Surprise If Turkiye President Erdogan Approves Civilian Vessel Or Turkish Naval Forces Vessel To Deliver Humanitarian Supplies, Including Fuel, Directly To A Port In Gaza? Repeat Of Deadly 2010?
Will 10,000 Be The Trigger?
Surprised If Turkiye President Erdogan Approves Civilian Vessel Or Turkish Naval Forces Vessel To Deliver Humanitarian Supplies, Including Fuel, Directly To A Port In Gaza?
Last Attempted In 2010- And Commandos Of The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Killed Ten Citizens Of Turkiye Aboard The Mavi Marmara.
What Happens If Leadership Of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, United Nations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Operating In Gaza, Support Such An Effort?
The Triggering Event Could Be When The Number Of Civilian Deaths In Gaza Reaches 10,000 As “Five Figures” Tends To Generate Media Focus.
As Of 1 November 2023, The Ministry Of Health Of Gaza (Controlled By Hamas) Reported Approximately 9,061 Deaths (Including Approximately 3,648 Children) And Approximately 20,000 Injured.
Biden-Harris Administration Financial Request For Gaza: 2.3 Million Residents In Gaza; US$100 Million Requested; US$43.74 Per Person. Financial Request For State Of Israel: 9.7 Million Residents In Israel; US$14.3 Billion Requested; US$1,474.22 Per Person.
United States Department Of State Will Not Even Begin A Process To Determine If An Assessment Process Is Appropriate About Decisions In Gaza By The IDF. Too Politically Scared. Appalling.
An increasing disparate group of heads of state and heads of government believe the government of the State of Israel, through the actions of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), is responsible for civilian deaths and civilian infrastructure destruction in a manner that rises to the definition of a war crime.
They are incredulous and incensed the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) has neither confirmed an investigation should commence, has commenced an investigation, nor made an assessment that the State of Israel has committed one or more war crimes in Gaza or violated internationally-recognized rules of engagement relating to the impact upon civilians.
NOTE: Neither the State of Israel nor the United States are signatories to the Rome Statute which manages The Hague, Netherlands-based International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States does participate in The Hague, Netherlands-based International Court of Justice (ICJ), but the State of Israel has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of the Republic of Turkiye (2014- ), has been the most visible head of state publicly sharing anger towards the government of the State of Israel and, indirectly, at Joseph Biden, 46th President of the United States (2021- ), and his policy of “absent daylight” with decisions taken by the government of the State of Israel. However, due to decisions by the government of the State of Israel since 7 October 2023, President Biden has belatedly recognized the misplaced confidence in the government of the State of Israel to equate the value of a citizen of the State of Israel with the value of a citizen/resident of Gaza. So much for the value of his constantly self-promoted foreign policy acumen.
President Erdogan retains a unique position among heads of state and heads of government with connectivity to leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Statements by President Biden, and Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, that the State of Israel should comply with international agreements, obligations, standards, and treaties, while the Biden-Harris Administration refrains from determinations- or confirming an active investigation as to whether there has been compliance, only serve to further inflame President Erdogan and other heads of state and heads of government. Due to domestic political concerns- the risk of losing support of the Jewish communities and their campaign contributions, even the appearance of holding the State of Israel accountable is too far for a president seeking a second four-year term.
The following excerpts from a Press Briefing at the United States Department of State illustrate foundations for the criticism:
United States Department of State
Washington DC
1 November 2023
Excerpts
MR MILLER: Finally, turning to travel, Secretary Blinken will travel to Israel and Jordan on Friday. The Secretary will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other leaders of the Israeli Government to receive an update on their military objectives and their plans for meeting those objectives. He will reiterate U.S. support for Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international humanitarian law, and discuss the need to take all precautions to minimize civilian casualties, as well as our work to deliver humanitarian assistance. In his meetings in Jordan, the Secretary will also underscore the importance of protecting civilian lives, and our shared commitment to facilitating the increased sustained delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza, the resumption of essential services, and ensuring that Palestinians are not forcibly displaced outside of Gaza. He will also reaffirm the U.S. commitment to working with partners to set the conditions for a durable and sustainable peace in the Middle East, to include the establishment of a Palestinian state that reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank – and in the West Bank. And of course he will continue to discuss the ongoing work to secure the release of all hostages.
QUESTION: One more question on the Secretary’s travels to Israel. What messages has the U.S. already conveyed to the Israelis about settler violence in the West Bank? Have we told the Israelis to stop sending arms to settlers there?
