In August 2010 the UN Secretary General established a “Panel of Inquiry” to investigate Israel’s May 31 attack on the international flotilla that sought to defy the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring supplies—and moral support—to the Gazan people. Israeli commandoes attacked the main ship in the flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, killing nine people.
The Panel of Inquiry is widely known as the Palmer Commission after its Chair, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a professor of law and former prime minister of New Zealand. There were three other members. The Vice Chair was Alvaro Uribe, the outgoing rightwing President of Colombia, whose administration was widely accused of systematic human rights violations, but who was a longtime favorite of both the U.S. and Israeli governments. In 2007 the American Jewish Committee gave Uribe its "Light Unto The Nations" award, and in 2009 George Bush awarded Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest U.S. civilian award. The other two members of the “investigation” were the interested parties in the conflict, representing Israel and Turkey, (from which the flotilla had departed, with a number of Turkish citizens aboard).
In July 2011 the Palmer Committee issued its report, the full text of which was leaked to the New York Times and subsequently became available on the internet: link to graphics8.nytimes.com. The summary of the Report’s findings explained the limited scope and methods of the inquiry: “The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues….The Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels….[and it] had 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.”
The Report concedes that these limitations were important, for they meant that “the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.” Still, it concluded: “But it can give its view:”—which was that while Israel’s methods in the attack on the flotilla were “excessive,” it did have the legal right to impose a naval blockade against Gaza and to use armed force (but not “excessive” armed force) to enforce it.
No doubt the Palmer Commission--no matter how limited the scope of its inquiry or its knowledge and/or impartiality concerning the plain facts about the Israeli occupation and repression of the Palestinians, as well as how little the legal or moral credibility of its Vice-Chair--had the right to express its “views.” But then, so can others: mine is that, whether because of its incompetence or the desire not to give too much offense to Israel (and, maybe the U.S. government as well), the Report’s conclusion that international law supported Israel’s right to impose and enforce a naval blockade of Gaza is, to put it mildly, unpersuasive.
To be sure, I’m no expert in international law. Nonetheless, a close examination of the Report clearly reveals the muddled, internally inconsistent, and intellectually as well as morally inept reasoning process by which Palmer and Uribe reached their conclusions. To begin, as the Commission explained, the highly constrained limitations on its fact-finding capabilities meant that it had to rely on the internal investigations carried out by Israel and Turkey, which unsurprisingly agreed on almost nothing of significance.
Here are the Palmer Report's summary of the Turkish commission's conclusions: "The restrictions imposed by Israel on goods entering Gaza by land, and the naval blockade over the waters off Gaza constitute a single blockade...intended as a form of economic and political warfare. It was not restricted to items that could be used against Israel, but also included ordinary consumer items with no security purpose. As such, it has a disproportionate and punitive impact on the civilian population [and] amounts to the collective punishment of civilians in Gaza, in breach of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention....In support of this conclusion, the Turkish Commission relies on statements by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the International Committee of the Red Cross...[which have concluded that] Israel is the Occupying Power in Gaza, and cannot blockade the borders of territory it occupies."
The Palmer Report then summarized the report of Israel’s “National Investigation,” which argued that because of Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel, it had the right “to prevent weapons, terrorists and money from entering or exiting the Gaza Strip by sea.” As for the argument that the Palestinian attacks were a response to Israel’s ongoing de facto occupation and continuing repression of Gaza, the Israeli commission argued that “Israel’s effective control of the Gaza Strip ended when disengagement was completed in 2005.”
Finally, the Israeli commission stated that “the blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip: there is no evidence that Israel deliberately imposed restrictions on bringing goods into Gaza with the sole or main purpose of denying them to the civilian population.” (my emphasis)
Though an interested party to the dispute, the Turkish Commission's conclusions are demonstrably true, and shared by an overwhelmingly large majority of all nonpartisan academic, legal, UN, and international (as well as Israeli) human rights NGOs—nearly all of which have concluded that while Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, it was replaced by a series of Israeli repressions and controls that turned Gaza, in the common description, into “an open air prison.”
In particular, the Israeli contention that neither the purpose nor effect of the blockade was to impose collective punishment to the people of Gaza is an outright lie--indeed a lie so breathtaking in its chutzpah that it could convince no knowledgeable observer.
In that case, how did Palmer and Uribe get around this problem? Simple: they argued that whatever the purposes of the Israel’s land blockade, the naval blockade was “separate and distinct”—“in fact two distinct concepts” that required “different treatment and analysis.”
