<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>Why the Palmer-Uribe report on Israel’s flotilla
attack is worthless</b></font></h1><font size=3>Submitted by Ali Abunimah
on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 08:00 <br>
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/why-palmer-uribe-report-israels-flotilla-attack-worthless" eudora="autourl">
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/why-palmer-uribe-report-israels-flotilla-attack-worthless<br>
<br>
</a>Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez has been criticized for his
abuses of human rights defenders. (Center for American Progress)
<br><br>
<b>Turkey has imposed sanctions on Israel following Turkey’s rejection of
a UN report on Israel’s attack on the Gaza flotilla last year.<br><br>
</b>In the latest developments on Friday morning,
<a href="http://www.todayszaman.com/news-255543-turkey-downgrades-ties-with-israel-suspends-military-agreements.html">
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto lu rejected the findings of the
report and announced unprecedented sanctions on Israel</a> saying “it’s
time for Israel to pay a price.”<br><br>
From 7 September, diplomatic ties will be reduced to the lowest level,
all Turkish-Israeli military agreements will be canceled, and Turkey will
support victims of the Israeli attack on the flotilla to pursue justice
through legal cases.<br><br>
Crucially, Davuto lu affirmed that Turkey does not recognize the blockade
of Gaza which the Palmer report attempted to justify, and which a UN
Human Rights Council official fact-finding mission had already ruled to
be illegal. Turkey will also challenge the Israeli siege of Gaza through
international legal channels.<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Palmer report attempts to whitewash attack on flotilla,
justify Israeli siege</b></h2><font size=3>A
<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf">
leaked copy of the Palmer report</a> into Israel’s attack on the
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/gaza-freedom-flotilla">Gaza
Freedom Flotilla</a> in May 2010 was published by the <i>New York
Times</i> on Thursday, a day before its expected official release by the
UN Secretary General.<br><br>
On 31 May 2010,
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/israels-attack-gaza-freedom-flotilla-looking-back-year-later">
Israel attacked the largest ship in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the Mavi
Marmara</a>, killing 9 people on board.<br><br>
Publication of the report had been delayed several times as Turkey and
Israel attempted to negotiate a settlement. Turkey demanded an apology
for the attack, compensation for victims and an end to the
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/gaza-siege">siege of
Gaza</a>. In his statement today Davuto lu said Israel had passed up many
opportunities to resolve the issue.<br><br>
The four-member committee that wrote the Palmer report was appointed by
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and was chaired by former New Zealand
prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and vice-chaired by former president of
Colombia Alvaro Uribe.<br><br>
This panel is in addition to an official UN Human Rights Council
fact-finding mission which
<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.PDF">
reported last September</a> that Israel’s attack on the ships was
illegal.<br><br>
According to the
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html">
<i>The New York
Times</a></i>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html">
article on the Palmer report</a>, the Palmer panel:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and
appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels
trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and
unreasonable.<br><br>
<dd>The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when
Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and
violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore
required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the
force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was
unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of
passengers was abusive.<br><br>
</dl>An initial examination of the report indicates that these many of
findings are not credible on their face</b> for a number of reasons
including the composition of the panel, its reliance on Israel which has
controlled and withheld most of the evidence, and a skewed and
politicized perspective which ignores the realities of Israel’s
decades-long violent occupation of Gaza.<br><br>
<h2><b>Palmer panel was stacked for Israel and includes notorious human
rights abuser</b></h2><font size=3>As
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/uribes-appointment-flotilla-probe-guarantees-its-failure/8968">
Jose Antonio Gutierrez and David Landy explained on The Electronic
Intifada in August 2010</a>, the panel was selected almost entirely
according to Israel’s dictates:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The commission is composed of four persons, one chosen by Turkey, one
chosen by Israel and two chosen from a list provided by Israel. The
latter two are former Prime Minister of New Zealand Geoffrey Palmer, who
will be the chair, and Uribe, who will serve as vice-chair. While Palmer,
an expert in international law, is an uncontroversial choice, the
appointment of Uribe is as perplexing as it is shocking. It appears that
“balance” in this commission involves balance between someone versed in
international and human rights law and someone who is adamantly opposed
to it. This notion of balance fatally weakens this commission even before
it has started, and tarnishes the process of international law.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>Uribe himself has a long and notorious history of violating human
rights on a massive scale, attacking human rights defenders and
organizations, and expressing contempt for any notion of law that
restrains states from engaging in almost any kind of violence they
desire.<br><br>
Gutierrez and Landy on Uribe’s record in Colombia:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>In June 2010 an international human rights mission investigated the
biggest mass grave in the western hemisphere containing some 2,000
execution victims who had been dumped there since 2004 which had just
been discovered in the Colombian town of La Macarena. At the same time
Uribe travelled to that very locality but not to pay his condolences to
the victims’ families, or guarantee that an investigation would determine
what happened there. Instead, he went to visit the local military base
exactly the same people that, according to victims’ reports, filled that
mass grave with its grisly contents to praise them for their
work.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>On Uribe’s attacks on human rights defenders, Gutierrez and Landy
write:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Uribe’s scorn for human right defenders is notorious.</b> According
to Human Rights First, “President Uribe and other administration
officials have branded [human rights defenders] as terrorist sympathizers
and have insinuated that illicit connections exist between human rights
NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and illegal armed groups.
Irresponsible comments by government officials in Colombia put the lives
of human rights defenders at even greater risk and threaten to undermine
the value and credibility of their work”
(“<a href="http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_colombia/hrd_colombia.aspx?c=c1">
Human Rights Defencers in Colombia</a>”).<br><br>
<dd>In September 2009 Colombia was visited by Margaret Sekaggya, special
rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from the UN Human
Rights Commission. Sekaggya found that constant problems faced by human
rights defenders in Colombia include “Stigmatization [of human rights
defenders] by public officials and non-State actors; their illegal
surveillance by State intelligence services; their arbitrary arrest and
detention, and their judicial harassment; and raids of nongovernmental
organizations’ (NGOs) premises and theft of information”
(“<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/defenders/docs/A.HRC.13.22.Add.3_en.pdf">
Report of the Special Rapporteur</a> …,” 4 March 2010, pp. 13-18 [PDF]).
Public officials in Colombia constantly attack human rights defenders and
members of the political and social opposition as aides of “terrorists,”
that is, left-wing guerrillas.<br><br>
<dd>Uribe has led these attacks, calling human rights defenders
“rent-a-mobs at terrorism’s service who cowardly wave the human rights
flag,” “human rights traffickers,” “charlatans of human rights,”
“bandits’</b> [ie. guerrillas] colleagues,” “intellectual front of the
FARC [the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]” and he has stated that
“Every time terrorists and their supporters feel they will be defeated,
they resort to denouncing human rights violations.</b>”<br><br>
</dl>This is just a small selection of Uribe’s verbal attacks on human
rights organizations in his own country, but he has also referred to
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as “rats.”<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Uribe’s alliance with Israel</b></h2><font size=3>During
Uribe’s term, Colombia, which is one of the top three recipients of US
military aid along with Israel and Egypt, developed a close military
alliance with Israel, as Gutierrez and Landy explain:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>In recent years, according to news reports, Israel has become
Colombia’s number one weapon supplier, with arms worth tens of millions
of dollars, “including Kfir aircraft, drones, weapons and intelligence
systems” being used against opponents of the Colombian regime
(“<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3435949,00.html">
Report: Israelis fighting guerillas in Colombia</a>,” Ynet, 10 August
2007). According to a senior Israeli defense official, “Israel’s methods
of fighting terror have been duplicated in Colombia”
(“<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174358">Colombia’s
FM: We share your resilience</a>,” 30 April 2010).<br><br>
<dd>There is a reason that Latin Americans often refer to Colombia as the
“Israel of Latin America,” and indeed why Colombian President-elect Juan
Manuel Santos, ex-Minister of Defence and right hand of Uribe, expressed
his pride at such a comparison
(“<a href="http://www.elespectador.com/video-207170-santos-orgulloso-de-colombia-comparen-israel">
Santos, orgulloso de que a Colombia lo comparen con Israel,” El
Espectador</a>, 6 June 2010).<br><br>
</dl>As Gutierrez and Landy also point out, top officials in Uribe’s
administration, including the president himself, frequently expressed
full support for Israel’s fight against what it terms
“terrorism.”<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Israel withheld and manipulated
evidence</b></h2><font size=3>The Palmer panel cannot be described in any
sense as an independent investigation. As the report states:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national
investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel. Turkey established a
National Commission of Inquiry to examine the facts of the incident and
its legal consequences, which provided an interim and final report to the
Panel along with annexes and related material. Israel provided the report