MR MILLER: We have made quite clear to the Government of Israel that we are very concerned about settler violence in the West Bank. We find it incredibly destabilizing. We find it counterproductive to Israel’s long-term security in addition to, of course, being extremely harmful to the Palestinians living in the West Bank. And we have sent a very clear message to them that it’s unacceptable, it needs to stop, and those responsible for it need to be held accountable.
MR MILLER: So his primary objectives are as I outlined them in my opening comments. He wants to get an update from Israel on their military objectives and their plans for meeting those objectives. He wants to talk about ways that we can increase the flow of humanitarian assistance and get to the point where it’s a sustained, continuous flow getting in every day that meets the needs of innocent civilians in Gaza. He wants to talk about preventing the conflict from spreading. He wants to talk about the ability to get hostages back. And as I said, he will talk directly with the Israeli Government, as he has previously, as the President has previously, about our expectation that in launching – in conducting this military campaign, that they do it – do so in full compliance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and we will be very direct about that.
QUESTION: There’s been back and forth in this briefing room about this, but given there was the big attack yesterday on the refugee camp, I have to ask again: What is the U.S. assessment so far in terms of whether Israel is following the rules of war?
MR MILLER: Again, I will say that I’m not able to offer an assessment on that strike as I’m not able to offer assessment on other individual strikes. What I will say is that we will continue to discuss with them directly, as we will say publicly, that it is our expectation that in all of their activities, all of their military campaigns, that they comply with the laws of war.
QUESTION: I mean, in terms of yesterday’s attack, there are various commentators – some countries, international human rights lawyers – some of them are calling it war crimes. And we know that in this building when you are making these kinds of legal determinations, there is a process for that. Has there been any thinking of starting such a process for Israel’s actions in this war?
MR MILLER: It is not an assessment that we are making now. No.
QUESTION: Thank you. Actually, a follow-up on both Olivia and Humeyra. On Humeyra’s first, I mean, this area was struck today again. Now, why won’t you condemn the killing of dozens of civilians, like 300 – maybe less, we don’t know – to kill one person? Because that’s what the Israeli spokesman said. She said, we went after one militant. Why won’t you do that?
MR MILLER: So I will say that we are deeply saddened by the loss of civilian life. Whatever the number of lost civilians in this strike or any other strike, we are obviously troubled and deeply saddened by every one – every loss of life. And that’s true whether it be Palestinians, whether it be Israelis, and we will continue to make that clear. And we’ll make it clear to the Israeli Government.
QUESTION: Right. Well, that – okay, but 21 years ago – 21 years ago – Eric Fleischer came out and condemned a similar act – the George W. Bush administration condemned an act at the time where Israel killed one Hamas leader, Salah Shehadeh, and killed 15 others, which is a lot less than what you have seen in the last couple days – and they condemned it very strongly. So why won’t your administration do the same thing?
MR MILLER: So I am not able to speak to whatever assessments an administration 20 years ago has made. I will say that we will continue to impress directly upon our Israeli counterparts the need to minimize civilian harm in all of their military activities.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Humeyra’s question earlier when she asked you about whether there was any discussion in the legal – in L, the legal bureau, about what Israel is doing and whether it’s – and whether it complies with the rules of war? And you said no. So I’m just wondering, why not?
MR MILLER: It’s not an assessment that we have made at this point. You saw the Secretary – you – let me say
QUESTION: I know, but she didn’t ask if you had made an assessment. She asked if it was being discussed and considered, that there were people looking at this —
MR MILLER: Let me say that —
QUESTION: — to make – and to eventually make a determination. And it’s now been – we’re three weeks in, basically – into this. You have made similar determinations roughly in that space of time. So I’m just wondering – you’re saying that that’s not even being discussed?
MR MILLER: No, let me —
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
MR MILLER: Let me be clear. I’m not going to get into internal discussions, internal deliberations at the State Department. I’ll speak to the assessments that we have made. We have not made an assessment —
QUESTION: But, yeah, that wasn’t —
MR MILLER: — of war crimes in this situation.
QUESTION: But you answered no to whether —
MR MILLER: I should have been clear. We have not – we have not made any type of assessment at this time.
QUESTION: Well —
MR MILLER: As the Secretary made clear, there will be an opportunity for that. We’re not in the position at this point to judge all the strikes. What we think is important is to continue to impress upon the Israeli Government the importance of minimizing civilian harm.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you guys have made a determination – and we have had this discussion with Simon the other day – about Russia and actually committing war crimes where you’ve made a legal determination. In this case, you’re not even willing to say that that’s something that’s being talked about?
