Israel’s request in Haaretz:
Israel on Wednesday asked a number of senior members of the Obama administration to assist in curbing the international fallout from the Goldstone Commission report released this week, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. . .
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised the issue Wednesday with U.S. special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, while Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon discussed it with U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and other senior officials.
And the US response as reported by Reuters:
The United States has "serious concerns" about a U.N. investigator’s report accusing Israel and Palestinians of war crimes during their Gaza war, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations said on Thursday.
"The United States is reviewing very carefully what is a very lengthy document," Ambassador Susan Rice told reporters. South African jurist Richard Goldstone unveiled the report in New York this week.
"We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report," Rice said.
Also from the Reuters report:
Israel had criticized the investigation from the start and refused to cooperate with a mission whose mandate it said was "clearly one-sided." Both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas rejected the 575-page document. . .
Rice said the Human Rights Council’s approach to the Gaza war investigation was deeply flawed.
"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-side and basically unacceptable," she said.
Although it looks like Rice will help stonewall the recommendations from the Goldstone report at the UN, she still claims the US wants to move forward the peace process:
Rice said the focus should be the future.
"This is a time to work to cement progress toward the resumption of (Israeli-Palestinian peace) negotiations and their early and successful conclusion," she said.
Why am I not optimistic?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 35 comments }
Because Rice et al are just earning a paycheck, aware of heavy Zionist influence on Uncle Sam.
If you think this is incredible wait till you read this…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115017.html
The report is a partial whitewash…and still it has to be condemned!!
Actually, Gellian, I think the daughter’s comments were helpful on balance. It gave legitimacy to Judge Goldstone — that he could be critical of Israel, even though his daughter lives there and he is a supporter of the state. It shows impartiality (and courage!).
A post on Mondo in another article’s comments section made the excellent point that because Hamas was included as engaging in “war crimes” in Gaza, it was impossible for the government to dismiss the investigation as focused solely on Israel.
It’s possible that Susan Rice is just giving some cover in response to Israeli Likudnik caterwauling about a biased UN report . . . let’s give it a few more days to see how it plays out.
However, if Rice follows through, stating that the Goldstone Report is illegitimate, then Obama can kiss Arab support goodbye, and fold up the rickety tent on his efforts to bring peace to the I/P situation. It would be a complete repudiation of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.
Oscar wrote:
“However, if Rice follows through, stating that the Goldstone Report is illegitimate, then Obama can kiss Arab support goodbye, and fold up the rickety tent on his efforts to bring peace to the I/P situation. It would be a complete repudiation of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.”
I don’t think Obama *can* “fold up the rickety tent on his efforts to bring peace” simply because the U.S. has always *had* to have at least *some* ability to claim—no matter how ridiculous that claim is in light of its long history of subsidizing same—that no, it doesn’t support Israeli territorial aggression. So in a sense it doesn’t really matter if it’s clear that his efforts will or will not “bring peace,” it’s the pretext that matters.
But that last sentence about how if the U.S. runs interference for Israel as regards this Goldstone matter it will be a “complete repudiation” of Obama’s Cairo speech is very keenly and deeply observed.
Obama has been flirting with that repudiation already by playing footsie on the issue of continued settlement building. But people—and even the arab world—have been willing to wait and see. If however he now does run interference against Goldstone for most if not all intents and purposes I think that will be the ball-game. Not that Obama won’t continue to claim otherwise; again every U.S. President has simply had to pretend that they don’t support Israel permanently occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But it will be the death-knell for anyone arguing that Obama is serious about it, much less serious about “starting over” with the arab/moslem world from a “new day” perspective.
Kind of funny how circumstances so starkly conspired to put Obama to the test of his own words so quickly and unambiguously. But nobody forced him to utter those words.
