When the Report of the Palmer Committee’s investigation into last year’s incident where Israeli troops were attacked while enforcing its naval blockade of Gaza was released, one conclusion jumped out, namely that “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.” Turkey responded to the Report by expelling Israel’s ambassador, freezing defense agreements, and threatening to go to the International Court of Justice to obtain an advisory ruling against the Israeli blockade.

Last week, Ma’an News reported that a group of international organizations issued a public letter to the Middle East Quartet demanding that the Quartet ‘clarify’ the Report by the Palmer Committee that found that Israel’s counter-terror naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza is legal under international law. The letter further cited the International Committee of the Red Cross’ [ICRC] sweeping assertion that the blockade "constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law."

Not to be outdone, four U.N. special rapporteurs, including the often fact-challenged Richard Falk, criticized the Report. After asserting that “It is unfortunate that in the report politics should trump the law”  Falk further opined that “the most questionable move of the Palmer Panel was to separate the naval blockade from the overall closure of Gaza to a normal supply of humanitarian supplies, including supplies needed for medical operations and sanitation."

What is being ignored is the fact that the Report addressed the specific issues raised, and unlike the international organizations and U.N. rapporteurs, engaged in analysis rather than political rhetoric. Despite what the ICRC asserted, the Report found explicitly that “there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise.  On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective.”

Similarly, the Report offered several reasons why the blockade and land closures are separate and distinct, which are worth repeating in their entirety:

First, we note that the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted. In particular, the tightening of border controls between Gaza and Israel came about after the take-over of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007.  On the other hand, the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009. Second, Israel has always kept its policies on the land crossings separate from the naval blockade. The land restrictions have fluctuated in intensity over time but the naval blockade has not been altered since its imposition. Third, the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods. This was in reaction to certain incidents when vessels had reached Gaza via sea.

The Report decided to “treat the naval blockade as separate and distinct from the controls at the land crossings” based on its application of the factors listed above. While it is not necessary to agree with every part of the Report’s analysis, those who are attacking it on pseudo-legal grounds are not engaging in legal analysis, simply lawfare.