Professional Documents
Culture Documents
September
and what conclusions the Commission reached regarding the IDFs specific actions in each case. http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/013/2011/en/96e848bd56ee-4e6e-a817-17e07c3d5192/mde150132011en.html 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 today, 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 Panels composition, mandate and legal analysis. But most disturbing of all is the fact that the Secretary Generals Panel apparently condones Israels gross violations of the human and national rights of the Palestinian people and the rights of those in solidarity with them. The Panel has four members, one from Israel and one from Turkey, plus Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand and expresident of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. The choice of Uribe as vicechairman 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 FactFinding 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. Contact: Audrey Bomse +44 (0)78615610932, audreybomse@hotmail.com Huwaida Arraf +970-598-336215, huwaida.arraf@gmail.com Greta Berlin +1 310 422 7242, Iristulip@gmail.com