2 sept 2011
Turkey gives "Israel" ultimatum for apology
Ahmet Oglo, the Turkish foreign minister, has specified Thursday an ultimatum to the Zionist entity to apologize for the crime it had committed against Turkish human right activists on Mavi Marmara where nine Turkish citizens were killed and dozens wounded.
According to Oglo, the ultimatum would be the day the UN promulgates its fact finding report on the incident, adding that if "Israel" failed to apologize till that date then Turkey would implement an alternative plan.
The UN was about to announce its fact finding report last May but postponed it on the request of the parties involved. The last request was made by Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu who urged the UN committee tackling the investigation to defer the promulgation for six months.
"We have evaluated the Israeli request, but it is impossible for us to wait for six months for the committee to announce its report. Turkey's position in this regard is very clear, we have taken a decision and we will fulfill that decision. Turkey would implement sanctions on Israel that "Israel" itself and other international parties know very well," said Oglo.
The UN secretary-general is expected to announce the report at the beginning of September this year.
According to Oglo, the ultimatum would be the day the UN promulgates its fact finding report on the incident, adding that if "Israel" failed to apologize till that date then Turkey would implement an alternative plan.
The UN was about to announce its fact finding report last May but postponed it on the request of the parties involved. The last request was made by Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu who urged the UN committee tackling the investigation to defer the promulgation for six months.
"We have evaluated the Israeli request, but it is impossible for us to wait for six months for the committee to announce its report. Turkey's position in this regard is very clear, we have taken a decision and we will fulfill that decision. Turkey would implement sanctions on Israel that "Israel" itself and other international parties know very well," said Oglo.
The UN secretary-general is expected to announce the report at the beginning of September this year.
Press statement by H.E. Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, regarding Turkish-Israeli relations
Distinguished Members of the Press,
You all know very well the reason why I will deliver this statement today.
Approximately 15 months ago on the 31st of May 2010, Israel carried out an armed attack in the international waters of the Mediterranean, against an international aid convoy in which hundreds of passengers from 32 countries participated to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza.
During this attack, Israeli soldiers killed 9 civilians, 8 of whom were Turkish and 1 was a US citizen, they injured many passengers and also forcefully brought the ship and its passengers to Israel.
These people were subjected to all sorts of degrading treatment throughout their two-day captivity at the hands of Israel.
Dear Friends,
Approximately 15 months have elapsed since this unlawful attack.
However, the concrete facts remain unchanged.
I find it necessary to repeat them.
The Israeli attack took place in international waters.
Those killed by Israeli soldiers were innocent civilians.
Those, whose lives were claimed, were civilians who wished to respond to the cry for help of the Palestinian people under the plight of the blockade enforced by Israel in violation of international law and human values.
War is a harsh reality of the history of humanity.
And war, above all, is the gravest violation of the human right to life, which constitutes the most sacred value.
Indeed, all civilizations have developed the concept of a “just war” in order to regulate even war according to certain rules.
For this reason, the use of military force has been restricted by very strict conditions in the United Nations Charter.
Furthermore, it is for the conviction of the sanctity of the right to life, that even when the war is warranted, the killing of innocent civilians is accepted as a war crime.
However, Israel, not in war but in peace time, not in a military but a civilian convoy; killed civilians who participated in a peaceful event organized to bring aid to innocent people suffering under a cruel embargo. This is the picture!
Moreover, it did so, neither in its territory nor territorial waters, but in international waters, where freedom of navigation prevails as the most fundamental principle of international law.
The crime committed by Israel is not a simple offense.
It is international law that has been violated.
It is the conscience of humanity and the most fundamental human value, the right to life that have been violated.
There is an irreversible truth:
And that is, the fact that attacking civilians in a ship part of an aid convoy, firing multiple times at unarmed people at the back of their neck is a crime against humanity.
This crime cannot be covered under any guise nor justified under any circumstances.
One other thing must also be underlined.
No state is above the law.
The world is currently changing.
Those who claim the lives of civilians, or commit crimes against humanity are sooner or later brought before justice and face trial for their crimes.
Neither the Israeli Government who ordered the attack against the Mavi Marmara nor the ones that actually carried out the attack are above or immune from the law. They all must be held accountable.
In fact, they have already been convicted by the conscience of humanity.
Distinguished Members of the Press,
You will recall that, as Turkey, we promptly acted to ensure that this clear crime would not go unpunished and that justice would to take its course.
To this end, within hours of the Israeli attack we called for an urgent session of the UN Security Council that very same day.
In my speech before the UN Security Council, I stated that humanity had drowned in the waters of the Mediterranean with this Israeli attack which totally disregarded all norms of law, human conscience and values of humanity.
Indeed, the UN Security Council, in the first hours of 1 June 2010, adopted a Presidential Statement with the agreement of all its members -an agreement of the entire international community.
With this Statement, the Security Council called for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards, into the tragedy caused as a result of Israel’s use of armed force.
Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council based in Geneva, adopted a resolution by which it established a Fact-Finding Mission comprising highly prominent and specialized lawyers and launched an investigation process into the attack.
The UN Secretary General also set up an Inquiry Panel in line with the call by the Security Council.
As Turkey, we have fully cooperated with the Panel. We provided every contribution to speed up the investigation process and submitted our national report.
Whereas Israel, despite being represented in the Panel, continuously acted with the intention to delay its work.
Again, as you all very well know, we requested the Government of Israel to issue a formal apology and pay compensation to the families of and those close to the deceased. Moreover, we continued to emphasize that the blockade enforced against Gaza, which was explicitly criticized in the UN Security Council Presidential Statement, must be lifted.
We also declared that if our conditions were not met, the Turkish-Israeli relations would not be normalized.
On the other hand, upon being informed by the Government of Israel of its readiness to meet with Turkey with a view to apologize from the Turkish public and pay compensation to the families of and those close to the deceased, we held a total of 4 rounds of meetings at different times.
During these meetings, agreement was reached a couple of times between the Turkish and Israeli delegations negotiating the texts of an agreement, which accommodated our claims for an apology and compensation.
Indeed, ad referendum agreement was reached for the first time over two separate texts as a result of the meetings held in Geneva upon the request by the Israeli Prime Minister following Turkey’s contribution to the relief efforts to put out the forest fires in Israel in December 2010. This agreement was also endorsed by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, due to the disagreements within the Israeli Council of Ministers, this agreement could not be implemented.
Throughout this process, all the delays in the publication of the Palmer Commission’s report- I am emphasizing this since we are faced with a serious press manipulation- were caused as a result of the Government of Israel’s request for additional time to form its internal consensus over apology and compensation, in other words every postponement was at the request of the Government of Israel.
The last request made by Israel for a 6 month-additional period was not accepted by Turkey. Because it was understood that all these requests for delay were aimed at prolonging the process.
The leaking to the press of the report, to which neither Turkey nor Israel is a side, bearing only the signatures of its Chair Palmer and Vice-Chair Uribe, and before it was officially submitted to the UN Secretary General on 1 September, is quite thought-provoking in this sense. Yesterday I spoke in a frank manner to the UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon on this subject. He expressed great astonishment and dismay that this report which had not yet been submitted to him and whose details he was not yet fully acquitted with would be leaked to the press as it had. Unfortunately, the Israeli side has not acted in a manner compatible with State solemnity and confidentiality in this process.
First of all it should be stated that this report reflects only the views of the people abovementioned.
The report clearly establishes and expresses the crimes committed by Israeli soldiers and other officials.
In this respect, it explicitly concludes that attacking vessels with substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone was excessive and unreasonable.
It also states that the loss of life and injuries caused by Israeli soldiers was unacceptable, none of the nine deaths was accounted for by Israel and that the evidence showed that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range.
The report clearly documents serious mistreatment of passengers, including physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and denial of consular assistance.
The report however alleges that the inhumane blockade enforced by Israel against Gaza is lawful.
It is not possible and even out of the question to accept this approach.
The Fact Finding Mission, comprising highly competent and specialized lawyers mandated by the UN Human Rights Council have reported that the Gaza blockade is unlawful. They clearly documented this in their work following the incident last year.
This conviction was both endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council and supported by the UN General Assembly.
When this is the case, clearly then the controversial views put forward by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel exceeding their mandates are based on political motives, rather than on legal grounds.
Turkey in no way accepts this approach, which jeopardizes the functioning and integrity of the panel.
Turkey totally rejects this approach, which it finds incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Presidential Statement adopted by the UN Security Council by consensus.
In this vein, we are determined to refer this issue to the competent international legal authorities.
Dear Friends,
Turkey’s stance against this unlawful act of Israel from the first moment has been very clear and principled. Our demands are known.
Our relations with Israel will not be normalized until these conditions are met.
At this juncture, Israel has wasted all the opportunities it was presented with.