To be sure, they conceded, “important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade [which] would be illegal if its imposition was intended to collectively punish the civilian population,” but concluded that “there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming [such] allegations.”
“Allegations,” that is, only about the naval blockade, a dubious argument even if one accepts the absurd premise there were two entirely different Israeli policies, or “concepts.” Indeed, even the Report’s criticism of the land blockade--“actions taken by Israel have had severe impacts on the civilian population in Gaza”--concludes in a seriously odd fashion: “The situation in Gaza, including the humanitarian and human rights situation of the civilian population , [is] unsustainable, unacceptable and not in the interests of any of those concerned.”
“Unsustainable?” I don’t know, Israel has been successfully sustaining its occupation, repression, and collective punishment of the Palestinians for over four decades. “Not in the interests of any of those concerned?” No, I suppose not—though one of the “concerned parties,” Israel, foolishly doesn’t agree. But yes, it does appear to be true that the Palestinians have an interest in not being killed and repressed by Israel.
Never mind. To repeat: the crucial conclusion of the Palmer Report is that while Israel’s land blockade is questionable, its naval blockade is a legitimate act of self-defense. To be fair, the Report did admit--in passing--that “there may be potential overlaps in the effects (emphasis in original) of the naval blockade and the land crossings policy,” However, it quickly dropped this line of thought, which of course would have led it to an entirely different conclusion.
The Flotilla’s Purpose
The Palmer report essentially denies the legitimacy of the flotilla’s mission. Despite its expressed humanitarian purposes, and despite the 10,000 tons of civilian supplies it was carrying, the report argues that the flotilla’s primary purpose was “to generate publicity about the situation in Gaza by attempting to breach Israel’s naval blockade”—clearly, in the view of Palmer and Uribe, an illegitimate purpose, though they don’t explain why.
In any case, on the basis of what evidence does the Palmer report support its contention that the purpose of the flotilla was less humanitarian than it was to generate publicity? There were a number of elements, they argue, that “raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers.” For one thing, “there was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies [and] if the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose.” Anyway, “the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable” and in any case “no adequate port facilities exist in Gaza capable of receiving vessels the size of the Mavi Marmara. Consequently, “the prospect of delivering significant supplies to Gaza by sea is very low.” Still further, “the number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.”
In another line of “reasoning,” the Palmer report gave great weight to the apparent fact that “preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt” by the Israeli forces. These passengers, the report gravely noted, had donned “life or bullet proof vests and gas masks and assumed pre-agreed positions in anticipation of an attack,” and were armed with “iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,” though there was “some indication” that knives were also used.
In other words, no firearms, even for self-defense, let alone to deliver to Gaza. Indeed, the report seemed to consider as ominous or unjust that “firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it,” the apparent implication being that the passengers had no right to disarm some of the invading commandos.
The absence of firearms in the flotilla, let alone of heavier weapons, bears emphasis, though its implications seem to have escaped Palmer and Uribe, whose central argument is that “stopping the importation of rockets and other weapons to Gaza by sea” is necessary in order “to preserve Israel’s security.” In other words, even if one accepts the premise that Israel has two different policies--the one on land blockading the importation and exportation of civilian goods to and from Gaza, the other at sea blockading weapons-- the report’s argument is badly undermined by the fact that the flotilla was carrying only civilian supplies.
The overall conclusion of the Palmer report: “Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” In support of this argument, Palmer and Uribe engaged in two quite different lines of reasoning. The first was based on the premise that Israel--far from being a party to the conflict, let alone an illegitimate occupier and repressor—was a rightful authority which had engaged in a legitimate act of international law enforcement. By this reasoning one might also argue, say, that an uprising by a conquered Roman province would be a wrongful act in itself, and this injustice done to Rome would be compounded if the rebellion used armed force to resist the Roman legions sent to suppress it.
The second line of reasoning was that Israel was merely engaged in self-defense: “Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law….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.”
To be sure, in one important respect the Palmer report was critical of the Israeli attack on the flotilla: while Israel had the right to use force, its force was “excessive” and “unreasonable” in several ways. First, it was wrong of Israel “to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding.” Second, the Israeli forces wrongly killed nine people and “seriously wounded many others;” moreover, “most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back,” for which “no satisfactory explanation has been provided.” Finally, “there was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed until their deportation,” including “physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation.”
Conclusion
Despite the significant criticisms of the Israeli methods in the flotilla affair, in most other respects the Palmer Report is so seriously flawed as to essentially make it useless. First, its notion that the purpose of the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was “separate” from its land blockade (a contention made repeatedly throughout the Report) is a prima facie absurdity, especially in light of the Report's admission that the "effects" of both blockades may be “overlapping.”
