DOCSLIB.ORG

Mavi Marmara's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mavi Marmara's MAVI MARMARA’S 10TH ANNIVERSARY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR PALESTINE Kadriye Sınmaz To cite this article: Sınmaz, Kadriye. “Mavi Marmara’s 10th Anniversary and the Struggle for Palestine”, Analysis INSAMER, 29.05.2020. It has been 10 years since Israel’s attack on the and Gaza territories, but increased the number Gaza Freedom Flotilla on the early morning of of illegal Jewish settlements there every day. May 30, 2010, referred to as the “Mavi Marmara In 2005, Israel decided to withdraw from Gaza incident”. This attack, which witnessed more by evacuating settlements in the area. The than 50 people wounded and 10 volunteers Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which had been murdered, had many legal, political, economic ongoing for many years, gained a different and even military consequences. dimension, as Hamas received the highest Why did Mavi Marmara go to Gaza? number of votes in the election on January 25, 2006. Following it’s declaration of existence in 1948, Israel was quick to expand the lands it had The Hamas government could not secure its captured in the period of the British mandate administration long enough because Israel and regime after the war with Arab countries, some western states did not recognize Hamas forcing more than a million Palestinians to leave as a legitimate political actor, and Fatah did not their lands. Israel also extended its territory to accept Hamas’ victory in the election. Eventually, the Golan Heights of Syria, the Sinai Peninsula two different governments emerged in Palestine, of Egypt, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, one was Fatah under the leadership of Mahmud on top of its occupation since the 1967 War. Abbas controlling the West Bank, the other was During the Oslo negotiations, Israel recognized Hamas under the leadership of Khalid Mashal the presence of a Palestinian State under the in Gaza. Israel announced on September 19, leadership of Yasser Arafat in the West Bank 2007 that it would restrict the entry and exit of 1 goods by declaring Gaza, controlled by Hamas- to the blockade, 80% of the people living in Gaza labeled as a terrorist organization-as an “enemy are in need of humanitarian aid. Unemployment zone”. On January 6, 2009, a sea blockade was rate increased to 52%3 and poverty rate to 53%. implemented on the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile the Extreme poverty rate4 increased to 33.8%.5 Yasser Arafat International Airport had been “The principle of proportionality “ is violated in bombed by Israel in 2001, making it unusable terms of the humanitarian consequences of the since then. So it is safe to say that as of today, blockade, and the severity of the violations had Israel has ‘locked’ the people of Gaza for the been deepened by attacking the Gaza Freedom past 14 years through it’s blockade on land, sea Flotilla, a humanitarian organization. and air. What happened on Mavi Marmara? The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea / SRM, 1994, In 2007, between August and December, the 6 which includes the customary international law Free Gaza Movement attempted to reach Gaza rules on maritime warfare, accepts the blockade by small fishing boats. The mission succeeded as a method of warfare, but it stipulates it. in five of these attempts. Subsequently Europe- According to the SRM, an international conflict centered Viva Palestina and IHH Humanitarian must exist in order to implement the blockade. Relief Foundation realized the “Viva Palestina” There are different comments on the nature land convoy to Gaza in December 2009. Despite of the conflicts between Israel and Palestine.1 all the obstacles, the convoy succeeded to reach Even if we consider the existing tension as an Gaza. Later, the European Campaign to end international conflict without going into these the Siege on Gaza, the Free Gaza Movement, discussions, it can be said that international IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, the law rules have been violated due to the way of International Committee to Lift the Siege on implementation of the blockade. Gaza, Ship to Gaza Greece and Ship to Gaza Sweden started to organize the “Gaza Freedom Israel’s blockade on Gaza violates the Geneva Flotilla”, which was more comprehensive Conventions, The Hague Regulation and than the previous organizations. The Freedom international humanitarian law. According to Flotilla sailed to Gaza with the participation Article 50 of the Hague Regulation, 1907 and of more than 700 volunteers from 37 countries Article 87 of III. Geneva Convention, collective at the end of May 2010. The flotilla aimed to punishment cannot be imposed on individual generate global public opinion regarding the incidents, taking into account the actions