Deep flaws in the UN's Mavi Marmara report

[bemildred]

When the UN Secretary General announced on August 2, 2010 that a panel of inquiry had been established to investigate the May 31, 2010 Israeli attacks on the Mavi Marmara and five other ships carrying humanitarian aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza, there was widespread hope that international law would be vindicated and the Israelis would finally be held accountable.

With the release of the report this past week, these hopes have been largely dashed: The report failed to address the central international law issues in a credible and satisfactory manner. Turkey, not surprisingly, responded strongly that it was not prepared to live with the central finding of the 105-page report, which found that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is lawful and could legally be enforced by Israel against a humanitarian mission, even in international waters.

Perhaps this outcome should not be surprising. The panel was woefully ill-equipped to render an authoritative result. Former New Zealand Prime Minister and environmental law professor Geoffrey Palmer, the chair of the panel, was not particularly knowledgeable about either international maritime law or the law of war. And incredibly, the only other independent member of the panel was Alvaro Uribe, the former President of Colombia. Uribe has no professional credentials related to the issues under consideration. He is notorious both for his horrible human rights record while holding office, and for forging intimate ties with Israel through arms purchases and diplomatic cooperation. The fact that he received "The Light Unto The Nations" award from the American Jewish Committee should have been sufficient in itself to cast doubt on his suitability for this appointment.

Alvaro Uribe's presence on the panel compromised the integrity of the process, and made one wonder how such an appointment could be explained, let alone justified. The remaining two members were designated by the governments of Israel and Turkey. Not surprisingly, they appended partisan dissents to those portions of the report that criticised the position taken by their respective governments. Another limitation of the report was that the panel was constrained by its terms of reference, which prohibited reliance on any materials other than that presented in the two national reports submitted by the contending governments. With these considerations in mind, we can only wonder why the Secretary General would have established a framework so ill-equipped to reach findings that would put the controversy to rest, which it has certainly not done.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011978161147706.html

[Hardrada]

1. Good points to make here!

[hack89]

2. The UN is a font of justice and peace - except when it is not. nt

[bemildred]

3. What do you think about the Palmer report?

If the UN sucks, would not its report tend to suck too?

[hack89]

4. But understanding that basic fact

a country can make the decision whether to pay attention to the UN based on their security needs - that's just how the game is played. The mistake is to assume that the UN is somehow a depository of progressive values and can be counted on to make a just decision. Israel will never get a fair hearing at the UN - history bears that out. But they are smart enough to use the UN to their advantage.

[bemildred]

18. So you don't think much of the Palmer Report?

That is what I infer.

[hack89]

19. It was unusually balanced for UN report.

All the hysterics from the anti- Israel crowd make.me believe they got.many things right. Any case that starts with shooting the messenger is a weak one.

[bemildred]

20. Thanks for the answer.

To reciprocate:

1.) I think they tried (Palmer report), but I don't think much of the result. I find the presence of Uribe strange, to say the least.

2.) It was never going to make everybody happy, and as we see, by trying to it managed to piss everybody off.

3.) The UN is useful as a debating society, and it has useful social and administrative functions. It is not a government or source of authority (in its own right) of any sort.

4.) I expect everybody to use the Palmer Report in flame wars, and to ignore it otherwise, starting tomorrow.

[oberliner]

5. Please note that the author of this piece is Richard Falk

U.N. Palestinian Rights Official Posts Anti-Semitic Cartoon

The United Nations Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur on Palestinian rights is being criticized for re-posting an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

The cartoon, posted by Richard Falk, depicts a dog wearing a shirt labeled “USA” and a yarmulke marked with a Star of David devouring a bloody human carcass. Lady Justice stands by blindfolded, holding the dog’s leash as it urinates on her foot.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/139561/#ixzz1XaJLLJvf

[King_David]

6. Yep , not to be taken seriously,

he is tainted goods,when it comes to Israel !

[azurnoir]

7. an oldie but goody

eta what is strange and convenient is that the cartoon is not shown only what is said it depicts

[oberliner]

8. No idea what that means

The article is from July of this year.