Not to push the analogy too far, of course, but this reasoning is akin to arguing, for example, that the German siege of Leningrad during WWII was actually two separate and distinct “policies” or “concepts,” one an illegitimate land blockade intended to starve the city into submission, the other a legitimate sea blockade to prevent weapons from reaching it.
I don’t know if the Nuremberg tribunals examined the siege of Leningrad as a possible German war crime, but if so they clearly did not consider that Germany had the right to defend its sea blockade (albeit somewhat “excessively”) against Russian attempts to smuggle arms into Leningrad, but that the Russians had no right to defend themselves by breaking that blockade, even though it was Germany that had invaded and sought to conquer Leningrad, along with the rest of Russia.
Secondly, the Palmer Report’s criticism of Israel’s land siege of Gaza, which does not dismiss the argument that it amounted to collective punishment, is couched in weak, ponderous, and obscurantist language: “the procedures applied by Israel in relation to land access to Gaza are unsustainable and need to be changed,” are “not in the interests of any of those concerned,” and so on.
Third, the Report’s reasoning that the real purpose of the flotilla was not humanitarian is tortured and unconvincing, particularly in light of the fact that Palmer and Uribe accepted the Turkish investigation’s finding that the flotilla was in fact carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies and construction materials—but no weapons intended for delivery to Gaza.
Fourth, even if the flotilla had been bringing weapons to Gaza, the Palmer Report failed to examine its underlying premise that this would have been illegitimate. The Gazan authorities and people sought to arm themselves against the illegal and immoral Israeli occupation and various measures of repression, including extensive violence and repeated devastating armed attacks against Gazan civilians and their infrastructures. Indeed, in the pre-state era the Zionists themselves had also “illegally” armed themselves in order to create the state of Israel.
Victims have the right to defend themselves, including by armed force. To be sure, it is a separate question of whether the Palestinians are wise to exercise that right, in view of its repeated failure. Moreover, any serious analysis of the legitimacy of armed rebellion must also consider the methods used by the rebellion, particularly whether they include terrorism, such as the Gazan attacks on Israeli civilian population centers.*
In short, both the moral and legal issues are complicated, requiring detailed and sophisticated analyses. The Palmer Commission, however, had no analysis at all—it simply proceeded from the premise that the Israelis, but not the Gazans, had the right to defend themselves.
Fifth, even insofar as calling public attention to the plight of Gaza was one of the purposes of the flotilla--as indeed it was, for the flotilla organization made no bones about its intention to call world attention to the Israeli occupation and repression—the Palmer Report’s conclusion that this was mere “publicity,” strongly suggesting that it was therefore illegitimate, is odd indeed.
In sum, I don’t know whether the absurdities in the Palmer Report are the consequence of a political decision not to offend Israel—and maybe its US supporter?—or of breathtaking intellectual incompetence. Either way, it is a travesty.
*Recently, the Israeli journalist Larry Derfner created an uproar—and lost his job—because of a column in the Jerusalem Post in which he appeared to be defending the right of the Palestinians to use armed force against any Israeli targets, including civilians. Derfner was brave and right to defend Palestinian attacks against Israeli soldiers, but foolhardy as well as foolish to seemingly justify Palestinian terrorism.
This is a crosspost from Jerry Slater's site.
The Palmer report is like the Emperor’s new clothes.
And it only bought Israel 4 days of diplomatic cover.
The leak of the Palmer report (presumably by the Israelis, in anticipation of the UN session) immediately led to the furious reaction by Turkey.
Speaking of which, here’s the latest news from Erdogan’s trip to the Arab countries, now in Tunisia: Erdogan warns Israel: Turkey can send warships to east Mediterranean at any time.
Jerry,
Great summary and analysis. In my view the Palmer Commission Report was written with the specific intent to make it dovetail with the expected compromise agreement between Israel and Turkey in which Israel would apologize and Turkey would allow relations between the two countries to resume. I say that because the report seems to be written to provide bones to both Israel and Turkey in its conclusions. Moreover, its recommendations seem to parrot the proposed compromise between Israel and Turkey (“apologize”, “resume relations”, etc.). The many delays in releasing the report, while Turkey and Israel continued to talk, also seemed very strange to me. Why would the report findings be related to separate discussions? I think the only explanation is that the Commission delayed the release because it was trying to insure the underlying agreement between Israel and Turkey didn’t fall apart.