Now, the Government of Israel must face the consequences of its unlawful acts, which it considers above the law and are in full disregard of the conscience of humanity. The time has come for it to pay a price for its actions.
This price is, above all, deprivation of Turkey’s friendship.
The only side responsible in reaching this stage, is the Government of Israel and the irresponsible act of the Government of Israel.
In this context, our Government has decided to take the following measures at this stage:
1. Diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel will be downgraded to the Second Secretary level. All personnel starting with the Ambassador above the Second Secretary level, will return to their countries on Wednesday at the latest.
2. Military agreements between Turkey and Israel have been suspended.
3. As a littoral state which has the longest coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey will take whatever measures it deems necessary in order to ensure the freedom of navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean.
4. Turkey does not recognize the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel. Turkey will ensure the examination by the International Court of Justice of Israel's blockade imposed on Gaza as of 31 May 2010. To this end we are starting initiatives in order to mobilize the UN General Assembly.
5. We will extend all possible support to Turkish and foreign victims of Israel’s attack in their initiatives to seek their rights before courts.
Distinguished Members of the Press,
I would like to emphasize another point.
We in Turkey, we are the representatives of an understanding that advocates peace instead of eternal conflict and wants to establish justice instead of tyranny. Our foreign policy is based on this fundamental understanding.
That is why, in the same manner that we have raised our voice against the massacres in Bosnia, in Kosovo, we have also shown our reaction following the brutal Israeli attacks on Gaza.
Today, the Government of Israel must make a choice and the time has come to make that choice.
Those who rule Israel need to see that it will only be possible to ensure real security by building a real peace.
They should also understand that the path to building real peace passes through the strengthening of friendships, not by murdering citizens of friendly countries.
However, it is also clear that the current Government of Israel is incapable of seeing this simple reality and comprehending the consequences of the huge changes taking place in the Middle East.
On this occasion, I would like to emphasize that the measures we have adopted and we will adopt are linked only to the current Government of Israel's attitude.
Our aim is not to harm or jeopardize the historic Turkish-Jewish friendship, on the contrary, we aim to encourage the Government of Israel to correct this mistake that does not befit this exceptional friendship.
Turkey has always demonstrated a sincere and constructive attitude regarding the prevention of developments that adversely affect regional and global peace and stability and has always sought to correct their negative impact.
Turkey has made known her demands and expectations in a very clear manner from the beginning and has done her part.
I would like to underline it once more.
The Government of Israel is the responsible party for the point we have reached today.
As long as the Government of Israel does not take the necessary steps, we will not be able to revert from this point.
I thank you.
You all know very well the reason why I will deliver this statement today.
Approximately 15 months ago on the 31st of May 2010, Israel carried out an armed attack in the international waters of the Mediterranean, against an international aid convoy in which hundreds of passengers from 32 countries participated to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza.
During this attack, Israeli soldiers killed 9 civilians, 8 of whom were Turkish and 1 was a US citizen, they injured many passengers and also forcefully brought the ship and its passengers to Israel.
These people were subjected to all sorts of degrading treatment throughout their two-day captivity at the hands of Israel.
Dear Friends,
Approximately 15 months have elapsed since this unlawful attack.
However, the concrete facts remain unchanged.
I find it necessary to repeat them.
The Israeli attack took place in international waters.
Those killed by Israeli soldiers were innocent civilians.
Those, whose lives were claimed, were civilians who wished to respond to the cry for help of the Palestinian people under the plight of the blockade enforced by Israel in violation of international law and human values.
War is a harsh reality of the history of humanity.
And war, above all, is the gravest violation of the human right to life, which constitutes the most sacred value.
Indeed, all civilizations have developed the concept of a “just war” in order to regulate even war according to certain rules.
For this reason, the use of military force has been restricted by very strict conditions in the United Nations Charter.
Furthermore, it is for the conviction of the sanctity of the right to life, that even when the war is warranted, the killing of innocent civilians is accepted as a war crime.
However, Israel, not in war but in peace time, not in a military but a civilian convoy; killed civilians who participated in a peaceful event organized to bring aid to innocent people suffering under a cruel embargo. This is the picture!
Moreover, it did so, neither in its territory nor territorial waters, but in international waters, where freedom of navigation prevails as the most fundamental principle of international law.
The crime committed by Israel is not a simple offense.
It is international law that has been violated.
It is the conscience of humanity and the most fundamental human value, the right to life that have been violated.
There is an irreversible truth:
And that is, the fact that attacking civilians in a ship part of an aid convoy, firing multiple times at unarmed people at the back of their neck is a crime against humanity.
This crime cannot be covered under any guise nor justified under any circumstances.
One other thing must also be underlined.
No state is above the law.
The world is currently changing.
Those who claim the lives of civilians, or commit crimes against humanity are sooner or later brought before justice and face trial for their crimes.
Neither the Israeli Government who ordered the attack against the Mavi Marmara nor the ones that actually carried out the attack are above or immune from the law. They all must be held accountable.
In fact, they have already been convicted by the conscience of humanity.
Distinguished Members of the Press,
You will recall that, as Turkey, we promptly acted to ensure that this clear crime would not go unpunished and that justice would to take its course.
To this end, within hours of the Israeli attack we called for an urgent session of the UN Security Council that very same day.
In my speech before the UN Security Council, I stated that humanity had drowned in the waters of the Mediterranean with this Israeli attack which totally disregarded all norms of law, human conscience and values of humanity.
Indeed, the UN Security Council, in the first hours of 1 June 2010, adopted a Presidential Statement with the agreement of all its members -an agreement of the entire international community.
With this Statement, the Security Council called for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards, into the tragedy caused as a result of Israel’s use of armed force.
Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council based in Geneva, adopted a resolution by which it established a Fact-Finding Mission comprising highly prominent and specialized lawyers and launched an investigation process into the attack.
The UN Secretary General also set up an Inquiry Panel in line with the call by the Security Council.
As Turkey, we have fully cooperated with the Panel. We provided every contribution to speed up the investigation process and submitted our national report.
Whereas Israel, despite being represented in the Panel, continuously acted with the intention to delay its work.
Again, as you all very well know, we requested the Government of Israel to issue a formal apology and pay compensation to the families of and those close to the deceased. Moreover, we continued to emphasize that the blockade enforced against Gaza, which was explicitly criticized in the UN Security Council Presidential Statement, must be lifted.
We also declared that if our conditions were not met, the Turkish-Israeli relations would not be normalized.
On the other hand, upon being informed by the Government of Israel of its readiness to meet with Turkey with a view to apologize from the Turkish public and pay compensation to the families of and those close to the deceased, we held a total of 4 rounds of meetings at different times.
During these meetings, agreement was reached a couple of times between the Turkish and Israeli delegations negotiating the texts of an agreement, which accommodated our claims for an apology and compensation.
Indeed, ad referendum agreement was reached for the first time over two separate texts as a result of the meetings held in Geneva upon the request by the Israeli Prime Minister following Turkey’s contribution to the relief efforts to put out the forest fires in Israel in December 2010. This agreement was also endorsed by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, due to the disagreements within the Israeli Council of Ministers, this agreement could not be implemented.
Throughout this process, all the delays in the publication of the Palmer Commission’s report- I am emphasizing this since we are faced with a serious press manipulation- were caused as a result of the Government of Israel’s request for additional time to form its internal consensus over apology and compensation, in other words every postponement was at the request of the Government of Israel.
The last request made by Israel for a 6 month-additional period was not accepted by Turkey. Because it was understood that all these requests for delay were aimed at prolonging the process.
The leaking to the press of the report, to which neither Turkey nor Israel is a side, bearing only the signatures of its Chair Palmer and Vice-Chair Uribe, and before it was officially submitted to the UN Secretary General on 1 September, is quite thought-provoking in this sense. Yesterday I spoke in a frank manner to the UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon on this subject. He expressed great astonishment and dismay that this report which had not yet been submitted to him and whose details he was not yet fully acquitted with would be leaked to the press as it had. Unfortunately, the Israeli side has not acted in a manner compatible with State solemnity and confidentiality in this process.
First of all it should be stated that this report reflects only the views of the people abovementioned.
The report clearly establishes and expresses the crimes committed by Israeli soldiers and other officials.
In this respect, it explicitly concludes that attacking vessels with substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone was excessive and unreasonable.
It also states that the loss of life and injuries caused by Israeli soldiers was unacceptable, none of the nine deaths was accounted for by Israel and that the evidence showed that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range.
The report clearly documents serious mistreatment of passengers, including physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and denial of consular assistance.
The report however alleges that the inhumane blockade enforced by Israel against Gaza is lawful.
It is not possible and even out of the question to accept this approach.
The Fact Finding Mission, comprising highly competent and specialized lawyers mandated by the UN Human Rights Council have reported that the Gaza blockade is unlawful. They clearly documented this in their work following the incident last year.
This conviction was both endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council and supported by the UN General Assembly.
When this is the case, clearly then the controversial views put forward by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel exceeding their mandates are based on political motives, rather than on legal grounds.
Turkey in no way accepts this approach, which jeopardizes the functioning and integrity of the panel.
Turkey totally rejects this approach, which it finds incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Presidential Statement adopted by the UN Security Council by consensus.
In this vein, we are determined to refer this issue to the competent international legal authorities.
Dear Friends,
Turkey’s stance against this unlawful act of Israel from the first moment has been very clear and principled. Our demands are known.
Our relations with Israel will not be normalized until these conditions are met.
At this juncture, Israel has wasted all the opportunities it was presented with.
Now, the Government of Israel must face the consequences of its unlawful acts, which it considers above the law and are in full disregard of the conscience of humanity. The time has come for it to pay a price for its actions.
This price is, above all, deprivation of Turkey’s friendship.
The only side responsible in reaching this stage, is the Government of Israel and the irresponsible act of the Government of Israel.
In this context, our Government has decided to take the following measures at this stage:
1. Diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel will be downgraded to the Second Secretary level. All personnel starting with the Ambassador above the Second Secretary level, will return to their countries on Wednesday at the latest.
2. Military agreements between Turkey and Israel have been suspended.
3. As a littoral state which has the longest coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey will take whatever measures it deems necessary in order to ensure the freedom of navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean.
4. Turkey does not recognize the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel. Turkey will ensure the examination by the International Court of Justice of Israel's blockade imposed on Gaza as of 31 May 2010. To this end we are starting initiatives in order to mobilize the UN General Assembly.
5. We will extend all possible support to Turkish and foreign victims of Israel’s attack in their initiatives to seek their rights before courts.
Distinguished Members of the Press,
I would like to emphasize another point.
We in Turkey, we are the representatives of an understanding that advocates peace instead of eternal conflict and wants to establish justice instead of tyranny. Our foreign policy is based on this fundamental understanding.
That is why, in the same manner that we have raised our voice against the massacres in Bosnia, in Kosovo, we have also shown our reaction following the brutal Israeli attacks on Gaza.
Today, the Government of Israel must make a choice and the time has come to make that choice.
Those who rule Israel need to see that it will only be possible to ensure real security by building a real peace.
They should also understand that the path to building real peace passes through the strengthening of friendships, not by murdering citizens of friendly countries.
However, it is also clear that the current Government of Israel is incapable of seeing this simple reality and comprehending the consequences of the huge changes taking place in the Middle East.
On this occasion, I would like to emphasize that the measures we have adopted and we will adopt are linked only to the current Government of Israel's attitude.
Our aim is not to harm or jeopardize the historic Turkish-Jewish friendship, on the contrary, we aim to encourage the Government of Israel to correct this mistake that does not befit this exceptional friendship.
Turkey has always demonstrated a sincere and constructive attitude regarding the prevention of developments that adversely affect regional and global peace and stability and has always sought to correct their negative impact.
Turkey has made known her demands and expectations in a very clear manner from the beginning and has done her part.
I would like to underline it once more.
The Government of Israel is the responsible party for the point we have reached today.
As long as the Government of Israel does not take the necessary steps, we will not be able to revert from this point.
I thank you.
What Israel, Turkey gained and lost from the UN flotilla report
By Dan Williams
A long-awaited UN report on Israel's lethal interception of a Gaza-bound Turkish activist ship appears to have both supported and rejected core arguments made by the former allies.
Following is an overview of the conclusions of the panel set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and headed by former New Zealand premier Geoffrey Palmer, and implications for the Israeli-Turkish feud.
Blockade
-- Israel's naval blockade on the Palestinian territory is "a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law". Its enforcement "may take place on the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists".
These findings clash with Turkey's condemnation of the blockade as illegal collective punishment. Turkey further argued that Israel's May 31, 2010 seizure of the Mavi Marmara in international waters was tantamount to "piracy" exacerbated by the killing of nine pro-Palestinian activists on board.
Turkey's position matches that of a UN Human Rights Council inquiry boycotted by the Israelis. The Palmer report's findings in favor of Israel's defense doctrine may have an impact on international opinion.
Bloodshed
-- Israeli marines who boarded the Mavi Marmara "faced significant, organised and violent resistance from a group of passengers ... requiring them to use force for their own protection". But the overall conduct of the interception was "excessive and unreasonable" and "no satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths." The report called the loss of life "unacceptable".
This sequencing appears to support Israel's insistence that its men resorted to lethal gunfire in self-defense, after coming under attack. The Turks said shooting began before the first marines fast-roped to the Mavi Marmara's deck from helicopters, but the Palmer report describes this as "unlikely". It also states that two Israeli marines suffered gunshot wounds, though it stops short of backing Israel's disputed assertion that activists used firearms.
Israeli commanders may have been made vulnerable to legal scrutiny by the report's criticism of the timing of the Mavi ship takeover and their failure to try less forceful tactics.
Israel will no doubt also feel stung by report's blanket censure of how it accounted for the deaths. Jurists who put together Israel's submission to the Palmer panel said they had extensively documented the use of force by marines.
Diplomacy
-- While Turkey tried to avert the confrontation at sea, "more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions". "There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly (the Turkish Islamist charity) IHH."
Israel may read this passage as a rebuke of the Turkish government's relations with the IHH, which Israel has outlawed for supporting Hamas. Turkey has distanced itself from the IHH, saying it could not control the actions of private citizens.
Amends
-- Israel should make "an appropriate statement of regret" and "offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families." Turkey and Israel "should resume full diplomatic relations." Separately, Israel "should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza."
As Israel has already voiced "regret" and was snubbed by Turkey, which insists on a formal apology, the efficacy of Palmer's recommendation here is unclear.
Similarly, Israel broached sponsoring a fund for Mavi Marmara survivors but balked at Turkey's demand for compensation, saying that damages payments would amount to an admission of wrongdoing. The Palmer report's avoidance of the word "compensation" would appear to satisfy Israel's position.
Israel says it wants to get past the Mavi Marmara incident and restore ties with Turkey, but Turkey says its terms must first be satisfied. These include an end to the naval blockade on Gaza -- which Israel rules out, though it has eased overland access to the Palestinian territory.
Israeli MP lauds expulsion of envoy
An Israeli lawmaker has praised Ankara's decision to expel the Israeli ambassador from Turkey, describing it the right response to Tel Aviv's endless disrespect for human life.
Israeli-Arab lawmaker Hanin Zoabi said on Friday that although the Turkish move was "strong and dramatic", but it was right.
Her remarks came shortly after Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador to the country and suspended all remaining military agreements with Israel in response to Tel Aviv's refusal to apologize for a deadly attack on a Turkish-flagged aid flotilla last year.
Nine Turkish activists were killed and many others were wounded after Israeli commandos attacked the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in international waters.
The move was the "right response to a continued disregard of human life, of the pride of the nations of the regions, and of the sovereignty of neighboring states," Zoabi said, adding that "Turkey will not be the last country to put an end to Israeli arrogance and aggressiveness.”
Zoabi, who had participated in the flotilla of aid ships that tried to break the crippling Israeli blockade of Gaza in May 2010, was stripped off a number of her parliamentary rights and privileges for joining the humanitarian convoy.
Ankara-Tel Aviv relations, once close, soured following the attack. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel shortly after the raid and cancelled joint military exercises.
Turkey has repeatedly said that relations between the two sides can only be restored if Tel Aviv apologizes for the attack, compensates the families of those killed and the injured, and lifts its deadly years long blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Israel has reportedly agreed to a payout but is resisting calls to apologize, proposing instead to express regret.
Palmer Report fails main objective?
UN commission probing raid on first Gaza flotilla falls short of resolving Israel and Turkey's differences; manages to hold both parties responsible for tragic results, while assigning no real blame.
The United Nations Palmer Report on Israel's raid of the 2010 Gaza-bound flotilla failed to accomplish its main objective – devising a compromise between Israel and Turkey.
Turkey announced on Friday that it will stand by its demand for an official apology from Israel, while sources in Jerusalem were adamant that no such apology will be offered.
The 150-page report managed to find fault in both Jerusalem and Ankara's actions, but assigns no real responsibility for the raid's tragic results other than alluding to the fact that the Turkish-based IHH, which was one of the flotilla's chief sponsors, operated out of "questionable motives."
The report, which was first published by the New York Times on Thursday evening, essentially sanctioned Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza Strip as a legitimate step rooted in national security interests – a conclusion Jerusalem sees as a feat, as the blockade has been repeatedly used to discredit Israel and delegitimize its efforts to thwart Gaza terror.
"The blockade satisfied the customary international law requirements for the imposition of a blockade, including the requirements of notification, effectiveness and enforcement," the report said.
"Israel is complying with its humanitarian obligations… The blockade does not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip."
