Is that your opinion or a fact?
That's a fact.
The Palmer Report was not commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade. It was commissioned to review the state of relations between Israel and Turkey. It had no international lawyers or experts on maritime law on it's panel. It did, however, have former Columbian President Alvaro Uribe, who is accused of widespread human rights violations during his time as President. But more relevant to this "Panel", is the fact that Israel was the biggest weapons supplier to Columbia, while he was President, which makes his inclusion on this "Panel", a conflict of interest. Right off the bat, that's some panel, isn't it?
In addition to the lack of any credited professionals in international law and the obvious conflict of interest of one of its members, the panel did not interview any witnesses from the Mavi Mamara, nor did it see any exhibits. It based all of it's findings on information provided by Israeli and Turkish delegations. Also, the "Panel" admits repeatedly, they are not a court, but a very well paid op-ed.
The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.
It used as Israel's argument, a report from the Turkel Commission, which completely ignored a UNHRC FFM report, which
was commissioned to review the legality of the blockade, did have many experts on international and maritime law, was much more in-depth and comprehensive than the Palmer Report and came to the opposite conclusion that the blockade is, in fact, illegal.
Not only did the UNHRC FFM commission find the blockade illegal, it found it to be a crime against humanity, due to the collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza.
In regards to the naval blockade itself, it tells the lie the blockade has been in place since 1967, when in fact, it started in 2008, to punish Gazans for electing Hamas.
The Naval Blockade
In para.70 it erroneously states that “the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted” when in fact Ms Feldman explained to Turkel that all maritime commercial traffic to Gaza had been prohibited by varying procedures since the occupation began in 1967. This gives the lie to the Panel’s statement later in the paragraph that “the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.” The blockade was only imposed after the Free Gaza Movement began to sail regularly to Gaza during 2008 in defiance of Israeli restrictions. It was to prevent this humanitarian traffic that Israel applied the blockade which the UNHRC FFM has since declared to be illegal. It follows that the Panel’s reasoning in para.77 that the naval blockade was not imposed to punish the people of Gaza for the election of Hamas is unconvincing.
And in reference to continuing the blockade because of the rocket attacks, it doesn't consider the affect the blockade is having on Gaza residents...
In supporting its position on IsraelÂ’s need to defend itself by imposing the blockade, the Panel make several references to the firing of rockets in Gaza. Yet these attacks do not occur in a vacuum.
Palestinian casualties occur every week as a result of the occupation. For example in the week 14-20 April 2011 the Palestine Center for Human Rights recorded that one man died of wounds sustained the previous week when two artillery shells were fired into the Gaza Strip; windows were broken in a primary school when a warplane fired a missile onto neighboring training site; gunboats directed shells and intensive fire at Palestinian fishing boats working well within the limits of recognized Palestinian territorial waters; farmers were fired at near the Israeli border. At the same time there was a renewal of the cooking gas crisis due to a unilaterally imposed crossing closure; the ban on all construction materials entering Gaza continued in force; while for 44 months prior to April 2011 the 710 Palestinian prisoners from Gaza who are detained (illegally) in Israeli jails have been denied their visitation rights without any justification.
There is no excuse and no valid purpose for isolating Palestinian terror attacks from the context of the oppression suffered by Palestinians under the on-going Israeli occupation.
To claim the blockade doesn't affect the quality of life in Gaza, is just psycho-babble from Israeli kiss-asses, who have no soul and are completely void of any sense of humanity whatsoever.
To point to this report as proof the blockade is legal, is just ludicrous.
You are certainly entertaining us today.
