On May 31, 2010, Israeli commandos brutally attacked Freedom Flotilla 1, killing eight Turkish and one American passenger on board the Mavi Marmara, most having been killed at close range, execution style.. They injured more than 50 other passengers, both on the Mavi Marmara and on the other five boats sailing to the embattled territory of Gaza to bring the attention of the world to Israel’s illegal blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians. Not only were our passengers murdered and maimed, but the Israeli government has refused to return over $1 million in money and equipment, including cameras and videos which are of evidential value.
In the 15 months since Israel’s unwarranted attack on five boats carrying human rights watchers, Israel has been trying to spin the story that their well-armed soldiers were the victims and we were the aggressors. Several reports have already been written, most squarely blaming Israel for its attack on unarmed civilians.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission took evidence from 112 eyewitnesses, reviewed forensic evidence, including autopsy reports and inspected the Mavi. It found that, because a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza, Israel's blockade is ulawful and ‘cannot be sustained in law…regardless of the grounds” used as justification. Israel’s blockade is collective punishment and in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, inflicting civilian damage disproportionate to any military advantage. Therefore, since Freedom Flotilla 1 neither presented an imminent threat to Israel nor was designed to contribute to any war effort against Israel, intercepting the flotilla was ‘clearly unlawful’ andcould not be justified as self-defense.
Israel refused to cooperate with this UN panel even though the United Nations and governments all around the world called for just such an independent investigation of the events.
Instead, the Israeli government set up its own investigatory panel, The Turkel Commission, led by Israeli retired Supreme Court Judge Jacob Turkel and three other Israelis issued a report on January 23, 2011 exonerating the commandos, then saying the blockade was legal. The commission did not interview a single passenger or crew member from any of the boats but only received testimony from the Israeli military.
On January 28, 2011, Amnesty International condemned the Turkel findings as no more than a whitewash. “Despite being nearly 300 pages long, the report crucially fails to explain how the activists died and what conclusions the Commission reached regarding the IDF’s specific actions in each case.”
Free Gaza shares Amnesty International's analysis that the conflict between the Israeli armed forces and unarmed civilians was NOT armed conflict, making international humanitarian law (IHL) the wrong framework; international human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort.
Now there is the Palmer/Uribe report due to be released tomorrow, which apparently adopts the same faulty IHL framework. According to Audrey Bomse, Board member and Legal Adviser to Free Gaza: “If the leaks we've heard from Israeli officials are correct, the holes in this report are big enough to sail a flotilla of ships through. There are serious problems with the Panel’s composition, mandate and legal analysis. But most disturbing of all is the fact that the Secretary General’s Panel apparently condones Isra
The Panel has 4 members, one from Israel and one from Turkey, plus Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand and ex-president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. The choice of Uribe as vice-chairman is suspect, given his intimate association with the military and paramilitary practice of murdering civilians in Colombia. The Panel, was only tasked to review the reports of the national investigations by Turkey and Israel (the Turkel Committee), not to conduct an in-depth objective investigation. Its ultimate goal, was to “positively affect the relationship between Turkey and Israel.”
International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of armed conflict) is the wrong legal framework to be used as the basis for judging the lawfulness of the actions taken by Israel both against the civilian population of Gaza (the blockade) and against those resisting the boarding of the MM. The conflict between the Israeli navy and unarmed civilians on the Mavi Marmara was not armed conflict. International human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort. Nor should the legality of the blockade of occupied Gaza be analyzed in the framework of the law of armed conflict.
If indeed the Uribe Rport has concluded that the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza - a serious measure of war - is legal and in accordance with international law, then this Report will contradict numerous other UN reports and resolutions, most recently that of the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission, on the issue of the legality of the Gaza siege.
As the Human Rights Council Fact‐Finding Mission observed, “public confidence in any investigative process ... is not enhanced when the subject of the investigation either investigates himself or plays a pivotal role in the process.”
why don’t they just rename it the White/Wash Report?
Alvaro Uribe? OMG! I am a Latin American Historian by training. I recommend this link. It is possible it will not come up as I have a subscription to this journal and it is why I can access it. Hopefully it will appear. It is a very informative piece.
Ok, I canceled the link cuz it came up with my name and password info to enter. It is a piece from the New Left Review 23, Sept-Oct. 2003 issue called “Evil Hour in Colombia” by Forrest Hylton. It is very informative and I recommend purchasing it if you have the time and interest.