I think the US (with prompting by the Israelis) convinced Palmer up front that it was far more important to get the Israelis and Turks back together than it was to create a neutral, factual investigation document. I think Palmer went along with it because he thought he was doing the right thing by helping to promote regional harmony by lessening the tensions between two major players. That was not his proper role and he shouldn’t have done that, at least unless he first had a signed and approved agreement from both countries in front of him. His quid pro quo should have been that absent a prior, ironclad agreement between the parties, he would continue the investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Palmer was used by the US and the Israelis to create a report that favored and greatly benefitted Israel. I also think the premature release of the report was fishy. I suspect Palmer was dragging his feet about releasing it and the Israelis, fearing it might not be released, leaked it themselves. Palmer was used, Israel benefitted, and Turkey was screwed. The Turks however have long memories and are taking their revenge. Ultimately Israel will be the big loser here.
Superb post, as always. I have one small correction. I think the Derfner column only appeared on his blog, not in the Jersualem Post.
I agree, I am assuming that Richard is really busy now, reading and heading towards and article to disprove Jerome’s points. No time for more comments at the moment. Of course they were terrorists! That’s why they came to their conclusions.
I didn’t like Europe’s, or more precisely Germany’s ways of dealing with Turkey’s accession to the EU, since I know more about that, but now I think it may have been not such a bad thing in the long run.
Donald
Thanks for the correction, re the Derfner piece–you’re right.
Careful and incisive analysis – HOWEVER – the Israeli hasbara, with the all-out aid of the Western MSM, won the day in having the world believe the blockade is declared as legal.
the Israeli hasbara, with the all-out aid of the Western MSM, won the day in having the world believe the blockade is declared as legal.
and that’s exactly what it was done for. I have pretty much the same impression about the ADL’s polls measuring European antisemitism. Who reads the fine print?
But maybe Erdogan makes news too?
“the Israeli hasbara, with the all-out aid of the Western MSM, won the day in having the world believe the blockade is declared as legal.”–chet
“and that’s exactly what it was done for. I have pretty much the same impression about the ADL’s polls measuring European antisemitism. Who reads the fine print?”–Leander
Yeah, I’ve seen the NYT editors use it this way. I don’t have the link handy and won’t look for it, but in a recent editorial they talk about the report as fair, contrasting it with the usual “pummeling” that Israel gets from the UN (obviously unfair in their eyes). This report is allegedly fair because it criticizes Israel’s excessive violence, but also says the blockade is legal.
And that’s that. The UN has declared the blockade legal, according to the NYT. So much for all the human rights groups who talk about collective punishment. The issue is settled. And the ordinary liberal who reads the NYT but isn’t obsessive about the I/P issue (as all of us are here, on one side or the other) will have no reason to question what they read.
I think that one should look at the positive elements in Palmer report.
First, the panel was superbly qualified to deal with the issue of killing of civilians by security forces, especially claims of self-defense or “killing terrorists”. It happened to be an acute problem in the homeland of one of the panel members (without going to details, not in New Zealand) where a wide variety of cases were reported, ranging from the said forces being ambushed and decimated to quite gratuitous slaughter of civilians. So one should give big weight to the conclusions that killing of passengers of Mavi Marmara were not glatt kosher.
On the issue of naval blockade, I have no idea. Perhaps one of the human rights is the right to engage in naval hostilities, and if there are any problem, we may hope that better (if not morally superior) missiles and mines will win. So perhaps Turkey equally has the right to conclude that any ship going toward Israeli ports may carry weapons that in turn could be used to the detriment of Turkey, either to attack Turkish ships or to be supplied to anti-Turkish terrorists.
The Palmer Report is even being refuted at the UN itself.
U.N. experts say Israel’s blockade of Gaza illegal
link to reuters.com
Stay tuned….new decisions cometh forth every day from the UN. LOL
I can imagine the US arm twisting and intrigue going on 24/7 for Israel in advance of the Palestine UN bid.
“Israel’s Blockade of Gaza Violates International Law, Says UN Panel
The latest UN report on Gaza blockade disputes Palmer Report, claims its findings were politically motivated”
by John Glaser, September 13, 2011
Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, according to a panel of human rights experts reporting to the United Nations on Tuesday.
The finding disputes a conclusion reached by the UN Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of the May 2010 Gaza aid flotilla, which killed 19 activists aboard. That separate report concluded that Israel’s use of force was excessive and unreasonable, but that the blockade was legal.
