Hamas War

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Israel Should Have Had Called Home Its Ambassador to Turkey

Israel would have prevented all the international protests post-flotilla if only we had taken the offensive and declared that Turkey was at fault and called home our ambassador.  We should have put Turkey on the defensive and accused them of sponsoring armed invaders.

Instead Israel tried to be "nice."  Of course "nice" doesn't cut it.  It just sets us up for more condemnation.

Here's the official Israeli response to the Palmer Report:

Prime Minister’s Office announcement following the publication of the Palmer Report by the UN Secretary General
See included the Statement by Mr. Ciechanover, Representative of Israel in the Panel.

The State of Israel has adopted the Palmer Report, with the exception of the reservations detailed by the Israeli representative to the Palmer Commission, Joseph Ciechanover. The report, which deals with the flotilla incident of 31 May 2010 and has been adopted by the United Nations Secretary-General, is a professional, serious and comprehensive document. The flotilla in question attempted to breach the naval blockade on Gaza. The Palmer Report confirmed the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, and Israel's right to enforce the blockade, including in international waters. This naval blockade was put into place to prevent the smuggling of missiles and other weapons to Hamas, a terror organization which controls Gaza and is supported by Iran. Over the last few years, Hamas has fired over 10,000 rockets and mortar shells with the objective of striking Israeli civilian targets.
While enforcing the naval blockade, Israel has interdicted many vessels on their way to the Gaza Strip with no casualties. In the case of the Mavi Marmara flotilla, Israeli soldiers boarded the vessels with non-lethal means and with no intention of causing any harm. When they were brutally attacked by dozens of violent IHH activists armed with clubs, knives and steel pipes, the Israeli soldiers were forced to defend themselves. After many soldiers were injured during the operation, nine of the IHH members who were endangering IDF soldiers were killed.
As advised in the report, Israel once again expresses its regret over the loss of life, but will not apologize for its soldiers taking action to defend their lives. As any other state, Israel has the right to defend its civilians and soldiers.
Israel cherishes the significant ties, past and present, between the Turkish and Jewish peoples. For that reason, the State of Israel has made numerous attempts in the last few months to settle the dispute between the two countries, but regrettably, these attempts have not been successful.
The State of Israel hopes that a way will be found to move beyond this discord and will continue its endeavors to that end.
It should be emphasized that beyond ratifying the legality of the blockade, the report determines that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and that anyone interested in sending humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip must do so in coordination with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and must transfer the aid via the land crossings.
In regard to the Israeli ambassador to Turkey, he concluded his term earlier this week, and has already bid farewell to his Turkish colleagues. He had previously made his plans to return to Israel in the coming few days.
Israel presumes that Turkey will respect the international laws pertaining to marine travel in the Mediterranean Sea.


Statement by Mr. Joseph Ciechanover
As the Representative of Israel to this Panel, I join the Chairman and Vice Chairman in adopting this report. Israel appreciates the important work of the Panel and thanks Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Mr. Alvaro Uribe for their leadership. Their efforts should send a message to the international community about the need to engage with all sides to a dispute and to avoid prejudging an incident before all of the facts are known.

Israel has reservations to a few aspects of the report, which are expressed below, but appreciates that the report concurs with Israel’s view that the “naval blockade was legal,” that it "was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea,” that the blockade’s implementation “complied with the requirements of international law,” and that Israel had a “right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade”, including in international waters. The Report rightly finding serious questions about “the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH,” notes that they planned “in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt” and classifies the decision to breach the blockade of Gaza as a “dangerous and reckless act,” which “needlessly carried the potential for escalation.” Israel also notes the importance of the Panel’s support for Israel’s long-standing position that “all humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

At the same time, Israel does not concur with the Panel’s characterization of Israel’s decision to board the vessels in the manner it did as “excessive and unreasonable.” The Panel was provided evidence of the repeated warnings it gave the vessels regarding its intent to board them. Israel feels that the Panel gave insufficient consideration to the operational limitations which determined the manner and timing of the boarding of the vessels and to the operational need for a covert takeover in order to minimize the chances for resistance on board.

As to the actions of Israel’s soldiers, given the panel’s conclusions regarding the resistance that they encountered when boarding the Mavi Marmara, it is clear that the soldier’s lives were in immediate danger. For example, the Panel notes that “Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara.” The Panel confirmed that video footage showed that passengers were wearing "bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves” and that this information “supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation.” The Panel further confirms that “two soldiers received gunshot wounds,” “three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk” and that “seven soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”

Given these circumstances, Israel’s soldiers clearly acted in self-defense and responded reasonably, proportionally and with restraint, including the use of less-lethal weapons where feasible. The Panel's characterization of the circumstances which led to the nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara does not adequately take into account the complexities of what was clearly a chaotic combat situation. In such a situation, reconstructing the exact chains of events is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Given the close range combat that clearly took place aboard the vessel, wounds sustained at close range do not in themselves suggest wrongdoing by Israeli soldiers.

Israel’s treatment of the hundreds of participants following the takeover of the ships was reasonable and compatible with international standards. Reliance on some passenger statements presented in the Turkish National Report as evidence of wrongdoing was particularly problematic. Israel raised serious concerns regarding the veracity and credibility of some of these statements.
Still, Israel cherishes the shared history and centuries old ties of strong friendship and cooperation between the Jewish and Turkish peoples and hopes that the Panel's work over the past few months will assist Israel and Turkey in finding a path back to cooperation.

No comments: