Palmer utredningen

New York Times har publicerat Palmerutredningen om Gazaflottiljen på sin hemsida.Här finns den 105 sidor långa rapporten:
Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry
on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

Några plock ur rapporten:

The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.

Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.

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.

81 The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


82 The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.

86
However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations.296 The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO "İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfı" (IHH), a humanitarian organization.297 It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I.298 There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas,299 although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation.

89
Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y.305 There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara,306 although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself.307 Any "humanitarian supplies" were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage.308 The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni,309 and the Challenger I.310 There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.


91 It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey.316 Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a "hardcore group" of approximately 40 activists, who had
effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul.317 The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as "cleaning and maintenance personnel" who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening.318 The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage 319 and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH "like a security guard.