Dismaying how quickly it was after Israel announced that it was going to run to Big Brother for cover on this that there’s Rice providing same. My bet is that Obama is indeed going to cave on this and provide all the cover and interference necessary too; the one thing that the Israelis and their partisans just can’t seem to abide is the idea that Israel isn’t morally spotless. Call ‘em land thieves and they say no no no with a smile. But compare ‘em to everyone else morally and that’s a blood libel.
Also funny the reaction in Israel: Despite obviously running for Big Brother to prevent its officials or soldiers from possibly being charged for war crimes what do we hear from Israel also? An immediate column in Haaretz accusing the U.S. of having done in Iraq and/or Afghanistan the same thing Israel did in Gaza and saying that if Israel is to be subject to this kind of investigation and treatment so should the U.S. (See
Now *there’s* gratitude for you! Don’tcha just love being spit in the face by the very same people who are demanding you protect them, at the very same time?
The Israelis are quite astute with this move. They know the US can’t condemn Israel without condemning itself for the same crimes.
Why do you think they get involved in these complicit issues? For a time just like this. I mean, if you really want to get technical the weapons they use come heartily from the USA.
As I said before, when Operation Cast Lead was in swing Obama did not open his mouth, and the back channels said “just get done before my Inauguration.” Now everyone is “so disappointed” (or will be) in Obama, what hogwash. Anyone with half a brain, when they saw the would be president going with hat in hand to AIPAC should have gotten the message, when he staffed his advisers and those close to him it should have been plain.
WHERE DID HE GO?
In response to my noting that some in Israel are saying that if Israel is to be subject to what Goldstone proposes the U.S. should too for waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, potsherd wrote:
“The Israelis are quite astute with this move. They know the US can’t condemn Israel without condemning itself for the same crimes.”
Except that they aren’t the same “crimes” at all. In the piece that I tried to link to (and will do so again below) there was simply the utterly dishonest ignoring of the fact that Israel isn’t being cited by Goldstone for just going to war in Gaza as the U.S. did in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead the absolutely entire basis for Goldstone’s Report was that in the “war” in Gaza certain specific intentional actions took place that meet the very technical definition of “war crimes” and/or “crimes against humanity,” period.
(That link that dissapeared in my first post is again as follows: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115242.html.)
So I don’t think it’s astute at all. Instead I think it’s simply and unbelievably both monstrously dishonest and monstrously ungrateful given that if anyone saves Israel from the Goldstone Report it will indeed by the U.S.
And again I think the U.S. will save Israel from it. Just watch the pressure Obama will be subject to towards that end. Just watch especially that pressure coming especially from the more “liberal” U.S. politicians who, ordinarily, just love the idea of airing the dirty laundry of the U.S. and having endless investigations of its alleged misdeeds and love the idea of the U.S. complying with international law and standards and etc. (As with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo for instance.) And yet now for some reason, just watch those same exact liberal politicians talk about how evil it would be to apply even a molecule of that same exact kind thinking to Israel.
In other words, the amazing spectacle of some U.S. politicians who can seem to delight in condemning the U.S. get positively apoplectic about anyone questioning Israel.
I absolutely agree that the US will ply its veto in the Security Council to support Israel and that the primary motive is the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on foreign policy.
But one shouldn’t overlook the great similarities to the war crimes of Israel in Gaza and the war crimes of the US – targeted assassinations, bombing civilians, terrorizing the civilian populations – the crimes of Blackwater in Iraq bear a particular resemblance to Israeli tactics, and not coincidentally. The primary thrust of the Goldstone report is the extent to which Israel refused to make a distinction between combatants and civilians and targeted civilians, and this is a crime of which the US is certainly guilty.
I have many times seen Israeli apologists, grasping as they do at every straw that floats past, demand “why don’t you accuse the US when they do just the same thing as Israel?” Which is of course a deflection tactic, but the problem is – the charge sticks. And I think it does contribute to the US refusal to acknowledge Israeli war crimes, for the same reason, that the US doesn’t want to see its own personnel subject to international criminal prosecution. Acknowledging Israeli war crimes and the legitimacy of international prosecution would definitely be sending a signal that US crimes are no longer off-limits, and that is what the exceptionalist US will never accept.
