Judge Richard Goldstone’s mea culpa in the Washington Post today is indeed “confusing and potentially damaging,” as Adam Horowitz writes.
Key findings in the U.N. report–that “Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians” in eleven incidents examined in detail and that Israel destroyed civilian infrastructure like the Sawafeary chicken farm in a systematic and deliberate fashion–is muddied up by Goldstone’s claim that “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
Even granting the claim that the incidents his team investigated, now with the circumstances “explained” through Israeli military investigations, do not indicate that civilians were targeted, there is a documented history of Israel doing just that. And it wasn’t just during the Gaza assault.
The so-called “Dahiya doctrine” was used during the 2006 war on Lebanon. In a February 2009 report, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel explained:
In the beginning of October 2008, the Commanding Officer of the IDF’s Northern Command, Maj. General Gadi Eisenkott, gave an interview to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, in which he unveiled what he called the “Dahiye Doctrine”: ‘What happened in the Dahiye Quarter of Beirut in 2006, will happen in every village from which shots are fired on Israel. We will use disproportionate force against it and we will cause immense damage and destruction. From our point of view these are not civilian villages but military bases.
This is not a recommendation, this is the plan, and it has already been authorized.’
According the Dahiye Doctrine, Israel will achieve deterrence not by attacking individual rocket launchers, but rather by using disproportionate force which will influence the behaviour of its opponents…
According to the doctrine, massive destruction is a necessary element for creating deterrence. The damage must be done not only to military installations, or explained by concrete military necessity, but must include civilian infrastructure so that reconstruction will be expensive and time consuming
This deliberate doctrine leads to the deaths of civilians and civilian infrastructure. The Lebanon war “resulted in at least 1,109 Lebanese deaths, the vast majority of whom were civilians, 4,399 injured, and an estimated 1 million displaced,” according to a Human Rights Watch report. Various other reports–this Human Rights Watch report, testimonies from Breaking the Silence and many others–document Israel’s policy of targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
In the Gaza Strip, civilians are routinely shot at and sometimes killed if they step into the so-called “buffer zone,” which constitutes some 35 percent of the Strip’s arable land. An October 2010 report by Defense of Children International states:
Between 26 March and 14 October 2010, DCI-Palestine documented 14 cases of children shot whilst collecting building gravel near the border fence between Gaza Strip and Israel. Due to a severe lack of job opportunities and a shortage of construction material entering Gaza from Israel, hundreds of men and boys scavenge for building gravel amongst the destroyed buildings close to the border fence. The gravel is collected into sacks, loaded onto donkey drawn carts and sold to builders for use in concrete. Children can earn up to 50 shekels (US $13) per day which is used to help support their families. Reports indicate that Israeli soldiers on duty in the observation towers which line the border between Gaza and Israel frequently fire warning shots to scare workers away from the border region. Reports also indicate that these soldiers sometimes shoot and kill the donkeys used by the workers, and also target the workers, usually, but not always, shooting at their legs. In the cases documented by DCI-Palestine, the children report being shot whilst working between 50 to 800 metres from the border fence.
A separate U.N. study on the “buffer zone” reports:
Since the end of the “Cast Lead” offensive in January 2009, the Israeli army has also killed a total of 22 civilians and injured another 146 in these circumstances.
The examples are endless, but what they make clear is that the Israeli persecution of Palestinians documented in the Goldstone report and numerous other sources was not confined to “Operation Cast Lead.” Goldstone’s “reconsideration” in the Post today doesn’t change the documented history.
Alex Kane, a freelance journalist and blogger, writes on Israel/Palestine and Islamophobia in the U.S. at alexbkane.wordpress.com, where this post originally appeared. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.
Colonel Gadaffi and his regime are going to be investigated by the International Criminal Court apparently. Well why not Israel? What difference is Gaddafi’s shelling and bombing of the people of Libya who are uprising against him any different than Israel’s constant onslaught on the Palestinians over decades including Cast Lead?
Petersz,
Gaddafi has claimed that he’s only doing wha Israel does.
I’m not wholly against the Libyan intervention – I was relieved to think that there would be no massacre in Benghazi – but it does seem that this time we are – for good or ill – encouraging the Shabaab, people who may have democratic intentions but are without uniforms, military discipline or any obvious political control and who shoot, often wildly, at anyone who opposes them or who they think opposes them. If Gaddafi’s activities bear comparison with Israel’s the other side’s activities bear comparison with those of organisations that we have loudly denounced as terrorists. A lot, perhaps too much for comfort, seems to depend on the ultimate rightness of the cause.
If the International Criminal Court would actually apply their alleged standards across the board…Gaddafi would have to get in line behind Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith etc. Why do they keep turning their heads away from the pile of dead and injured bodies in Iraq that are a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion?
“Colonel Gadaffi and his regime are going to be investigated by the International Criminal Court apparently. Well why not Israel?”
Because Israel is part of the old boys club, and these institutions are used to only prosecute the weak and those who do not tow the line of Western dominance. That is the short answer, to see it more fully explicated –
“Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.”
GAZA: THE LOGIC OF COLONIAL POWER
I have lost count as to the number of times I have posted this. There is no justice or level playing field in the application of force and prosecution used by these institutions.
“Goldstone’s “reconsideration” in the Post today doesn’t change the documented history.”
No, it doesn’t. But his “reconsideration” is an obvious example of how pernicious dual loyalty can be. Morally. Ethically. And apparently, now, judicially.
None of the other authors of the report are contradicting it. And there were other authors.
It was a mistake to name this report after Goldstone. As if he were single-handedly responsible. I guess any Zionist is susceptible to being blackmailed. Or bought off. We’ll have to remember that for future reference.
Absolute corruption.
The official name is “The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” its just become popularly known as the Goldstone Report which is incorrect as its the work of other people not just Goldstone.
I think so many of us were impressed by Goldstone’s ability to base his opinions and decisions on the facts on the ground and not on his love for Israel. Able to separate his emotions from his intellect. The Goldstone Report lined up with what Amnesty , Israeli soldiers, and others were saying about Cast Lead.
Remember Israel kept the international press out.
Chaos–your point about the other authors is well taken… Of course, the main author was Goldstone, and to make matters worse, he is Jewish and a Zionist, while his co-authors are not. Goldstone is going to be deservedly pilloried for his reversal, and this will be even worse for the Israelis because it will reopen the whole war crimes business once again in a most public manner.
“None of the other authors of the report are contradicting it. And there were other authors.”
Will be interesting to see if they retract. Still think we should all contact our Reps and ask for a hearing on the report.
Concerning Israel and Gaza, this statement appeared in today’s ‘NYT’:
“Israel fought a three-week offensive against Hamas in Gaza in 2008-9 as a response to years of rocket fire.”
link to nytimes.com
This is why I would never pay money to help perpetuate the Times or The Washington Post.
Also, today’s Times has a review by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kirchner (the deadly Israeli duo) of Goldstone’s op-ed in WaPo. I think you know what to expect. More hasbara.
link to nytimes.com
At least they called it an “offensive.” I’m sure they would have called it a “defensive” if they could.
The timing of that attack was so calculated. End of Bush administration beginning of Obama’s. What timing
Yet another Mondopiece that fails to mention Hamas war crimes.
Alex, here’s a straightforward question. In the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict how many of the two sides have committed war crimes?
Why do you and so many other commentators choose to blame only one of the two sides?
GuiltyFeat – the debate is around Israel’s war crimes since that is what is being denied. Hamas’ war crimes are completely obvious and have been pointed out again and again by the Goldstone Report, Human Rights Watch, Btselem and anyone else who investigated the war. There is no point in just repeating what everyone agrees on.
The debate is between those who think both sides committed war crimes, and those who exonerate the Israeli army.
Tom, I don’t agree at all that that’s what the debate here is about.
I’m an Israeli, I believe my country has committed war crimes. I am not trying to exonerate the Israeli army, and yet I am constantly being argued with by people who expressly DO NOT believe that Hamas committed war crimes.
I don’t think chaos4700 or seafoid or taxi any number of commenters here believes that “both sides committed war crimes”. Just ask them and they will refuse to answer and blame Israel for the crimes of both sides.
I’m willing to hold my own government accountable for their crimes. No one here is calling for accountability from Hamas. That’s the key point in Goldstone’s op-ed. Israel, however cackhandedly, is investigating the claims against it. Hamas isn’t and no one is saying a word.
>> I’m willing to hold my own government accountable for their crimes. No one here is calling for accountability from Hamas.
Not no one. I have called – and I continue to call – for accountability from all guilty parties on both sides.
(link to mondoweiss.net)
The first step, however, is for Israel to halt all ON-GOING aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. It can do so unilaterally, immediately and completely. There’s no reason for it not to…unless it simply doesn’t want to.
Guilty, with all due respect, this isn’t about you. Tom made a valid point, that Israel is the only party denying that it deliberately targeted civilians. Whether an anonymous blogger called GuiltyFeat believes that it did is entirely without significance. Israel has vigorously challenged your acceptance of responsibility on behalf of your country. Goldstone has now stated his misgivings about the report’s accusations against Israel, and when Alex Kane defends the report’s original conclusions, you attribute the reasonable focus of this article as the usual bias of a “mondopiece.”
There may be some on this website who refuse to condemn Hamas rockets. I do not, by the way, which by your logic renders your complaint flawed. However, I and many others recognize that when you compare Hamas rockets with Israeli firepower directed at Gaza and other places, or even the madness and brutality of the Occupation on a good day when no one is killed, Israeli crimes are much much worse. See Avi’s comparison below.
