UN probe into Israel’s actions toward flotilla raises questions 

Only days after Israel took the unprecedented step of agreeing to participate in a UN investigation on the Gaza flotilla incident, assurances given by the Obama administration have proven to be empty. The episode paints a disturbing picture of the administration’s actions in pushing for this investigation, and suggests that Israel’s decision to participate should be revisited.

The incident at the end of May left nine dead on one of six boats attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.  It was the only boat on which Turkish-backed pro-Hamas extremists preferred to attack the Israeli military rather than cooperate with Israel’s offer to deliver the goods overland after inspection. 

Twenty-four hours later, at breakneck speed for the UN and at odds with its usual pattern of ignoring civilian deaths by the thousands anywhere else, the Security Council issued a presidential statement.  With the approval of the Obama administration, the Council called for “a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.”  A day later, the UN Human Rights Council established an allegedly “independent international fact-finding
mission” with a mandate to report on what it had already declared was Israel’s “outrageous attack.” 

Israel undertook a number of investigations, even adding two international experts to one of them in an extraordinary gesture to placate President Barack Obama.  But Muslim states, including Turkey, wanted more.  In addition, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon believed that assembling his own investigative committee would be an opportunity to win Muslim support for his bid to win a second term in office. And the Obama administration, which has enthusiastically embraced the United Nations, refused to oppose the secretary general’s plan.

So on Aug. 2, Ban launched his investigation, which got off the ground only because the U.S. pressed Israel to agree, and Israel took American assurances seriously.  U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice spelled some of them out:  “The United States expects that the Panel will … obviate the need for any overlapping international inquiries.”  The overlapping inquiry of the Human Rights Council, she claimed, would go away.

At exactly the same time, however, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released a statement in which he made no reference to the Human Rights Council, and no commitment to seek the dissolution of the Council’s investigation.

Two days later the president of the Human Rights Council, Sihasak Phuangketkeow, told UN radio that “it was crucial that the Council investigate.” 

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz added that the Israeli government believed it had received assurances that “the review panel will not have the authority to subpoena witnesses, including Israel Defense Forces soldiers and officers.”

Once again, Rice’s story was immediately challenged. The American charge d’affaires in Ankara was reportedly reprimanded by the Turkish foreign ministry because of Rice’s remarks. 

The secretary general’s spokesperson also contradicted Rice’s account. He told a press briefing on Monday that the panel has been “tasked with making findings about the facts and circumstances and context of the incident."

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. This article appeared in The Weekly Standard.

About The Author

Staff Report

Staff Report

A daily newspaper covering San Francisco, San Mateo County and serving Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara counties.
Pin It

Speaking of Op Eds

More by Staff Report

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2019 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation