Human Rights Council
Fifteenth session
Agenda item 7
Human Rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab territories
Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance
III. Interception of the flotilla by the Israeli navy and its aftermath
A. Organisation of the Gaza flotilla and the response of the Israeli government
Factual Description and Findings
75. The Mission found the following facts to have been established to its satisfaction.
(a) The aims of the Free Gaza Movement and the Gaza flotilla of May 2010
76. The Free Gaza Movement, a human rights organization registered as a charity in Cyprus, organized five successful boat voyages to Gaza between August 2008 and December 2008 using on each occasion one or two small boats. The self-declared purpose of the voyages was to break the blockade on Gaza. The boats were not intercepted by the Israeli authorities at the time, although some threatening messages were received by the organizers from the Israeli authorities. A sixth mission in December 2008 was obliged to divert to Lebanon after the boat was rammed and severely damaged by the Israeli Navy and a seventh mission in January 2009 was aborted after fears it too would be rammed.
77. On 29 June 2009, approximately 20 nautical miles from the coast of Gaza, the Israeli Navy intercepted a boat called the “Spirit of Humanity” owned by the Free Gaza Movement, carrying 21 passengers and a cargo of humanitarian aid to Gaza. After Israeli requests to turn around were refused, the boat was boarded and taken to Ashdod where the passengers were arrested and detained.
78. After these unsuccessful attempts, the Free Gaza Movement sought wider collaboration with other organizations with a view to increasing the number of boats on future missions. The Movement established contact with a number of organizations including a Turkish humanitarian organization called the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) which enjoys consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. IHH, which has been active in over 120 countries and territories including the Gaza Strip, had been planning its own mission to Gaza and committed to joining the flotilla with two cargo vessels and a newly-purchased passenger boat with a total carrying capacity of over six hundred passengers. A number of other organizations, including the Ship to Gaza (Sweden), the Ship to Gaza (Greece) and the European Campaign to Break the Siege on Gaza, also agreed to join what became known as the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla”.
79. The stated aims of the Flotilla, as testified by the leaders of the Free Gaza Movement and IHH, were threefold: (1) to draw international public attention to the situation in the Gaza Strip and the effect the blockade; (2) to break the blockade; and (3) to deliver humanitarian assistance and supplies to Gaza. All participants interviewed by the Mission shared their aims, although most placed emphasis on the delivery of humanitarian aid.
80. The Mission notes a certain tension between the political objectives of the flotilla and its humanitarian objectives. This comes to light the moment that the Israeli Government made offers to allow the humanitarian aid to be delivered via Israeli ports but under the supervision of a neutral organization. The Mission also notes that the Gaza Strip does not possess a deep sea port designed to receive the kind of cargo vessels included in the flotilla, raising practical logistical questions about the plan to deliver large quantities of aid by the route chosen. Whilst the Mission is satisfied that the flotilla constituted a serious attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, it seems clear that the primary objective was political, as indeed demonstrated by the decision of those on board the Rachel Corrie to reject an Irish Government sponsored proposal that the cargo in that ship to be allowed through Ashdod intact.
(b) Composition of the Flotilla
81. The flotilla was composed initially of eight vessels carrying a total of 748 persons (see table in annexes): • M.V. Mavi Marmara – a passenger ship registered in the Comoros64 and owned by IHH;
• M.V. Defne Y – a cargo boat registered in Kiribati and owned by IHH;
• M.V. Gazze 1 – a cargo boat registered in Turkey and owned by IHH;
• M.V. Sfendoni or Sfendonh – a passenger boat registered in Togo and owned by Sfendonh S.A. based in the Marshall Islands. The boat was given an alternative name, “Boat 8000”, just before it joined the flotilla which was used in official Israeli accounts;
• M.V. Eleftheri Mesogios or Sofia – a cargo boat registered in Greece and owned by the Eleftheri Mesogios Marine Company based in Athens. The Greek name of the ship translates as “Free Mediterranean” and an alternative name “Sofia” is also used in some accounts;
• Challenger 1 – a pleasure boat registered in the United States of America and owned by the Free Gaza Movement;
• Challenger 2 – a pleasure boat registered in the United States of America and owned by Free Gaza Movement; and
• M.V. Rachel Corrie – a cargo ship registered in Cambodia and owned by the Free Gaza Movement.
The participating organizations were obliged to purchase their own vessels since commercial shipping companies were reluctant to allow their vessels to be chartered for the planned flotilla. The services of the crew of the IHH-owned cargo ships were procured through an agency in Istanbul.
82. The Challenger 2 withdrew from the flotilla when it developed engine problems. Its passengers were transferred to the Challenger 1 and the Mavi Marmara in international waters. The departure of the Rachel Corrie from Ireland was delayed and it therefore was unable to join the flotilla on 31 May. Since it was intercepted by the Israeli Navy on 6 June in international waters and its passengers went through the same detention and deportation process, the Mission has included this vessel in its investigation.
83. In line with practice during previous trips, some passengers planned to board certain ships in international waters after being ferried from Cyprus. However, at the last moment, the Cypriot authorities refused to allow these passengers to embark. After a series of failed attempts to embark from ports in the south of the island, some passengers were able to embark from the port of Famagusta.