While you don’t explicitly say it, you certainly imply that there is some sort of rough equivalence between both sides’ “war crimes.” For someone who claims to hold his country responsible for its crimes, do you really think they are comparable to rockets from Hamas and every other Palestinian group, or did you not intend to make that comparison?
Sadly (for me as an Israeli), I do indeed make that comparison. The difference, as Goldstone clearly states, is intentionality.
Israel commits war crimes by failing through negligence to prevent the tragic deaths of civilians and civilian children. Israel did not do enough to stop these deaths from occurring. No Israeli soldier has ever woken up in the morning and declared today will be a good day if I kill Palestinian children.
On the other side, the militant wing of Hamas commits war crimes by using all means within its (admittedly feeble) arsenal to kill as many civilians as possible. These men are under direct orders to murder as many children as possible. That they are consistently unable to fulfill their murderous desires should not exonerate them in any way.
The net result of these war crimes is that Israel has killed more children and civilians. There is no honor in this. Israelis take no pride in this grisly and brutal truth.
Intentionality does not bring back the children that we have killed, but I believe, and I think Goldstone believes it also, that it is a key differentiator between the leadership of the two sides.
If Hamas were to acquire more powerful weapons tomorrow, do you believe they would not use them against Israeli civilians?
You keep repeating the same line over and over. It’s as though you are trying to convince yourself that you are an Israeli.
Pardon me, GF, but I did not realize you are living in a fantasy world in which Israel kills only through negligence rather than intent. I thought that you honestly recognized that Israel deliberately kills civilians when it feels it is in its interest to do so, but only thought that the other sides’ crimes must always be mentioned as well. Do you deny that Israel ever killed civilians with intent – say, Deir Yassin in 1948, Qibya in 1953, Lebanon in 1982 and 1993, to offer a ridiculously short list – or do admit those events but believe that Israel has outgrown that tendency and now kills civilians only through negligence?
If Hamas were to acquire Israel’s arsenal, I see no reason to believe that it would use it less justifiably than Israel. In fact, it might use its precision weaponry to attack only Israeli military. Who knows? That option is not available to them now, and while I cannot condone attacks on civilians, Israel’s are deserving of far more condemnation.
Why would I need to do that?
Avi, gever, it’s your obsession, not mine.
If Hamas were to acquire more powerful weapons, Israel might be compelled to negotiate an honest peace.
These men are under direct orders to murder as many children as possible.
where do you come up with this stuff?
This idea that Israel (Israel!) does not (as a country, as an over-arching military policy) target civilians is preposterous. Yes, Deir Yassin, noting allegations that this was not merely Menachem Begin’s group but Hagana as well, noting the parade of the survivor-captives, noting the propaganda use made of it, and especially noting that Begin become prime minister later, with no noticeable Israeli criticism. No criticism, over all.
More generally, Israeli criticism of Mavi Marmara and Gaza were, how could we do it better, not how could we prevent war crimes.
A long history of crimes against civilians coupled with a zero-history of investigation and punishment of soldiers and police for crimes against civilians together mark a “policy” at the highest level. It doesn’t have to be in print. (Who expects to see a printed directive, “Now hear this! All Israeli soldiers are expected to shoot Palestinian civilians and bomb their houses, mercilessly!”) But we did have quotes from rabbis and others, to the effect that Jews (Israelis) were to preserve Jewish life at whatever cost to non-Jewish life.
I believe that the Israeli doctrine of destroying any village from which shots were fired (such a village will be regarded by Israeli troops as a terrorist group, and no longer as innocent civilians) is a convenient re-definition that allows/requires Israeli soldiers to target civilians but to call what they are doing “acts of war against terrorists” and not “war crimes”, and the few investigations carried out and reported upon seem to bear this out. Please correct me if you are aware of any Israeli soldiers being punished for killing civilians as punishment for “war crimes”.
From historical evidence Annie. A lot of bad things have happened before 2003.
historical evidence? this should be interesting. please provide this evidence establishing “direct orders to murder as many children as possible. “
As so many have stated Israel often if not always initiates or responds with a disproportionate amount of destructive power and
force.
“From the Fourth Geneva Convention:
“Article 53
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
“Article 50
…The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war, which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.
“Article 59
If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.””
link to crimesofwar.org
“However, all agreed that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifies how states must behave in regard to occupied territories, is the guiding instrument. That in itself presents a problem because although Israel was one of the first countries to sign on to the convention, it has never recognized the Fourth Geneva Convention’s applicability to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, arguing that the areas are “administered areas,” not “occupied territories.” However, Israel claims that it still adheres to the Fourth Convention’s humanitarian provisions especially regarding proportionate use of force and protection of civilians. Our experts help explain this complicated rationale below.
Three major issues emerge from the interviews, all of which hinge on the dynamic of the clashes.
1. Proportionality: Is the strength of Israel’s military response justified in the face of the Palestinian actions?
2. Identifying combatants: Who on the Palestinian side is using deadly force and are they intermingling with civilians, thereby exposing them to Israel’s response?
3. Collective Punishment: Are Israel’s blockades of Palestinian population centers justified for security reasons, or a form of collective punishment?
To keep the interviews focused, we concentrated only on the current clashes, although they cannot be viewed in a legal vacuum. Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in international law. Israel was born out of a United Nations declaration and the Palestinians base their claims for statehood on UN resolutions. Both sides argue their positions by pointing to treaties and agreements dating back to World War I. To present a diverse set of voices and information, we have not limited these interviews to lawyers, although prominent specialists in international law provide the core legal analy
“I’m willing to hold my own government accountable for their crimes. No one here is calling for accountability from Hamas. That’s the key point in Goldstone’s op-ed. Israel, however cackhandedly, is investigating the claims against it. Hamas isn’t and no one is saying a word.”
How are you holding your government accountable? Goldstone makes it clear that Israel did not give the investigative team access to what they needed to complete their investigation. He does not say that Hamas/Palestinians did not give the investigation access.
As Annie said in the other thread Israel has “been discredited over and over and over, they lie whenever it suits them, they spew propaganda endlessly”
How absurd was it for Goldstone and other members of that investigative team to request both Israel and Hamas self investigate?
“No Israeli soldier has ever woken up in the morning and declared today will be a good day if I kill Palestinian children.” protesters, women and men.
Israel has not been as successful as they used to be at keeping all the cameras out all of the time.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
From what I have heard directly from people who have been in the region there are lots of Israeli soldiers who will get away with as much abuse of Palestinians as they can.
remember this one
YouTube clip shows IDF soldier belly-dancing beside bound Palestinian woman
link to haaretz.com
How absurd was it for Goldstone and other members of that investigative team to request both Israel and Hamas self investigate?
That was actually a pro forma requirement to start the clock ticking. Even in cases where the Security Council refers a situation to the ICC it is inadmissible in accordance with Article 17 of the Rome Statute unless the responsible state is unwilling or unable to prosecute. The things that trigger the Court’s jurisdiction for unwillingness are:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
Wow, Kathleen. He really walked right into that one. Hasbara was much easier before the net.
“Israel commits war crimes by failing through negligence to prevent the tragic deaths of civilians and civilian children. Israel did not do enough to stop these deaths from occurring.”
Yesterday, GF, I thought you might be a sincere person who just wanted some of us to acknowledge Hamas also commits war crimes. But it turns out you’re just another shooter and crier, someone who says those nasty Arabs kill children deliberately and the Israelis only accidentally, through negligience. Sure, it was just carelessness, over and over and over again. They had no idea that dropping white phosphorus on urban areas would kill civilians–it never crossed their minds.
The idea that Israel could kill many many more Palestinians is true, but then, that’s a point that could be made about virtually every major human rights violator. There are very few bad governments who have set out to kill as many people as possible in a given group. Hitler and some others maybe. Most governments guilty of mass murder don’t go that far.
Anyway, if you shooters and criers were really sincere about your regret you’d be more honest about what your country has done. It turns out you’re just another Richard Witty. Sadly, Goldstone has joined you.
The more I read “liberal” Zionists the less hope I have there can be a peaceful settlement that will work out well for the Palestinians. If you are supposed to be the good guys, there’s basically no hope.
Hostage,
Thanks for sharing your in-depth legal knowledge of the process.
I think we should call it “Marmara doctrine”: kill people and call them terrorists. Korean navy was intercepted Chinese fishermen who resisted at least as much as Turkish activists; some Korean sailors got broken bones, but they detained the Chinese without killing anyone. Hasbara: “everybody would do the same”. No, nobody does stuff like that.
I did not read Goldstone editorial, but a key finding in the report was that it is not legal to simply classify police as the “enemy” and massacre practically unarmed policemen from the air. This is the criminal, intentionally criminal opening of Cast Lead.
“Korean navy was intercepted Chinese fishermen who resisted at least as much as Turkish activists; some Korean sailors got broken bones, but they detained the Chinese without killing anyone. “
Really? That’s not what I read.
link to boston.com
“China fishing boat capsizes in scuffle; 1 dead
In this photo released from the South Korean coast guard via Yonhap, a Chinese fishing boat is seen capsized in western South Korean waters off Gunsan, South Korea, Saturday, Dec. 18, 2010. The fishing boat capsized in a maritime scuffle with a South Korean coast guard ship trying to curb its illegal fishing activities Saturday, killing one fisherman and leaving two others missing, a South Korean official said.”
“Thu Mar 3, 9:30 pm ET
SEOUL, South Korea – South Korea’s coast guard says a Chinese fisherman and a South Korean coast guard officer are being treated at a hospital after a confrontation off South Korea’s west coast over illegal fishing.
