

We are talking about the methodology. Evidentely, you only read one of the pages dealing with it. Scroll down to page 58.

So when you were responding to my point about Chapter 1B and you were talking about what was covered in that chapter you were actually talking about what was covered in Chapter 2B, 50 odd pages after the chapter I was talking about?

[Yoadm]

So when you were responding to my point about Chapter 1B and you what talking about what was covered in that chapter you were actually talking about what was covered in Chapter 2B, 50 odd pages after the chapter I was talking about?

I was responding to your claim about the methodology of the report, not a specific chapter which you read. Evidentely, a number of pages after you stopped reading, the report again delves into the subject, outlining the protections attributed to the witnesses.

[ljkeane]

I was responding to your claim about the methodology of the report, not a specific chapter which you read. Evidentely, a number of pages after you stopped reading, the report again delves into the subject, outlining the protections attributed to the witnesses.

So by 'I assume you read the chapter' you were not in fact referring to the chapter? Good to know.

Evidently I have difficulty not responding to points that irritate me but I will try to stop now.

[Yoadm]

So by 'I assume you read the chapter' you were not in fact referring to the chapter? Good to know.

By chapter, I meant the chapter dealing with the methodology. Forgive me for not outlining specifically that there were two different parts of the article dealing with it. I simply thought you read the whole report and knew that.

[The Progressive]

The way a witness is treated and how his information is varified is not a "little detail". It is a critical cornerstone of an investigation. Now, considering that there was more than one case in this report where witness accounts were ignored, others believed, or in other cases where international law was defined dually, each time according to a different case, then it is pretty obvious why the way the investigation was handled is critical, and why we should wait for the less politically oriented and mutually agreed upon commision report, set to be out in a few months.

I struggle to come up with any UN report where such minute details are exhaustively described in its methodology section ........ perhaps you know of a few and could point us to a link or two, Yoadm.