The report did, however, censure the IDF's use of "excessive and unreasonable" force during the Marmara takeover, which left nine people dead.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to receive the full report later on Friday.
'Report has no grasp on reality'
IDF sources criticized the report's determination that the Naval Commandos involved in the raid used excessive force, blasting the conclusions as having a "no grasp on reality."
"It is very easy to analyze an event after the fact and point to what should have been done. The IDF and the Navy have drawn the necessary conclusion, but should IDF soldiers be assaulted in a future incidents, we cannot guarantee that the other party wouldn’t suffer casualties," a defense establishment source told Ynet.
Neither the Defense Ministry nor the IDF have issued an official response to the report at this time.
The report's core conclusions are as follows:
1. The events of May 31, 2010 should not have ended as they did, and extensive efforts should be applied to ensure they do not happen in the future.
2. The principle of free maritime movement can be subjected to exceptions under international law. Gaza's militant groups pose a true threat to Israel and it imposes a naval blockade as a legitimate way to prevent weapons from finding their way into Gaza via its waters. The matter in which the blockage is enforced coincides with international law.
3. The Gaza-bound flotilla was not a governmental initiative.
4. While people have the right to express their political views, the flotilla's attempt to breach the Gaza blockage was reckless. The majority of the sail's participants bore no violent intention, but the true intentions of the organizers, and especially thos of the IHH, raise serious concerns; as they brought about a potential escalation that could have been avoided.
5. Neither Israel nor Turkey initiated the incident. Both countries applied measures meant to avoid harming human lives, peace and international security. Nevertheless, more could have been done to alert the sail's participants of the potential risk involved, and dissuade them from taking part in it.
6. Israel's decision to board the Marmara using the forces it did with no final warning to the vessel was exaggerated and unreasonable. Non-violent options should have been explored further. Once the force had boarded the ship, and faced with the resistance it met, Israel should have reevaluated its options.
7. The Israeli forces encountered significant, organized and violent resistance by a group of the Marmara's passengers, which called for the use of force in self defense.
8. The loss of life and injuries suffered by passengers as a result of the Israeli forces' actions in unacceptable. Israel has failed to provide the commission with a satisfactory explanation as to the nine deaths, and especially as to findings indicating that some of the fatalities were shot multiple times, including at close range and in the back.
9. Once the raid was over, the Israeli authorities did mistreat the passengers, pending their deportation. Such mistreatment included intimidation, the confiscation of personal belongings and delaying consular services.
'Media owes us an apology'
Members of the Turkel Committee that was named by the government to probe the events of the raid, were overall satisfied with the Palmer Report, which they said concurred with most of their findings.
"The Palmer Report is one of the most favorable international reports ever complied on Israel," a source close to the committee said. "The report clearly states that the blockade is legal and that the decision to board the Marmara was legally sound… The biggest accomplishment is that the report legally differentiates between the naval blockade and the issue of the crossings."
The committee, the sources added, would like to see the Israeli media "apologize for portraying us as a group of senile old men whose report was a rubber stamp. The media should say it's sorry."
State officials stress: Israel won't apologize to Turkey
State officials addressing the Palmer Report on the Marmara raid have clarified that Israel regrets the loss of life but will not apologize for its soldiers' acts of self-defense.
"Israel, like any other country, has the legitimate right to defend its citizens and soldiers," one of the officials stressed.
Turkish president: Palmer Report null and void
Turkish President Abdullah Gul reportedly said Friday that as far as Turkey was concerned, the Palmer Report was "null and void."
The president's made his statements following Turkish Foreign Minister Davatoglu's announcement over Turkey'd intention to downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkey announced that the Israeli ambassador would be expelled over Israel's refusal to apologize for Gaza flotilla raid.
A long-awaited UN report on Israel's lethal interception of a Gaza-bound Turkish activist ship appears to have both supported and rejected core arguments made by the former allies.
Following is an overview of the conclusions of the panel set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and headed by former New Zealand premier Geoffrey Palmer, and implications for the Israeli-Turkish feud.
Blockade
-- Israel's naval blockade on the Palestinian territory is "a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law". Its enforcement "may take place on the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists".
These findings clash with Turkey's condemnation of the blockade as illegal collective punishment. Turkey further argued that Israel's May 31, 2010 seizure of the Mavi Marmara in international waters was tantamount to "piracy" exacerbated by the killing of nine pro-Palestinian activists on board.
Turkey's position matches that of a UN Human Rights Council inquiry boycotted by the Israelis. The Palmer report's findings in favor of Israel's defense doctrine may have an impact on international opinion.
Bloodshed
-- Israeli marines who boarded the Mavi Marmara "faced significant, organised and violent resistance from a group of passengers ... requiring them to use force for their own protection". But the overall conduct of the interception was "excessive and unreasonable" and "no satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths." The report called the loss of life "unacceptable".
This sequencing appears to support Israel's insistence that its men resorted to lethal gunfire in self-defense, after coming under attack. The Turks said shooting began before the first marines fast-roped to the Mavi Marmara's deck from helicopters, but the Palmer report describes this as "unlikely". It also states that two Israeli marines suffered gunshot wounds, though it stops short of backing Israel's disputed assertion that activists used firearms.
Israeli commanders may have been made vulnerable to legal scrutiny by the report's criticism of the timing of the Mavi ship takeover and their failure to try less forceful tactics.
Israel will no doubt also feel stung by report's blanket censure of how it accounted for the deaths. Jurists who put together Israel's submission to the Palmer panel said they had extensively documented the use of force by marines.
Diplomacy
-- While Turkey tried to avert the confrontation at sea, "more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions". "There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly (the Turkish Islamist charity) IHH."
Israel may read this passage as a rebuke of the Turkish government's relations with the IHH, which Israel has outlawed for supporting Hamas. Turkey has distanced itself from the IHH, saying it could not control the actions of private citizens.
Amends
-- Israel should make "an appropriate statement of regret" and "offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families." Turkey and Israel "should resume full diplomatic relations." Separately, Israel "should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza."
As Israel has already voiced "regret" and was snubbed by Turkey, which insists on a formal apology, the efficacy of Palmer's recommendation here is unclear.
Similarly, Israel broached sponsoring a fund for Mavi Marmara survivors but balked at Turkey's demand for compensation, saying that damages payments would amount to an admission of wrongdoing. The Palmer report's avoidance of the word "compensation" would appear to satisfy Israel's position.
Israel says it wants to get past the Mavi Marmara incident and restore ties with Turkey, but Turkey says its terms must first be satisfied. These include an end to the naval blockade on Gaza -- which Israel rules out, though it has eased overland access to the Palestinian territory.
Israeli MP lauds expulsion of envoy
An Israeli lawmaker has praised Ankara's decision to expel the Israeli ambassador from Turkey, describing it the right response to Tel Aviv's endless disrespect for human life.
Israeli-Arab lawmaker Hanin Zoabi said on Friday that although the Turkish move was "strong and dramatic", but it was right.
Her remarks came shortly after Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador to the country and suspended all remaining military agreements with Israel in response to Tel Aviv's refusal to apologize for a deadly attack on a Turkish-flagged aid flotilla last year.
Nine Turkish activists were killed and many others were wounded after Israeli commandos attacked the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in international waters.
The move was the "right response to a continued disregard of human life, of the pride of the nations of the regions, and of the sovereignty of neighboring states," Zoabi said, adding that "Turkey will not be the last country to put an end to Israeli arrogance and aggressiveness.”
Zoabi, who had participated in the flotilla of aid ships that tried to break the crippling Israeli blockade of Gaza in May 2010, was stripped off a number of her parliamentary rights and privileges for joining the humanitarian convoy.
Ankara-Tel Aviv relations, once close, soured following the attack. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel shortly after the raid and cancelled joint military exercises.
Turkey has repeatedly said that relations between the two sides can only be restored if Tel Aviv apologizes for the attack, compensates the families of those killed and the injured, and lifts its deadly years long blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Israel has reportedly agreed to a payout but is resisting calls to apologize, proposing instead to express regret.
Palmer Report fails main objective?
UN commission probing raid on first Gaza flotilla falls short of resolving Israel and Turkey's differences; manages to hold both parties responsible for tragic results, while assigning no real blame.
The United Nations Palmer Report on Israel's raid of the 2010 Gaza-bound flotilla failed to accomplish its main objective – devising a compromise between Israel and Turkey.
Turkey announced on Friday that it will stand by its demand for an official apology from Israel, while sources in Jerusalem were adamant that no such apology will be offered.
The 150-page report managed to find fault in both Jerusalem and Ankara's actions, but assigns no real responsibility for the raid's tragic results other than alluding to the fact that the Turkish-based IHH, which was one of the flotilla's chief sponsors, operated out of "questionable motives."