An immediate column in Haaretz accusing the U.S. of having done in Iraq and/or Afghanistan the same thing Israel did in Gaza and saying that if Israel is to be subject to this kind of investigation and treatment so should the U.S.
It is amusing how the wars this Israeli hack thinks we should go into the dock for were started and/or supported by American colonial Zionists. Also, we should not forget the Israeli role in 9/11, which led to our invasion of Afghanistan. At the very least, elements of their government knew it was going to happen and did nothing but stand by and laugh and cheer while Americans were being murdered. Read the link, people, and read the articles linked within it.
The High-Fivers
I’m all for accountability. The judicial nooses, however, should be going around neocon necks, not the guys in the field who signed up to defend America and have ended up having to kill and die to make the world safe for Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization.
Adding to my previous comment – we can’t forget that the US supplies arms Israel and is thereby directly complicit in its crimes. Even Congress had to mutter and mumble something about the use of white phosphorus. Recall how, after the Lebanon massacre, Israel came shopping to the US weapons store to restock for another round in Gaza.
For every Israeli war crime, the US can be called an accessory.
What the US government can do, as many military personnel already do, is agree that there is no reason to continue the current wars.
To do so will require great courage and great strength – and that’s why it is so necessary for us to continue to speak out, so they know we have their back.
The more things change the more they remain the same.
http://dir.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/08/01/south_africa/index.html
AIPAC is summoning its minions, and like good minions, they are all chiming into the chorus.
Just in case there was any doubt about Zionist influence on the US government.
I have no idea whether Susan Rice’s comments represent the official US response to the report. Maybe so, maybe not.
But, Israel has already stuck it to Obama in terms of opposing any settlement freeze in East Jerusalem, or any meaningful freeze in the OT.
Given that, one must wonder what leverage at all exists on the Israeli front to influence US policy regarding the report.
There seems to be no quid pro quo mentality–at all–regarding the Israeli administration.
Quid – the US does Israel’s bidding
Quo – the US does Israel’s bidding
There is a path of accountability for a state to held responsible for adjudicated war crimes, whereas there is no path for Hamas to be accountable.
Are you going to ask Hamas to pay a fine?
Thankfully, they’ve already stopped shelling.
An individual can be tried for murder or war crimes or whatever legal term one wants to use, whether or not they represent a state. Anyway, your concern for justice is hypocritical as usual–Israel has often put Palestinians in jail, allegedly for terrorist activities, often simply for political activities. And the West has no problem putting terrorists on trial, or rather, putting alleged terrorists in prison for an indefinite period of time with no trial at all. We also engage in selective prosecutions of rulers of defeated countries.
What has never happened, though, is the prosecution of high-ranking officials of a “democratic” Western country which has engaged in war crimes. Bush and his cronies don’t seem in too much danger of having their day in court. (If I recall correctly, you’re happy about that). I think it would set a good precedent if we could start bring both Americans and Israelis to justice, thereby demonstrating that war crimes trials are not just for the weak.
I am strongly considering just answering you with explicative. Why should Hamas be responsible for Israel’s massacres? How would they pay when they are subject to pauperism by Israeli policies? Why do you ask these kinds of strange questions Mr. Nitwitty?
“Thankfully, they’ve already stopped shelling.”
Indeed! And all it took was for at least 140 Palestinians die for ever Israeli killed for the duration of Operation Cast Lead.
Seriously. You make me sick.
This appears to be a huge dilemma for the US. If they accept the report, it will likely lead to diplomatic disaster for the Israelis, with war crimes trials in the Hague and/or numerous potential defendants unable to visit many countries for fear of arrest and prosecution. The US is no doubt very anxious to avoid that, but how can it reject the Goldstone report with any credibility?