The coast guard said Friday that it detained a Chinese fishing boat Thursday afternoon within South Korea’s exclusive economic zone in the Yellow Sea.
Officials say the Chinese crew wielded axes and hammers when the coast guard tried to inspect the boat, injuring one South Korean officer. The South Koreans opened fire, injuring a Chinese crewman in the thigh.”
And that is just a bit of the abuse that folks are fortunate enough to document and get out to the international public. I have been hearing about this kind of Israeli violence for decades from people who have witnessed it. Now some of it is clearly getting out.
What Hamas did, they certainly did not:
1. Impose an ongoing five-year siege on 1.5 million civilians.
2. Did not drop 1000 pound bombs on Israeli towns.
3. Did not militarily occupy Israel for 44 years.
4. Did not burn Israeli children with White Phosphorus.
5. Did not use limb severing, meat grinding munitions against Israelis.
6. Did not destroy 20,000 Israeli homes in less than three weeks.
7. Did not kill 6,500 Israelis over the course of 8 years.
8. Did not injure 5000 more Israelis in less than 3 weeks.
By contrast, Israel did all that to the Palestinians.
Hamas Qassam rockets vs. Israel’s 1 ton bombs
Hamas’ rockets have resulted in the death of less than 30 Israelis since the year 2000.
There is no comparison.
Moreover, Tom did not mention that Israel attacked Gaza despite Hamas abiding by a 6 months ceasefire.
Goldstone talks very clearly about intentionality, something to which you utterly refuse to relate.
How many Palestinians do you believe the IDF would have liked to have killed to achieve operational success? 1,000? 5,000? 25,000? 2,500,000? Why did they not achieve their goal?
How many Israelis do you believe Hamas would have like to have killed to achieve operational success? Why did they not achieve their goal?
I am willing to ask and answer hard questions about my government and my army. Who here is doing that for Hamas?
This report from 2002 documents the use of Dart bombs, Flechettes, against Palestinians.
After the bomb explodes in the air, 5,000 flechettes are dispersed over an area of 985 ft x 310 ft.
That is roughly the area of 6 FOOTBALL FIELDS.
One can hardly call that “targeted”.
How many human beings would have been killed had asteroid EM7 hit the Earth? A billion? Two billion? Five billion?
If a pelican lands on the back of bison, will the bison run? If not, why not?
Answer the question, Avi:
How many Israelis do you believe Hamas would have like to have killed to achieve operational success? Why did they not achieve their goal?
GuiltyFeat,
Believe it or not, there is an actual answer to your question. The answer is 2,000, and the IDF ultimately acheived about 1,400. The source is Breaking the Silence,
link to breakingthesilence.org.il
Keep in mind that for years there has been an Israeli habit of describing every Palestinian or non-violent activist as a terrorist.
“We were at the rendezvous in ***, assembled in one of the assembly halls and the battalion commander held a speech for the whole battalion. He said it was not going to be simple. He defined the operation goals: 2000 dead terrorists, not just stopping the missiles launched at (israeli) communities around the Gaza strip.”
As for Hamas, they are totally bottled up inside Gaza, and were formed in 1987 *specifically because* they are bottled up inside Gaza. Their goal is to fight back in whatever way that they can, and in this case it’s attacks on civilians with primitive missiles. Yes, it counts as a war crime violation. I put to you: if you were Hamas, how, in theory, would you fight back without a war crime violation?
And Goldstone accusing Hamas of “crimes against humanity” is insane . If somehow Hamas could take over Northern Israel and put all of its Jews on a limited calorie diet and destroy all of their industry that wouldn’t be a crime against humanity. But any homemade rockets fired by those Jews would be.
It’s a disgraceful mugging of a great man.
Thanks for that, Robert. Truly disturbing reading.
So based on this Israel had a target of 2000 terrorists. I accept your cynicism regarding the Israeli description of a terrorist.
Now what was the target for Hamas? Was it more or less than 2000? Given that Israel “intended” to kill 2000, but only killed 1400 does that show restraint? Surely they could have killed more if they had wanted to.
What about Hamas. Did they show restraint or did they try to kill as many people as possible without declaring a target figure?
“if you were Hamas, how, in theory, would you fight back without a war crime violation?”
It’s a question neither I nor you could ever hope to answer. Nevertheless, the Geneva convention is unequivocal in these matters. Hamas is a freely elected government that chooses to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians. Please bear in mind they are not alone in this. Hezbullah has committed the same war crime against Israel with bigger and better rockets and in 1991 Iraq fired Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War.
War crimes. Do you still think that only Israel’s war crimes count?
Robert,
1) Hamas are also in the West Bank and Damascus and are not just “bottled” up in Gaza.
2) How would Hamas fight back? They should attack only Israeli soldiers. There are plenty of bases around Gaza. They should aim the rockets at those bases.
Based on your question I understand that your support of international law is not based on principle. So, if the only way to fight is to commit war crimes, one should commit war crimes? Nice to know.
Robert,
Israel wanted to kill 2000 Hamas men. However, they did not fight during Cast Lead and choose mainly to hide. Therefore Israeli only killed about 800 according to Hamas sources. Your interpretation that Israel wanted to kill 2000 Palestinians in general is just false and a blood libel as Goldstone also realized.
Your interpretation that Israel wanted to kill 2000 Palestinians in general is just false and a blood libel as Goldstone also realized.
if there wasn’t so much attention paid to demographics it might be easier for me to believe there weren’t quotas and goals. but populations counts are studied scrupulously by the goi and expulsions and of citizenship withdrawn (4000 EJ residencies withdrawn in 08 alone) are so common, plus statements about lower birthrates in gaza..blood libel or not i am not compelled by the evidence there isn’t intent to use war to decrease population/ethnically cleanse.
Goldstone is allowing the “intentionality” spin to undermine the facts on the ground. More spinning, lies, twist and turns.
“Goldstone talks very clearly about intentionality, something to which you utterly refuse to relate.”
Breaking the Silence
Booklet with Israeli soldiers statements:
“You feel like an infantile little kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them.”
Israeli soldiers: “not much said about the issue of innocent civilians.” Anyone and anything were fair game, and laws of war went out the window.
They explained wanton destruction, crops uprooted, human slaughter, women and children killed in cold blood, illegal weapons used, free-fire orders to shoot to kill anywhere at anything that moved, and using civilians as human shields. ”
This is interesting at Breaking the Silence website
link to shovrimshtika.org
Government asks Breaking the Silence to Help with Hasbara [Mikhael Manekin]
+972 Mag
Breaking the Silence member Mikhael Manekin says the Israeli’s governments attempts to divert attention from the occupation with social media propaganda are not only condescending, they simply will not work.
Today Breaking the Silence was invited to a meeting that will take place next week in the Knesset. The meeting is sponsored by Dani Danon, chair of the Immigration and Absorption Committee, who is also known for being one of the main backers of the stigmatization campaigns against human rights organizations such as Breaking the Silence. The meeting will examine the challenges that Facebook and YouTube present for Israel’s “hasbara” (Hebrew for “propaganda”). According to the sender of the invitation, we were invited, among other reasons, because we have a “strong presence on YouTube.”
Other guests included important staff from the Prime Minister’s Office and members of the Jewish Agency. I predict that they will complain about the democratization of information, how this poses a threat to Israeli policy (they will just say “Israel”), and how to deal with it (“Did you know that Israel created the disk-on-key? Did you know that Israel invented the technology in your cellphone?”)
Intentionality is the new incitement which replaced no partner for peace which came after no such thing as a Palestinian people
Whether or not Hamas conducts investigations is beside the point. Gaza is legally occupied by Israel, therefore Israel is the only government with final authority. Every Hamas militant is pretty much under a sentence of death by Israel already, and without a trial, and regardless of whether they attacked or intended to attack civilians. As are many Hamas and other Palestinian civilians who have had no part in the militant activity.
I suppose you think Hamas should conduct investigations with the largely foregone conclusions that it’s militants didn’t violate the rules of war, just like Israel. But it would be pointless to hold a trial, because Israel might very well bomb the courthouse and kill the militants, judge, jury, witnesses, prosecuting lawyers, defense lawyers, clerks, guards and anyone watching the trial.
Jews and Nazis were also both seeking what you call “operational success.” By your warped reasoning , that means their aspirations ought to be weighted equally.
That is because you are a fanatic and a pro-Israel psychotic.
“How would Hamas fight back? They should attack only Israeli soldiers. There are plenty of bases around Gaza. They should aim the rockets at those bases.”
I’m sure if the Israelis started to actually respect the human rights of the Palestinian nation and people, they could convince Hamas to only attack Israeli soldiers…
“Moreover, Tom did not mention that Israel attacked Gaza despite Hamas abiding by a 6 months ceasefire.”
Nor does Tom acknowledge that for at least 60 years Israel has pursued a persistent strategy of deadly provocation against its neighbors, especially against the captive people of Palestine. The purpose of this naked but limited aggression is to provoke some kind of violent response, which can then be used to paint the tormented prisoners as “terrorists.”
But this poke-the caged-animal policy of the IDF has a still more sinister purpose: To “justify” for the Israeli and American publics the next “war” – the periodic orgy of death by the Israeli military needed to renew the social pathologies that sustain the Israeli body politic, and to gather in once more America’s Israel-Firsters.
Hamas is well aware of the Israeli pathologies that drive the IDF to periodic, calculated massacres of the Gazans, Lebanese, and others. It has a strong incentive to keep a lid on the military conflict, but is faced with a conundrum. It does not and probably cannot control all the splinter groups of armed young men who have languished their whole lives in the Gaza shooting range. If it tries to shut down all the feckless rocket fire across the fields into southern Israel, after repeated deadly provocations by the IDF, it loses political support among the caged and tormented people. But Hamas usually does its best to control the armed struggle because it knows that it and the Gazan prisoners can only lose when the IDF is turned lose to execute wanton destruction and death.