(c) Preparation of the Flotilla
84. The participating organizations in the flotilla were loosely bound together by a ninepoint agreement, entitled “Points of Unity”, delineating the points of common purpose shared by all participants including their commitment to resist interception only through the use of non-violent means. According to the Free Gaza Movement, a steering committee, made of representatives of the participant organizations, was set up in each vessel.
85. Individuals with some forty different nationalities joined the flotilla. Each organization applied its own criteria in selecting who should join the various vessels. There was no unified protocol across all participating organizations to register prospective passengers using a single signed form, although individual organizations did require applications to be filled out and a screening and selection process took place. Many of the participants interviewed did not have specific skills or qualifications for humanitarian work. Some organizations said that they selected participants on the basis of their qualifications (for example, medical doctors), status as people of influence (parliamentarians, authors) as well as their ability to resist provocation. Some organizers expressed a preference for people who were known to them.
86. The mission’s attention was drawn to allegations that one of the passengers on the ship, who had logistical responsibilities with regard to the cargo on the Mavi Marmara, was convicted and served a term of imprisonment for his involvement in the 1996 hijacking of a Russian ferry boat. The hijackers were demanding the release of Chechen prisoners at the time.65
87. Participants raised money within their communities for the trip and also solicited cash donations which would be given directly to the population of Gaza. 88. There was stringent security surrounding the Mavi Mamara in the port of Antalya and all items taken on board were checked. Passengers and their luggage were subjected to security checks similar to those found in airports before boarding, including body searches The passengers who were transferred from the Challenger 1 onto the Mavi Marmara on the ocean were subjected to the same security checks.
89. Similar meticulous security checks were carried out on passengers onboard the Eleftheri Mesogios at the port in Greece. The Svendoni was primarily carrying passengers but also had on board a few medical items, including an ultra-sound machine, which had been donated. The boat’s captain personally checked the machine and the boat to confirm that there were no weapons or similar items on board. Witnesses also said that the cargo onboard the Rachel Corrie was checked by three independent authorities and sealed before it left Ireland. The seals remained intact when the ship was boarded by the Israelis.
90. Testimony did not show a clear logistical plan on how the large amounts of humanitarian aid being carried by the cargo ships in the flotilla would be unloaded in Gaza given the limited port facilities in Gaza. One witness said that he understood that IHH workers already in Gaza were preparing cranes to off-load the cargo into smaller boats. Another witness confirmed this plan and said that the Eleftheri Mesogios itself had a crane.
(d) Planned course and destination of the Flotilla
91. The vessels participating in the flotilla to Gaza departed from different ports at different dates, as shown below and made for an agreed rendezvous point in international waters, approximately 40 nautical miles south of Cyprus. The following vessels proceeded to the rendezvous as follows:
14 May 2010 Gazze 1 departs from Istanbul to Iskenderun
18 May 2010 Rachel Corrie departs Greenore Port, Ireland bound for Malta. It had initially left Dundalk on 14 May but stopped for repairs.
22 May 2010 Mavi Marmara, departs from Istanbul to Antalya, Turkey
22 May 2010 Gazze 1 departs Iskenderun towards Gaza
24 May 2010 Defne Y departs from Istanbul
24 May 2010 Elftheri Mesogios departs Piraeus, Greece
25 May 2010 Mavi Marmara arrives in Antalya, Turkey
25 May 2010 Sfendoni departs Piraeus, Greece (then makes an intermediary stop in Rhodes).
28 May 2010 Mavi Marmara departs Antalya, Turkey.
29 May 2010 Challenger I and Challenger II, depart from Crete; Rachel Corrie arrives in Malta.
30 May 2010 The six vessels congregate at a meeting point to the south of Cyprus; Rachel Corrie departs Malta.
92. Embarkation documents for the vessels leaving Turkey gave Gaza as the official destination, although customs documents stated the destination as Lebanon since the computer system did not include Gaza as a designated port of entry. Some crew members interviewed from certain boats said that they understood the intention to be to sail first to Egypt and then enter Gaza waters from the west.
93. The flotilla commenced its journey towards Gaza at 1554 hours on 30 May 2010 from the position approximately sixty-five nautical miles west of the coast of Lebanon.
(e) Israeli advance plans to intercept the Flotilla
94. According to the Israel Chief of Defence Staff, the Israeli authorities leaned of planned flotilla in early February 2010 and understood that its intention was to break the blockade. Diplomatic efforts began immediately to prevent the flotilla from sailing and contingency plans began to be formulated. Formal initial orders to undertake preparations to intercept the flotilla were issued in mid-April and by 12 May a mission plan had been developed which was approved by the Israeli Chief of General Staff on 13 May 2010.
95. On 13 May 2010, the Israeli Chief of General Staff sent a letter to the Defence Minister and Prime Minister setting out options for dealing with the flotilla, including the military option of commandeering and impounding the ships and detaining the passengers. A further evaluation was made on 26 May and the Defence Minister formally authorised the operation. Extensive training and planning was undertaken, including the setting up of a processing centre for detainees at the Port of Ashdod.
