Covering its right flank, J Street says that it is working against the Goldstone report in Congress. But neocons say that J Street is quietly working to scuttle the House resolution against the Goldstone report. Certainly J Street’s friend, Peace Now, has come out against the House resolution, saying Israel should conduct an investigation of Gaza, and semi-dissing the Goldstone report.
Here is Judge Goldstone’s response to the House Resolution (thx to Goldfarb). You have to refer to resolution to understand his points.
Here are some comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors:
1. Paragraph 3: That is why I and others refused the original mandate – it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: ". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 20089, whether before, during or after". That mandate clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report with that mandate that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.
2. Paragraph 4: This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
3. Paragraph 5: The member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.
4. Paragraph 6: The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. That is factually incorrect. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.
5. Paragraph 7: This too is factually incorrect. The mandate that had been rejected was the one I rejected. Mary Robinson, for example, has written in support of the mandate given to and accepted by me.
6. Paragraph 9: The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor and not against the interests of Israel. I do not consider that it is fair or just to label the findings as "sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations".
7. Paragraph 11: What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law and that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context.
8. Paragraph 12: It is again factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.
9. Paragraph 13: This is the first suggestion that I have come across to the effect that we should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. It was simply not on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.
10. Paragraph 14: This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.
11.Paragraph 16: Again, this is an unfair and selective quotation taken our of context.
12. Paragraph 17: That Hamas was able to shape the findings or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth and I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.
Related posts:
- House weighs bill to condemn Goldstone for giving ammo to ‘enemies of the democratic Jewish state’
- There’s nothing you can do about it. Well actually, you can support the Goldstone report
- Let Goldstone testify in Congress before you rush to judgment
- Goldstone co-author: The court of world opinion is determined to see the report prevail
- Ask and you shall receive: the US appears willing to help Israel stonewall the Goldstone report
{ 15 comments }
HR 867 is simply a pack of lies.
This doesn’t seem to concern AIPAC and its bought puppets in Congress.
HERE http://www.supportgoldstone.org/ is a petition from Jewish Voices for Peace.
What the hell is the point of J-Street if the only good they do is “supposed” and “rumored” and crap like that? I think I’m going to withdraw even my faint optimism about J Street. They’re going to be as spectacular a failure as the Obama Administration for exactly the same reason.
J Street is starting to remind me more and more of Hillary prior to the 2008 elections and Joe Lieberman.
Hillary was supposedly Democratic, but her platform was mostly Republican light. Joe Lieberman went from being a Democrat, to being an Independent and now he’s threatening to side with the Republicans over some Health reform issue.
Eeep. It’s not a pretty thought — Joe Lieberman being the precedent for J Street. Lieberman wasn’t exactly good for the American Left — he didn’t play a positive role as as Vice Presidential candidate in Gore’s presidential run. (Imagine how different things would be if Gore had won the election — oh wait, he did. Imagine if he’d been President, anyway.)
Democrat in name only, and not even that any more. Is it bad that I’m now musing about when J Street’s Lieberman moment might hit us?
Spencer Ackerman reported today that J Street would oppose the resolution in the House, but J Street chief Jeremy Ben-Ami has also said his organization “refuses to embrace” the Goldstone report. But it seems that certain elements of J Street have indeed embraced Goldstone and his report. Upon further inspection of the Goldstone letter, the actual author seems to be Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros’s Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded here. (A check of the file’s “properties” reveals the author as Morton H. Halperin.)
Jeezus, talk about your international intrigue. Morton Halperin, an American advisor to a private lobbying organization, drafts a letter for a South African appointed by the UN to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza by the Israelis, to be presented to the US Congress?
In any event, ‘hats off’ to Morty. And are we already seeing the signs of a struggle for control of the ’soul’ of J Street? Given its potential for influence, you gotta know that the knives are out.
Maybe it is not an intrigue. Maybe Mr. Halperin watched al-Jazeera, was shaken to the core by the Gaza massacre, and, upon reading Goldstone report, decided that a man must sometimes endanger one’s career to be true to his human values.
Eva, you are an optimist.
And, what is the exact wording of the resolution?
The Americans for Peace Now approach is the right one.
The wording of the House resolution was more misrepresentative than the Goldstone report that it criticizes.
Hey guys, check out this guy’s argument.
He goes from asking about the exact wording of the resolution – therefore implying that he hasn’t read it – to using the resolution in criticizing the Goldstone report, which he hasn’t read either.
How does someone like that interact with the reality around him?
Oh that’s easy, he doesn’t.
Well, lets see. The argument by RW against the Goldstone report went something like, it didn’t do a statistical sample of Israeli attacks civilians or civilian structures or food supplies during the offensive, therefore, it was erroneous to conclude that Israel intentionally killed any unarmed civilians or intentionally destroyed any civilian structures or targetted the food supply. The Goldstone investigators, had they done such a statistical sample, would have concluded that Israel was innocent, its hands clean as a whistle, and all those kids incinerated by white phospherous bombs, well, they were militant kids like the Israeli army t-shirt shows, although in fact they only joined the militant resistance after they were dead.
I read the resolution, and saw the Goldstone interview and read his NY Times op-ed.
I assumed that his two presentations accurately summarized his views, intentions, conclusions.
How many of you have read the report, all of it?
Can you drop the character assassination as commentary. It makes this site look more like a lynch mob.
Witty: “How many of you have read the report, all of it?”
I did, Witty. You remind me of the Grand Inquistor in Fyodor Dostoevyski’s novel , the Bros Karamazov. We know your answer to a single Palestinian baby’s tears. You could be a jesuit, Inquisitor, except you are even worse since you are ethnocentric.
Comments on this entry are closed.