Alvaro Uribe? OMG! I am a Latin American Historian by training. I recommend this link. It is possible it will not come up as I have a subscription to this journal and it is why I can access it. Hopefully it will appear. It is a very informative piece.
Israel was legal the way Germany was when it invaded Poland on this day in 1939 with the claim that it was legal self-defense.
Yep. When the UN adopts your narrative, praise it. When it doesn’t, condemn it.
To say that this is hypocritical and shows that this conflict is political and has nothing to do with international law is to state a truism.
If I accept this single so-called UN report, would you then accept the copious number of outstanding UN resolutions against israel? (sorry I don’t have time to cut and paste the exact number).
Yeah, because you’re the very soul of investigative integrity, Mr. Nukes-In-Iraq.
Hophmi, it’s predictable that you’d say something like that. But people are upset for good reasons and it’s only hypocrisy if you think it is hypocritical to feel upset when the Palestinians are once again kicked in the teeth.
And Uribe? Good lord, I didn’t know he was on the committee. Colombia had a truly horrifying human rights record when he was President and he was a supporter of the war in Iraq, according to wikipedia. Would you have thought it farcical if Colonel Gadaffi or Asad had been on the committee? This strikes me the same way.
Sigh. As often happens, I didn’t put this post under the comment to which it is a response. It’s supposed to go under hophmi’s 5:33 post.
yeah, as soon as i heard uribe was on it i knew what the results would be. he’s one of our stooges.
Yep – I did not expect any other result.
I only wondered why Turkey agreed to the composition of the Panel and its strange Terms of Reference in the first place !!???
Incidentally, for me UN Gen Secr. Moon’s role in this entire Panel affair has been a rather murky one. He was very keen to obtain an extension of his position for a second term……
The Free Gaza movement should have insisted on adherence to non-violent ideology, conviction, practices in addition to temporary political tactic.
The NY Times gave credit to the 6 boats that did participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and did articulate the breakdown of the non-violent methodology on the Mavi Marmara.
Wow, I didn’t realize that getting shot in the back repeatedly by soldiers outside of their national borders constituted “violence!” Holy cow, Witty, do you have the same condemnation for your Jewish ancestors who were executed in much the same way (and for basically similar reasons) in countries bordering Germany?
Can we assume you don’t disapprove of Uribe? You certainly aren’t condemning him the way you condemned Goldstone.
“Wow, I didn’t realize that getting shot in the back repeatedly by soldiers outside of their national borders constituted “violence!” ”
Well it is, if you think about it from the POV of an Israeli bullet. There you are, minding your own business sauntering along at several hundred meters per second when someone blocks your path with his back. It’s like a blockade. Richard is all about empathy.
>> Well it is, if you think about it from the POV of an Israeli bullet.
The bullet is self-(self-)determination. The person blocking its path with his back or head is “dissent”.
Damn you, Hamas!!!
So when the IDF began killing people with sniper fire from the hovering helicopters – as numerous eyewitnesses testified – the flotilla participants should have what? Just stood there and let it happen?
Self-defence for jews only?
Meanwhile on Planet Witty Israel is justified in slaughtering 1400 Palestinians in 2008/2009 because of rockets that have killed ~20 Israeli in 10 years.
What a guy you are Richard, a real piece of work.
Sumud, this simply never happened. There is no credible evidence that it did.
I’m all for an open and honest debate about how badly the IDF fucked up on the Flotilla, but if you insist on talking shit like this when we’ve all seen the video of the guys arriving on deck holding paintball guns, you look like an idiot. I know the soldiers once on board switched to live fire and that 9 people were killed but there is no evidence that anyone was injured by sniper fire. It’s bullshit.
If the IDF was firing from helicopters with snipers, why bother boarding at all? I think everything about the raid was wrong. And I mean Israel was wrong. But when you start quoting eyewitness testimony to things that didn’t happen you are not doing anyone any favours.
What kind of bullshit logic is that? “They boarded the ship so OBVIOUSLY they didn’t use snipers.” Really? Because you’d never use snipers to sweep the deck to make room for your commandos to storm the deck?
Of course there is.
The Turkish report of the incident cited this event as did a number of eye witnesses on the Mavi Marmara. It’s not surprising that you base your entire assumption that it did not happen becasue Israel, who were caught lying repeatedly over the flotilla incident, denied it.
The guys clearly arrived on deck holding more than paintball guns, oterhwise, there wouldn’t be 9 dead bodies. You don’t know that the all the soldiers once on board switched to live fire.