When I read about how the occupied Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and “possible crimes against humanity” because they feebly resist, as best they can, the Occupying Power and its beastly war machine, I want to ask, Aren’t people able to tell right from wrong anymore; aren’t they able to see and recognize evil in the large? When did they begin to accept the principle that Might makes Right? (The answers for me involve the rise and victory of the Zionist ideology over human affairs.)
When it comes to war crimes, there is no equivalence, no basis for comparison, between Hamas’ puny rockets and the most powerful weapons of destruction that money can buy, provided by U.S. taxpayers to our vicious client.
Thomson, Wow…strongly stated. To the crux without qualifications, unecessary reasonings or teaching. Excellent commentary.
You’re liek an obsessive compulsive with a tic. How many lives his Hamas’ war cimes clain vs the lives claimed by Israel’s war crimes?
Are you seiosuly that tone deaf, or just desperate to topic away from discussing Israel?
Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes.
I can say it. Can you?
And after you demand people denounce Hamas, you will demand they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Later, you’ll demand they renounce their right to speak out against Israel’s crimes. And finally, you will accuse them of being anti-Semites.
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
It’s like an annoying poodle humping one’s leg during courtroom proceedings.
Say “Israel ignores international law and the Geneva conventions”, Guilty Feat.
Say” Zionism is apartheid”.
Avi’s on fire today. I’m keeping your three posts at
(1) Avi April 3, 2011 at 4:42 am
(2) Avi April 3, 2011 at 10:08 am
(3) Avi April 3, 2011 at 6:40 am
And will use them as automatic responses here in the future.
“Avi’s on fire today. I’m keeping your three posts at
(1) Avi April 3, 2011 at 4:42 am
(2) Avi April 3, 2011 at 10:08 am
(3) Avi April 3, 2011 at 6:40 am
And will use them as automatic responses here in the future.” (MRW)
Gil was right yesterday, we have been much too polite with the Zionists and much too concerned with their “sensitivities”. Avi has their number.
Sounds like both sides did according to numerous reports. But Israel’s disproportionate and clearly intentional actions are far more serious.
link to democracynow.org
“NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the report is the last in a large number of reports that have been issued on the Gaza massacre. There were two significant reports issued by Amnesty International, five reports issued by Human Rights Watch, and a whole slew of Israeli-based human rights organizations have issued reports. But this was the most awaited report of all of them. It was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. And Richard Goldstone, as you mentioned in your own introductory remarks, is a significant international figure, legal figure.
So the report basically is consistent with the findings of the other human rights organizations, that Israel targeted civilians, Israel targeted civilians who were carrying white flags, Israel systematically targeted the Palestinian infrastructure. The findings were consistent with those of the other human rights organizations: Israel is guilty of a very significant number of war crimes. And also, the findings which were—other reports, the same conclusions, that the Palestinians were not using hospitals to hide Hamas officials. There’s no evidence that the ambulances Israel targeted were carrying Hamas militants or ammunition. And most significantly, in terms of the coverage during the Gaza massacre, the report found, as did Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there’s no evidence whatsoever—and I would want to underline that—there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hamas was guilty of human shielding. But on the other hand, there is significant evidence, actually copious evidence, that Israel was guilty of human shielding.
AMY GOODMAN: But on other issues, of Palestinian militants committing crimes against humanity.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The report found that the Palestinians were guilty of war crimes because of its indiscriminate and intentional firing on civilians in Israel. I’m not trying to make any apologies, but I want to get the facts right. The Goldstone report, like the Amnesty report and the others, you have to look carefully at the proportions. About nine-tenths—literally, about nine-tenths of the Goldstone report, like the Dugard report, like the Amnesty report, about nine-tenths was devoted to Israeli war crimes; about one-tenth was devoted to Palestinian war crimes. And you have to understand why, because you have to look at the comparable damage. The ratio of killings was about a hundred to one: about—exactly thirteen on the Israeli side, about fourteen hundred on the Palestinian side. If you look at the damage, the damage is actually quite astonishing. Israel just systematically blasted everything in sight and reduced it to rubble, whereas on the Israeli side they say that several houses were damaged and one was almost completely destroyed. So if you look at the facts, the facts on the ground, the proportions in the reports, including the Goldstone report, are correct. It’s about ten to one.
And that’s why yesterday’s—or today’s headline in the New York Times is so misleading. It’s like a Pravda headline. It says the Goldstone report finds both sides guilty of war crimes. Well, that’s technically true, but an accurate headline would have read, “Goldstone reports Israel guilty of massive war crimes and also faults Hamas.” That’s what a true headline would have read.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation and has claimed the UN Human Rights Council that ordered it was biased against Israel. This is some of what the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor had to say about the inquiry.”
Walid,
What I appreciate about Avi is his fierce sense of morality — yeah, so he kicks cans and causes a ruckus around here sometimes, so what — and how he applies it to human beings in general, and doesn’t pick and choose who gets to claim it. You can’t even begin to talk about justice without it.
i agree!
“Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes.
I can say it. Can you?”
Actually, it turns out you don’t really say it. You say Israel was guilty of negligence and Hamas was guilty of murder. You’re a fraud.
Here is what honesty about this looks like, in case you want to try it–
Hamas has been guilty of numerous war crimes against Israeli civilians, including the cold-blooded murder of children. They have also committed crimes against their own people, including torture.
Israel is guilty of apartheid, land theft, torture, ethnic cleansing, an inhumane blockade, and the use of indiscriminate firepower in urban areas, repeatedly, in war after war. They clearly intended to punish the civilian population in the Gaza War (and with the blockade). These are war crimes and they were intentional, not negligent. It’s not negligence if you repeatedly do the same thing with the same results.
Okay, that’s what honesty looks like. Try it sometime, or just keep up the shooting and crying act.
GuiltyFeat, the Article 12(3) Declaration made on behalf of the Palestinian government simply accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002.
The declaration doesn’t limit the jurisdiction of the Court to the crimes committed by the IDF. Only Israel and its supporters have objected to the ICC Prosecutor investigating both sides.
Despite the fact that the ICC is a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples, Article 31 of the Rome Statute, “Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility” does NOT include tu quoque arguments. So, the fact that an enemy is committing similar crimes or that everyone else is doing it would not be a valid defense. Here are some references that help explain that principle:
The accused cannot rely on the fact that allegedly there were also atrocities committed by the opposing force. In international law there is no justification for attacks on civilians carried out either by virtue of the tu quoque principle (i.e. the argument whereby the fact that the adversary is committing similar crimes offers a valid defence to a belligerent’s crimes) or on the strength of the principle of reprisals.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al., (January 2000), para. 765;
As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (February 2001), para. 580;
As noted by the Trial Chamber, when establishing whether there was an attack upon a particular civilian population, it is not relevant that the other side also committed atrocities against its opponent’s civilian population. The existence of an attack from one side against the other side’s civilian population would neither justify the attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent nor displace the conclusion that the other side’s forces were in fact targeting a civilian population as such. Each attack against the other’s civilian population would be equally illegitimate and crimes committed as part of this attack could, all other conditions being met, amount to crimes against humanity.
*Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (January 2002), para. 87;
Before turning to consider the KLA’s conduct, the Chamber would emphasise at the outset that the existence of an attack from one side involved in an armed conflict against the other side’s civilian population does not justify an attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent. The tu quoque principle has no application. Nevertheless, the Chamber is conscious of the operations of the Serbian forces in Kosovo, which deployed tactics that included the razing of villages and the expulsion of civilians from villages, and which caused considerable and widespread civilian suffering.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Limaj et al., (November 2005), para. 193.
For an exhaustive overview of the subject of tu quoque arguments in the proceedings of international criminal tribunals See:
*Sienho Yee, “The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defence to International Crimes, Prosecution or Punishment”, Chinese Journal of International Law (2004) 3(1): 87-134;
I hope that explains why Israeli lawyers do so much of their arguing in the Op-Eds.
Like many others you are putting words into my mouth. I have no desire to defend Israel by claiming that Hamas is also committing war crimes. I wish the leaders of both sides to be tried and held accountable for their criminal acts.
In contrast, there are many here who believe that Israel alone has violated the Geneva Convention while the actions of Hamas are “understandable” and negligible given the poverty of their weapons.
My sole goal is to expose that hypocrisy. If Israelis are to be condemned for their war crimes then what could be more just that having them tried contemporaneously with the leaders of Hamas for their war crimes?
Don’t you agree?
And this will satisfy you how?
Article 15 of the Rome Statute allows the Prosecutor to initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information from open sources on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. So, it is probably a bit too late for either the Hamas or Israeli leadership to “withdraw the Goldstone report”
According to reliable reports from the Ma’an News Agency both of the Palestinian Justice Ministers (e.g. the one in Gaza and the one in Ramallah) have asked for the UN to follow-up on the Goldstone report. The UN was already going to do that anyway. So, who am I to disgree? The only thing necessary to trigger ICC jurisdiction is for the Prosecutor to have an Article 12(3) declaration in hand and to obtain a determination from the Pre-Trial Chamber that the regular authorities are either unwilling or unable conducted independent and impartial proceedings in a manner which, in the circumstances, is consistent with an intent to bring the persons concerned to justice.
