United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon, with a colleague

And we all now what ‘international credibility’ means:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that a panel set up by Israel to investigate its deadly attack on a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to blockaded Gaza lacked international credibility.

“I took note of this announcement,” he told reporters, referring to the Israeli panel in which two foreigners have been given observer status. “My position is that there should be international credibility of their investigation. I know that there are going to be two international observers. But what I have heard from most of the countries is that it is not sufficient enough to have international credibility.”

To investigate the flotilla, Ban had proposed establishing a four- or five-member independent panel, with one representative each from Israel and Turkey, to be led by Geoffrey Palmer, a former New Zealand prime minister, although officially no names have been mentioned.

Turkey accepted the proposal while Israel did not, but Ban said he was continuing to discuss his plan with the Israeli government, pressing for the idea that the two inquiries could complement each other.

“While I believe that they have the capacity to carry on their domestic investigations, at the same time this investigation should have international credibility,” the secretary-general said.

There would be no point in proceeding with a neutral panel if Israel remained opposed, he added, saying,

“Without full cooperation, it would be extremely difficult to have a thorough and credible investigation.”
He said he remained committed to trying to fulfill the Security Council’s call for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation.

Although a completely ‘independent’ panel in a matter such as this would at first glance look the most credible, Israel has chosen to carry out its own investigation, albeit with two respectable international figures observing. That may sound counterintuitive to a neutral observer*, but in this case we believe Israel has chosen wisely.

The international investigation Ban is calling for would presumably be conducted under UN auspices. But what does that mean these days? The ineffectual Mr Ban heads a United Nations that is at the very nadir of its credibility. 

The UN Human Rights Council: 'We just love Human Rights! (as far away from us as possible)..'

 The main strands of its international conflict resolution and human rights branches are utterly compromised; with the UN Human Rights Council effectively remote-controlled by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its members, in cahoots with various third-world dictators; ensuring the rights and dignity of the planet’s most vulnerable people are in the hands of its worst abusers.

What’s more, Mr Ban knows this – he has himself blasted the UNHRC for anti-Israel bias.

In an even more surreal twist (and we assure readers that we really are not making this up), Hizballah now effectively has representation on the UN Security Council.

So, in the unlikely event of Israel accepting Ban’s proposal, we would anticipate one of three possible outcomes:

• (Virtually a foregone conclusion): The investigation finds against Israel and calls for further degradations of her security and protections against Palestinian (and international) anti-Semitic hate crimes and Islamic terrorism. Result: Israel, justifiably defiant, walks away. Turkey and other Islamists jubilant.

• (Very Unlikely): The investigation finds fault on both sides and makes neutral recommendations with an actions timetable and post-probe scrutiny. Result: matter resolved for the moment, but may still flare up as and when it suits Erdoğan’s political agenda.

• (Extremely Unlikely): The International panel run with the overwhelming evidence and find in Israel’s favour. Turks and Islamists storm out, Flotilla jihad continues (and escalates); possibly sparking another Lebanese Summer of Nasrallah Love. Not even worth contemplating, this one.

Given the alternatives on the table, as outlined above – what would you do?  Tony Blair’s nominees for the inquiry’s international observer roles (and whatever you might think of Tony Blair, he is seen to be doing a good job in his ‘Quartet’ role, having a degree of credibility with both sides) have been accepted by Israel.

David Timble, a barrister, former First Minister of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the NI Peace Agreement –  and Ken Watkin, a former Canadian armed forces Judge Advocate General – certainly seem solid candidates (although we have to confess that we don’t know too much about the Canadian).

However, although seen as a scrupulously fair man, Trimble’s publicly pro-Israel stance may come in for criticism.

But, if Israel is (and is seen to be) open and transparent, as we believe it has been throughout the Flotilla crisis – and, if this is supported by the observers – It may well go a long way to restoring some credibility for Jerusalem among non-Islamic countries.

As for Turkey and the rest of the Ummah – we believe they are  pretty much a lost cause in terms of anyone being able to change their views  - whatever the strength of the evidence or the scrupulousness of the international observers. It’s just not going to happen.

In any event, we couldn’t envisage an investigation of Israel – even by itself –  (and let’s face it, this is what most other countries do as a matter of course),  being as slanted and criminally unfair as the Goldstone Report – the product of the last occasion the UN took it upon itself to ‘investigate’ Israel.

This is the gamble we believe Netanyahu is preparing to take.

[Source: PNA/APP]

Please consider supporting Un:dhimmi by making a small donation to the site, in order to show your support and help us with our work.

Get Your Copy of The Documentary the Iranian Régime Doesn’t Want You to See

2 Responses to “UN Urges ‘International’ Flotilla Probe: Why Israel Should Refuse”