Turkiets premiärminister skall inom kort besöka Egypten och han kommer möjligtvis också att resa till det av Hamas kontrollerad Gaza, uppger Turkiets vicepremiärminister Bulent Arinc.
Turkiet hotar också med att sända krigsfartyg för att skydda "hjälptransporter" till Gaza. Detta kan i värsta fall betyda framtida sammandrabbningar mellan israeliska och turkiska fartyg.
Turkiet visar alltså inga antydningar till att vilja förbättra relationerna till Israel.
Genom sitt agerande får Turkiet dock en del beundran från Israel hatare i regionen.
'Erdogan visit to Gaza would hurt Turkey-US ties'
Läs också Fred i Mellanösterns Den turkiska regeringens pajaskonster
"Det var Turkiet som begärde att FN skulle utreda bordningen av Ship to Gaza och legaliteten i Israels blockad mot Hamasregimen där. När FN-utredningen nu bekräftat att blockaden är helt laglig och att Israel hade rätt att stoppa Ship to Gaza, inkl. på internationellt vatten, faller både Turkiets och Ship to Gazas huvudargument pladask. Då väljer Turkiet att flytta fokus från sitt förödmjukande nederlag genom ett antal pajasuppträdanden och tomma hot från dess premiär- och utrikesministrar..."
söndag 4 september 2011
Kommentar till Turkiets agerande
Kongressledamoten Eliot Engel (D-New York) gjorde följande uttalande efter Turkiets beslut att utvisa Israels ambassadör: "Turkiet bör skämmas över sig själv."
"I en nästan otrolig handling av hyckleri, sitter den syriska ambassadören bekvämt i Ankara, medan Assad regimen dödar mer än 2.000 av sitt eget folk, men Turkiet har utvisat den israeliska ambassadören för att Israels korrekt genomfört en lagligt etablerat blockad", säger Engel, en ledande medlem av huset utrikesutskottet. "Hellre än att ge sig på den enda riktiga demokratin i Mellanöstern bör Turkiet fokusera på sina egna problem, som att avsluta sin ockupation av Cypern en gång för alla."
"I en nästan otrolig handling av hyckleri, sitter den syriska ambassadören bekvämt i Ankara, medan Assad regimen dödar mer än 2.000 av sitt eget folk, men Turkiet har utvisat den israeliska ambassadören för att Israels korrekt genomfört en lagligt etablerat blockad", säger Engel, en ledande medlem av huset utrikesutskottet. "Hellre än att ge sig på den enda riktiga demokratin i Mellanöstern bör Turkiet fokusera på sina egna problem, som att avsluta sin ockupation av Cypern en gång för alla."
Jerusalem brushes off Ankara threat to go to The Hague
fredag 2 september 2011
Medias vinkling av Palmer rapporten
För den som ännu inte tror att media vinklar nyheter till Israels nackdel. Här är YLE- text TV:s rubriker:
Sid 133 "YK: Israel käytti liikaa voimaa"
Sid 732 "Våldet mot Gazakonvojen orimligt"
Helsingin Sanomat har en totalt värdelös artikel med rubriken: YK: Israelin rynnäkkö Gaza-alukseen suhteeton
Läs Palmer rapporten så vet du vad FN-rapporten säger i verkligheten!
Sid 133 "YK: Israel käytti liikaa voimaa"
Sid 732 "Våldet mot Gazakonvojen orimligt"
Helsingin Sanomat har en totalt värdelös artikel med rubriken: YK: Israelin rynnäkkö Gaza-alukseen suhteeton
Läs Palmer rapporten så vet du vad FN-rapporten säger i verkligheten!
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.
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.
Turkiets och Israels diplomatiska relationer nedgraderas
Turkiets utrikesminister Ahmet Davutoglu sade idag att de diplomatiska relationerna till Israel kommer att nedgraderas till lägsta möjliga nivå. All personal på nivån över andre sekreteraren kommer att återvända till sina respetive länder senast inkommande onsdag.
Militära överenskommelser mellan länderna kommer också att suspenderas.
Vidare ansåg Davutoglu att resultatet av FN-kommissionens utreding om Gazaflottiljen var oacceptabelt.
New York Times har fått en kopia av Palmerutredningen där det sägs att Israels blockad av Gaza är laglig men att soldaterna i operationen som skulle stoppa fartygen använde för mycket våld.
Varför soldaterna måste använda våld mot aktivisterna på Mavi Marmara syns i följande inlägg:
Vad som hände på Mavi Marmara enligt Sefik Dinc
BBC Panorama - Vad som hände på Mavi Marmara
Rapport om Gazakonvojen
Ship to Gaza
Turkey reduces Israel's diplomatic presence, expels envoys
Palmer: Gaza blockade lawful, IDF used ‘excessive’ force (Jerusalem Post)
'NY Times' obtains copy of UN report on 'Marmara' raid; Turkish FM issues ultimatum to Israel: Apologize or face sanctions.