In the case of Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui, the Appeals Chamber held that the Court’s ability to act is limited by the principle of complementarity only if national proceedings have been, or are being conducted. In the absence of any domestic activity, there is, in the Chamber’s view no impediment to case admissibility. The Court also ruled it is sufficient for only one of the two criteria (‘unable or unwilling’) to be satisfied, with the intention of the State concerned assessed on a case-by-case basis. So, the lack of a credible effort by Hamas invites ICC action.
FYI there are reliable reports that provide prima facie evidence connecting Hamas leaders to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the Goldstone report isn’t really one of those. In many instances it doesn’t name the Palestinian armed groups that have launched rockets and mortars from Gaza. It lists a lot of incidents, but only a few of those constitute war crimes. The report didn’t connect those particular attacks to the Hamas groups or the Hamas leadership. The report certainly gave the Prosecutor more than enough information to trigger an investigation.
Goldstone proposed that launching mortars and rockets that fall harmlessly into the desert qualifies as an illegal terrorist act. Even if that is true, the ICC only has jurisdiction over certain of the most serious crimes and acts of terrorism. I don’t believe that incidents without some direct linkage to a civilian population or object would fall within the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction.
What’s the point in obsessing over this, Guilty? What’s the point of Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas in post after post after post?
I don’t know anyone who will claim Hamas is a body of angelic beings. Even Amira Hass, who has spent so much time in Gaza, will critize Hamas. But what good does it do to demand a ritual denunciation?
What prompted Goldstone to write this op-ed? Is it linked to Israel’s diplomatic efforts to stop the Palestinians getting that vote at the UN in September?
It all has strong echoes of Israel’s desperate hasbara attempts to deny that Mohamed Ad durra had been shot and killed by an Israeli soldier.
Israel might energise its base with this u-turn but the Gaza damage has already been done.
It’s typical muddying the waters tactic.
By the time the case is settled in the court of public opinion, no clear answer can be found and contradictory information is abundant. The public is left confused and eventually the case drops from the headlines.
I don’t think Israel is going to make it work, Avi. It took Israel almost 2.5 years to get a positive spin. That is a massive PR failure.
It is more like a pyrrhic victory. The strategy of having someone Jewish investigate Israel obviously is a dud. So it’s not going to run next time.
Seafoid’s speculation that Goldstone is doing Israel a favor now, before it faces a potential debacle in the UN come September, sounds plausible enough. Ethan ‘My son serves in the IDF’ Bronner, normally a chest-thumping Israeli chauvinist, today is reduced to ending his latest NYT piece by forlornly quoting Ari Shavit of Haaretz:
Declaration of a Palestinian state is fraught with risk, since the current Palestinian territories are non-viable with Israel exerting a stranglehold over their trade with the outside world, not to mention their economy, utilities and travel. This is a formula for popular disappointment (and that’s a euphemism for rage), if Palestinians get their state but life goes on as badly and oppressively as before.
But as Bronner spells out, UN recognition could be a rather brilliant end run around the decades-long Israeli strategy of negotiating from ‘facts on the ground’ as the starting point, rather than the countless list of UN and ICJ decisions pronouncing the settlements and the Wall as absolutely illegal. Thus, they shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips, any more than a jewel thief would be permitted to pawn his purloined loot to meet bail and hire a star defense attorney.
As usual, Peace Laureate Obama sucks his thumb and dithers, as his Chicago benefactors the Pritzskers and Crowns lean on his frail backbone to continue America’s ‘Israel First’ foreign policy. Bronner:
What’s fervently to be hoped is that not only Israel, but also its mindless defender the U.S., gets diplomatically isolated in the UN this fall. As Israel’s tendentious lawyer, the US has nothing constructive to contribute to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Time for capable hands to take over the diplomatic wreckage of a failed administration and a failed policy, as the Times and WaPo’s dedicated stenographers for Israel moan and rend their garments. Why do bad things happen to good people? Search your shrunken soul, Ethan B.!
Goldstone didn’t write the op-ed. Compare the language to that used in the report. The following extracts from the op-ed were written for him and have the look of AIPAC and would do justice to eee.
“the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel”.
” Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within.” Gaza doesn’t of course
“illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas”. Because Gaza isn’t a state.
“the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.” This is really scraping the barrel
“Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel” Classic hasbara
“That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality” Stunning
“no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity” Turn everything upside down. It’s no longer terror. It’s crimes against humanity. And forget about the white phosphorous. That was just a mistake.
“Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.” This a joke . Like a few rockets are more important than 44 years of systemic human rights abuses .
If Israel is genuine about reform it agrees to independent investigation by a non Jewish third party or else it’s STFU.
This is the worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense, picking apart individual phrases to suit your own version of events.
Seafoid, dude, you must realize you sound completely cuckoo.
Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes. Why is it you only believe one of those statements?
GF
I have been listening to hasbara for the last 11 years and have been insulted too many times to mention. I am honoured to be insulted by another shill. Israel deliberately targets civilians in the West Bank incl Jerusalem, in Lebanon and in Gaza and despicable Zionist pressure on Goldstone to retract the conclision of the report doesn’t change that.
“Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.” This is Zionist nonsense. Israel has stated on numerous occasions that international law is meaningless.
link to mondoweiss.net
Another choice comment from Livni, this one from a Nov. 13, 2007 meeting, where she and Abu Ala (Qurei) were discussing what should be included in the “terms of reference” for the upcoming Annapolis meeting (the eighth meeting on this question):
AA: International law?
Livni : NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.
One Wash post article isn’t going to stop the global juggernaut against the occupation. It won’t stop israel selfdestructing.
GF,
There is evidence to think that seafoid is right, and not a conspiracy theory. Take his first quote:
“the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel”
I remembered that *Goldstone wrote his own mandate*, specifically to avoid the appearence of bias!
Here is the source, link to palestinechronicle.com
and the essential quote:
“Justice Richard Goldstone initially refused to take on the investigation into the winter assault at all. He agreed to do so only after the chairperson of the United Nations Committee that had originally sought his assistance agreed to let him write the mandate for the mission in his own words. Goldstone’s personally written mandate insisted that both Israel’s and Hamas’ actions would have to be investigated in order for the report to be fair -”.
GF, your language shows that you want to be fair and accurate. You should smell a serious rat here. This isn’t the way a distinguished jurist behaves.
Seafoid, I don’t have an issue with Goldstone having written this kind of stuff. I think most of it is more or less true, especially if one takes the definitions that international law gives ‘civilian’, ‘war crime’, etc.
What bothers me is that the whole Op-Ed was aimed at telling us what criminals Hamas people are while downplaying Israel’s crimes. And that is irritating and misleading, firstly, because he misrepresents the McGowan-Davis report in order to downplay Israel’s crimes and, secondly because given the number of dead and injured people and destroyed properties, together with his inability to produce any evidence to show that his original conclusions were wrong, Hamas’ crimes just are not as numerous as Israel’s.
If I were him, I simply would have written an Op-Ed saying this: 1. why do supporters of Israel always misrepresent my report as not having criticised Hamas? I did, and my criticism was compounded by the fact that they predictably refused to investigate their actions after Operation Cast Lead. 2. The fact that Hamas has not conducted investigations does not entitle Israel to conduct what the McGowan-Davis report states are non-credible investigations. After all, Hamas is already being punished as outlaws by having been labeled a terrorist group, while Israel receives financial and military aid from various countries and enjoys trade relations everywhere.
But writing an Op-Ed to try to save Israel’s image without being able to cite any evidence and in addition misrepresenting the McGowan-Davis report is sad, if possibly a bit understandable given the incredible abuse he’s been subjected to. If anything, it again shows us the main strategy that our Western societies use to prevent freedom of speech and inquiry: savage emotion-driven attacks, vicious character assassination and career destruction, even to the point of throwing people out of their communities. Please let this community not join in. We can easily stick to facts and leave the poor man alone.
““the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.” This is really scraping the barrel ”
Taking a swipe at the UN before the fall
Goldstone capitulated to the sustained pressure – he is human, after all … who knows what blackmail or threats were made against him
… but the facts speak for themselves – white phosphorus for example
… further, why was this savage attack “Cast Lead” ever launched in the first place? That is the true question and the answer is self-evident: for create destruction and terror in a captive population
The article highlights the kafkaesque absurdity of the situation when a published report available from an open source, like Yedioth Ahronoth, contains sufficient information to trigger a criminal investigation anywhere else in the world, yet the international community quibbles over the details of drafting a mandate to deploy a “fact-finding” mission to go to Israel and read it. Inevitably, the Israel government vilifies the messengers when they return home and present us with a copy of the evidence for the circular file.
For example, in 2002 Yedioth Ahronoth published an interview with a D9 Caterpillar Operator who admitted he spent three days “erasing and erasing” the middle of the Jenin refugee camp in a state of whiskey-fueled drunken rage:
See “I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp”
While that headline was being trumpeted in the Israeli press for all the world to see, the Security Council canceled plans for its own fact finding mission and held an open debate instead. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights decided to send Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu on its own fact finding mission, but he was threatened and branded an anti-Semite before he ever arrived in the Middle East. He was subsequently vilified for questioning Israel’s “purity of arms”.
We really didn’t need to send in Tutu or Goldstone. We already had a more than sufficient number of reports in our possession that would have triggered a criminal investigation and perhaps the establishment of an ad hoc criminal tribunal if they had occurred anywhere else. For example, during the 2nd Intifada in 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights fact finders reported “widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.” See E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1 19 October 2000
The pattern was depressingly familiar. During the first Intifada, the occupation was already twenty-four years old. My shelves were full of UN fact finding reports by then that cataloged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli settlers and their armed forces. The reports explained that the acts committed were “prohibited at all times” and “give rise to individual criminal responsibility under international law regardless of the motive involved or any local statutory limitations”. But nothing has ever come of them (yet).