of the independent Public Commission that it had established to review
whether the actions taken by the State of Israel had been compatible with
international law.<br><br>
<dd>The Panel reviewed these reports and further information and
clarifications it received in written form and through direct meetings
with Points of Contact appointed by each government.<br><br>
</dl>The report adds:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were
through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to
compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal
investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the
two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and
other affected States.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>The panel therefore interviewed no survivors or witnesses. Only
Israel controlled most key physical evidence – the ship itself and the
belongings and recordings of all the passengers and the weapons Israel
used in carrying out the attack.</b> The panel did not have uncensored
access to the massive amounts of evidence in the form of photo and video
from passengers on board that Israel has stolen, hidden and refused to
release or return. As a consequence, of these crippling limitations, the
report states:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of
fact or law. But it can give its view.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>The panel also implies that its own independence is further in
question because:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>It will be clear from the above that the essential logic of the
Panel’s inquiry is that it is dependent upon the investigations conducted
by Israel and Turkey</b>.<br><br>
</dl>In contrast, the
<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.PDF">
UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission report published last
September</a> went much beyond merely commenting on information provided
by governments. That fact-finding mission:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>conducted interviews with more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London,
Istanbul and Amman.<br><br>
</dl>And in addition to information provided by governments, the Human
Rights Council also relied on information<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dl>Perhaps because of its thoroughness, Israel refused to cooperate
with the Human Rights Council fact-finding mission, just as it refused to
cooperate with the Goldstone report.<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Accusations of “violent
resistance”</b></h2><font size=3>The Palmer panel report claims:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and
violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi
Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three
soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those
passengers. Several others were wounded.<br><br>
</dl>Given the fact that Palmer panel did not gather any evidence of its
own, its conclusion that the Israeli military attackers who boarded the
Mavi Marmara under cover of dark in international waters, faced
“organized and violent resistance” can be given no more credibility than
any common or garden Israeli military press release.<br><br>
While Israel has repeatedly made such claims, it never produced
independent evidence of it and – as noted – is still concealing
evidence.<br><br>
Nevertheless, the video footage that did escape Israeli confiscation
showed:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/20299014">Indiscriminate
live fire by the Israeli attackers</a>
<li>
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/the-last-moments-of-cevdet-klclar-a-working-j">
A working journalist who appears to have been executed</a>
<li>
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/did-israel-try-to-assassinate-sheikh-raed-sal">
Evidence of targeted assassination of at least one passenger</a>
</ul>Even the deeply flawed Palmer report is forced to admit:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by
Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable.
Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli
forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by
Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of
the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close
range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by
Israel.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>Moreover, the propagandistic Israeli claims that their soldiers were
mistreated
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/blog-post-israel-hasbara-fails-again-pics-sho">
were belied by photographs that showed passengers giving aid and
protection to Israeli attackers who had been disarmed</a>.<br><br>
It is possible of course that passengers defended themselves against a
terrifying Israeli assault in dead of night with a
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/european-and-american-weapons-used-in-israeli">
full military arsenal that included assault helicopters and elite
commandos</a> against a civilian ship.<br><br>
Indeed, <a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/20299014">footage shows
terrified passengers hiding and attempting to fend off indiscriminate
fire with sticks in a blood-stained stairwell</a>. But to equate any of
this to “organized and violent resistance” that could in any way justify
Israel’s execution-style killings is completely absurd.<br><br>
</font><h2><b>The blockade is “legal”</b></h2><font size=3>The Palmer
report’s assertion that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza is legal and
necessary for “security” echoes the other aspects of the report that
accept Israeli military propaganda as given.<br><br>
By privileging the security of Israel, the occupying power, the report
also ignores the rights and needs for security of the Palestinian people
in Gaza who are being collectively punished and who have been subjected
to decades of indiscriminate Israeli military attacks in which thousands
of civilians have been killed and injured.<br><br>
Yet this opinion of the Panel is, as the report states, not binding in
any legal sense. But more importantly,
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/mavi-marmara-was-heading-away-from-israelgaza">
it has no bearing at all on the assault on the Mavi Marmara, which Israel
attacked in international waters as it was moving
</a>away</i>
<a href="http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/mavi-marmara-was-heading-away-from-israelgaza">
from the Gaza Strip</a> and the Israeli-controlled coast of
Palestine.<br><br>
Israel’s claim that it needs to blockade people it is violently
victimizing in order to prevent them obtaining any means means whatsoever
to defend themselves can only be made by wholly ignoring the context of
Israel’s violent occupation of Gaza and decades of well-documented war
crimes.<br><br>
Israel is not in a defensive position in which it can claim a “security”
need to impose a blockade. Israel is the military aggressor which for
decades from 1967 until 2005 violently colonized the Gaza Strip, placing
settlers there in blatant violation of international law. Since 2005,
Israel has continued to occupy besiege, harass, attack and kill civilians
in Gaza with almost no respite culminating in the indiscriminate killing
of hundreds of civilians during the 2008-2009
“<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/operation-cast-lead">
Operation Cast Lead</a>.”<br><br>
A perfect example of Israel’s wanton violence was
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-protests-against-israel-and-flagman-saved-lives-gaza">
its unprovoked series of attacks on the Gaza Strip last month</a> which
killed more than two dozen people, including children.<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Human Rights Council fact-finding mission and legality of
Israeli blockade</b></h2><font size=3>The
<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.PDF">
UN Human Rights Council had already concluded</a> that Israel’s
interception of the flotilla was illegal because the blockade was
unjustified:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by
OCHA oPt [Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs in the occupied
Palestinian territories), 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.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>It also concludes:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the
imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza
Strip for having elected Hamas.</b> The combination of this motive and
the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that
Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined
by international law.<br><br>
</b>
</dl>and that:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of
Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.<br>
</b></font>
</dl><h2><b>Palmer panel went against international consensus on
blockade</b></h2><font size=3>Moreover, the Turkish appointee on the
Palmer panel, Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, noted in a dissenting statement
rejecting large parts of the report:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted
two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on
the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal
framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report
fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views
of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by
Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international
community.</b> Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is
unlawful.
<dd>Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was
unlawful. The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission
received widespread approval from the member states.
<dd>Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally
accepted rule of international law. There can be no exception from this
long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of
views.
<dd>The intentions of the participants in the international humanitarian
convoy were humanitarian, reflecting the concerns of the vast majority of
the international community. They came under attack in international
waters. They resisted for their own protection. Nine civilians were
killed and many others were injured by the Israeli soldiers. One of the
victims is still in a coma. The evidence confirms that at least some of
the victims had been killed deliberately.
<dd>The wording in the report is not satisfactory in describing the
actual extent of the atrocities that the victims have been subjected to.
This includes the scope of the maltreatment suffered by the passengers in
the hands of Israeli soldiers and officials.</font>
</ul>
</ul><h2><b>After Goldstone, protecting Israel</b></h2><font size=3>Based
on what was known before its report became public, and now that we have
read the report, it is clear that the Palmer panel was no more than
political exercise by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to whitewash
Israel’s attack on the flotilla and protect it from any real
accountability.<br><br>
After Israel and the United States’s all out war on the
<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm">
Goldstone report</a> detailing Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it appears
that international officials are unwilling to repeat the
experience.<br><br>
Indeed,
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-leaked-documents-show-pa-undermined-turkeys-push-un-flotilla-probe/8888">
an exclusive report on The Electronic Intifada in June 2010</a> revealed
intense diplomatic efforts to undermine Turkey’s push for an independent
UN investigation into Israel’s flotilla attack.<br><br>
The Palmer panel was stacked from the start to ensure Israeli impunity,
not to provide truth for the victims and survivors of the Mavi
Marmara.<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>