UNHRC's extreme bias

Since you all take all your opinions and information from blogs I might as well start doing the same..

Here is how they justify believing biased, lying "eyewitnesses" over actual video evidence:

20. In ascertaining the facts surrounding the Israeli interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews with eye witnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with government officials. In light of seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and of the suppression of that material with the disclosure only of a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before us.

So when witnesses said one thing and video evidence showed something completely different, they chose to believe the liars.

And how do we know that the witnesses are unreliable at best, and liars at worst? Why, the UNHRC admits it! In paragraph 114:

The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope.

Why does the report even bring this up? Simple - because that's exactly what the very same "eyewitnesses" claimed, in contradiction to the video evidence released both by the IDF and by the activists themselves.

Even so, the UNHRC expects us to believe that "live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers" - as if the IHH fighters would have been standing on deck, as sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one before the IDF soldiers rappelled onto the deck. And that the helicopter was firing 9mm rounds onto the deck (all of the dead were killed by 9mm bullets.) And that the IDF soldiers would somehow have avoided firing their weapons as soon as they hit the deck and allowed themselves to be beaten up with metal clubs even though the IDF had, according to the UNHRC, already been using live fire. The entire narrative is utterly nonsensical.

The rule seems to have been, when the UNHRC had no direct and incontrovertible evidence that passengers were lying, they must have been telling the absolute truth, and that the veracity of the "eyewitnesses" were not the least bit harmed by proof that they were wrong.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com...

So they know their witnesses are lying, but they insist on taking their words over videos released by both the Israelis and the activists, and they expect us to believe that "live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers" - as if the IHH fighters would have been standing on deck, as sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one before the IDF soldiers rappelled onto the deck.
I mean, it is pretty far fetched, but if a witness says it's true, then they assume it is..

BTW- this is how people look when shot at (an Israeli reporter gets shot at):
www.youtube.com...

And on breaking international law:

First, it accurately quotes San Remo to define what a legal blockade is:

51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43

So far, so good. But look what comes next:

52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in LOAC refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause hunger.44

The bolded text is simply made up by the UNHRC and has zero to do with international law. There is nothing in international law that says that "destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage" is illegal under the laws of blockade.

The UNHRC is deliberately misinterpreting its own footnoted material to accuse Israel of starving Gaza with the blockade.

Of course it doesn't mention the tons of food that arrive daily into Gaza via Israel itself, nor the fact that not a single Gazan has yet been documented to have starved to death in the past four years.

Since the UNHRC made up a specialized definition of the legality of a blockade, tailor made for Israel alone, it is no surprise that they conclude:

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

The report goes on to the usual lies - claiming Gaza is occupied, saying that the IDF fired live ammunition from the helicopters before the first soldiers descended on the ship, and so forth. But here is a specific example where international law is being deliberately misinterpreted for the singular purpose of finding Israel guilty.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com...

The situation in Gaza might not be pretty, but it doesn't mean they're allowed to make up laws to cover for the fact that there are tons of food that arrive daily into Gaza via Israel itself, and the fact that not a single Gazan has yet been documented to have starved to death in the past four years...

So, is this report legal? Is it accurate in its findings? Would you use it as evidence against Israel?

Would you find it objective?

I'm sure this will degrade into the normal "OMGZ IZRRAEL IS A MERDER #RY n it killz alot of peoples!!!!!111" soon enough, so I ask of those of you who are above the age of 18 to maintain civility, and try to remain on topic (The topic being whether or not this report is objective and accurate).

Thank you.
With respect,
Eliad.

The craziest thing about the whole affair, to me, is that an American Citizen was killed during the raid and not a peep was said about it by our self-righteous politicians who can't wait to take center stage when an American hiker is detained crossing the border in to Iran or North Korea. Sure, he didn't really live *in* America, and he was arguably more Turkish than American, but legally and in reality, he was an American.

But, because it was Isreal that killed him in defense of an ongoing occupation that America's supports, it's no big deal. Imagine if an Iranian vessel was involved in something like this? It would be an Act of War.

There is no justification for what Isreal did, and the UNHRC was right to call them out.

reply to post by Crimelab


But they're not calling us out, they're lying... They're making up laws..

It might have been morally wrong, but it was still legal.

As for the American- What bearing does it have to do with this topic?
And I don't think America would have gone to war with Iran had this been done by them, but I'm sure people would have used it as proof that Iran is the devil, but that's the nature of politics, and the nature of public opinions..

By the way, the US did condemn this whole thing, and it's hardly forgotten.

But this is off topic, I'd ask you to stay on topic.