It’s bullshit.
Ummm, do you thiknk that bullets alone woudl have stopped that large ship reaching Gaza?
Listen GF. I know your have an idelogical bond spot, but surely even you must be awre fo when you sound like a raving lunatic. Everything you know was based on “eyewitness testimony”. The video footage you were shows was based on carefully edited clips of video stolen from the passengers and never returned.
You should learn to shut up when you’re already looking like a complete idiot.
The only logic GF knows Chaos. Didn’t you knwo that bullets can stop a large ship dead in its tracks?
GF has demonstrated time and time again that he/she is prepared to make a complete fool of themselves to defend Israel.
I can tell you consider yourself an honest person and you are trying…but it doesn’t appear you have much of a military background…as the other guys have pointed out by your sniper comment.
You should also recognize the lack of integrity in how the reports were actually structured to produced a desired result.
“Really? Because you’d never use snipers to sweep the deck to make room for your commandos to storm the deck?”
Er… again that didn’t happen, did it? The deck was not swept. It was full of people when the commandos made their ill-advised landing and at least one of them was instantly thrown overboard.
No snipers. You have no evidence of snipers. You are repeating someone else’s lies.
Shingo, honey. I’m not defending Israel. I’m saying that Israel is responsible for the deaths on board the Mavi Marmara.
I am also saying that I don’t believe Israel began the assault on the Mavi Marmara with the aim of taking lives. The reason I believe that is not because Israel has the most moral army in the world or any of that bullshit, it’s because Israel has one of the most pragmatic armies in the world. I believe the Israeli army is more than capable or being ruthless and inflicting an enormous amount of damage when it deems it necessary. In this instance it shouldn’t have been necessary. No Israeli lives were at risk. This was simply a face-off. I also believe that the Mavi Marmara amounts to what the Americans call a “giant clusterfuck”. There was simply no percentage in Israel killing people on board. There was no reason for Israel to plan it that way to create martyrs and show themselves to be violent thugs at the same time. There is no doubt that Israel came out of this looking terrible while the people of Gaza won the sympathy of the world. Whatever you think about Israel they didn’t plan for it to happen this badly. They fucked it all up, but they didn’t set out with that as a goal.
Look at the second flotilla. I am in no doubt that Israel was behind every diplomatic, legal and illegal trick that prevented that flotilla from sailing. This was not a clusterfuck, it was a ruthlessly orchestrated deflation of the bombast and goals of the flotilla.
Yes there is evidence of snipers. A photographer shot through the forehead and a report that documents it.
GF, honey. you are defending Israel. Yuo are denying that Israel boarded the Mavi Marmara, with a list of vicitms it wanted to target and killed them deliberately.
I’m sure you believe that GF, but they did and they shot at the ship from a helicopter before baording. They also confiscated all videos and cameras and have ot returned, them, which proves they have somethign to hide.
Actually they are anything but pragmatic. Paragmatic armies are efficient and avoid conffrohntation. Israel’s army has become so bloated with arms that it has become enamored with violence.
A pragmatic army would have disabled the rudder of the shp and towed it to shore, not baorded it. A pragmatic army would not have presented fasle audio recordings of references to Auschwitz, or released doctored pghotographs with the wrong time stamp (from 2000). A pragmatic army would not have claimed that there were Al Qaeda on board (a lie) and then unplicably released every one of them.
Israel have never given up an opportunity to reate martyrs and show themselves to be violent thugs at the same time. Take Cast Lead and 2006 in Lebanon for example. Israel believe in the principal that if they control the message early, people will lose interest once the facts emerge.
They used a kill list and they sent in executioners. No other adequate explanation for a teenager at a computer to be shot thru the head at close range.
But another clusterfuck looms ever closer, gf. Your racist settlers, those scum who make up around 30% of the IDF, are training their young kids to kill. If a Palestinian child crosses a line he doesn’t even know exists, his settler counterpart will be permitted to shoot him. Child Soldiers. Wonder what the UN says about kids used to kill? Reams. Will Israeli social workers be tasked with rescuing these kids from this fate? Will gf be prepared to act as foster parent to some of those rescued, teach them to be a little more human in their dealings with others?
link to imemc.org
The dad in the pic, squashing one of the little boys, looks awfully like the overweight settler dog man.
You’re making several assumptions GF:
1. That states are always rational actors. They are not. Israel has been particularly irrational of late.
2. That Israel’s only goal was to intercept the flotilla and prevent it from reaching Gaza. As others have stated, this could have quite easily have been done in broad daylight, in Gaza’s territorial waters, and without the need for helicopters, troops boarding the ships and shooting etc., but simply by disabling the ship propellors and towing them to Ashdod.