So far, it looks like they are reverting to the original January mandate – investigate Israel only – as a reason for doing so, while ignoring the April modification to investigate all sides, a change Goldstone insisted on before signing on. First, Susan Rice stalls for time: “The United States is reviewing very carefully what is a very lengthy document.” Then, she invokes the original one-sided mandate: “We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the Council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable.” Then she carefully voices “concerns” but not outright rejection of the report: “We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report.” The, she says: “We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view.” I’m not sure what that means – keep it out of the International Criminal Court, perhaps? Finally, Rice resorts to the Obama mantra of looking to the future and not punishing the difficult-to-punish crowd for the past transgressions: “And most importantly our view is that we need to be focused on the future. This is a time to work to cement progress towards the resumptions of negotiations and their early and successful conclusion and our efforts, and we hope the efforts of others, will be directed to that end.”
We’ve already heard that the commission interviewed only Palestinian sources and not Israeli officials (who refused to cooperate). When will we start hearing how the report is 96% critical of Israel and only 4% critical of Hamas? What else will they think of to make sure this report becomes another meaningless footnote in history? I’m sure they’re working on it right this minute. Will the US be enough to diplomatically protect Israel? I’d like to be optimistic that Israel will not be able to avoid any consequences this time, but I’m not.
That’s a very nice bit of information and analysis David. At the end though while you say you think Israel will be able to avoid any consequences you don’t say one way or another whether you think Obama will run interference for the Israelis so as to bring that about. I’d be interested in your thinking as to same. Very very true that it seems a tough issue for the U.S., esp. after Obama’s Cairo speech, but geez, Rice sure seemed to have been allowed to spring to Israel’s defense also damned fast, no?
The importance of accountability is change in behavior, not revenge.
My feeling is that Israel needs to change its behavior in many respects, including the specific accusations in the report, which I assume includes incidental and systemic concerns of military adherence to the laws of warfare.
My feeling is that Hamas also needs to change its behavior, in particular the decision to then unilaterally rocket fire on civilians, and escalate that.
Hamas has changed for the last couple months, and in response Israel in kind stayed on its side of the border.
Look again at the news reports, of Israel killing Palestinian farmers on their own land in Gaza and Palestinian fishermen at sea.
You are aware that the shelling and shooting at Palestinians in fishing boats and at farms along the border on the Gaza side continue to this day, right? That apparently to Israel “unilateral ceasefire” means that F-16 bombing runs become a weekly occurrence instead of a daily one?
Colin Murray, says, Also, we should not forget the Israeli role in 9/11, which led to our invasion of Afghanistan.
Did you get this propaganda from Mohammad Atta’s suitcase?
You quote some radical liar who has as much credibility as Tawana Brawley.
You probably also believe 4000 Jews didn’t show up at the World Trade Center.
You probably believe the Jews killed JFK, Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
I read a good article about nut jobs like you.
http://www.newint.org/issue372/zog.htm
Zog ate my Brains
Conspiracy theories about Jews abound.
Chip Berlet unpacks their appeal.
But you see anti-semites behind every bush, doesn’t that make you a conspiracy theorist?
response to Ed, part 1
I can see where you might view the article with suspicion. Most of the critical links are either broken or had the content removed leaving a stub. The latter happened to Fox News’ (hardly an anti-Israeli organization) Carl Cameron’s four part series on Israel and 9–11. It was up, then just stubs were left. I have no idea if the stubs are still there, but you can find rips of all four on youtube.
