Flotilla Mavi Marmara
Israel Approves One Ton of Aid to Every Person in Gaza
Flotilla Mavi Marmara
- International observers, Noble Peace Laureate approve Israel’s version
- Mavi Marmara linked to IHH, Islamist terrorist groups
- Gaza closure thwarts terror on Israel
Jerusalem, Jan. 23 – Israel abided by international law in trying to prevent the Mavi Marmara ship from accessing Iran-backed Hamas and Gaza’s waters, according to the findings of the Turkel Commission, Israel’s public, autonomous and independent investigation of the Gaza flotilla incident of May 31, 2010. The Commission presented the first part of its findings today.
It found that Israel acted in accordance with international law both in its approach to the Gaza Strip and those aboard the Marmara.
The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of May 31, 2010 was set up in the aftermath of the flotilla incident. Its purpose was to examine Israel’s security closure of Hamas-controlled Gaza and the intent of the 590-passenger Mavi Marmara.
The inquiry was headed by retired Supreme Court of Israel Justice Jacob Turkel. Lord David Trimble, a Noble Peace Laureate and a Northern Ireland political leader, and Brigadier General Kenneth Watkin (Ret.), Judge Advocate General for the Canadian forces after 33 years of military service, were observers on the Committee who brought significant international credibility and experience to the investigation.
They were to all intents and purposes full members of the committee but did not have a vote. They were also present for the findings’ announcements.
| Main Conclusions
• The conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an international armed conflict. • Israel’s ‘effective control’ of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed. • The purpose of the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was primarily a military-security one. • The naval blockade was imposed on the Gaza Strip lawfully, with Israel complying with the conditions for imposing it. • Israel is complying with the humanitarian obligations imposed on the blockading party, including the prohibition of starving the civilian population or preventing the supply of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population and medical supplies, and the requirement that the damage to the civilian population is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. • The imposition and enforcement of the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip does not constitute ‘collective punishment’ of the population of the Gaza Strip. • International law does not give individuals or groups the freedom to ignore the imposition of a naval blockade that satisfies the conditions for imposing it and that is enforced accordingly, especially where a blockade satisfies obligations to neutral parties, merely because in the opinion of those individuals or groups it violates the duties of the party imposing the blockade vis-à-vis the entity subject to the blockade. • A vessel that attempts to breach a blockade is subject to international law governing the conduct of hostilities: international humanitarian law, including the rules governing use of force. • The Israeli armed forces’ interception and capture of the Gaza Flotilla vessels in international waters – seaward of the blockaded area – was in conformity with customary international humanitarian law. • The tactics chosen to intercept and capture the Flotilla vessels -including having Shayetet 13 naval commandoes board from Morena speedboats and fast-rope from helicopter onto the roof of the vessels – was consistent with established international naval practice. • The participants in the Flotilla were predominantly an international group of civilians whose main goal was to bring publicity to the humanitarian situation in Gaza by attempting to breach the blockade imposed by Israel. • On board the Mavi Marmara and the other flotilla vessels was a group of IHH and affiliated activists (the “IHH activists”) that violently opposed the Israeli boarding. The IHH activists who participated in that violence were civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. • The force used against civilians on board the flotilla was governed by the principles of “necessity” and use of “proportionate force” associated with human rights based law enforcement norms. However, the IHH activists lost the protection of their civilian status for such time as they directly participated in the hostilities. The use of force against these direct participants in hostilities is governed by the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. • The Rules of Engagement for the operation provided an authority to use force that reflected the nature of a law enforcement operation. • The IHH activists carried out the violence on board the Mavi Marmara by arming themselves with a wide array of weapons, including iron bars, axes, clubs, slingshots, knives, and metal objects. These were weapons capable of causing death or serious injury. Further, the hostilities were conducted in an organized manner with IHH activists, inter alia, operating in groups when violently assaulting the IDF soldiers. • The IHH activists used firearms against the IDF soldiers during the hostilities. • The Commission has examined 133 incidents in which force was used. The majority of the uses of force involved warning or deterring fire and less-lethal weapons. • Overall, the IDF personnel acted professionally in the face of extensive and unanticipated violence. This included continuing to switch back and forth between less-lethal and lethal weapons in order to address the nature of the violence directed at them. • The Commission has concluded that in 127 cases, the use of force appeared to be in conformity with international law. • In six cases, the Commission has concluded that it has insufficient information to be able to make a determination. • Three out of those six cases involved the use of live fire and three cases involved physical force; two incidents of kicking and one strike with the butt of a gun. • In five out of the 127 incidents that appeared to be in conformity with international law, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the use of force was also in accordance with law enforcement norms. However, in these cases, force appeared to be used against persons taking a direct part in hostilities and, as a consequence, was in conformity with international law. • The planning and organization of the IDF mission to enforce the blockade did not include anticipation that there would be a violent opposition to the boarding, which had a direct impact on the operational tactics, Rules of Engagement, and training before the operation. However, the focus of the planning and organization of the operation on a lower level of resistance did not lead to a breach of international law. |
“We are glad that the Commission made repeated efforts to hear both sides,” the international observers’ letter said. “We regret that these offers were not taken up…We have no doubt that the Commission is independent,” it added.