The report, which was first published by the New York Times on Thursday evening, essentially sanctioned Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza Strip as a legitimate step rooted in national security interests – a conclusion Jerusalem sees as a feat, as the blockade has been repeatedly used to discredit Israel and delegitimize its efforts to thwart Gaza terror.
"The blockade satisfied the customary international law requirements for the imposition of a blockade, including the requirements of notification, effectiveness and enforcement," the report said.
"Israel is complying with its humanitarian obligations… The blockade does not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip."
The report did, however, censure the IDF's use of "excessive and unreasonable" force during the Marmara takeover, which left nine people dead.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to receive the full report later on Friday.
'Report has no grasp on reality'
IDF sources criticized the report's determination that the Naval Commandos involved in the raid used excessive force, blasting the conclusions as having a "no grasp on reality."
"It is very easy to analyze an event after the fact and point to what should have been done. The IDF and the Navy have drawn the necessary conclusion, but should IDF soldiers be assaulted in a future incidents, we cannot guarantee that the other party wouldn’t suffer casualties," a defense establishment source told Ynet.
Neither the Defense Ministry nor the IDF have issued an official response to the report at this time.
The report's core conclusions are as follows:
1. The events of May 31, 2010 should not have ended as they did, and extensive efforts should be applied to ensure they do not happen in the future.
2. The principle of free maritime movement can be subjected to exceptions under international law. Gaza's militant groups pose a true threat to Israel and it imposes a naval blockade as a legitimate way to prevent weapons from finding their way into Gaza via its waters. The matter in which the blockage is enforced coincides with international law.
3. The Gaza-bound flotilla was not a governmental initiative.
4. While people have the right to express their political views, the flotilla's attempt to breach the Gaza blockage was reckless. The majority of the sail's participants bore no violent intention, but the true intentions of the organizers, and especially thos of the IHH, raise serious concerns; as they brought about a potential escalation that could have been avoided.
5. Neither Israel nor Turkey initiated the incident. Both countries applied measures meant to avoid harming human lives, peace and international security. Nevertheless, more could have been done to alert the sail's participants of the potential risk involved, and dissuade them from taking part in it.
6. Israel's decision to board the Marmara using the forces it did with no final warning to the vessel was exaggerated and unreasonable. Non-violent options should have been explored further. Once the force had boarded the ship, and faced with the resistance it met, Israel should have reevaluated its options.
7. The Israeli forces encountered significant, organized and violent resistance by a group of the Marmara's passengers, which called for the use of force in self defense.
8. The loss of life and injuries suffered by passengers as a result of the Israeli forces' actions in unacceptable. Israel has failed to provide the commission with a satisfactory explanation as to the nine deaths, and especially as to findings indicating that some of the fatalities were shot multiple times, including at close range and in the back.
9. Once the raid was over, the Israeli authorities did mistreat the passengers, pending their deportation. Such mistreatment included intimidation, the confiscation of personal belongings and delaying consular services.
'Media owes us an apology'
Members of the Turkel Committee that was named by the government to probe the events of the raid, were overall satisfied with the Palmer Report, which they said concurred with most of their findings.
"The Palmer Report is one of the most favorable international reports ever complied on Israel," a source close to the committee said. "The report clearly states that the blockade is legal and that the decision to board the Marmara was legally sound… The biggest accomplishment is that the report legally differentiates between the naval blockade and the issue of the crossings."
The committee, the sources added, would like to see the Israeli media "apologize for portraying us as a group of senile old men whose report was a rubber stamp. The media should say it's sorry."
State officials stress: Israel won't apologize to Turkey
State officials addressing the Palmer Report on the Marmara raid have clarified that Israel regrets the loss of life but will not apologize for its soldiers' acts of self-defense.
"Israel, like any other country, has the legitimate right to defend its citizens and soldiers," one of the officials stressed.
Turkish president: Palmer Report null and void
Turkish President Abdullah Gul reportedly said Friday that as far as Turkey was concerned, the Palmer Report was "null and void."
The president's made his statements following Turkish Foreign Minister Davatoglu's announcement over Turkey'd intention to downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkey announced that the Israeli ambassador would be expelled over Israel's refusal to apologize for Gaza flotilla raid.
Israel forms team to fight lawsuits over flotilla attack
Israel has decided to form a special legal team to fight possible lawsuits against its military staff in the international criminal courts.
The Israeli Attorney General and Ministry of Justice have been bracing for likely lawsuits against Israel’s military personnel who participated in the lethal attack of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara ship that killed nine activists on board, Israeli media outlets said.
According to reports, the team consisting of legal experts and consultants will weigh all judicial and legal dimensions enveloping the possibility. The Israeli military leadership has already officially approved the move.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed last month to move to Plan B should Tel Aviv continue to refrain from apologizing over the attack before the release of the Palmer report.
The UN commissioned report into the attack was officially slated to be released Friday but was leaked to the New York Times earlier on Thursday.
According to the Plan B, Turkey threatened to diminish its diplomatic, military, and economic relations with Israel. On Friday, after the report was released, the Israeli ambassador to Turkey was expelled and military ties were frozen.
Top Israeli legal experts told media outlets that the Palmer report could open the door for the prosecution of Israeli military personnel.
The Israeli Attorney General and Ministry of Justice have been bracing for likely lawsuits against Israel’s military personnel who participated in the lethal attack of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara ship that killed nine activists on board, Israeli media outlets said.
According to reports, the team consisting of legal experts and consultants will weigh all judicial and legal dimensions enveloping the possibility. The Israeli military leadership has already officially approved the move.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed last month to move to Plan B should Tel Aviv continue to refrain from apologizing over the attack before the release of the Palmer report.
The UN commissioned report into the attack was officially slated to be released Friday but was leaked to the New York Times earlier on Thursday.
According to the Plan B, Turkey threatened to diminish its diplomatic, military, and economic relations with Israel. On Friday, after the report was released, the Israeli ambassador to Turkey was expelled and military ties were frozen.
Top Israeli legal experts told media outlets that the Palmer report could open the door for the prosecution of Israeli military personnel.
Why the Palmer-Uribe report on Israel’s flotilla attack is worthless
Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez has been criticized for his abuses of human rights defenders. (Center for American Progress)
Turkey has imposed sanctions on Israel following Turkey’s rejection of a UN report on Israel’s attack on the Gaza flotilla last year.
In the latest developments on Friday morning, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu rejected the findings of the report and announced unprecedented sanctions on Israel saying “it’s time for Israel to pay a price.”
From 7 September, diplomatic ties will be reduced to the lowest level, all Turkish-Israeli military agreements will be canceled, and Turkey will support victims of the Israeli attack on the flotilla to pursue justice through legal cases.
Crucially, Davutoğlu affirmed that Turkey does not recognize the blockade of Gaza which the Palmer report attempted to justify, and which a UN Human Rights Council official fact-finding mission had already ruled to be illegal. Turkey will also challenge the Israeli siege of Gaza through international legal channels.
Palmer report attempts to whitewash attack on flotilla, justify Israeli siege A leaked copy of the Palmer report into Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010 was published by the New York Times on Thursday, a day before its expected official release by the UN Secretary General.
On 31 May 2010, Israel attacked the largest ship in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, killing 9 people on board.
Publication of the report had been delayed several times as Turkey and Israel attempted to negotiate a settlement. Turkey demanded an apology for the attack, compensation for victims and an end to the siege of Gaza. In his statement today Davutoğlu said Israel had passed up many opportunities to resolve the issue.
The four-member committee that wrote the Palmer report was appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and was chaired by former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and vice-chaired by former president of Colombia Alvaro Uribe.
This panel is in addition to an official UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission which reported last September that Israel’s attack on the ships was illegal.
According to the The New York Times article on the Palmer report, the Palmer panel:
has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.
The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.
An initial examination of the report indicates that many of these findings are not credible on their face for a number of reasons including the composition of the panel, its reliance on Israel which has controlled and withheld most of the evidence, and a skewed and politicized perspective which ignores the realities of Israel’s decades-long violent occupation of Gaza.
Palmer panel was stacked for Israel and includes notorious human rights abuser As Jose Antonio Gutierrez and David Landy explained on The Electronic Intifada in August 2010, the panel was selected almost entirely according to Israel’s dictates:
The commission is composed of four persons, one chosen by Turkey, one chosen by Israel and two chosen from a list provided by Israel. The latter two are former Prime Minister of New Zealand Geoffrey Palmer, who will be the chair, and Uribe, who will serve as vice-chair. While Palmer, an expert in international law, is an uncontroversial choice, the appointment of Uribe is as perplexing as it is shocking. It appears that “balance” in this commission involves balance between someone versed in international and human rights law and someone who is adamantly opposed to it. This notion of balance fatally weakens this commission even before it has started, and tarnishes the process of international law.
Uribe himself has a long and notorious history of violating human rights on a massive scale, attacking human rights defenders and organizations, and expressing contempt for any notion of law that restrains states from engaging in almost any kind of violence they desire.