60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept. 11, Government Calls Several Cases ‘of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks, Investigation By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, November 23, 2001; Page A22
U.S. Deports Israelis Detained on Sept. 11: Diplomats Pitched In for Five Movers Caught in Anti-Terror in Anti-Terror Sweep, Cattan, Nacha, Forward, 11-23-2001
What did Israel know in advance of the 9-11 attacks?, Christopher Ketcham, Counterpunch
I do not blame the entire Israeli government for the role its operatives played in 9-11, which was almost certainly a passive one, of standing by with foreknowledge and letting it happen because their bosses, extremist elements in the Israeli intelligence community, thought that it would be good for Israel. I certainly don’t blame the Israeli people, and I think the notion that ‘the Jews’ were behind it is a facile anti-semitic slur. It may be shocking to you, but I don’t blame you either. :)
Did you get this propaganda from Mohammad Atta’s suitcase?
Aspects of this story are documented from many credible sources, including the American Jewish and Israeli press. I used to believe it was conspiracy nonsense, too. There is always wild nonsense floating around after complex events. Unfortunately, too many data for this story continue to stand up to reasonable scrutiny.
You quote some radical liar who has as much credibility as Tawana Brawley.
Exactly which source in the story do you think is a liar, or do you think the author is a liar?
You probably also believe 4000 Jews didn’t show up at the World Trade Center.
No, I do not. There isn’t a shred of credible evidence to support that claim.
response to Ed, part 2
You probably believe the Jews killed JFK, Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
No, I do not. Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support any of these claims, there is ample evidence to thoroughly disprove them.
I read the ZOG article. I agree with everything Mr. Berlet says. He correctly denounces the notion that there is a some eternal nefarious ‘Jewish Lobby’ pulling the strings behind world events. However, he leaves out the massive evidence that there is an Israeli Lobby in the United States, the current leadership of which is comprised of extreme pro-colonization Zionists whose policies are stunningly detrimental to the United States, and also to Israel.
Their facilitation of opened-ended support of Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization has already ensured that in several decades there will not be a Jewish state, the continued existence of which I supported when there was a chance in hell of a stable two-state solution. One objective of some moderate Zionist supporters of Israeli, e.g. J-Street, that I support very strongly is a change in Lobby leadership. I think moderate leaders will be critical in ensuring that whatever state succeeds the current quasi-theocratic government continues to provide the function of a safe haven for Jews. If there is no justice for Palestinians with commensurate drawdown of hostility between Jewish and Arab peoples in the region, Israeli Jews might be queuing up at ports and airports after the first war that Israel loses. Everybody loses wars eventually. Tiny nations face the prospect of occupation, and sooner or later the regional nuclear balance will change, and their nukes won’t save them.
If you want to learn about the Lobby and understand this major aspect of where people like me are coming from, I suggest you read The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Here is an excerpt from Stephen Walt’s blog.
He might have invoked notorious terrorist sympathizer Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who called AIPAC “the most effective general interest group … across the entire planet,” or even former Senate Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) who told AIPAC’s annual conference that “without your constant support … the U.S.-Israeli relationship would not be.” Heck, bin Laden could even have brought up Alan Dershowitz, who once wrote that “my generation of Jews … became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fundraising effort in the history of democracy.”
V, Hamas Brags About Using Women And Children As Human Shields.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275301.html
They are probably just jealous.
see also:
–thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-kind-of-monsters-would-use-their.html
also
–vodpod.com/watch/1579256-must-see-11-year-old-girl-human-shield
–www.normanfinkelstein.com/wehrmacht-to-use-jews-as-human-shields-in-war-against-bolsheviki-bandits/
–www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Balatah_R_C__2210/Article_2566.html
–www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2124.html
–www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Palestinians_as_Israeli_Human_Sheilds_5358/Article_2874.html
–www.palestineremembered.com/images/dailymail_humanshield.jpg
(strange formatting to get around spam filter)
Man, you gots to love our country, Mom, Apple Pie, and Israel-First.
Anyone remember Hillary Clinton’s April 3, 2009 tepid criticism of Israel demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem with modified Caterpillar bulldozers? “Um, this kind of, uh, activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the ‘road map’,” Clinton said, referring to the long-stalled peace plan.
Unhelpful.