But what happened instead? The Flotilla was deliberately deep in international waters – because they wanted to head towards Gaza during daylight hours, and actually travelling west at the time of the raid, ie. away from Gaza and Israel. The Israeli forces pursued the flotilla because they wanted the raid to occur under the cover of darkness. They did not disable the propellors as they could have done, easily, they chose a commando raid. I believe this was done as a calculated risk which backfired.
Given the ship was Turkish and many of the participants were muslim, we heard endless hasbara about the participants being islamic terrorists, even, ridiculously that they were Al Qaeda. Shooting by snipers was a provocation designed to enrage other flotilla participants so they would resist the boarding of the Mavi Marmara physically – which of course they did. Israel needed to have footage of scuffles for their narrative – that it was a “lynching”. They didn’t count on photographs emerging of flotilla participants providing medical care to captured Israeli soldiers and protecting them from other angry participants who was witnessed the shooting on the upper deck.
The decision to confiscate all recording devices was pre-planned – it was the first thing soldiers did after taking each ship – not an “oh fuck, what have we done, better grab the evidence” type of response.
I believe the larger goal of the flotilla raid was to attempt to scare any more activists from trying to break the siege of Gaza. The flotilla was actually the 8th or 9th (and by far the largest) attempt to break the siege of Gaza by boat. Israel was panicking. They thought they could get away with their raid, and they were mistaken, because too many people are now aware of and paying attention to Israel and Palestine.
Anyway – at any time it chooses Israel can end all speculation about the exact course of events on board the Mavi Marmara and other ships. Just release the damn footage and photos, all of it. It was a PR disaster for Israel, and if the recordings support the Israeli narrative, they would have released it. They can’t, because the Israeli narrative is just more hasbara – it’s a big steaming pile of BS.
Sumud,
Don’t forget to mention:
1. The radio blakout that Israel imposed, jamming all communiation signals
2. Lieberman’s declarations that Israel woudl use ALL MEANS AT IT’S DISPOSAL to stop teh flotilla.
3. That Israel had massacred 1,400 people in Gaza without hesitation
What Witty is trying to say is that when Israel shot at the Mavi Marmara and killed one of the passengers before even boarding the vessel, the passengers should have been lying prostrate on the deck with their faces to the floor.
>> “The Panel, was only tasked to review the reports of the national investigations by Turkey and Israel (the Turkel Committee), not to conduct an in-depth objective investigation. Its ultimate goal, was to “positively affect the relationship between Turkey and Israel.”<<
The tasking and the ultimate goal both render this report pointless, and valueless so far as facts and legal positions are concerned. No report that has members representing the affected governments, or wanting to improve their relationship, can ever be unbiased or unpolitical.
The UN position is clearly set out in the UNHRC finding a year ago.
“The Palmer/Uribe Report: Another attempt by Israel to whitewash murder”
I don’t know who authored the headline, but I hope you note the “cognitive dissonance” of Israel authoring a UN report.
Did Israel author the report? Wierd.
Richard Witty said, ‘Now I’ve become a literary critic. Richard “Clarity” Witty; that’s me.’
You think that Israel authored the UN report?
And when did you stop beating your wife, Witty?
It’s pretty clear that somebody subverted this report. Are you really going to insist that it was legal for Israel to use military force to board a ship in international waters and kill nine unarmed civilians?
The report didn’t say that Israel was innocent.
It said that the blockade of Gaza was not illegal.
did you or did you not read the report Chaos?
Why whenever you guys don’t like something, or it isn’t anti-Israel enough, you claim someone ‘subverted’ it or it is some Zionist conspiracy?
It’s own terms of reference stopulated that it had no mandate to make that determination.
6. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its [uninformed] view.” — See pages 7-8
Did you DBG?
It’s own mandate stoputaes that:
“….the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its [uninformed] view.”
“It’s pretty clear that somebody subverted this report.”
And by “pretty clear” you mean in your own deranged mind given that you have no evidence at all to support this theory. Kook.
What about all the UN resolutions that go against Israel? Is someone subverting them too? Was the Goldstone report subverted when it found that Israel committed war crimes?
You just pick and choose when the outcomes of these reports support your already decided mind. You’re hopeless.