Gutierrez and Landy on Uribe’s record in Colombia:
In June 2010 an international human rights mission investigated the biggest mass grave in the western hemisphere — containing some 2,000 execution victims who had been dumped there since 2004 — which had just been discovered in the Colombian town of La Macarena. At the same time Uribe travelled to that very locality but not to pay his condolences to the victims’ families, or guarantee that an investigation would determine what happened there. Instead, he went to visit the local military base — exactly the same people that, according to victims’ reports, filled that mass grave with its grisly contents — to praise them for their work.
On Uribe’s attacks on human rights defenders, Gutierrez and Landy write:
Uribe’s scorn for human right defenders is notorious. According to Human Rights First, “President Uribe and other administration officials have branded [human rights defenders] as terrorist sympathizers and have insinuated that illicit connections exist between human rights NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and illegal armed groups. Irresponsible comments by government officials in Colombia put the lives of human rights defenders at even greater risk and threaten to undermine the value and credibility of their work” (“Human Rights Defencers in Colombia”).
In September 2009 Colombia was visited by Margaret Sekaggya, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from the UN Human Rights Commission. Sekaggya found that constant problems faced by human rights defenders in Colombia include “Stigmatization [of human rights defenders] by public officials and non-State actors; their illegal surveillance by State intelligence services; their arbitrary arrest and detention, and their judicial harassment; and raids of nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs) premises and theft of information” (“Report of the Special Rapporteur …,” 4 March 2010, pp. 13-18 [PDF]). Public officials in Colombia constantly attack human rights defenders and members of the political and social opposition as aides of “terrorists,” that is, left-wing guerrillas.
Uribe has led these attacks, calling human rights defenders “rent-a-mobs at terrorism’s service who cowardly wave the human rights flag,” “human rights traffickers,” “charlatans of human rights,” “bandits’ [ie. guerrillas] colleagues,” “intellectual front of the FARC [the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]” and he has stated that “Every time terrorists and their supporters feel they will be defeated, they resort to denouncing human rights violations.”
This is just a small selection of Uribe’s verbal attacks on human rights organizations in his own country, but he has also referred to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as “rats.”
Uribe’s alliance with Israel During Uribe’s term, Colombia, which is one of the top three recipients of US military aid along with Israel and Egypt, developed a close military alliance with Israel, as Gutierrez and Landy explain:
In recent years, according to news reports, Israel has become Colombia’s number one weapon supplier, with arms worth tens of millions of dollars, “including Kfir aircraft, drones, weapons and intelligence systems” being used against opponents of the Colombian regime (“Report: Israelis fighting guerillas in Colombia,” Ynet, 10 August 2007). According to a senior Israeli defense official, “Israel’s methods of fighting terror have been duplicated in Colombia” (“Colombia’s FM: We share your resilience,” 30 April 2010).
There is a reason that Latin Americans often refer to Colombia as the “Israel of Latin America,” and indeed why Colombian President-elect Juan Manuel Santos, ex-Minister of Defence and right hand of Uribe, expressed his pride at such a comparison (“Santos, orgulloso de que a Colombia lo comparen con Israel,” El Espectador, 6 June 2010).
As Gutierrez and Landy also point out, top officials in Uribe’s administration, including the president himself, frequently expressed full support for Israel’s fight against what it terms “terrorism.”
Israel withheld and manipulated evidence The Palmer panel cannot be described in any sense as an independent investigation. As the report states:
The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel. Turkey established a National Commission of Inquiry to examine the facts of the incident and its legal consequences, which provided an interim and final report to the Panel along with annexes and related material. Israel provided the report of the independent Public Commission that it had established to review whether the actions taken by the State of Israel had been compatible with international law.
The Panel reviewed these reports and further information and clarifications it received in written form and through direct meetings with Points of Contact appointed by each government.
The report adds:
In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States.
The panel therefore interviewed no survivors or witnesses. Only Israel controlled most key physical evidence – the ship itself and the belongings and recordings of all the passengers and the weapons Israel used in carrying out the attack. The panel did not have uncensored access to the massive amounts of evidence in the form of photo and video from passengers on board that Israel has stolen, hidden and refused to release or return. As a consequence of these crippling limitations, the report states:
It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.
The panel also implies that its own independence is further in question because:
It will be clear from the above that the essential logic of the Panel’s inquiry is that it is dependent upon the investigations conducted by Israel and Turkey.
In contrast, the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission report published last September went much beyond merely commenting on information provided by governments. That fact-finding mission:
conducted interviews with more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman.
And in addition to information provided by governments, the Human Rights Council also relied on information
including the evidence of eyewitnesses, forensic reports and interviews with medical and forensic personnel in Turkey, as well as written statements, video film footage and other photographic material relating to the incident.
Perhaps because of its thoroughness, Israel refused to cooperate with the Human Rights Council fact-finding mission, just as it refused to cooperate with the Goldstone report.
Accusations of “violent resistance” The Palmer panel report claims:
Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
Given the fact that Palmer panel did not gather any evidence of its own, its conclusion that the Israeli military attackers who boarded the Mavi Marmara under cover of dark in international waters, faced “organized and violent resistance” can be given no more credence than any common or garden Israeli military press release.
While Israel has repeatedly made such claims, it never produced independent evidence to support them and – as noted – is still concealing evidence.
Nevertheless, the video footage that did escape Israeli confiscation showed:
The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
Moreover, the propagandistic Israeli claims that their soldiers were mistreated were belied by photographs that showed passengers giving aid and protection to Israeli attackers who had been disarmed.
It is possible of course that passengers defended themselves against a terrifying Israeli assault in dead of night with a full military arsenal that included assault helicopters and elite commandos against a civilian ship.
Indeed, footage shows terrified passengers hiding and attempting to fend off indiscriminate fire with sticks in a blood-stained stairwell. But to equate any of this to “organized and violent resistance” that could in any way justify Israel’s execution-style killings is completely absurd.
The blockade is “legal” The Palmer report’s assertion that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza is legal and necessary for “security” echoes the other aspects of the report that accept Israeli military propaganda as given.
By privileging the security of Israel, the occupying power, the report also ignores the rights and needs for security of the Palestinian people in Gaza who are being collectively punished and who have been subjected to decades of indiscriminate Israeli military attacks in which thousands of civilians have been killed and injured.
Yet this opinion of the Panel is, as the report states, not binding in any legal sense. But more importantly, it has no bearing at all on the assault on the Mavi Marmara, which Israel attacked in international waters as it was moving away from the Gaza Strip and the Israeli-controlled coast of Palestine.
Israel’s claim that it needs to blockade people it is violently victimizing in order to prevent them obtaining any means whatsoever to defend themselves can only be made by wholly ignoring the context of Israel’s violent occupation of Gaza and decades of well-documented war crimes.
Israel is not in a defensive position in which it can claim a “security” need to impose a blockade. Israel is the military aggressor which for decades from 1967 until 2005 violently colonized the Gaza Strip, placing settlers there in blatant violation of international law. Since 2005, Israel has continued to occupy besiege, harass, attack and kill civilians in Gaza with almost no respite culminating in the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of civilians during the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead.”
A perfect example of Israel’s wanton violence was its unprovoked series of attacks on the Gaza Strip last month which killed more than two dozen people, including children.
Human Rights Council fact-finding mission and legality of Israeli blockade The UN Human Rights Council had already concluded that Israel’s interception of the flotilla was illegal because the blockade was unjustified:
In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt [Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories), 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 that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.
It also concludes:
The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law.
and that:
the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
Palmer panel went against international consensus on blockade The Turkish appointee on the Palmer panel, Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, noted in a dissenting statement rejecting large parts of the report:
On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international community. Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful.
After Israel and the United States’s all out war on the Goldstone report detailing Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it appears that international officials are unwilling to repeat the experience.
Indeed, an exclusive report on The Electronic Intifada in June 2010 revealed intense diplomatic efforts to undermine Turkey’s push for an independent UN investigation into Israel’s flotilla attack.
The Palmer panel was stacked from the start to ensure Israeli impunity, not to provide truth for the victims and survivors of the Mavi Marmara.
Turkey has imposed sanctions on Israel following Turkey’s rejection of a UN report on Israel’s attack on the Gaza flotilla last year.
In the latest developments on Friday morning, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu rejected the findings of the report and announced unprecedented sanctions on Israel saying “it’s time for Israel to pay a price.”
From 7 September, diplomatic ties will be reduced to the lowest level, all Turkish-Israeli military agreements will be canceled, and Turkey will support victims of the Israeli attack on the flotilla to pursue justice through legal cases.
Crucially, Davutoğlu affirmed that Turkey does not recognize the blockade of Gaza which the Palmer report attempted to justify, and which a UN Human Rights Council official fact-finding mission had already ruled to be illegal. Turkey will also challenge the Israeli siege of Gaza through international legal channels.