Now, compare that to the fist-shaking rage of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, in referring to the Goldstone Report: “The United States is reviewing very carefully what is a very lengthy document. We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided, and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report.”
So let’s do what MTV calls a “mash-up” of Clinton and Rice. An imaginary Reuters story:
Immediately following the news of the home demolitions in East Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton told reporters: “The United States is reviewing very carefully what occurred in East Jerusalem. We have long expressed our very serious concern with the activities of home demolitions in East Jerusalem and the Israelis’ policies in this matter, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided, and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about the ongoing blockade and deprivation of basic human rights in Palestine.”
Instead, we get a mumbled “unhelpful.”
Sin Nombre – My impression is that Obama would like to see this thing disappear but is trying to figure out how to do it. That’s why I find Rice’s remarks, no doubt fully endorsed by Obama, negative but tentative. If it were Bush, they’d be indicating right away that the report belongs in the trash heap. I don’t think Obama is clueless at all; his past association with people like Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said must have rubbed off on him somewhat. But he would like to forge an acceptable solution without being too hard on anyone and without pissing off the powerful. The bottom line is, I really don’t have any more of an idea what he’ll do than you have. I do think that he will try to keep a tight rein on everyone who speaks about this, so Rice, and perhaps Clinton, will be authorized to say what they say. Everyone except Biden. There’s no controlling that guy, except to insist that he shut up.
David:
Well, since you wrote this I note that State Dept. spokesperson Ian Kelly has gone much further than Rice in saying that Goldstone was “unfair” to Israel by “concentrating on it so much” so the running of intereference for it by the U.S. has gotten a helluva lot less tentative. See:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115659.html
But I was amused to see that your previous musing about what Rice might have meant by keeping this in the proper “venue” was just *absolutely* spot on. From that Haaretz article again:
“Kelly said Friday that the United States wanted to keep discussion of the
report within the council and had very serious concerns about a recommendation that it be raised at other bodies, including the International Criminal Court.”
(I.e., good call dude.)
In any event given Kelly’s formal State Dept. statement now it seems to me the answer is in, and, taking off from Oscar’s very smart observation Obama may as well have come out and said that he was just kidding in his Cairo speech. Despite the probable frantic attempts to bribe or cajol Abbas to meet with Netanyahu and Obama at the upcoming U.N. meeting I suspect that ain’t gonna happen. And all this foolish excitement about Obama’s new peace initiative over there is now gonna go by the wayside as we hear the non-too-gentle sound of belief in Obama’s balloon justifiably go hissing away in the arab and moslem world.
The ball’s now in the arab court and as is typical I suspect we are just waiting for the next explosion over there when the Palestinian population makes itself heard.
Just dumbfounds me why Obama would do this to himself. After all it’s not even as if he was in the position of having to change something he was already doing; all he had to do was to say and do *nothing*. And yet despite that ability for no obvious reason whatsoever here he has his minions go out and put the lie to his Cairo speech which had hardly even stopped reverberating in the microphones, when at the very least he could have just waited and used the leverage to try and get Netanyahu to stop the expansion of the settlements. Instead, for free, and with Netanyahu’s thumb still firmly in his eye over same, here he goes and smears himself with insincerity, and at the same time has Clinton hammer at the Iranians despite essentially admitting they are no threat via stopping the deployment of those missiles in Eastern Europe. (And despite Ehud Barak now coming out and admitting Iran is no existential threat to Israel even.)
Mystifying. Like some case of voluntary castration the man has simply thrown his credibility out the window. If I were the Republicans I would be smiling into my sleeve knowing that this was a man who is all words who can be rolled with the greatest of ease.
That hissing sound is likely not going to be confined to the arab world I don’t think. And Mr. Obama may well go down as not only coming into office not only with perhaps the greatest of public hopes that any modern President has ever had, but also then of having destroyed what hopes the public had in him faster than any other modern President too.
What a spectacle.
Comments on this entry are closed.