MR MILLER: I will say in the case of Russia, we were able to assess with a very high degree of confidence that Russia was deliberately targeting civilians. You – I remember that it came after —
QUESTION: Yes, but in order to get to that determination —
MR MILLER: — that assessment came after Bucha when there were clear evidence —
QUESTION: Yes, exactly. But in order —
MR MILLER: — clear evidence of deliberate, deliberate killing and targeting of civilians.
QUESTION: But in order to get to that determination, it had to be considered by the lawyers.
MR MILLER: And I’ve just —
QUESTION: And what your response to Humeyra was, unless you’re saying it was now wrong or that you misspoke
MR MILLER: I just – I’ve —
QUESTION: — that – was that it’s not even being discussed. It’s not – you’re not – people are not even looking at whether this question –
MR MILLER: What I’m saying is I’m not going to get into internal discussions, internal deliberations. It is not an assessment that we have made. And as the Secretary has said, there will be time to make those judgments.
Port Background
The shipping distance between the Port of Gaza (PSZGA) in State of Palestine and the Port of Istanbul (TRIST) in the Republic of Turkiye is approximately three hundred miles.
From Wikipedia: “The Port of Gaza is a small port near the Rimal district of Gaza City. It is the home port of Palestinian fishing-boats and the base of the Palestinian Naval Police, a branch of the Palestinian National Security Forces. Under the Oslo II Accord, the activities of the Palestinian Naval Police are restricted to 6 nautical miles from the coast. Since 2007, the Port of Gaza has been under an Israeli-imposed naval blockade as part of a blockade of the Gaza Strip, and activities at the port have been restricted to small-scale fishing.” The Port of Gaza has two piers: 970 meters (3,180 feet) and 330 meters (1,080 feet).
Since the 1993 Oslo I Accord, there have been plans to build a much larger seaport in Gaza. Due to the continuing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, these plans have not materialized as of 2014. In 2005, Israel approved Palestinian plans to rebuild and complete the construction of a port a few miles south of Gaza City, which had begun before the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000. The building was destroyed by Israeli forces together with Gaza's existing airport near Rafah following the outbreak of the Second Intifada.”
2010 Gaza Flotilla (From Reuters)
Why did Israel stop the Gaza flotilla? Israel and Turkey have announced an agreement to end an acrimonious, six-year diplomatic rift. The two countries were close allies, but relations broke down after the killing by Israeli commandos of 10 Turkish activists on board a ship that was part of an aid flotilla attempting to breach the blockade of Gaza on 31 May 2010.
How did the confrontation begin? The six ships in the flotilla were boarded in international waters, about 130km (80 miles) from the Israeli coast. Commandos landed on the largest ship, the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, by descending on ropes from helicopters. Clashes broke out immediately and the Israeli commandos opened fire.
Who started the violence? This is disputed. The activists say the commandos started shooting as soon as they hit the deck. Israeli officials say the commandos opened fire only after being attacked with clubs, knives and a gun which was taken from them. Video released by the Israeli military stops just before the shooting begins. A UN inquiry was apparently unable to determine at exactly which point the commandos used live fire.
Where were the dead activists from? They were all Turkish, although one had dual Turkish-US nationality. All were travelling on the Mavi Marmara.
What was the purpose of the flotilla? It wanted to deliver aid to Gaza, breaking an Israeli and Egyptian blockade on the territory. The ships were carrying 10,000 tonnes of goods, including school supplies, building materials and two large electricity generators. The activists also said they wanted to make the point that, in their view, the blockade was illegal under international law.
Who organised it? Gaza Movement, an umbrella organisation for activists from numerous countries, and a Turkish group called the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid (IHH). The Israeli government says the IHH is closely linked to the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which it views as a terrorist group, and is a member of another organisation, the Union of the Good, which supports suicide bombings. However, the Turkish government regards the IHH as a legitimate charity, and had urged Israel to let the flotilla through.
Why did Israel want to stop the flotilla? Israel prevents a large range of goods from reaching Gaza in order to put pressure on Hamas, which dominates the territory. Israel also wanted to check that the ships did not contain deliveries of weapons or cash. It offered to allow the flotilla to land in an Israeli port, and to deliver by road any goods that passed its checks. Some flotillas have been allowed to reach Gaza in the past; others have been sent back.
How did the international community react? There was widespread condemnation of the violence. The UN Security Council issued a statement calling for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent" inquiry. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Israel to lift the Gaza blockade.