Why am I not surprised that you would be rejoicing at a report that lets IDF stormtroopers off the hook for committing murder in international waters, GuiltyFeat?
Do I need to point out that this report blatantly contradicts literally reams of conclusions and statements that the UN has put out to this point? You’re the one who’s dancing around when the UN releases exactly one report that says it’s OK for the IDF to wage open slaughter, and you have to hold hands with Columbia’s Uribe to do it.
No it’s a matte of fact that Israel and turkey have been haggling at the UN for over a year to agree on the wording and the conclusions of the report. It hasn’t been a report, it’s been a political document.
Unlike this report, none of those have drawn cocnlusions subject to negotiations by the parties involved. The Goldtone Report did not allow Israel or Hamas to dictate what they were or were not prepared to allow the report to say.
The truth is in black and white, and the comments you are objecting to, all (almost, Uribe is the wild card) stem from the below quote.
The report was produced for the masses…not for anyone with a brain.
“6. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its [uninformed] view.” — See pages 7-8″
Chaos you are truly deranged. I am not rejoicing and the report has not let the IDF off the hook. You’re a grade A nutjob.
You spout a never-ending stream of horseshit and call it truth. It would be better for everyone if you got out of the way and let the grownups talk.
No Richard,
the report said that he NAVAL blockade was not illegal and not the blockade as a whole. It’s like saying carrying Jews in german trains ist not illegal.
RW: Did Israel author the report?.
No, and the headline does not say so. Israel did produce the outcome.
Have you ever read 10.000 post here, RW?
hophmi says:
“Yep. When the UN adopts your narrative, praise it. When it doesn’t, condemn it.”
and calls it hypocritical to condemn this UN report while giving the OK to others.
This would suggest that the only way to avoid being hypocritical would be to agree with every UN pronouncement, or none of them. Absurd.
If I think the Supreme Court got it right with Brown v. Board of Ed, but dropped the ball on Citizens United, am I a hypocrite?
Free Gaza Movement: I’m glad you’re continuing to speak about all the stolen cameras, videos and laptop. This is a vital point – if Israel is so confident that their actions and behaviour was just, prove it!
Release ALL the photos and footage, and let the world see for themselves.
I just read a Guardian article on the report and this caught my interest:
The report’s authors – who also include Alvaro Uribe, a former president of Colombia, and representatives Israel and Turkey – went on to criticise the flotilla’s organisers, a Turkish aid group.
“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers,” it said.
First, why does the report claim that IHH were the flotilla’s organisers, when it was the Free Gaza Movement, and IHH were just one of many participants from about 35 countries? This is an adoption of Israeli hasbara – an attempt to play down the fact that the flotilla was an international effort, and imply the flotilla participants were (Turkish) islamic terrorists.
Second, after 15 months, why are there *still* “serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers”. I mean WTF have they been doing? Shouldn’t they have actually attempted to answer these questions, rather than merely say they exist? This smacks of a deliberately cultivated ambiguity in the face of no actual evidence that IHH’s intentions and conduct were anything less than honourable.
Again: release all the stolen footage and photos Israel, and prove your accusations.
Fair enough, but I object to the assumption that their absence confirms your version of the narrative.
That’s pretty convenient. Is that how law works in Israel? If the accused can tamper with and destroy evidence, even when they’re caught red-handed doing just that, they’re let of the hook? You know that’s not how things work in Great Britain. I think you’ve been away from home too long, prodigal son.
Why would you? Every civilized legal system in the world recognizes that when one destroys or withholds relevant evidence that it is reasonable to assume that the evidence would be detrimental to that party. So it is reasonable to conclude that Israeli’s failure to release the evidence is an admission of guilt, both in the raid, and the cover up afterwards.
When is Israel going to turn the murders over to the Turks for trial?
Define “relevant evidence”. How do you know there is any if you haven’t seen it? You assume that there is evidence that incriminates Israel and the fact that Israel hasn’t shown it to you proves it to be so. It’s utterly circular logic.
It is just as possible that there is no incriminating evidence that serves your version of the narrative and that’s why you haven’t seen it. There’s nothing to see that particularly supports either your version of events or Israel’s.
Like you, I wish Israel behaved with greater transparency, but you have no honest grounds for making the assumptions you make. You hate Israel and it fuels your every opinion.
@chaos
Again these are all your suppositions based on your stated distrust of everything Israel does. You have no proof that there is any video evidence to support your version of events when there is clear video evidence that the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara brandishing paintball guns. Again, I would also call on Israel to turn over everything they confiscated so it can be examined independently and added to the evidence used for a full and frank report, but you cannot convict anyone based on evidence you have never seen. You con’t do it in the UK, the US, Israel or Turkey. Sorry sunshine.