The conclusions of the new report actually coincide with an earlier fact-finding mission from last September, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, which both claimed the blockade is illegal. It has subjected Gazans to collective punishment in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law,” they said.
“In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognise the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel’s closure policy towards Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians,” they said in a joint statement.
Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and one of the five experts who issued Tuesday’s statement, said the Palmer report “was aimed at political reconciliation between Israel and Turkey” and that “it is unfortunate that in the report politics should trump the law.”
According to another of the UN special rapporteurs, about one third of Gaza’s arable land and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures, while at least two-thirds of Gazan households lack reliable access to food as a result of the blockade.
The high-tension bid for Palestinian statehood, set to be voted upon by the UN this month, would be likely to make such conclusions much more official, leaving Israel susceptible to sanctions or even prosecutions for international crimes, which is reportedly a major basis for Israeli objection to Palestinian statehood.
Thank you, Jerry, for a great analysis.
You wrote:
Doubly useless, because if it was primarily an exercise in diplomacy designed to smooth relations between Israel and Turkey (by satisfying the main concerns of each: conceding that Israel was right to board the Mavi Marmara, but wrong to kill 9 passengers), it has failed even to do that – foolishly ignoring Israel’s existential need to thumb its nose at Turkey.
I’ve never understood the reasoning being the Israeli blockade of Gaza being legal. If the blockade is legal, does this also mean attempts to break the blockade are also legal? I’ve never heard of a conflict where anything one side does is declared legal and anything the other side does is a violation of international law.
RE: “In 2007 the American Jewish Committee gave Uribe its “Light Unto The Nations” award, and in 2009 George Bush awarded Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest U.S. civilian award.” ~ Slater
FROM Panama: Free-Trade Tax Haven, by Tereza Coraggio, Foreign Policy In Focus, 9/15/11
SOURCE – link to fpif.org
RE: “In 2007 the American Jewish Committee gave Uribe its “Light Unto The Nations” award, and in 2009 George Bush awarded Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest U.S. civilian award.” ~ Slater
SEE: Colombian court sentences former spy chief for paramilitary ties ~ By CNN Wire Staff, 9/15/11
SOURCE – link to cnn.com
Everybody screwed up relative to Mavi Marmara.
Israel, Turkey, Palestinian solidarity.
They all owe each other apologies.
The opinions by the Palmer report and by the Falk UN commission are both opinions, with substantive arguments supporting each.
There is tension between authoritative sounding declarations of what international law “means”, and needs of people, and needs of states (and the people that states are legally bound to protect).
My feeling is different than the Palmer report, as to what should be. I believe that it is Israel’s right to control its border crossings, that within an acceptable range of humanitarian obligation, that it can maintain any level of cross-border transfer as it sees fit.
In the case of Hamas Gaza, as it is in a state of deferred war, it can legally and morally, not leave its ground borders open (beyond that range of humanitarian obligation), really for whatever motivation that it desires. That is part of the definition and legal requirement of sovereignty, control over one’s borders.
Similarly, Egypt can establish its border policies, again within a range of humanitarian obligation.
In many ways, it is only because Israel has the sea blockade, that it is required to maintain even the humanitarian scale of open borders with a quasi state that it is at deferred war, a conundrum to anyone that would imagine being in their place.
If that logic were stated in the Palmer commission report, even implicitly, then it is not wrong.
So, if Hamas confronts and alienates Israel, then its ground border traffic becomes limited. If Hamas confronts and alienates Egypt, then its ground border traffic becomes limited.
Meshaal offered in his Charlie Rose interview, to establish third party international monitoring of a sea access port. (First would be the aid and construction of the port of course. A good gift to a peaceable neighbor, a threat of subsequent intrigue and then violence to a warring neighbor.)
An alternative strategy for Hamas, and for Gazans, is to accept Israel’s existence (yes, that word), reconcile with the PA and with Israel, and sincerely offer good neighbor to good neighbor national diplomatic relations, and open its port the also legal way. I would say the REALLY legal way, rather than confrontational “legal” way.
That they did not reconcile with the PA yet in earnest, keeps the status the same, and has weakened the likelihood that Palestine will emerge in fact after September 23. Better that they strengthen that likelihood if they are truly Palestinian patriots.
They continue to propose “resistance” as the basis of unity, rather than construction as the basis of unity (construction of a viable state, Fatah has done all that heavy-lifting).
Likud Israel is a pain in the ass, more than a pain, and I can see their temporary tactical state of choosing resistance. Kadima or labor Israel is a confusion, but capable of reconciling with a willing neighbor. That they chose resistance during those times, is a statement of the type of convictions that they hold, only to pursue resistance determination, and not willing to pursue peace-making determination.