What have the various inquiries found? In September 2010, a UN Human Rights Council report said Israel's military broke international laws, that the action by commandos, which left nine dead, was "disproportionate" and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality". Israel rejected the report as "biased" and "one-sided". The UN panel said the loss of life from the use of force by Israeli troops was "unacceptable" Israel and Turkey held their own inquiries, submitting the findings to an international panel set up by the UN, chaired by a former New Zealand Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and including an Israeli member and Turkish member. Turkey's report, drawn up by government officials, accused Israeli commandos of "excessive, brutal and pre-meditated" conduct. It concluded their action boarding the Mavi Marmara was "unlawful" and breached human rights. Results of post-mortem examinations had earlier suggested a total of 30 bullets were found in the bodies of the dead activists, including one who had been shot four times in the head. The Turkish panel also deemed the Gaza blockade "unlawful". The Israeli inquiry, headed by Judge Jacob Turkel, and including five Israeli members and two international observers, found the actions of the navy and Israel's blockade of Gaza were legal under international law. However, it offered some criticism of the planning of the military operation. It also referred to "the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries". In September 2011, the UN panel concluded in a repeatedly-delayed report that the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli troops was "unacceptable". "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," it said. The Israeli commandos faced "significant, organised and violent resistance", the UN said. However, the commandos did face "significant, organised and violent resistance", requiring them to "use force for their own protection", the panel found. Nevertheless, no satisfactory explanation was provided by Israel for any of the deaths, and the "forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range" was not accounted for, the report said. There was also "significant mistreatment" of passengers by Israeli authorities after the takeover of the vessels, including physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance, it added. At the same time, the panel said that the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza was imposed as a "legitimate security measure" to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law. The flotilla acted "recklessly" in attempting to breach the naval blockade of Gaza, and more could have been done to warn flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions, according to the report. In November 2014, a preliminary examination by the International Criminal Court's Chief Prosecutor concluded that it should not take further action despite a "reasonable basis to believe that war crimes… were committed", because it had to prioritise war crimes on a larger scale.
How were relations between Turkey and Israel affected? The flotilla incident caused a deep rift between the former allies. In the immediate aftermath of the flotilla raid, Turkey withdrew its ambassador from Tel Aviv and then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for Israel to be punished for its "bloody massacre". Joint military exercises were also cancelled. Following the publication of the Palmer report, which was delayed several times as diplomats tried to repair relations, Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador in Ankara. "The time has come for Israel to pay for its stance that sees it as above international laws and disregards human conscience," Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. "The first and foremost result is that Israel is going to be devoid of Turkey's friendship." The Turkish government had insisted on receiving an Israeli apology by the time the report was released. Israeli officials noted that the UN report did not demand a full apology, establishing only that Israel should issue an "appropriate statement of regret" and "offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families". "Israel, like any other country, has a legitimate right to protect its citizens and soldiers," an Israeli government official told the BBC. In November 2012, a court in Istanbul began trying in absentia four retired Israeli commanders over the raid. Among the charges was "inciting murder through cruelty or torture". The accused were named as Israel's former military chief of staff, Gen Gabi Ashkenazi, former naval chief Vice-Admiral Eliezer Marom, former head of military intelligence Maj Gen Amos Yadlin, and former head of the air force Brig Gen Avishai Lev. The Israeli embassy in Ankara called the trial a "unilateral political act with no judicial credibility".
How was the dispute resolved? In March 2013, Israel and Turkey's prime ministers unexpectedly agreed to restore normalise diplomatic relations and end the legal action against former Israeli commanders. The breakthrough came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Mr Erdogan in a telephone conversation brokered by US President Barack Obama during a visit to Israel. A statement from Mr Netanyahu's office said he had "made it clear that the tragic results regarding the Mavi Marmara were unintentional and that Israel expresses regret over injuries and loss of life". "In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors, Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation," it added. Mr Erdogan, who became Turkey's president the following year, said they had also "agreed on making arrangements for compensation" to the victims' families, adding that he had "accepted the apology in the name of the Turkish people". In June 2016, Turkey and Israel agreed to normalise their relations. Officials said the reconciliation deal would see Israel pay $20m in compensation to the families of those killed on the Mavi Marmara; Turkey allowed to deliver aid to Gaza via an Israeli port; and Turkish infrastructure projects aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territory. In return, Turkey agreed to pass legislation protecting Israeli troops from legal claims, and to prevent any military action or fundraising by Hamas operatives based there.