of humanitarian situation in Palestine, breaking the individuals. The Geneva Convention, Article 51, unlawful blockade of Israel and establishing a 54 (1) of the Additional Protocol I and Article 14 permanent aid corridor to deliver humanitarian of the Protocol No II state that hunger cannot be aid and providing humanitarian aid to Gaza.7 used as a weapon of war and the advantage to be achieved by blockade should not be more than The attack that Israeli soldiers launched on the the damage suffered by the civilian population ship, on the night of May 30, ended when they seized control of the ship at 5.17 am on May (the principle of proportionality). Article 17 31. The attacks on the flotilla that were done by and 23 of the Geneva Convention IV, Article warships and helicopters with sound, fog and gas 70 and 71 of the Additional Protocol I point out bombs, plastic and real bullets were announced that humanitarian aid should be delivered and to the world public via live broadcasts. Mavi humanitarian workers should be protected when Marmara, carrying with it nine martyrs and civilians are harmed and need help.2 more than 50 wounded participants, and Israel punishes the entire people of Gaza for accompanied by the physical and psychological electing Hamas through the blockade, thereby torture on the volunteers by the Israeli soldiers, violating the “ban on collective punishment”. Due was docked at the Ashdod Port. The passengers, 2 who were detained at the Be’er Sheva prison 5. Violation of the right to own property after interrogation, managed to return to Turkey The Israeli authority confiscated a wide on June 3. range of personal belongings, including Israeli military’s assault on Mavi Marmara in considerable amount of cash donations to international waters and the excessive use of be distributed in Gaza; passports, electronic force against Mavi Marmara is unlawful. The items such as cell phones, laptop computers, assault is a blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva photographic and video recording Convention and International Humanitarian equipment, where most of these items were Law. In addition, the violations of human rights not returned. committed by the occupying Israeli soldiers 6. Violation of freedom of expression during the attack and detention period can be examined under chapter 6. During the attack, Israeli forces imposed a total blackout on the satellite communication 1. Violation of the right to life of Mavi Marmara. Furthermore, a journalist According to the statement of the was shot dead at close range. International Fact-finding Mission, the force used by the Israeli soldiers on Mavi Marmara Mavi Marmara’s Legal Struggle is unnecessary, excessive, disproportionate In the immediate aftermath of the attack, victims and inappropriate. filed complains to the courts in Turkey and in much of the world. The complaints in Turkey At least six people were killed by arbitrary were joined together in a lawsuit that was filed and close-range shooting, according to the in 2012. forensic reports.8 On the trial there were four defendants in the 2. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or case, with 502 plaintiffs of whom 78 were degrading treatment or punishment foreign nationals: Former Israeli Chief of The passengers of the fleet were subjected to Staff Gen. Gabriel Ashkenazi, Former Navy treatments such as overly tight handcuffing Commander Eliezer Alfred Maron, Former Air for extended periods; being subject to various Force Intelligence officer Avishay Levi and forms of mistreatment onboard and during Former Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin. The detention; insult, humiliating treatment; case was dropped on December 9, 2016 after an being beaten; being forced to sign papers in agreement reached between Turkey and Israel a language the signatory cannot read. on August 28, 2016. No decision has yet been made on the appeal of the court case. 3. Violation of the right to liberty and security of person Families of the Mavi Marmara victims filed 85 separate lawsuits for compensation in Kayseri, The Mavi Marmara passengers were arrested Denizli, Diyarbakır, Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul, arbitrarily and unlawfully under inhumane Konya, Erzurum and Batman cities of Turkey. conditions without being informed. The amount of compensation demanded totaled 4. Humane treatment to detained persons 23 million TL. The agreement reached between and right of respect for human dignity Turkey and Israel means Turkey shall address possessed as an innate quality any demand of compensation if Israel is obliged to pay compensation for any. For this reason, The flotilla participants were detained and the treasury of the Ministry of Finance of the deprived from their rights to an attorney and Republic of Turkey was added as a party to the to access to families and Embassy officials. compensation cases. 3 Other lawsuits have also been filed by Freedom courts destroyed the perception of Israel as an Flotilla participants in different parts of the untouchable state. Furthermore, the propaganda world. to depict Israel as the most democratic country in the Middle East was damaged because the An investigation opened following an official entire world has seen how the Israli soldiers complaint by Spanish participants resulted attacked “Mavi Marmara”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel's Investigation of Alleged Violations of The
