gaza

Incredible.

Israel inquiry finds Gaza aid flotilla raid 'was legal' (BBC news online)

Not, incredible, of course, that Israel found itself to have acted legally. Incredible that the BBC writes a long piece about how Israel found itself to have acted legally, and their idea of 'balance' is to offer the information that a UN inquiry found that... the navy had shown an "unacceptable level of brutality"!

Even a pretence at balance ought to mention not just that the brutality was 'unacceptable', according to 'a' UN report - but that the said UN report concluded that

Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.

Fact-finding mission to investigate Israel's attacks on the Gaza flotilla, by the Human Rights Council

Much more importantly, the 'balancing' fact to Israel finding that its actions were legal has little to do with brutality: it is surely that the UN report found they were illegal.

My complaint:

Dear Steve Herrmann (etc)

This page, about Israel's report on the Gaza flotilla, contains the following claims:

1. 'An Israeli inquiry has found the country's navy acted legally'

2. 'in the report released on Sunday, the Turkel Committee said: "The imposition and enforcement of the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip does not constitute 'collective punishment' of the population of the Gaza Strip."'

As 'balance' to the first claim, you offer the following two pieces of information:

a) 'A separate UN inquiry last year said the navy had shown an "unacceptable level of brutality".'

A few extracts. The 2nd and 3rd cables, from Jun 2007, seem to put in question a view I've heard from a number of sources - that the US / Israel supported Fatah (militarily) to take over in Gaza. Or maybe I'm not good enough at reading between the lines of diplomatic cables.

(all emphasis mine)

This one, from Apr 2007, makes clear that there was a strategy for 'regime change', but it was economic:

CODEL ACKERMAN'S MEETING WITH OPPOSITION LEADER BINYAMIN NETANYAHU:

Bring Down Hamas [Original heading in US cable]
----------------

¶5. (C) Congressman Ackerman asked Netanyahu for his views on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu said Abbas was a "nice man who means well," but he added that Israel and the U.S. should focus on "bringing down Hamas" through an "economic squeeze." Netanyahu asserted that eight months ago, the Hamas government had been on the brink of collapse, but had become stronger because Israel became weaker as a result of the Lebanon war. Without elaborating, Netanyahu said it would be easier to weaken Hamas than to strengthen Abbas.

...

Netanyahu predicted that Palestinians would vote for Abbas if they believe that he can deliver the money. He suggested putting in place an "economic squeeze with an address," so that Hamas would receive the popular blame.

...

¶7. (C) Congressman Ackerman asked if Abbas would survive politically. Netanyahu said he was unsure, since politics were stressful, especially Palestinian politics. The policy, he added, should be to starve the NUG. If any money is given, it should go directly to Abbas. Netanyahu said it was not clear the GOI has a policy, there was a general climate of weakness.

UPDATED - latest response

• Original complaint
• Round robin response from the beeb
• Laurel and Hardy (with comments)

Jane Corbin: The elite Israeli force that seized the Mavi Marmara is training for its next operation. I’ve had unique access to this top secret unit. Naval Commandoe 13 has never been filmed by the media in action before. Israel says these commandoes had to fight for their lives on the ship that night. Turkey accuses Israel of an act of piracy. They called it Operation Sea Breeze, but what these Israeli Naval Commandoes encountered on the Mavi Marmara was anything but a breeze. It caused a storm of international condemnation - but did Israel fall into a trap? And what was the real agenda of some of those people who called themselves ‘peace activists’ aboard the Free Gaza flotilla?

From Death in the Med

A trap... ! Trapped into venturing out into the high seas. Trapped into storming illegally a boat full of 'peace activists' and firing at them with live ammunition. Trapped into killing 9 and injuring hundreds more, although the wily victims - those 'peace activists' - possessed no weapons of their own. Trapped, no doubt, into trapping the Gazans inside their own territory and trapping outside the Gaza borders the necessities they need to survive.

I trapped them into killing me! A wily trap indeed. I took no weapons with me, and made sure to stay in international waters on my own vessel. They fell for it.

But perhaps it all depends on whether you set more store by the UN Fact Finding Mission's investigation, or the BBC's dramatic version, reported breathlessly by Jane Corbin, Special Expert on Making Things Sound Dramatic and putting questions which are quite irrelevant.

The programme can still be viewed here, and a transcript of the breathy Jane is available here.

My letter to her breathlessness:

UPDATED

• Original complaint
• Response from the BBC, 3 weeks late and ignoring every one of my concerns
• My response
• BBC response (2) - with comments

Complaint submitted through the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints)

I am writing to complain about the extreme distortion of your reporting today on the Israeli storming of the Gaza flotilla, and subsequent killing of around 20 people. In particular, I would like your response to the following issues:

1. Why is there no mention of the fact that boarding a foreign ship – carrying the flag of another nation – in international waters is an illegal act?

2. Why do you persist in giving considerably more airwave time and website space to Israeli spokespersons, than to those putting a different point of view? I carried out a brief review of the website coverage and found that the lack of balance was striking:

• On the page LIVE: Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla, Israeli spokesmen have 497 words, pro-flotilla have 297 words
• On the page: Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza ship - Israel has 536, flotilla has 406

Then there are 4 separate audio / video links, as far as I can see:

Netanyahyu – 2.26 mins
Regev – 7 mins at peak time on Today programme
Danny Danon – 3.02 (separate link to a whole page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10198873.stm)

And 'for' the flotilla: Hamas – 3.22 mins

In other words, there is no obvious audio or video interview with a spokesperson from the Free Gaza Movement, or parallel organisation. The Hamas recording is clearly not equivalent because most people associate Hamas, as the BBC has taught them to do, with a terrorist organisation.

UPDATED - with ECU finding (and response)

• Original letter of complaint
• 1st response from the BBC
• 2nd Response from the BBC
• My response (2) (includes request to ECU)
• My request to the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
• ECU finding
• You are stooges (my sign-off letter)

2 months on, and several letters later, the BBC is still determined not to tell us that the Gaza blockade may be a crime against humanity - ie one of these:

Article 7, 1 (k) ... inhumane acts ... intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

It is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions - and definitely couldn't violate this bit:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

4th Geneva Convention, Article 33

And it is not a war crime:

Article 8, 2 b xxv: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

Rome Statute

In the BBC's view, the important thing about the siege, the label that deserves official attribution to UN officials is that the siege is grim and deteriorating.

Ah, grim. We grin and bear grim things: they cannot be crimes.