...The report, which was obtained and published by The New York Times on Thursday, concluded that 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."...
...At the same time, the 105-page report also said that "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 was excessive and unreasonable."...
Militära överenskommelser mellan länderna kommer också att suspenderas.
Vidare ansåg Davutoglu att resultatet av FN-kommissionens utreding om Gazaflottiljen var oacceptabelt.
New York Times har fått en kopia av Palmerutredningen där det sägs att Israels blockad av Gaza är laglig men att soldaterna i operationen som skulle stoppa fartygen använde för mycket våld.
Varför soldaterna måste använda våld mot aktivisterna på Mavi Marmara syns i följande inlägg:
Vad som hände på Mavi Marmara enligt Sefik Dinc
BBC Panorama - Vad som hände på Mavi Marmara
Rapport om Gazakonvojen
Ship to Gaza
Turkey reduces Israel's diplomatic presence, expels envoys
Palmer: Gaza blockade lawful, IDF used ‘excessive’ force (Jerusalem Post)
'NY Times' obtains copy of UN report on 'Marmara' raid; Turkish FM issues ultimatum to Israel: Apologize or face sanctions.
...The report, which was obtained and published by The New York Times on Thursday, concluded that 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."...
...At the same time, the 105-page report also said that "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 was excessive and unreasonable."...
torsdag 1 september 2011
Turkiet vill ytterligare försämra relationeran till Israel
FN- utredningen om Gazaflottiljen senaste sommar kommer antagligen att publiceras i morgon. Turkiet hotar Israel med att man kommer att övergå till "plan B" om inte Israel ber om ursäkt för ingripande mot Gazaflottiljen innan rapporten ges ut.
Plan B lär betyda att Turkiet nedgraderar sina relationer till Israel och aggresivt kommer att motarbeta Israel på den internationella arenan.
Texten i utredingen som varit känd för parterna (Israel och Turkiet) redan en tid väntas erkänna att Israel har rätt att utsätta Gaza för en sjöblockad och därmed också rätt att ingripa när fartyg försöker bryta blockaden.
Utredningen sägs också visa att IHH aktivisterna sökte konfrontation med de israeliska soldaterna och att det fanns en koppling mellan aktivisterna och turkiska regeringen.
De israeliska soldaterna lär kritiseras för att ha använt för mycket våld.
När det gäller ursäkten är det fakitskt Turkiet som borde be om ursäkt eftersom de sände iväg aktivister som försökte bryta en laglig blockad och dessutom använde våld mot de israeliska soldaterna som endast gjorde vad de måste för att upprätthålla blockaden.
Turkish FM warns Israel to apologize or face sanctions (Jerusalem Post)
Turkey in warning to Israel: You have one day to apologize for Gaza flotilla raid (Haaretz)
Plan B lär betyda att Turkiet nedgraderar sina relationer till Israel och aggresivt kommer att motarbeta Israel på den internationella arenan.
Texten i utredingen som varit känd för parterna (Israel och Turkiet) redan en tid väntas erkänna att Israel har rätt att utsätta Gaza för en sjöblockad och därmed också rätt att ingripa när fartyg försöker bryta blockaden.
Utredningen sägs också visa att IHH aktivisterna sökte konfrontation med de israeliska soldaterna och att det fanns en koppling mellan aktivisterna och turkiska regeringen.
De israeliska soldaterna lär kritiseras för att ha använt för mycket våld.
När det gäller ursäkten är det fakitskt Turkiet som borde be om ursäkt eftersom de sände iväg aktivister som försökte bryta en laglig blockad och dessutom använde våld mot de israeliska soldaterna som endast gjorde vad de måste för att upprätthålla blockaden.
Turkish FM warns Israel to apologize or face sanctions (Jerusalem Post)
Turkey in warning to Israel: You have one day to apologize for Gaza flotilla raid (Haaretz)
Durban III
Österrike har nu meddelat att de inte kommer att delta i Durban III i New York.
Här nedanför en kort film som beskriver vad det handlar om.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jM_UPIwNZ0&feature=player_detailpage
Austria pulls out of 'anti-Israel' Durban III conference (Jerusalem Post)
Austrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Schallenberg told the Post that “we have no intention of participating in Durban III in September.” Austria has now joined the anti-Durban group of countries, which includes Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, Canada and Israel.
Schallenberg said that Austria has “doubts about the content and direction of the conference” which is the reason for its decision to skip the event.
Här nedanför en kort film som beskriver vad det handlar om.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jM_UPIwNZ0&feature=player_detailpage
Austria pulls out of 'anti-Israel' Durban III conference (Jerusalem Post)
Austrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Schallenberg told the Post that “we have no intention of participating in Durban III in September.” Austria has now joined the anti-Durban group of countries, which includes Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, Canada and Israel.
Schallenberg said that Austria has “doubts about the content and direction of the conference” which is the reason for its decision to skip the event.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)