Israel didn’t screwed up relative to Mavi Marmara. They did what they always do to the Palestinians. The problem for them was that they assumed they would get away with it is as they have in the past. Israel miscalculated Turkey’s response, and unlike the Palestinians, Turkey can seriously cause harm to Israel.
You’re insane Witty. If only Israelis were killed, you would not be suggesting anything so stupid and asinine
Isreal is the only party that killed people. They and they alone need to aplogise. Israel attacked the ship illegally, and are imposing an illegal blockade and inflciting colelctive punishment.
Rubbish. You have obviously read neither. The Falk UN commission concluded that the blockade is illegal and that Israel atacked the Mavi Marmara before even boarding the vessel. A new report from the UN re affirms that the blockade is indeed illegal. The Palmer Commission had no authority to make any judgement about legality.
The waters off Gaza are not Israel’s borders, not that your opinion is revelant.
You’re always flippant and sanguine when it comes to the suffering of the Palestinians. If the roles were reversed, you would be screamign like a banshee about human rights, and how civlians are human beings and all manner of crap.
Bullshit. It’s not a conundrum. That’s exaclty how they wanted it, as expressed by Sharon when he determined that Gaza would be put on a diet. McClatchy revealed that Israel’s agenda is not security but ecobnomic warfare.
Who do you think you’re kidding Witty? Are you imaginging a silent audience out there in cyberspace who are heargin your BS for the first time, hanging onto your every word?
As always, the Witty perrenial blind spot is on perfect display. Whatever scenarion he imagines, it always involves Hamas commitng the violence, the evil, breaking ceasefires, doing all the killing – with the passive and vulnerable Israelis struggling to defend themselves.
In what univere Witty, do you imagine that an alienated entity like Hamas, could confront and alienate Israel? How much Zioniocaise addiction is required to enter this Zionist Twighlight zone and envisage such a reality?
All of this has been debunked countless times and explained to you Witty? Why do you cling to such myths and fairytales? Does it represent your method to cope with reality?
It boggles the mind how Witty can still obsess about the recognition of Israel while Israel is fighting tooth and nail at the UN to block reogntion of Palestine. Un-friggin-believable.
The Arab Peace Initiative offers to recognize Israel. Hamas has said they would accept it if adopted. Israel has rejected it.
Hamas and the PA have made steps to form a unity government. The Israeli leadership not only has refused to negotiate with such a unity leadership, but insisted that peace is impossible until the unity agreement is torn up.
But hey, it’s all the fault fo Hamas right Witty?
Yet, the senile and incoherent village idiot sits in the corner, huddled in a foetal position and rocks back and forth repeating to himself over and over again “it’s all the fault of Hamas”.
Shingo,
Why so much binary thinking?
I support the Palestinian petition, though acknowledge that it can go way haywire.
The Hamas/PA unity government is tentative at this point. Noone in the world is confident of its endurance or effectiveness. Hamas wants the unity to be based on resistance. PA wants the unity to be based on constructiveness, and prospects of negotiation with Israel.
The PA approach is the only prospective basis of unity. I’m sure it is subject to criticism, but constructive criticism, not rationalization for unending war posture.
Likud is exposed electorally. After September passes, there will be choices to be made in Israel. If Palestine keeps a door open to negotiation, we can avoid regional war. Sober heads can reconcile, if they don’t do things to burn bridges in the meantime.
Yes Witty,
What use is binary thinking when you’ve been programmed to blame Hamas, regardless of the facts or reality?
The state of the Hamas/PA unity agreement has nothing to do with what shape they want the unity government to look like – it’s about who will be in power.
The PA has already exhausted the negotiation option. Israel won’t negotiate, certainly not to achieve an outcome. Furthermore, Abbas has already vowed that the PA will be disolved once the US vetos the resolution at the UNSC.
Likud have already theratened huge reprisals for the Palestinians after the vote. There is no possibility of negotiations. The Palestine Papers releaved what Israeli negotiations look like.
>> After September passes, there will be choices to be made in Israel. If Palestine keeps a door open to negotiation, we can avoid regional war.
I like how, in contrast to the very non-committal-sounding phrase “there will be choices to be made in Israel”, the dramatic-sounding sentence “If Palestine keeps a door open to negotiation, we can avoid regional war” appears to place the full burden for success or failure on Palestine.
Gawd forbid Israel should have to keep open – or even crack open! – a door to sincere negotiations!