Palmer report attempts to whitewash attack on flotilla, justify Israeli siege A leaked copy of the Palmer report into Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010 was published by the New York Times on Thursday, a day before its expected official release by the UN Secretary General.
On 31 May 2010, Israel attacked the largest ship in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, killing 9 people on board.
Publication of the report had been delayed several times as Turkey and Israel attempted to negotiate a settlement. Turkey demanded an apology for the attack, compensation for victims and an end to the siege of Gaza. In his statement today Davutoğlu said Israel had passed up many opportunities to resolve the issue.
The four-member committee that wrote the Palmer report was appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and was chaired by former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and vice-chaired by former president of Colombia Alvaro Uribe.
This panel is in addition to an official UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission which reported last September that Israel’s attack on the ships was illegal.
According to the The New York Times article on the Palmer report, the Palmer panel:
has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.
The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.
An initial examination of the report indicates that many of these findings are not credible on their face for a number of reasons including the composition of the panel, its reliance on Israel which has controlled and withheld most of the evidence, and a skewed and politicized perspective which ignores the realities of Israel’s decades-long violent occupation of Gaza.
Palmer panel was stacked for Israel and includes notorious human rights abuser As Jose Antonio Gutierrez and David Landy explained on The Electronic Intifada in August 2010, the panel was selected almost entirely according to Israel’s dictates:
The commission is composed of four persons, one chosen by Turkey, one chosen by Israel and two chosen from a list provided by Israel. The latter two are former Prime Minister of New Zealand Geoffrey Palmer, who will be the chair, and Uribe, who will serve as vice-chair. While Palmer, an expert in international law, is an uncontroversial choice, the appointment of Uribe is as perplexing as it is shocking. It appears that “balance” in this commission involves balance between someone versed in international and human rights law and someone who is adamantly opposed to it. This notion of balance fatally weakens this commission even before it has started, and tarnishes the process of international law.
Uribe himself has a long and notorious history of violating human rights on a massive scale, attacking human rights defenders and organizations, and expressing contempt for any notion of law that restrains states from engaging in almost any kind of violence they desire.
Gutierrez and Landy on Uribe’s record in Colombia:
In June 2010 an international human rights mission investigated the biggest mass grave in the western hemisphere — containing some 2,000 execution victims who had been dumped there since 2004 — which had just been discovered in the Colombian town of La Macarena. At the same time Uribe travelled to that very locality but not to pay his condolences to the victims’ families, or guarantee that an investigation would determine what happened there. Instead, he went to visit the local military base — exactly the same people that, according to victims’ reports, filled that mass grave with its grisly contents — to praise them for their work.
On Uribe’s attacks on human rights defenders, Gutierrez and Landy write:
Uribe’s scorn for human right defenders is notorious. According to Human Rights First, “President Uribe and other administration officials have branded [human rights defenders] as terrorist sympathizers and have insinuated that illicit connections exist between human rights NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and illegal armed groups. Irresponsible comments by government officials in Colombia put the lives of human rights defenders at even greater risk and threaten to undermine the value and credibility of their work” (“Human Rights Defencers in Colombia”).
In September 2009 Colombia was visited by Margaret Sekaggya, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from the UN Human Rights Commission. Sekaggya found that constant problems faced by human rights defenders in Colombia include “Stigmatization [of human rights defenders] by public officials and non-State actors; their illegal surveillance by State intelligence services; their arbitrary arrest and detention, and their judicial harassment; and raids of nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs) premises and theft of information” (“Report of the Special Rapporteur …,” 4 March 2010, pp. 13-18 [PDF]). Public officials in Colombia constantly attack human rights defenders and members of the political and social opposition as aides of “terrorists,” that is, left-wing guerrillas.
Uribe has led these attacks, calling human rights defenders “rent-a-mobs at terrorism’s service who cowardly wave the human rights flag,” “human rights traffickers,” “charlatans of human rights,” “bandits’ [ie. guerrillas] colleagues,” “intellectual front of the FARC [the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]” and he has stated that “Every time terrorists and their supporters feel they will be defeated, they resort to denouncing human rights violations.”
This is just a small selection of Uribe’s verbal attacks on human rights organizations in his own country, but he has also referred to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as “rats.”
Uribe’s alliance with Israel During Uribe’s term, Colombia, which is one of the top three recipients of US military aid along with Israel and Egypt, developed a close military alliance with Israel, as Gutierrez and Landy explain:
In recent years, according to news reports, Israel has become Colombia’s number one weapon supplier, with arms worth tens of millions of dollars, “including Kfir aircraft, drones, weapons and intelligence systems” being used against opponents of the Colombian regime (“Report: Israelis fighting guerillas in Colombia,” Ynet, 10 August 2007). According to a senior Israeli defense official, “Israel’s methods of fighting terror have been duplicated in Colombia” (“Colombia’s FM: We share your resilience,” 30 April 2010).
There is a reason that Latin Americans often refer to Colombia as the “Israel of Latin America,” and indeed why Colombian President-elect Juan Manuel Santos, ex-Minister of Defence and right hand of Uribe, expressed his pride at such a comparison (“Santos, orgulloso de que a Colombia lo comparen con Israel,” El Espectador, 6 June 2010).
As Gutierrez and Landy also point out, top officials in Uribe’s administration, including the president himself, frequently expressed full support for Israel’s fight against what it terms “terrorism.”
Israel withheld and manipulated evidence The Palmer panel cannot be described in any sense as an independent investigation. As the report states:
The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel. Turkey established a National Commission of Inquiry to examine the facts of the incident and its legal consequences, which provided an interim and final report to the Panel along with annexes and related material. Israel provided the report of the independent Public Commission that it had established to review whether the actions taken by the State of Israel had been compatible with international law.
The Panel reviewed these reports and further information and clarifications it received in written form and through direct meetings with Points of Contact appointed by each government.
The report adds:
In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States.
The panel therefore interviewed no survivors or witnesses. Only Israel controlled most key physical evidence – the ship itself and the belongings and recordings of all the passengers and the weapons Israel used in carrying out the attack. The panel did not have uncensored access to the massive amounts of evidence in the form of photo and video from passengers on board that Israel has stolen, hidden and refused to release or return. As a consequence of these crippling limitations, the report states:
It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.
The panel also implies that its own independence is further in question because:
It will be clear from the above that the essential logic of the Panel’s inquiry is that it is dependent upon the investigations conducted by Israel and Turkey.
In contrast, the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission report published last September went much beyond merely commenting on information provided by governments. That fact-finding mission:
conducted interviews with more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman.
And in addition to information provided by governments, the Human Rights Council also relied on information
including the evidence of eyewitnesses, forensic reports and interviews with medical and forensic personnel in Turkey, as well as written statements, video film footage and other photographic material relating to the incident.
Perhaps because of its thoroughness, Israel refused to cooperate with the Human Rights Council fact-finding mission, just as it refused to cooperate with the Goldstone report.
Accusations of “violent resistance” The Palmer panel report claims:
Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
Given the fact that Palmer panel did not gather any evidence of its own, its conclusion that the Israeli military attackers who boarded the Mavi Marmara under cover of dark in international waters, faced “organized and violent resistance” can be given no more credence than any common or garden Israeli military press release.
While Israel has repeatedly made such claims, it never produced independent evidence to support them and – as noted – is still concealing evidence.
Nevertheless, the video footage that did escape Israeli confiscation showed:
- Indiscriminate live fire by the Israeli attackers
- A working journalist who appears to have been executed
- Evidence of targeted assassination of at least one passenger
The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
Moreover, the propagandistic Israeli claims that their soldiers were mistreated were belied by photographs that showed passengers giving aid and protection to Israeli attackers who had been disarmed.
It is possible of course that passengers defended themselves against a terrifying Israeli assault in dead of night with a full military arsenal that included assault helicopters and elite commandos against a civilian ship.
Indeed, footage shows terrified passengers hiding and attempting to fend off indiscriminate fire with sticks in a blood-stained stairwell. But to equate any of this to “organized and violent resistance” that could in any way justify Israel’s execution-style killings is completely absurd.
The blockade is “legal” The Palmer report’s assertion that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza is legal and necessary for “security” echoes the other aspects of the report that accept Israeli military propaganda as given.
By privileging the security of Israel, the occupying power, the report also ignores the rights and needs for security of the Palestinian people in Gaza who are being collectively punished and who have been subjected to decades of indiscriminate Israeli military attacks in which thousands of civilians have been killed and injured.
Yet this opinion of the Panel is, as the report states, not binding in any legal sense. But more importantly, it has no bearing at all on the assault on the Mavi Marmara, which Israel attacked in international waters as it was moving away from the Gaza Strip and the Israeli-controlled coast of Palestine.