Well done Eliad! S&F for excellant research.
I believe some of the witnesses were in fact lying. It is not reasonable to believe the commandos were firing their weapons during their descent. They did however fire once they were on board and with all the noise perhaps it seemed as if the firing came from above. As you saw in the report a lot of the witnesses testimony was discounted by the investigators. However 110 witnesses were interviewed and much of the testimony was very believable. IF Israel were to return all the video confiscated I believe a clearer picture would emerge. It is possible in the heat of battle some of the commandos acted contrary to their orders and this being caught on camera was kept by Israel.

I do not believe the activists planned in advance for a fight as no sophisticated weapons were on board. When they believed their lives were in danger they got knives from the kitchen and broke up chairs to get makeshift clubs. They had no guns which would have been easy to smuggle aboard.

Under International Law the attack was illegal as the blockade has been deemed illegal. Israel had many options to prevent this ship from entering Gaza . It would have been quite easy to simply disable the ship by damaging the propeller. Israels top command chose the most violent method.

Let Israel release all the captured video so the whole truth can be known. Until that happens I and most others will believe Israel committed the war crimes as identified in the report.

There is alot in the report that you did not address. The treatment the activists received after being forcible taken to Israel was contrary to International Law and a clear violation of several conventions.

Can you think of a good reason for the Israeli government not to return the video to it's owners?

There was nothing illegal about raiding the flotilla.
According to 'San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea '

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

www.icrc.org...

Also, according to "Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations", published by the U.S Navy on July 2007


"Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of
all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified
ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the
control of enemy nation. While the belligerent right of visit and search is
designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligernt right of
blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their
cargo, from crossing an established and published and publicized cordon
seperationg the enemy from international waters and/or airspace"

Much more here
docstalk.blogspot.com...

Further more, there are two investigations already working. One is an Israeli internal investigation, and one international opened by Ban ki moon. Why was the human rights council in such a hurry to open its own investigation? Because it is, and always has been biased against Israel, and they new in advanced that Israel will not cooperate with it, thus portraying Israel as regime who believes it is above the law. It was also very convenient for them to take testimonies from on side only.

The human rights council is a dog gone wild, as often said by UN high officials.
The 47-nation body has condemned Israel in 80% of its country censures, in 20 of 25 resolutions. The other 5 texts criticized North Korea once, and Myanmar four times. The Council has ignored the UN’s other 189 countries, including the world's worst abusers. While Darfur was addressed several times, these resolutions were non-condemnatory, often praising Sudan for "cooperation."

more here:
www.unwatch.org...

Now, if that wasn't sad, I would laugh out loud, because this council is a bad joke, and so are its findings.

reply to post by gravitational


The maritime laws apply to a legal blockade. The Gaza blockade has been deem illegal by the UN therefore maritime law does NOT apply.

reply to post by gem_man


That's exactly the point of the article, the UNHRC made up new parts to the law in order to make the blockade illegal, when in fact it is legal, even if it does seem immoral..

As for the witness accounts- They do not fit the videos released by both sides, you can't see any of the soldiers shooting at anyone...

I don't get it, why won't you look at the photos and videos instead of jumping to conclusions?

Why do you think there's no way the activists would lie?
This is not some IDF soldier testimony, these are videos and photos...

And yes I wish the IDF would release all the evidence..

reply to post by Eliad


Eliad, the first line of my first post in this thread "I believe some of the witnesses in fact lied" or words to that effect. Israel NOT releaseing the activists video shows me they are hiding something they do not want us to see. I can only conclude it is something bad for Israel.

reply to post by Eliad


I have a video for you to watch. Here is an IDF commando killing a boy on the deck.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Eliad
reply to post by gem_man

 

That's exactly the point of the article, the UNHRC made up new parts to the law in order to make the blockade illegal, when in fact it is legal, even if it does seem immoral..

I would like to know how the blockade is legal. What law or set of laws applies to make this legal? Israel has stated out right that it is not an occupying force, and that it is not at war with Gaza. They need to clearly state their intentions so that the rest of the world knows where they stand. Applying laws from both sides of the argument to fit their needs does not help their case at all.

reply to post by Rook1545


Umm, if I remember correctly it is that they're at war with Hamas, and because Hamas is now in control of Gaza then they're blockading Gaza..

It's so easy for them to get their weapons an ammo through sea.. You can't regulate it.. So how can we prevent it?
Just a couple of days ago Egypt has stopped another giant shipment of explosives to Gaza through the tunnels.. The sea is much more easy to smuggle through..

And there have been many smuggling attempts through the sea that were caught before, very big ones..

Look, the UN isn't even trying to refute that, it's trying to say we're starving the people of Gaza, which is not true according to the law..
Now it's frickin' war time law, it's not like regular laws where there's a sense of morality in everything- It's law for a situation devoid of morality... War..


reply to post by gem_man


I agree.. I also think they're hiding something, but there have been so many lies, how can we know for sure what happened there? The eyewitnesses lied over and over again, how can we be sure they're telling the truth now?

And this video, I've shown you time and time again that it's not an execution and the gun wasn't even fired..