    Israel’s Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict Israel is well aware of allegations of violations of international law during Operation Protective Edge (hereinafter: the 2014 Gaza Conflict). Israel reviews complaints and other information suggesting IDF misconduct, regardless of the source. Moreover, Israel is committed to investigating fully any credible accusation or reasonable suspicion of a serious violation of the Law of Armed Conflict,1 and in fact its policy of carrying out investigations goes beyond its obligation under international law. In 2010 the Government of Israel created an independent public commission of inquiry headed by retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel and observed by international legal experts (the “Turkel Commission”), whose mandate included an assessment of Israel’s mechanisms for examining and investigating complaints and claims regarding alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. The Turkel Commission reviewed Israel’s investigations systems, including the military system of justice — which includes a multi-stage process directed by Israel’s Military Advocate General (the “MAG”), Military Courts, civilian oversight by the Attorney General of Israel, and judicial review by the Supreme Court of Israel — in light of the “general principles” for conducting an effective investigation under international law: independence, impartiality, effectiveness and thoroughness, and promptness.2 Following a careful and comprehensive review, the Turkel Commission concluded in 2013
    [Show full text]
  • War Reporting in the International Press: a Critical Discourse Analysis of the Gaza War of 2008-2009
    War Reporting in the International Press: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Gaza War of 2008-2009 Dissertation Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Hamburg zur Erlangung des Grades des Doktors der Philosophie an der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Hamburg Mohammedwesam Amer Hamburg, June 2015 War Reporting in the International Press: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Gaza War of 2008-2009 Evaluators 1. Prof. Dr. Jannis Androutsopoulos 2. Prof. Dr. Irene Neverla 3. Prof. Dr. Kathrin Fahlenbrach Date of Oral Defence: 30.10.2015 Declaration • I hereby declare and certify that I am the author of this study which is submitted to the University of Hamburg in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. • This is my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. • This original work or part of it has not been submitted to any other institution or university for a degree. Mohammedwesam Amer June 2015 I Abstract This study analyses the representation of social actors in reports on the Gaza war of 2008-09 in four international newspapers: The Guardian , The Times London , The New York Times and The Washington Post . The study draws on three analytical frameworks from the area of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) models: the transitivity model by Halliday (1985/1994), the socio- semantic inventory by Van Leeuwen (1996), and the classification of quotation patterns by Richardson (2007). The sample of this study consists of all headlines (146) of the relevant news stories and a non-random sample of (40) news stories and (7) editorials.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happened on the Mavi Marmara? an Analysis of the Turkel Commission Report
    TÜRKİYE ORTADOĞU ÇALIŞMALARI DERGİSİ Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Cilt: 1, Sayı: 2, 2014, ss.31-53 What Happened on the Mavi Marmara? An Analysis of the Turkel Commission Report Norman Finkelstein* Abstract On 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish citizens aboard the Mavi Marmara, the flagship vessel of a humanitarian flotilla headed for besieged Gaza. The Israeli attack evoked international outrage, which caused Israel to appoint an official commission of inquiry chaired by former Israeli Supreme Court Judge Jacob Turkel. In January 2011, the Turkel Commission released a 300 page report that allegedly established what happened in the course of the Israeli assault. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the report was a grotesque whitewash of Israeli acti- ons. Nonetheless this mendacious report effectively shielded Israel from further international scrutiny. A panel of inquiry created by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to resolve differences between Turkey and Israel over the Mavi Marmara killings “fully associated itself” - in the bitter words of the Turkish representative on the panel - with the the Turkel report’s findings. To date, no independent rese- archer has exposed in detail the dishonesty and fraud of the Turkel report. The purpose of my article is to fill this gap. Keywords: Mavi Marmara, Israel, Turkey, International Law, Turkel Report * Assoc. Prof., Sakarya University, Center for Middle Eastern Studies - [email protected] 31 TURKISH JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Türkiye Ortadoğu Çalışmaları Dergisi Vol: 1, No: 2, 2014, ss.31-53 Mavi Marmara’da Ne Oldu? Turkel Komisyonu Raporunun Analizi Norman Finkelstein* Özet 31 Mayıs 2010 tarihinde kuşatma altındaki Gazze’ye yardım götürmekte olan Mavi Marmara gemisinde bulunan 9 Türk vatandaşı İsrailli komandolar tarafın- dan öldürüldü.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza As a Case Study
    The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza as a Case Study Eyal Benvenisti 97 INT’L L. STUD. 969 (2021) Volume 97 2021 Published by the Stockton Center for International Law ISSN 2375-2831 The International Law of Sieges and Blockades Vol. 97 The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza as a Case Study Eyal Benvenisti ∗ CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................. 970 II. Siege, Blockade, and the Law of Occupation ..................................... 972 III. Prolonged Siege and Blockade in International Humanitarian Law 976 A. Applicability of the Laws of Siege and Blockade ..................... 976 B. The Narrow Framework of the Laws of Siege and Naval Blockade ......................................................................................... 977 C. The Laws of Prolonged Siege and Blockade: The Legal Ramifications of Time ................................................................. 981 D. From Theory to Practice: The Siege and Blockade on the Gaza Strip in Light of IHL .......................................................... 982 IV. Siege and Blockade in International Human Rights Law ................. 986 A. Application .................................................................................... 986 B. The Scope of Obligations Deriving from International Human Rights Law ....................................................................... 990 V. Conclusion ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IDF Military Advocate General Corps
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VII. Israel’s Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict ...................218 A. The IDF’s Military Justice System ......................................................................220 1. Components .............................................................................................220 2. Mechanisms for Investigating Complaints ..............................................223 B. Civilian Review of the Military Justice System By Israel’s Attorney General and Supreme Court .................................................................................228 1. Review by the Attorney General ..............................................................229 2. Review by the Supreme Court .................................................................229 C. Review by an Independent Public Commission of Inquiry .................................231 D. Examination and Investigation of Allegations Arising from the 2014 Gaza Conflict ................................................................................................................233 i VII. Israel’s Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict 409. Israel is aware of allegations of violations of international law during Operation Protective Edge (hereinafter: the “2014 Gaza Conflict”) and is committed to investigating fully any credible accusation or reasonable suspicion of a serious violation of the Law of Armed Conflict.504 Thus, Israel reviews complaints and other information suggesting IDF misconduct,
    [Show full text]
  • Original: English No.: ICC-01/13 Date: 29 January 2015 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I Before: Judge Silvia Fernández De Gurmendi, Presidin
