'balancing' the Turkel report

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".'

b) 'After its own inquiry, Turkey described the attack - which took place in international waters, about 130km (80 miles) from the Israeli coast - as a violation of international law'

In fact the 'separate UN inquiry' (which was carried out by the UN Human Rights Council) found not only that brutality had reached an 'unacceptable level' but 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.

Furthermore, they - and not merely the Turkish inquiry - found that international law had been breached both with respect to the blockade on Gaza, and in intercepting the flotilla in the way they did:

261. The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is far too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial that this is so cannot be supported on any rational grounds. One of the consequences flowing from this is that for this reason alone the blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. This is so regardless of the grounds on which it is sought to justify the legality of the blockade.

262. Certain results flow from this conclusion. Principally, the action of the IDF in intercepting the Mavi Marmara in the circumstances and for the reasons given on the high sea was clearly unlawful. Specifically, the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

(my emphasis)

Why do you not think it necessary to make any mention of these facts - let alone to mention the many other elements in the UN report which contradict that of the Turkel report? Objectivity, impartiality and faithful reporting can rarely, if ever, be satisfied by a 'he said', 'she said' approach, as the BBC appears to think. On this occasion, we have a relatively independent body, internationally recognised, composed of individuals who have not been pre-approved by either side, and which has looked in detail at what happened - including all of the 'he said' / 'she said' claims. Why not make use of this? Are the conclusions of *this* report not of greater value than those of an internal report (whether by Turkey or by Israel)? And is it not highly relevant on a BBC news page which reports on a finding that Israel's actions were legal, that not merely Turkey, but an international inquiry found that they most certainly were not?

Thank you for your attention
EK