It has been necessary for the State Department to ignore all of those reliable reports and to submit perjured ones to lawmakers which claim that the government of Israel does not commit political killings, commit abductions, hold hostages as bargaining chips, torture prisoners, and etc. See for example the yearly Joint Committee on Foreign Relations “Country Reports” on Israel submitted in accordance with Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended. Even the Government of Israel has published reports which admit that serious criminal cases involving violence against Palestinians are routinely closed without investigations. See “The Karp Report : An Israeli Government Inquiry into Settler Violence Against Palestinians on the West Bank”, reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, ISBN 0-88728-141-9, 1984
There was also a steady stream of scholarly works and journal articles on the first Intifada, but some of the experts took time off from serving on the International Law Commission or on the faculties of various universities to compile a criminal dossier and database that cataloged some of the evidence, e.g. M. Cherif Bassiouni & Louise Cainkar eds., “The Palestinian Intifada December 9, 1987-December 8, 1988: A Record Of Israeli Repression”, the Database Project On Palestinian Human Rights, 1989 It makes for pretty grim reading when there are pages and pages of tables listing Palestinian children, many as young as 3-5 years of age, who in too many instances had been shot multiple times; “father shot 4X while pursuing children kidnapped by settlers”; and reports of people being stoned, imprisoned, burned, electrocuted, hit or run over by vehicles, and otherwise maimed, tortured, and killed.
It is perfectly clear that the Israeli persecution of Palestinians documented in thousands of other sources can’t be washed-away by a single editorial in the Washington Post.
The Jenin refugee camp — before and after the massacre Israel committed there in 2002.
Jenin Refugee Camp
Jenin Refugee Camp
I would also add that this time the thuggery is way out in the open. It wasn’t enough for Israel to have a Jew in charge of the investigation. It wasn’t enough for Israel to refuse to take part in the investigation. It wasn’t enough for Israel to complete its own sham investigation involving David Trimble.
Goldstone had to be humiliated. Because Zionism is too brittle and is under severe pressure from the outside world.
Palestine, Jordan, and Comoros are all full members of the League of Arab States. Comoros and Jordan are members of the International Criminal Court Assembly of State Parties.
The League Commissioned its own Independent Fact Finding Mission headed-up by former ICJ Justice John Dugard. It turned over a very detailed report, “No Safe Place”, to the Office of the Prosecutor which contained an analysis of the blockade, and Cast Lead – as well as the 2004 Wall case and the illegal situations in the West Bank.
The West Bank was controlled by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 under the terms of the UN armistice agreement. After Israel signed the Oslo Accords with Palestine, it signed a Peace Treaty with Jordan which contained a safeguarding clause, Article 3(2), with respect to the status of the territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967. The Mavi Marmara was flagged in Comoros. So, either of those two states could join in Palestine’s request and make a State Party referral of one or more of those situations to the ICC Prosecutor.
The Goldstone report was only one of the investigations that was conducted under the auspices of Human Rights Council resolution S-9/1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, is a former Justice of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She submitted a separate report The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip” UN Document A/HRC/12/37
Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has renewed the call of the former Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, John Dugard, for a referral of the situation to the International Court of Justice for an authoritative decision as to whether, “elements of the [Israeli] occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid.”
The UN HRC probe of the flotilla raid was headed-up by Karl Hudson-Phillips, a former International Criminal Court judge and former Trinidad and Tobago attorney general. The report found the blockade, the interception, and disproportionate levels of “totally unnecessary and incredible violence” directed toward the passengers were illegal.
So there are way too many “irons in the fire” for Israel to start breathing easy at this point.
I have the feeling that Israel is playing “who wants to be an apartheid state” and has just used up its phone a friend card.
Israel’s political capital stock is very low.
“Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has renewed the call of the former Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, John Dugard, for a referral of the situation to the International Court of Justice for an authoritative decision as to whether, “elements of the [Israeli] occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid.”
thanks for all the links
From haaretz
\
If You Read The McGowan Report, It Says Just The Opposite of What Goldstone Claims It Said
* Binyamin in Orangeburg
* 03.04.11
* 04:55
The McGowan Report actually trashes Israel for failing to promptly bring charges against the IDF leaders who were responsible for the 36 war crimes the Goldstone report identified. McGowan also questions whether Israel is simply stalling until no prosecutions can be brought. It is one thing to “investigate”, it’s another to convict. A few quotes from McGowan: “The Committee is able to report that, to the best of its knowledge, nineteen investigations into the serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law reported by [the Goldstone Report] have been completed by the Israeli authorities with findings that no violations were committed. Two inquiries were discontinued for different reasons. Three investigations led to disciplinary action. Six investigations reportedly remain open, including one in which criminal charges have been brought against an Israeli soldier. The status of possible investigations into six additional incidents remains unclear. “The Committee has strong reservations respecting the promptness of some investigations of individual incidents referred to by the [Goldstone Report]. More than one-third of the 36 incidents in Gaza are still unresolved or unclear. The status of investigations into incidents in Israel and the West Bank is also unclear. Presumably this serious issue respecting the ability of the military justice system promptly to investigate allegations of wrongdoing during military operations is under careful review by the Turkel Commission. “Finally, the Committee is concerned about the fact that the duration of the ongoing investigations into the allegations contained in the [Goldstone] report — over two years since the end of the Gaza operation – could seriously impair their effectiveness and, therefore, the prospects of ultimately achieving accountability and justice.” link to www2.ohchr.org
More Rohrscach.
Did Israel commit war crimes? (Per Judge Goldstone, possibly, but a much lower scale and significance than originally documented as potentially.)
Did Israel undertake a foreign policy relative to Gaza that could have been much more humane? Yes.
But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy.
Rohrscach
i told you this before. “Rohrschach”. “sch” is rather frequent in German. May I offer you a bridge? – school. Already a Greek loan word in Latin.
I don’t think it’s a good usage by the way, since you are mainly projecting. You read reality data exactly the same way you blame other’s do. You filter out what doesn’t fit your preconceptions.
As nobody here is surprised that evidence proving a more general strategy –doesn’t fit your light unto the nations scenario–feels like simple guessing, arbitrary association, or dot connecting to you.
Do you filter out negative data, when you analyze businesses, too? Doesn’t feel like a good strategy to me.
‘Rorschach’, sweet one, ‘Rorschach’. Don’t bother using the word if you can’t be bothered to even look up the spelling.
>> But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy.
You want the “easy out” of policy, likely because you approve of Israel’s more recent war crimes as “necessary” in much the same way you approve of Israel’s past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary”. (By continuing to rationalize Israeli terror, you invest in it.)
You continue to be an immoral Zio-supremacist and an apologist for the past and ON-GOING criminal activities of Israel.
“Per Judge Goldstone, possibly, but a much lower scale and significance than originally documented as potentially.)”
There is no evidence for your claim. The dead are still dead, the scale of destruction is still the same as it was, and we’ve now got several posts at this website outlining why Goldstone’s retraction is at odds with the facts and you don’t deal with any of that.
Until or unless you do, it’s obvious that the Gaza War is for you little more than a PR problem, one that has now gone away because Goldstone issued his despicable retraction.
And you know what? In this country you’ve got the propaganda arm of the politicians and the press almost totally on your side. The NYT just gave this retraction very prominent coverage–it’s not on the front page, but they have a reference to it on the front page. The human rights investigations done by other organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch may as well never have happened–the details of the Goldstone Report might as well never have happened. It’s very much like Holocaust denial in intent and that’s the side you’re on Richard.
“Did Israel undertake a foreign policy relative to Gaza that could have been much more humane? Yes. But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy.”
Hey, that’s big of you. Let’s extend that sort of unblinking condemnation towards suicide bombing. Could suicide bombers undertake actions towards Israel that could have been much more humane? Yes. But please, let’s not take the easy way out and call it terrorism.
In other words, for Richard, nothing that Palestinians feel or suffer matters very much. They can be subjected to a massive attack on their population and if Israel does a few token investigations that’s good enough for him. They don’t have to acknowledge their terror, but the Palestinian Authority has to denounce that committed by Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israelis can kill and destroy in a brutal assault and we shouldn’t hurt their delicate sensibilities–we should “persuade”.
Richard’s position is one of naked power worship and racism. Unfortunately it is also the position of the American press and the politicians.
I should say that the NYT piece isn’t all bad–they do indicate that the destruction and deaths in Gaza all happened and the reporter (Bronner) says that McGowan’s report was more critical of Israel than Goldstone’s.
The worst part in Goldstone’s op ed was this statement–
“That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
There’s nothing in Goldstone’s op ed to justify that last claim and if it’s obvious that Hamas intended to kill civilians, then it’s equally obvious for Israel. The NYT didn’t explicitly point this out, but Bronner does cite McGowan’s claim that Israel did not investigate its overall planning and conduct of the war.
That’s what we’ve got to focus on–the fact that Goldstone’s main assertion, that it was just a few bad apples and not policy, has no support. It’ll be an uphill battle getting the newspapers to point this out.
As for Goldstone, this was a sad and pathetic end to his career in human rights. Maybe if Hamas did a few token investigations they could get his seal of approval and he’d put out a statement saying that the Hamas leadership never intended to kill civilians.
“they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
So what? “Matter of policy”….stated “policy” who cares. What are the facts on the ground….Israel’s actions. Innocent Palestinians who were killed by Israeli forces were not mistakes.. The actions the outcome speak louder than Israel’s written or stated policy
“Richard’s position is one of naked power worship and racism. Unfortunately it is also the position of the American press and the politicians.”