    ICC-01/13-3-Red 29-01-2015 1/61 EC PT Original: English No.: ICC-01/13 Date: 29 January 2015 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I Before: Judge Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, Presiding Judge Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert SITUATION ON REGISTERED VESSELS OF THE UNION OF THE COMOROS, THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC OF GREECE AND THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA Public Redacted Version with Confidential Annexes 1, 2 and 3 Application for Review pursuant to Article 53(3)(a) of the Prosecutor’s Decision of 6 November 2014 not to initiate an investigation in the Situation Source: Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, Rodney Dixon QC, and KC Law (London) on behalf of the Government of the Union of the Comoros ICC-01/13-3-Red 29-01-2015 2/61 EC PT Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Ms. Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor Legal Representatives of Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicant Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparation The Office of Public Counsel for Victims The Office of Public Counsel for the Defence States Representatives Amicus Curiae Sir Geoffrey Nice QC Rodney Dixon QC REGISTRY Registrar Defence Support Section Mr. Herman von Hebel Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section No. ICC-01/13 2 29 January 2015 ICC-01/13-3-Red 29-01-2015 3/61 EC PT INTRODUCTION 1. Counsel for the Government of the Union of the Comoros (“the Applicant State Party” or “Applicant”) files this Application on behalf of the Applicant State Party for the Pre-Trial Chamber to review the Decision of the Prosecutor of 6 November 2014 (“the Decision”) 1 not to open an investigation into the attack on the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” (“the Flotilla”) that was the subject of the State Referral by the Comoros pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Gaza Movement: Anti-Israel Boat Campaign Challenges Israel's "Siege of Gaza"
    Free Gaza Movement: Anti-Israel Boat Campaign Challenges Israel's "Siege of Gaza" INTRODUCTION The latest in a series of efforts by anti-Israel activists to "break the siege" on Gaza has resulted in failure. The Freedom Flotilla II, an international coalition of groups seeking to send several ships to Gaza, were not permitted to leave the Greek port from where they intended to sail with a few hundred activists. The second flotilla was intended to be a sequel to the May 2010 flotilla that tried to sail to Gaza but was intercepted by the Israeli Navy. The 2010 and 2011 flotillas were both organized by the Cyprus-based Free Gaza Movement (FGM), a wide variety of pro-Palestinian European organizations and Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), a pro-Hamas Turkish charity. Since August 2008, FGM had sent several boats to Gaza under the guise of delivering humanitarian aid. Their missions have consistently sought to provoke confrontation with the Israeli military, in turn creating widespread propaganda value for organizers, who have used the international attention they receive to present their one-sided and biased views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. FGM's mission, as stated on its Web site, is to elicit international opposition to Israel's policies: "We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation." In the year leading up to the first mission and in the months that followed, organizers criticized Israel's founding, propagated messages about Israel's brutality and recommended international sanctions against Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S.-Turkey-Israel Triangle
    ANALYSIS PAPER Number 34, October 2014 THE U.S.-TURKEY-ISRAEL TRIANGLE Dan Arbell The Brookings Institution is a private non-profit organization. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides to any supporter is in its absolute commitment to quality, independence and impact. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment and the analysis and recommendations are not determined by any donation. Copyright © 2014 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 www.brookings.edu Acknowledgements I would like to thank Haim and Cheryl Saban for their support of this re- search. I also wish to thank Tamara Cofman Wittes for her encouragement and interest in this subject, Dan Byman for shepherding this process and for his continuous sound advice and feedback, and Stephanie Dahle for her ef- forts to move this manuscript through the publication process. Thank you to Martin Indyk for his guidance, Dan Granot and Clara Schein- mann for their assistance, and a special thanks to Michael Oren, a mentor and friend, for his strong support. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife Sarit; without her love and support, this project would not have been possible. The U.S.-Turkey-Israel Triangle The Center for Middle East Policy at BROOKINGS ii About the Author Dan Arbell is a nonresident senior fellow with Israel’s negotiating team with Syria (1993-1996), the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and later as deputy chief of mission at the Israeli and a scholar-in-residence with the department of Embassy in Tokyo, Japan (2001-2005).
