Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Every and any palistan-agitpropnik's a maritime law expert!There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Our honorable P F Tinmore better post a gist of that toob crap, instead of inflating the toob crap counterv there, of course.Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.
Who are the Palestinians? Here are some.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
Yeah, so?P F Tinmore, et al,
While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
The entire sentence reads: "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Yeah, so?P F Tinmore, et al,
While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
The entire sentence reads: "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
Most Respectfully,
R
Yeah, so?P F Tinmore, et al,
While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.referring to the blockade being legal and the UN report?
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
The entire sentence reads: "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
Most Respectfully,
R
Yeah, so?P F Tinmore, et al,
While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
The entire sentence reads: "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
Most Respectfully,
R
Don't take words out of context to suit your warped agenda. When you do so you are laying and it does not reflex well on you or your arguments.
The thread asks Who Are The Palestinians. And the only answer we have received is race car drivers in Jordan. Very interesting.
I was laughing about Israel's territory.P F Tinmore, et al,
So, if you are going to comment, please do so in the proper context.
(COMMENT)Yeah, so?P F Tinmore, et al,
While it is my post, it is the reports words (in quotes).
(COMMENT)"Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."Billo_Really, et al,
I just have to chuckle at this.
(SALIENT POINTS)There's only one UN report that said the blockade was legal and they weren't commissioned to make that determination. They had no experts in international maritime law and serious conflicts of interest in their panel members.
Reference: 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
It just so happens that the Report that Billo_Really is refering to was a panel of five UN Human Rights experts reporting to the UN Human Rights Council; and it was they that rejected that the Palmer Report conclusions. The UNHRC Panel based their conclusion of "international human rights and humanitarian law;" not Maritime Law.
The Palmer Report was an investigative "Panel of Inquiry" guided and adopted by the two former heads of state (Chair and Vice-Chair); published in September 2011 (a year after the UNHCR Report). It was a decidedly as different in character from the UNHCR Fact Finding Mission, as one could conceive.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission (F-FM) Report (A/HRC/15/21) published 27 September 2010, was assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
- The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG AC QC, Chair, 33rd Prime Minister of New Zealand
- The Right Honorable Alvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair, 31st President of Colombia, studied Law at the University of Antioquia; attended Harvard University, receiving a Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management at Harvard Extension School and Certificate in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Harvard Law School; studied at St Antony's College, Oxford, England, on a Chevening-Simón Bolívar scholarship.
- Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Member, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, L.L.M. (Master of Laws) from the UC Berkeley
- Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Director of the International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK); former diplomat --- stationed in the Turkish embassies in Madrid, Amman, Bonn and Paris, and at the Permanent Delegation to the OECD. He has also been Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, Permanent Representative to the European Union, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Sanberk retired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and was the Director of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) until September 2003.
The two reports are essentially evenly matched. One examines the Blockade from a view that is entirely at odds with the other. And the conflict between the two reports are the classic Political-Military view versus the Humanitarian view in war.
- Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., Chairman, Judge of the International Criminal Court (Ret) and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
- Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone,
- Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Panel of Inquiry gave weight to the concept that:
"The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory. The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza. While the attacks have not completely ceased since the time of the imposition of the naval blockade, their scale and intensity has much decreased over time. While this decrease might also be due to other factors, a blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced."
"Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives."
After a discussion of both the Law of War, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and important humanitarian considerations which constrain the imposition of a naval blockade; "The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."
Conversely, the UNHCR F-FM Report gave a preponderance of its consideration to the Humanitarian aspects of the event.
"The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial of this cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which one seeks to justify the legality of the blockade."
"Israel seeks to justify the blockade on security grounds. The State of Israel is entitled to peace and security like any other. The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law. But any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."
This is the fundamental difference between the two findings. One suggests that Israel has the right of self-defense, and the other suggests that "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful."
The UNHCR F-FM Report made the following allegations:
(COMMENT)
- Violations of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
- • Willful killing;
- • Torture or inhuman treatment;
- • Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
- The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
- • Right to life (Art. 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
- • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7, International Covenant; Convention against Torture);
- • Right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 9, International Covenant);
- • Right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Art. 10, International Covenant);
- • Freedom of expression (Art. 19, International Covenant).
It is important to take notice that the UNHCR F-FM Report does not claim that the Israeli Blockade of Gaza actually violates United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II, or III); but that it is illegal on Humanitarian grounds --- a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. The Panel of Inquiry clearly states that "These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas." The F-FM Report states "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza." And from that derives: "the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations." This, even though the F-FM also finds that "The firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
It is no wonder that the Panel of Inquiry (with two former Heads of State) took a view differing from that of Humanitarian Law. There is no question in their mind that International Law never trumps the right of any people to defend themselves.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Article 51, UN Charter)
It is generally recognized that no F-FM can establish a limitation on an "inherent right" of a nation to defend itself; especially when that nation is exercising the right in the face of the "firing of rockets and other munitions of war into Israeli territory from Gaza constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law."
Both the Panel and F-FM are in agreement that the actions of HAMAS "constitutes serious violations of international law and of international humanitarian law." What they disagree on is the "inherent right of self-defense."
Most Respectfully,
R
It always cracks me up when you post that.
The entire sentence reads: "The Panel notes in this regard that the uncertain legal status of Gaza under international law cannot mean that Israel has no right to self-defence against armed attacks directed toward its territory."
Most Respectfully,
R
We are talking about the "inherent right" the Israelis are exercising.
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, this particular race was in Jordan but the girls are Palestinians. Noor is from Jerusalem. Betty is from Bethlehem. Marah is from Jenin.That happens to be in Jordan.
(COMMENT)I was laughing about Israel's territory.
But since you brought up the Israelis' inherent right, Got a link?