96. According to information available to the Mission, the Israeli forces deployed to intercept the flotilla included a number of corvettes and missile boats, helicopters, zodiacs, surveillance aircraft and possibly two submarines. Soldiers from the “Shayetet 13” special naval forces unit took part in the operation. The operation was given the code name “Operation Sea Breeze” or “Operation Sky Winds”.
97. Advanced identification and surveillance of specific passengers by Israeli intelligence forces took place, as indicated by a laminated booklet, recovered from the possessions of one of the captured Israeli soldiers which contained the names and photographs of specific high profile individuals on each of the six vessels as well as photographs of each vessel. One passenger was able to confirm that the photograph of her included in the booklet was taken just a few days before the flotilla sailed. Advance surveillance is confirmed by evidence attributed to Defence Minister Ehud Barak before the Turkel Committee which indicated that specific orders were taken “to continue intelligence tracking of the flotilla organizers, with an emphasis on the possibility that amongst the passengers in the flotilla there would be terror elements who would attempt to harm Israeli forces.”66
(f) Preparations to defend the vessels in the event of an attempt to board
98. It is clear to the Mission that, as the flotilla was assembling off Cyprus, participants became aware of the full extent of Israeli plans to intercept, board and commandeer the ships. Details of the Israeli plans had been published in an Israeli newspaper. Many passengers said that, prior to this point, they believed that the Israelis would try to block the path of the flotilla and force it to divert, but they did not imagine that they would seek to board the vessels by force. This belief persisted with many less-experienced passengers right up to the moment of the interception, notwithstanding the precedent of the “Spirit of Humanity” in 2009. Many passengers told the Mission that they did not really believe that the Israelis would attempt to board until the first boats approached the Mavi Marmara on the morning of 31 May.
Preparation and planning on the Mavi Marmara
99. The full realisation that the Israelis were serious about commandeering the flotilla spread through the passengers on the Mavi Marmara during the course of 30 May. There is clear evidence that some people on board the Mavi Marmara, including senior IHH leaders, were prepared actively to defend the ship against any boarding attempt. Video evidence shows a meeting of about fifty to a hundred passengers on the ship on 30 May at which the IHH President and a number of other prominent passengers spoke with some bravado about preventing an Israeli takeover of the ship. The pressure of the water hoses was seen being tested on the decks the day before the interception.
100. Following radio communication with the Israeli Navy and the sightings of the Israeli vessels, it became apparent that a boarding of the ship was an imminent reality. Passengers were instructed to put on their life jackets. Although there does not seem to have been a coordinated plan involving all passengers, some individuals grouped together with the intention to defend the ship. There is little evidence of any unified command to coordinate the defence of the ship.
101. During the night of 30 to 31 May, some passengers took electric tools from the ship’s workshop, which was not kept locked and sawed sections of railings into lengths of approximately one and a half metres, apparently for use as weapons. Lengths of metal chains from between the railings were also removed. When the ship’s crew discovered this, the tools were confiscated and locked in the radio room on the bridge. A number of the passengers were also provided with gas masks to counter the effects of tear gas. However, the Mission notes that the ship’s standard fire-fighting equipment would have included breathing apparatus. Furthermore, the fact that some passengers engaged in last minute efforts to fashion rudimentary weapons shortly prior to the interception confirms the findings of the Mission that no weapons were brought on board the ship.
Preparation and planning on the Challenger 1, Sfendoni, Eleftheri Mesogios and Rachel Corrie
102. Passengers and crew on the Challenger 1 underwent training in passive resistance techniques, non-violence and what to do if detained in Israel (including contacting a lawyer before embarkation). Witnesses said discussions took place in advance amongst the passengers on how to respond to an Israeli attempt to board the ship during which the crew had insisted that there should be no attempts to repel boarders with physical force. The captain and crew opposed a suggestion that access to the bridge should be blocked, as it was feared this would incense the soldiers. The intention, according to witnesses, was to show a symbolic resistance to the soldiers sufficient to demonstrate that the boarding was unwanted. The planned response to a boarding of the Challenger 1 was in part informed by the experience of some of the passengers on previous boats which had been intercepted by the Israelis.
103. Witnesses aboard the Svendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios confirmed similar discussions aboard their vessels. On the Eleftheri Mesogios, it was also decided that water hoses could be misconstrued as weapons and hence should not be used. On the Svendoni, passengers intended to sit on the decks and slow down any attempt to take control of the bridge through passive resistance.
104. The passengers on board the Rachel Corrie agreed and notified the Israelis before boarding that no resistance would be offered to the Israeli forces.
Preparation and planning on the Gazze 1 and Defne Y
105. There is no information to suggest that any specific preparations were made by the crew or passengers of Gazze1 and Defne Y to defend against a possible boarding.
64 The ship was bought by IHH early in 2010 with funds raised by members and was registered with the Comoros just a few days before it set sail for Gaza.
65 Report from the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Israel, 26 August 2010.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e119.pdf
66 Testimony of Ehud Barak, Minister of Defence, Turkel Committee: Public Commission of Inquiry.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