    [Show full text]
  • The Gaza Flotilla: a Collapse of Israel's Political Firewall Case Study
    The Gaza Flotilla: A Collapse of Israel's Political Firewall Case Study Initiated and Commissioned By the Julis Foundation for Multi-Disciplinary Thinking Version A Elul 5770 August 2010 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 2 THE DELEGITIMIZATION CHALLENGE ....................................................................................................... 3 HAMAS' AGILITY; ISRAEL'S RIGIDITY ....................................................................................................... 4 MAIN CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 5 WHAT COULD ISRAEL HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? .................................................................................. 6 PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING ISRAEL'S DELEGITIMIZATION ......................................... 7 THE REUT INSTITUTE‟S POLITICAL SECURITY TEAM .............................................................. 9 GLOSSARY / CONCEPTS ..................................................................................................................... 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 12 GUIDELINES FOR
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Lawsuit
    Case 2:15-cv-08130 Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1 1 Cindy Pánuco, Esq. [S.B. #266921] Brian Olney, Esq. [S.B. # 298089] 2 HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue 3 Pasadena, California 91103 4 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 5 Emails: [email protected] [email protected] 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AHMET DOĞAN, individually and on Case No.: behalf of his deceased son FURKAN 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: DOĞAN; and HIKMET DOĞAN, 12 individually and on behalf of her 1. Extrajudicial Killing in Violation of 13 deceased son, FURKAN DOĞAN, Torture Victim Protection Act, by Ahmet Doğan 14 2. Extrajudicial Killing in Violation of Plaintiffs, Torture Victim Protection Act, by 15 Hikmet Doğan vs. 3. Torture In Violation of Torture 16 Victim Protection Act, by Ahmet Doğan and Hikmet Doğan on Behalf 17 EHUD BARAK, of Furkan Doğan as his Successors in Interest 18 Defendant. 4. Extrajudicial Killing in Violation of 19 Alien Tort Claims Act, by Ahmet Doğan 20 5. Extrajudicial Killing in Violation of Alien Tort Claims Act, by Hikmet 21 Doğan 6. Acts of International Terrorism in 22 Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act, by Ahmet Doğan and Hikmet Doğan on 23 Behalf of Furkan Doğan as his Successors in Interest 24 7. Acts of International Terrorism in Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act, by 25 Ahmet Doğan 26 8. Acts Of International Terrorism In Violation Of Anti-Terrorism Act, by 27 Hikmet Doğan 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 2:15-cv-08130 Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:2 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Israeli Attack on the Humanitarian Aid
    REPORT ON THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE HUMANITARIAN AID CONVOY TO GAZA ON 31 MAY 2010 TURKISH NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY FEBRUARY 2011 ANKARA CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 10 I. STATEMENT OF THE FACT A. The international humanitarian aid convoy 12 B. The vessels that departed from Turkish ports 15 C. Diplomatic contacts prior to the departure of the convoy 16 D. The Israeli attack 17 i. Timeline of the attack 18 ii. Accounts of witnesses of the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara 21 iii. Fatalities 26 iv. Injuries caused by gunshots 29 v. Attacks on the other ships 31 E. Mistreatment of passenger victims including journalists 35 i. Mistreatment on the way to Ashdod 35 ii. Mistreatment at the Port of Ashdod 39 iii. Mistreatment during transportation to prison 41 iv. Mistreatment in prison/hospital 42 v. Mistreatment on the way to the Airport 44 vi. Mistreatment and violence at Ben Gurion Airport 45 vii. Mistreatment of journalists 48 II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW A. The right to freedom of navigation on the high seas 51 B. Exceptions to freedom of navigation and the exclusivity of flag State jurisdiction 52 i. Right of visit 52 ii. Right of seizure and arrest on the high seas 56 iii. Hot pursuit 57 C. The concept of self-defence under the UN Charter 58 D. Israel is estopped from reliance on the San Remo Manual provisions on naval blockades 60 i. Naval blockade under international law 60 ii. The inapplicability of San Remo Manual provisions to the Israeli naval blockade 61 iii.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Inquiry Into Gaza Flotilla Deaths No More Than a “Whitewash”
    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 15/013/2011 28 January 2011 Israeli inquiry into Gaza flotilla deaths no more than a “whitewash” Amnesty International has condemned the findings of an Israeli inquiry into last year’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla as a “whitewash” which failed to account for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. In a report published on 23 January, the Turkel Commission concluded that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) acted lawfully when they captured the Mavi Mamara on 31 May 2010, killing nine activists on board, and intercepted five other ships. 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. The Commission’s failure to account for the deaths reinforces the view that the Israeli authorities are unwilling or incapable of delivering accountability for abuses of international law committed by Israeli forces. It also highlights the need for follow-up to ensure that the sharply contrasting conclusions of the International Fact-Finding Mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, which were issued on 22 September 2010, but not even mentioned by the Commission, are addressed and that the rights of victims to an effective remedy are upheld. The Turkel Commission concluded that, of the 133 incidents of force used by the IDF during the raid on the Mavi Marmara that it examined, 127 were in conformity with international law, while it had “insufficient information” to make a determination on the other six, three of which involved the use of live fire.
    [Show full text]