Israel’s claim that it needs to blockade people it is violently victimizing in order to prevent them obtaining any means whatsoever to defend themselves can only be made by wholly ignoring the context of Israel’s violent occupation of Gaza and decades of well-documented war crimes.
Israel is not in a defensive position in which it can claim a “security” need to impose a blockade. Israel is the military aggressor which for decades from 1967 until 2005 violently colonized the Gaza Strip, placing settlers there in blatant violation of international law. Since 2005, Israel has continued to occupy besiege, harass, attack and kill civilians in Gaza with almost no respite culminating in the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of civilians during the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead.”
A perfect example of Israel’s wanton violence was its unprovoked series of attacks on the Gaza Strip last month which killed more than two dozen people, including children.
Human Rights Council fact-finding mission and legality of Israeli blockade The UN Human Rights Council had already concluded that Israel’s interception of the flotilla was illegal because the blockade was unjustified:
In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt [Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories), 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 that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.
It also concludes:
The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law.
and that:
the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
Palmer panel went against international consensus on blockade The Turkish appointee on the Palmer panel, Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, noted in a dissenting statement rejecting large parts of the report:
On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international community. Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful.
- Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful. The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission received widespread approval from the member states.
- Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally accepted rule of international law. There can be no exception from this long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of views.
- The intentions of the participants in the international humanitarian convoy were humanitarian, reflecting the concerns of the vast majority of the international community. They came under attack in international waters. They resisted for their own protection. Nine civilians were killed and many others were injured by the Israeli soldiers. One of the victims is still in a coma. The evidence confirms that at least some of the victims had been killed deliberately.
- The wording in the report is not satisfactory in describing the actual extent of the atrocities that the victims have been subjected to. This includes the scope of the maltreatment suffered by the passengers in the hands of Israeli soldiers and officials.
After Israel and the United States’s all out war on the Goldstone report detailing Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it appears that international officials are unwilling to repeat the experience.
Indeed, an exclusive report on The Electronic Intifada in June 2010 revealed intense diplomatic efforts to undermine Turkey’s push for an independent UN investigation into Israel’s flotilla attack.
The Palmer panel was stacked from the start to ensure Israeli impunity, not to provide truth for the victims and survivors of the Mavi Marmara.
Turkey cuts all military ties with Israel
Turkey has suspended all its military ties with Israel and has expelled Israel's envoy from Ankara over Tel Aviv's refusal to apologize for last year's deadly attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla.
The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made the announcement in a press conference on Friday and said, “The time has come for Israel to pay for its stance that sees it above international laws and disregards human conscience."
"At this point the measures we are taking are: The relations between Turkey and Israel will be downgraded to second secretary level. All officials over the level of second secretary, primarily the ambassador will turn back to their country at the latest on Wednesday," AP quoted Davutoglu as saying.
Relations between Turkey and Israel began to deteriorate after the Israeli military attacked the Gaza-bound relief aid convoy Freedom Flotilla in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea in May 2010, killing nine Turkish citizens on board the Turkish-flagged M.V. Mavi Marmara and injuring at least 50 other activist that were part of the team on the six-ship convoy.
Update: UN report: Gaza blockade legal, Israel used excessive force
A UN report on Israel's deadly raid against a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza has found that the naval blockade was legal but commandos used excessive force in the May 2010 incident.
The New York Times, citing a leaked copy of the document to be released Friday, reported that it found Israel used "excessive and unreasonable force" after meeting "violent resistance" from some of the passengers.
Israel and Turkey have been in dispute over an apology for the May 31, 2010 raid in which nine Turkish activists were killed.
Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer led the UN-mandated investigation into the raid on the flotilla that was attempting to take aid to the Gaza Strip through an Israeli blockade.
Diplomatic relations in brink
The release of the report has been delayed several times this year. Turkey has demanded an apology for the deaths, Israel has refused and there had been no agreement on the final version of the report.
Palmer's report recommends Israel provide Turkey "an appropriate statement of regret" and pay compensation for deaths and injuries, but neither side has accepted this formula.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Thursday on the fringes of the Libya Contact Group meeting in Paris, where she urged Turkey to prevent further deterioration of its relations with Israel, according to a report on Israel Radio.
Davutoglu had warned on Thursday that diplomats would launch "Plan B", and referred to possible sanctions, if Israel fails to apologize when the report is published, in an interview with Turkish daily Today's Zaman.
The foreign minister said in a press conference Friday that its demands remain unchanged.
On Friday, Israeli daily Haaretz cited senior foreign ministry officials saying Turkey could expel Israel's ambassador and downgrade diplomatic relations, as Israeli officials told the press that no apology would be issued.
Report finds fault on both sides
The report criticized "Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding."
But it accused the flotilla of "acting recklessly" by attempting to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza.
Events surrounding the deaths of nine passengers remain contested.
While the report finds "most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range" and this has "not been adequately accounted for" by Israel, it adds that forces met violent resistance from passengers requiring self-protection.
Report writers said they could not determine whether Israeli commandos used live fire before landing on the vessel, a key point of contention.
Israel and Turkey spar over conclusions
In responses from both countries included in the report, Israel and Turkey rejected its findings.
But as the leaked report emerged, the countries attempted to emphasize the conclusions seen as more favorable to their governments.
Einat Wilf, an Israeli lawmaker and member of the Knesset foreign affairs commission, told AFP the report "clearly exonerates Israel on the main issues regarding the legality of the blockade, the legality of stopping incoming ships in international waters and the existence of violence, resistance to the Israeli soldiers."
An Israeli official who declined to be identified told AFP on Friday: "We will announce our acceptance of the report after its official publication, with specific reservations."
Meanwhile, Turkish officials insisted on focusing on Israel's refusal to apologize.
The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made the announcement in a press conference on Friday and said, “The time has come for Israel to pay for its stance that sees it above international laws and disregards human conscience."
"At this point the measures we are taking are: The relations between Turkey and Israel will be downgraded to second secretary level. All officials over the level of second secretary, primarily the ambassador will turn back to their country at the latest on Wednesday," AP quoted Davutoglu as saying.
Relations between Turkey and Israel began to deteriorate after the Israeli military attacked the Gaza-bound relief aid convoy Freedom Flotilla in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea in May 2010, killing nine Turkish citizens on board the Turkish-flagged M.V. Mavi Marmara and injuring at least 50 other activist that were part of the team on the six-ship convoy.
Update: UN report: Gaza blockade legal, Israel used excessive force
A UN report on Israel's deadly raid against a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza has found that the naval blockade was legal but commandos used excessive force in the May 2010 incident.
The New York Times, citing a leaked copy of the document to be released Friday, reported that it found Israel used "excessive and unreasonable force" after meeting "violent resistance" from some of the passengers.
Israel and Turkey have been in dispute over an apology for the May 31, 2010 raid in which nine Turkish activists were killed.
Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer led the UN-mandated investigation into the raid on the flotilla that was attempting to take aid to the Gaza Strip through an Israeli blockade.
Diplomatic relations in brink
The release of the report has been delayed several times this year. Turkey has demanded an apology for the deaths, Israel has refused and there had been no agreement on the final version of the report.
Palmer's report recommends Israel provide Turkey "an appropriate statement of regret" and pay compensation for deaths and injuries, but neither side has accepted this formula.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Thursday on the fringes of the Libya Contact Group meeting in Paris, where she urged Turkey to prevent further deterioration of its relations with Israel, according to a report on Israel Radio.
Davutoglu had warned on Thursday that diplomats would launch "Plan B", and referred to possible sanctions, if Israel fails to apologize when the report is published, in an interview with Turkish daily Today's Zaman.
The foreign minister said in a press conference Friday that its demands remain unchanged.
On Friday, Israeli daily Haaretz cited senior foreign ministry officials saying Turkey could expel Israel's ambassador and downgrade diplomatic relations, as Israeli officials told the press that no apology would be issued.
Report finds fault on both sides
The report criticized "Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding."
But it accused the flotilla of "acting recklessly" by attempting to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza.
Events surrounding the deaths of nine passengers remain contested.
While the report finds "most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range" and this has "not been adequately accounted for" by Israel, it adds that forces met violent resistance from passengers requiring self-protection.
Report writers said they could not determine whether Israeli commandos used live fire before landing on the vessel, a key point of contention.
Israel and Turkey spar over conclusions
In responses from both countries included in the report, Israel and Turkey rejected its findings.
But as the leaked report emerged, the countries attempted to emphasize the conclusions seen as more favorable to their governments.
Einat Wilf, an Israeli lawmaker and member of the Knesset foreign affairs commission, told AFP the report "clearly exonerates Israel on the main issues regarding the legality of the blockade, the legality of stopping incoming ships in international waters and the existence of violence, resistance to the Israeli soldiers."
An Israeli official who declined to be identified told AFP on Friday: "We will announce our acceptance of the report after its official publication, with specific reservations."
Meanwhile, Turkish officials insisted on focusing on Israel's refusal to apologize.