Define “relevant evidence”. How do you know there is any if you haven’t seen it?
because hundreds the passengers said their computers, cameras and recording devices were systematically confiscated.
“because hundreds the passengers said their computers, cameras and recording devices were systematically confiscated.”
I’m not arguing with that, Annie, nice try. I am saying that you cannot convict anyone in any court in the world based on facts not in evidence.
Your claim that Israel has concealed evidence that would damn them is just a claim. I would very much like to see all the “computers, cameras and recording devices” turned over to an independent investigator, but until then you simply can’t make assumptions about what they contain.
I hate what Israel has done here. I hate the lack of transparency. I hate the air of dishonesty that it creates. But I will not assume, like so many here have done that every UN report that doesn’t agree with Chaos003.5′s twisted view of the world is suspect and dishonest.
He’s full of it and none of you have the balls to call him on his BS.
Define “relevant evidence”.
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the issue more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
That is to say, if you look at the evidence (in this case, all of the non-edited video, photos, etc.), and it has any tendency (of any degree, it need not be dispostive or even close to it) to either prove or disprove the claim, then it is relevant. Here, the photographic and video evidence of the assault on the flotilla participants are unquestionably relevant pieces of evidence.
“How do you know there is any if you haven’t seen it?”
We know it exists, by virtue of the statements of those who took the photographs and video, and by the admission of the GOI that it exists, and by the release of the edited footage.
“You assume that there is evidence that incriminates Israel and the fact that Israel hasn’t shown it to you proves it to be so.”
No, we know that there was relevant evidence that was in the hands of Israel and they refuse to release it. We can then make a reasonable presumption that the reason whey they are not releasing it is because it would be incriminating.
“It’s utterly circular logic.”
Only if don’t know the definition of “circular,” “logic” or both. (Or, in fairness, you don’t understand the argument, which seems to be your issue.)
“It is just as possible that there is no incriminating evidence that serves your version of the narrative and that’s why you haven’t seen it.”
Whether it is incriminating or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the evidence is relevant. Even evidence which is not incriminating can be relevant, and if it is not produced, then it is fair and reasonable to presume the evidence would be to the detriment of the party withholding it.
“There’s nothing to see that particularly supports either your version of events or Israel’s.”
Again, that is irrelevant. The fact that it would have a tendency to prove or disprove either side’s position is enough to require its production. (Even if it were video of nothing happening, that is still relevant evidence.)
“but you have no honest grounds for making the assumptions you make.”
It’s not an assumption, it is a presumption. There is a difference.
“You hate Israel and it fuels your every opinion.”
No I don’t. I hate Israel’s actions and it fuels nothing more than my opinon of those actions.
“You have no proof that there is any video evidence to support your version of events when there is clear video evidence that the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara brandishing paintball guns.”
Again, because Israel has refused to produce the evidence, we cannot know whether there is any evidence in existence that supports the victim’s views. It is a reasonable inference that the reason Israel does not turn over the evidence that we know exists and that we know is relevant is precisely because it supports the victim’s views.
And, as for the “painball” guns, I have two points.
First, if they didn’t shoot paint, but shot something else (like teargas or whatever) then calling them “paintball guns” is a lie.
Second, if these criminals did bring guns that shot nothing but paint, then they can be called paintball guns, but that does not obligate the victims to treat them as non-leathal weapons, because 1) they had no way to know they only were shooting paint, and 2) they were under no obligation to give the criminals the benefit of the doubt that the weapons they brandished wheren’t leathal.
“Again, I would also call on Israel to turn over everything they confiscated so it can be examined independently and added to the evidence used for a full and frank report, but you cannot convict anyone based on evidence you have never seen. You con’t do it in the UK, the US, Israel or Turkey.”
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I can’t speak for the UK, Israel or Turkey, but in the US, a person absolutely can be convicted or suffer civil judgment based on an adverse inference arising from the spoliation of evidence. Without question.
“I am saying that you cannot convict anyone in any court in the world based on facts not in evidence.”
Yes you can. Absolutely and without question. Most every civilized legal system permits reasonable presumptions based on the spolitation of evidence and those presumption can support a finding of guilt.
BBC bias: Hamas, whose decision to seize control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 led to Israel imposing the blockade, …
BBC news (under “Europe”)