The United States called Falk's behavior "shameful and outrageous" and "an embarrassment to the United Nations", and officially called on him to resign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#2011_cartoon_controversy

[azurnoir]

10. The actual cartoon is not shown just an interpetation of what was depicted

here is the wiki piece I'm surprised that you did not include it your post why is that? I also included the cites for Falks apology which are articles in JPost and YNet which also claim that Falk stated the cartoon was antisemtic but provide no citation for those claims, the 3rd cite is 'original research' which means someone said it, I will give you that Falk may have said the could have been interpreted that way and of course was quite hysterically in fact, IMO the supposed 'kippa' on the dog looks like either a helmet or a regular beanie but certainly not a 'kippa' albeit I am sure you will disagree




In July 2011, Falk was called on to resign his U.N. appointment as Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories after a cartoon he published on his blog was criticized as being antisemitic and anti-American.<66> The cartoon depicted a dog with a Jewish head-covering and a sweater with the letters "USA" urinating on Lady Justice while devouring bloody human bones.<67>

UN Watch called on United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to condemn Falk. Pillay responded, saying that the cartoon was antisemitic and objectionable. The United States called Falk's behavior "shameful and outrageous" and "an embarrassment to the United Nations", and officially called on him to resign. US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee called on Falk to resign as well. The Anti-Defamation League described the cartoon as a "message of hatred".<68><69><70>

Falk initially called the complaint by UN Watch against the cartoon a "complete lie". He later removed the cartoon, saying: "Maybe I do not understand the cartoon... I certainly didn’t realize that it could be viewed as anti-Semitic, and still do not realize." Later still, he stated that he had thought the Jewish head covering on the dog, adorned with the Star of David, was a helmet. He acknowledged that the cartoon was antisemitic and apologized for posting it<71><67>

This page was last modified on 6 August 2011 at 06:29.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#2011_cartoon_controversy

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=228448

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4093287,00.html

[oberliner]

13. Falk states on his blog that the cartoon is antisemitic

I would also again point out that the American representative to the Human Rights Council called on Richard Falk to resign.

Statement by Ambassador Eileen Donahoe, U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council, July 7, 2011

I am repulsed by the recent cartoon posting to the personal blog written by Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”

Mr. Falk’s continued comments and postings to his personal blog are deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. I am registering a strong protest with the UN on behalf of the United States. The United States has often been critical of Mr. Falk’s approach to his mandate, including his one-sided and politicized view of situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. We hope that he will resign, recognizing that his continued status as a UN mandate holder is a blight on the UN system.

The United States is deeply committed to the cause of human rights. Mr. Falk’s continued offensive postings and biased reporting does nothing to further the human rights of Palestinians or Israelis, nor anything to advance peace in the region.

http://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/07/07/donahoe-statement/

[azurnoir]

15. your post makes no indication of your title claim

and in fact could be seen as refuting that claim but I am sure you;ll clear it all up for us with Falk's blog post right?

[oberliner]

16. I am sure you can find it all by yourself

Here are some steps you can take:

Go to Google.

Type Richard Falk.

Click on the link to his blog.

Search for the post about the cartoon.

Note where he calls it antisemitic.

Report back to DU with your findings.

Or would you prefer to assume all those sources you mentioned just made it up?

[azurnoir]

17. well you are the one posting claims about Falk

if you can type all that then perhaps you can back up your own claims or perhaps you can not?

but that is up to you

[oberliner]

21. You are the one disputing widely reported and established facts

If you want to verify that what has been reported in these sources was not made up, there are ways that you can do so.

[King_David]

9. The guy is trashed

He has rendered his past and future work trashed .

He is truly an irrelevant commentator on any topic Jewish or Israel.

[azurnoir]

11. well according to 'unbiased' people such as yourself huh? n/t

[King_David]

12. Yes and According to any serious commentator on this issue nt

[azurnoir]

14. lol if you say so n/t