More from the Palmer report:

"Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y.305 There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara,306 although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself.307 Any “humanitarian supplies” were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage.308 The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni,309 and the Challenger I.310 There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.
90. There is a further issue. No adequate port facilities exist in Gaza capable of receiving vessels of the size of the Mavi Marmara.311 It appears that arrangements had been made to offload the cargo onto smaller vessels at sea,312 which no doubt would be awkward and inefficient. Yet the flotilla rejected offers to unload any essential humanitarian supplies at other ports and have them delivered to Gaza by land.313 These offers were made even during the voyage.314 The conclusion that the primary objective of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity by attempting to breach the blockade is further reinforced by material before the Panel that suggests that a reception for the flotilla had been arranged by Hamas.315
91. It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey.316 Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a “hardcore group” of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul.317 The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as “cleaning and maintenance personnel” who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening.318 The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage 319 and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH “like a security guard.”320
92. People may, of course, freely express their views by peaceful protest. But to deliberately seek to breach a blockade in a convoy with a large number of passengers is in the view of the Panel a dangerous and reckless act. It involves exposing a large number of individuals to the risk that force will be used to stop the blockade and people will be hurt.
93. It was foreseeable to the flotilla organizers as it was to the Turkish Government that there was a possibility of force being used against the ships to enforce the blockade. While the level of lethal force that was actually used may have been unforeseen, the organizers did anticipate that there would be an altercation with Israeli forces. The Panel is concerned that not enough was done to inform the participants in the flotilla (including the almost 600 passengers on the Mavi Marmara) of the risks of personal injury that the journey may have involved. While the document the passengers signed before embarking on the ship did indicate some of the risks involved, such as arrest, there was no indication that violence was a risk despite the fact that the possibility of it was reasonably foreseeable.321 From this experience lessons can be learned and we will expand on this point in the next chapter where we analyse how to avoid such occurrences in the future.
94. The flotilla was a non-governmental endeavour, involving vessels and participants from a number of countries.
95. Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."