“Until or unless you do, it’s obvious that the Gaza War is for you little more than a PR problem, one that has now gone away because Goldstone issued his despicable retraction.”
Escalating, false and insulting rhetoric Donald. Its unnecessary. It does NOT serve any just cause.
I think that Goldstone is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect for that.
“Escalating, false and insulting rhetoric Donald. Its unnecessary. It does NOT serve any just cause.
I think that Goldstone is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect for that.”
I doubt it is his honest impression–if it is then he’s incapable of reasoning. People have outlined why in several posts now and you pay absolutely no attention to anything that has been said.
This gets back to what first made me realize you’re a fraud–you always do this. People can write long detailed posts outlining why a position you take is wrong, as the front page posters have done with Goldstone’s op ed, and none of it makes any difference to you. You simply ignore it. You reduce everything to “Someone who said something I agree with is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect.”
No they don’t and no you don’t. You don’t deserve respect for ignoring evidence and neither does Goldstone. He might deserve pity.
Donald: Richard is not a “fraud” — in the sense that he consciously tries to trick us. He’s really a disturbed soul; within him a genuine humanism is struggling — so far unsuccessfully — with Israeli nationalism. This explains why he hides from contrary evidence. Of course you are right to point out that,
“People can write long detailed posts outlining why a position you [Richard Witty] take is wrong, as the front page posters have done with Goldstone’s op ed, and none of it makes any difference to you. You simply ignore it.”
Proof of this is the speed with which Richard comments; he can’t possibly be reading and digesting what others say. He types away furiously so that still small voice of his own conscience will stop bothering him.
Donald,
Evidence is to prove a point. So, what is your point?
Is it “Israel DID commit war crimes?”
What war crimes? At what organizational scale?
Have you read the responses in the press to the Goldstone op-ed? Some that I’ve linked to? Noam Sheizaf at 972 (somehow the link didn’t make it here).
link to 972mag.com
The Carlo Strenger link in Haaretz. The NY times link, I saw that you read. Jerry Haber
link to jeremiahhaber.com
Impressions of the actual significance of the op-ed vary.
To comply with the dictates of political correctness, is not a driving motivation for me.
On accusations that I only endorse opinions that are favorable to Israel, I don’t see it. You’ve read my blog. It is NOT “Israel right or wrong” in the slightest.
The accusation of “war crimes” is a serious one. Its serious whether interpreted as “crimes occurring during war”, or as “intentional targeting of civilian population by policy”.
And, the accusation requires proof of intent and/or of negligence. The presence of suffering or of destruction is NOT proof of war crimes.
Suspicion is not sufficient. It doesn’t matter whether Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or other organizations conclude similarly with similarly incomplete evidence.
Goldstone seems to be implying now that there is not sufficient evidence to support prosecution. Its just an opinion on his part.
Maybe he’s wrong. Maybe you are right. I certainly do not know.
No, Witty, you fraud. Evidence is EVIDENCE. If somebody finds a dead body in the middle of a field, do they say to themselves, “Oh, nobody told me anyone was missing,” and then they keep going?
You’re deliberately conflating PROOF with EVIDENCE. Just like you conflate FACTS in a UN report with OPINIONS from some corrupt South African white guy who clearly wasn’t who we thought he was.
Richard, for once in your freaking life at this blog could you please pay attention to the posts?
The Gaza War was a three week long event that destroyed thousands of homes, much civilian infrastructure, and took hundreds of civilian lives. White phosphorus was dropped on urban areas. And all of this behavior is similar to what Israel has done before, in Lebanon in 2006 and in Lebanon in 1982, to name two examples. Israel has also had Gaza under a harsh blockade, going far beyond what they need to do to keep out weapons, and they have refused material necessary for rebuilding.
The pattern of behavior is there and if you think Israel inflicted all this death and destruction unintentionally then you are an idiot. You see this clearly enough when Hamas fires its rockets at southern Israel–no claim by some Hamas apologist that they intend to hit military targets and are just doing the best they can with the weapons they have would wash with you and you’d be right. But you don’t apply that same reasoning to Israel and it’s clear why.
It’s also clear enough with most liberal Zionists (with honorable exceptions like Slater). When all is said and done you’re just a bunch of “shooters and criers”. Israel can inflict death and destruction and suffering on a scale that would leave you shocked and horrified if Hamas did it to Israel, but since it is Israel doing it to Palestinians you sit back and say “Prove to me that it was intentional”.
The more I read about this conflict the more I lean towards the radical position. The reason? It’s not the main posts at Mondoweiss, informative as they are, nor is it the comments by the anti-Zionist commentariat here. It’s people like you Richard–the “liberal Zionist” shooters and criers who make me realize your side has no interest in taking responsibility for the crimes of your side. You want the Palestinians to renounce terrorism and you applaud when Fayyad denounces it, but you don’t want your own side to do the same. You guys are as much an obstacle to peace as Islamic Jihad. Actually, you’re more.
The reason? It’s not the main posts at Mondoweiss, informative as they are, nor is it the comments by the anti-Zionist commentariat here.
Wonderful, Donald, it’s just too much sometimes, or most of the time.
The only way to not let it get too close to you is to use Mooser’s tactic.
Have you read Shmuel’s response to Jerry. That’s it in a nutshell. There are a couple of really good people here, but Richard is simply annoying and achieves quite the opposite from what he intends.
I am an advocate for electoral change, formed by persuasion based on actual respect for democracy.
The events in Gaza are another tragedy. You are accurate that the construction is a repetition. I describe it as a repetition of the relationship between militant solidary and militant Zionists, with the moderates be damned. Moderates be damned in Israel, moderates be damned here.
You think that you are describing something substantive, that ineffectual American Jewish liberals are dead weights on the movement.
But, that only exists in a context of strategy, proposal. It is consistent with the logic of BDS, that external pressure only be applied until Israeli immorality breaks with the willing risk that the movement breaks Israel entirely, not only its messed up policies.
Zionists, liberal or otherwise, are not willing to take that risk. I’ve met enough moderate Palestinians to be hopeful that Israel and Palestine can reconcile. And, I’ve met enough radical Palestinians and solidarity to be scared shitless that they will ignore Israeli welfare similarly to Gazan welfare is ignored.
Again and again. If you want to know my views independant of the ganging here, you’d have to read my blog. It is NOT as you characterize me, or of the support for liberal Zionism.
“You guys are as much an obstacle to peace as Islamic Jihad. Actually, you’re more.”
What a stupid statement on your part.
Try something different than judgment. It is a vanity. Try actual work.
That you find my views primarily irritating, is much more a statement about you than about the importance and validity of the liberal Zionist approach.
This is not about left and right. This is about basic human rights and international law. So the Zionists can harrass Goldstone until he gives in. Super. So what are you going to do about apartheid?
link to haaretz.com
Richard Goldstone’s Washington Post op-ed retracting some of the central conclusions of his earlier report is something of an earthquake: his 2009 report has marked one of the deepest rifts between Israel and the international community.
Its bottom line was simple and resounding: Israel had committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity in Operation Cast Lead by intentionally targeting civilian population.
But there is a world of a difference in having to choose between terrible options and the Goldstone Report’s original accusation that Israel intentionally targeted civilians.
Goldstone’s retraction is therefore immensely important. While it is legitimate to criticize Israeli policies, Hamas’ systematic targeting of Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to neutralize Hamas’ military infrastructure simply belong to different moral universes: Israel tries to defend itself within the framework of international law – Hamas cynically exploits suffering for its own purposes.
We do not know exactly what has made Goldstone change his mind. One of the reasons certainly is that he sees that Israel indeed investigated its actions in Operation Cast Lead seriously, whereas Hamas continues to behave like a terror organization that has no interest in the truth, and only in political gain.
“his 2009 report has marked one of the deepest rifts between Israel and the international community.”
This is where Israel,quite frankly, is wrong. The parting of the roads isn’t about what Goldstone wrote. It’s about people waking up to the fact that Israel has no interest in peace. Figuring out the peace process for the sham it is.
So Israel can trash Goldstone. But we remember the 1400 dead. And all the civilians who were targeted so Hamas would learn its lesson. Israel can’t do anything about the Palestine papers. Or Rachel Corrie. Or the Mavi Marmara.
And Jews who use white phosphorous are not tolerated.
That makes you happy, doesn’t it Richard? Israel can inflict 100 times as much harm as Hamas and liberal Zionists like yourself can all get together and deny responsibility.
No Palestinian should trust someone with your views. The inability to take responsibility makes you inherently untrustworthy.
“Happy”
Back to insulting guessing?
You have a difference with Carlo’s interpretation, write to him.
So, Richard, you find it insulting to have your views confused with that of the author you cite? That’s good–it must mean you are so horrified by the position taken that you don’t want me linking you to it.
I’d like to believe that, but the article supports Goldstone’s despicable retraction and so do you.
“despicable retraction”.
Donald,
I posted links to Noam Sheizaf, Jeremy Haber, Washington Post original article, others.
They are links of voices that I consider within the range of people that I am willing to listen to closely. I don’t necessarily agree.
I’ve made the mistake of assuming that every article that is presented here is endorsed by Phil. I really don’t know much of what he thinks personally on that basis, except on published interviews.
In contrast, I do have a blog that is a description of what I think only. It is entirely editorial.
Richard: I see you’ve provided us with a link to Haaretz. Can we assume you’ve been over there, “making the better argument?” You’ve been telling Israelis that although they can celebrate Goldstone’s article, they are not perfect, and they should move toward peace?