Also, two legal experts, from Germany and the United Kingdom, were added to the Commission for the writing of its report.
“The captain of the Mavi Marmara and the leader of the IHH were invited to give testimony by the Committee. They did not reply to the invitation,” Turkel said.
Turkel also said that three Israeli human rights organizations and two Israelis who were aboard the ship gave testimony.
“The Committee found that Israel’s naval closure of Gaza is to prevent terrorists, arms and money from reaching terrorists – and to stop terrorists from leaving the strip – and not to prevent any humanitarian goods from entering the strip,” Turkel explained. “It does not constitute collective punishment of the people in Gaza.”
“Israel’s clash with Hamas is international,” Turkel added.
“IHH, the Turkish aid group that organized the Mavi Marmara flotilla, helps radical Islamic terrorist organizations. It supports Hamas and does not deny its support,” he said.
The IHH is illegal in Germany and Israel.
About 40 passengers were IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi) members, a Turkish aid foundation with radical Islamist ties. Its members used firearms and violent tactics.
“Each Israeli soldier was attacked as they entered the ship,” Turkel said. Three of the soldiers were dragged into the ship’s hold and were prevented from receiving “humanitarian” medical attention.
Israel was not in breach of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), the Commission said.
Israel fulfills its obligations under international law by allowing essential aid to enter Gaza.
Criticism of Israel by the committee focused on delays in allowing aid into Gaza. Israel must try to allow individuals with medical needs to leave Gaza and enter Israel quicker, Turkel added.
Israel maintains there is no need for more flotillas because all humanitarian goods that cannot be used for terrorist purposes are allowed into Gaza.
The combination of the marine closure with other Israeli operations proved its value because it led to a reduction in the number of rockets being fired by Gaza from a peak of 3,200 in 2008 to fewer than 200 in the first ten months of 2010.
There were no humanitarian goods found aboard the Mavi Marmara, the Committee concluded.
Evidence from four of the dead showed that they expressed the desire to be “shaheeds” or martyrs.
Mavi Marmara: Sequence of Events
Israel created a closure of Gaza after Iran-backed Hamas took control of the strip and stepped up its terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians in 2007. The closure is necessary to prevent large-scale weapons smuggling to the terrorist group. Israel ensured humanitarian aid and civilian-use products were allowed into Gaza.
The flotilla was a fleet of six ships organized in part by IHH, with ties to extremist and Islamist jihadi groups. It was trying to reach Gaza. Weapons and ammunition were found aboard the Mavi Marmara.
Israel asked the ship to stop at the southern Israeli port of Ashdod in order to ensure no dangerous weapons were being transported to Iran-backed Hamas. The flotilla’s organizers ignored Israel’s requests and a struggle took place. Nine of the individuals aboard the ship were killed and nine Israeli naval personnel were wounded.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in the hopes of reaching a peace agreement with Gaza. Instead, Iran-backed Hamas took control of the strip. It runs a repressive regime that carries out terrorist attacks and violates human rights of women and minorities.
More than one million tons of humanitarian supplies have entered Gaza from Israel, equaling over a ton of aid for every individual there. Supplies include food, first aid goods, heavy-duty diesel fuel and construction products.
From the end of Israel’s defensive war against Hamas, Operation Cast Lead, in January 2009 until June 2010, Israel coordinated the transfer of 1,068,400 tons of aid, 139,118,433 liters of fuel and 52,580 tons of cooking gas into the Gaza Strip.