You will be happy to provide us with links to your comments there? Or, in fact, have you really only been celebrating over here, hiding from your own conscience?
Which is it, Richard?
What did you think of the article, North?
Ironically it seems to me that for all of Judge Goldstone’s attempt to ameliorate the harm his commission did to Israel originally, what he’s done now not only won’t help it much—if at all—but it will in addition seriously harm jews generally.
That is, in this Post piece clearly he’s not speaking on behalf of his commission, and I believe that fact is going to just become more and more stark as things play out. For instance, there’s no way, I suspect, the commission is going to retract its report wholesale, nor I believe is it ever going to apologize for it. And we may well see such things as other commission members speaking out against Goldstone, or etc. and so forth.
So what will be the effect of all this then? Especially of what seems to me is the most fundamental message of Goldstone’s Post comment which is, essentially, that so long as Israel investigates itself that’s good enough? (Which message, I think, will also become ever clearer, especially as it will further be observed that this was not any condition of his commission’s remit which was to do its own investigation and to seek Israel’s cooperation if Israel decided to help by doing its own, or not.)
While ugly then, and while perhaps mainly expressed in a subterranean fashion, overwhelmingly I think, even in the West, the effect of all this is just going to persuade people that no matter their nationality, and no matter the gravity of their duties otherwise, the first and foremost loyalty of jews will always be towards Israel and other jews, period. That, in general … they can always be reliably trusted to betray their duties elsewhere because they will always subordinate them to the interests of Israel and other jews.
And while I said this was “ugly,” just reinforcing all the above is the fact that even this idea can seem to have lost all its potency. It’s ever harder, that is, not only seeing such things as the comments of Rahm Emmanuel’s father remarking that of course his boy was going to work for Israel but then even moreso the plethora of jewish comment saying that Goldstone should have been ashamed of himself originally, to know just how to regard this kind of thing anymore. On the one hand it seems offensive as hell given its resonance with classic anti-semitic tropes. And yet on the other what is one to make of such things as Alan Dershowitz’s original comments about Goldstone essentially being a traitor, or the positive glorification of of Jonathan Pollard in Israel? So aside from still *feeling* that this sort of thing is ugly, it’s ever more difficult to actually argue it.
Regardless, whether openly voiced or not, what Goldstone has now done, for a time at least and perhaps for a good long time, has put a big name and face to the idea that jews, especially prominent or powerful jews, and even if resistant at first, will in the end use even their official positions to help Israel or other jews, no matter how much this conflicts with their other putative loyalties.
So while some jews might be thanking Mr. Goldstone now….
Yes, Israel has succeeded in rendering any investigation of the crimes of Cast Lead to be discredited. First by not cooperating, then by trying to discredit Goldstone and the report. When that did not work, Goldstone had to be pushed to kill his own credibility. Forced, to shoot himself, so to speak. This victory is, indeed, Pyrrhic. Ultimately, this completely discredits Israel as a trusted partner on the world stage.
A nation not to be entrusted or believed in with the largess, powers and position the world has given it. This is a disaster for Israel in the long run.
Forget it, I am wrong. The seem to have renamed the “columns” section into PostOpinions.
Darkness in Qassam-Land
Alex makes an excellent point which he supports with evidence over the past few years of Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians. However, Israel’s history of deliberately killing civilians goes back many decades, even well before its founding. None other than Jerry Slater provided a brief summary of a number of these events in the second half of this: link to jeromeslater.com. A more complete catalog of such crimes would fill books, like Hirst’s The Gun and the Olive Branch.
The absurdity of Israel’s denial is plain for anyone who wishes to see. Israel has not become more moral over the years, but has increasingly recognized the PR necessity of denial and become more sophisticated in its presentation. The current mantra regarding human shields has been extremely effective, not only absolving Israel but also blaming Hamas/Hezbollah for civilian deaths in Gaza and Lebanon.
Israel has no PR formula to deal with the increasing incidence of people who see through Israel’s footdragging on peace. The old Zionist staple of procrastination and building is no substitute for a strategy.
The Palestine Papers were probably the high point of Zionist power.
This Goldstone mugging looks good but it betrays a certain desperation.
The Guardian’s video about the IDF using Palestinians as human shields:
link to youtube.com
bingo
I am not surprised by this at all. The Goldstone Report – all of these reports – are nothing more than allegations. Fact-finding is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even proof by a preponderance.
And there is, in fact, no documented record that Israel systematically targets civilians. There are only allegations based on anecdotal evidence, and the allegations are voluminous only because of an undue obsession with Israel, an obsession which Goldstone has acknowledged and criticized.
Alex Kane quotes an ACRI report that suggests, again, a ridiculous standard that has nothing to do with international law. International law does not require Israel to confine itself to “attacking rocket launchers.” AN army attacking an army base is not going to limit itself to the weapons on the base. The US Army certainly doesn’t operate this way.
So, predictably, all of you will probably jump down Goldstone’s throat with the same venom that right-wing Zionists did, or otherwise simply deny whatever he says that contradicts your worldview.
Here is a recent extended interview with Goldstone where he goes on in some detail.
The part about the report is towards the end.
link to youtube.com
Try as you might to make things up as you go along, such arbitrary made-up nonsense does not pass for “International Law”.
And there is, in fact, no documented record that Israel systematically targets civilians.
Hophmi, your threadbare hasbara might have worked a decade ago, but Mondoweiss readers yawn when they read tripe like this. You’re either being intellectually dishonest, or you’re shockingly ill-informed. The Dahiya Doctrine is all about targeting a civilian population, intentionally considering civilians to be combatants and attacking them with white phosphorus, DIME cubes, smart bombs and indiscriminate shelling. link to ynet.co.il
As a human being, Goldstone could no longer take the pressure that had been placed on him and his family. The “reconsideration” was scripted by others, and he put his name on it. I’m certain he’s in agony this weekend, knowing that his sterling reputation is now obliterated among all quarters.
Richard Witty shouldn’t be taking a victory lap and shouting “in-your-face!” to other Mondo posters — nothing has changed, and the world is not now going to consider Israel the most moral army in the world because Goldstone had to write a weak “reconsideration” of the report.
Goldstone – yet another hasbara shill!
In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.
Guilt by association? As far as I can see no one has been charged or “fitted up” with the Itamar killings of a settler family, yet here is Goldstome implying that Hamas are responsible.
Goldstone: ‘Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas.’
Limiting the use of white phosphorus, as opposed to banning it? So a little bit of white phosphorus is actually good for you, sort of like a dietary supplement to swallow with your cal-mag-zinc tablet? Nice! You first, Mister Justice, sir. No, really, I insist!
The overarching theme of Goldstone’s WaPo climbdown is ‘Israel good; Fatah good; Hamas b-a-a-a-a-a-a-d! If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the boilerplate US-Israeli line dating back to their immense blunder of nullifying Gaza’s elections in 2006 — a case of serious misconduct by the occupying power Israel which Goldstone doesn’t deign to mention, but which had a lot to do with Hamas firing stupid rockets at Sderot instead of growing up and assuming the responsibilities of a legitimately elected government.
A blunt and regrettable fact is that Goldstone is a participant in a two-tiered international justice system, in which rich countries exempt themselves from the standards of culpability they impose on the developing world. Goldstone, for instance, prosecuted atrocities committed under the Milosevich regime in former Yugoslavia. Well and good. But where is his prosecution of Tony Blair and George Bush for wantonly slaughtering tens of thousands in Iraq on totally false premises? Sorry — those who have the gold make the rules. So we shouldn’t be surprised that for a few Krugerrands more, Goldstone has kowtowed to his paymasters. With his 15 minutes of fame over, now he can shuffle off the world stage to well-deserved obscurity in his senescence, having futilely walked the plank for zionism.
p.s. Not once in Goldstone’s WaPo screed is the word ‘apartheid’ mentioned in relation to Israel’s racist, discriminatory laws. Curious selective blindness for a South African, no?
Goldstone got the usual Zionist treatment for anyone brave enough to question Israel.
“It was the technique which the Zionists were to employ throughout their struggle : the technique of promoting damaging personal attacks on those who stood in their way rather than trying to counter their arguments” Publish it not,
p 40
“It is hard to convey the bitterness with which Labour MPs who spoke up for the Arabs between 1967 and 1973 were treated by their Zionist colleagues . Will Griffiths, MP for Manchetser Exchange, made a brave speech in the house of commons on 31 May 1967 to the sound of almost continuous barracking. Hansard records that he gave way to seven interventions and there were no more than 23 other interruptions and attempts to shout him down” P 41
“Never before or since have I known a more distressing task than that of defending the Government’s immigration policy to outraged deputations of Zionists. these deputations were aslways well informed, articulate, passionate, demanding and ruthless” P 22
” Ww came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo some of the evil we have committed..we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them” P 190
Seafoid, where are these quotes from?
Michael Adam, Publish It Not: The Middle East Cover-Up, Signal Books, 2006, ISBN 1904955193
See Hostage below. The book is a must read and documents 80 years of bad faith and thuggery for an ideology that may, just may, be losing its touch .
I think in future the decision to recognise the PLO in the early 90s will be seen as the beginning of the end.
Norman Finkelstein never backs down. He is so amazing. And has taken some very personal hits.
If Witty thinks this is a free pass for the IDF, he’s deluded. If Israel launches Cast Lead 2 and conducts itself in a manner similar to the previous offensive (using white phosphorus, DIME Cubes, killing entire families), it will fully delegitimize itself among the community of nations.
And if that occurs, it will be a most shameful legacy of Goldstone — that he “goldwashed” future war crimes in a single WaPo op-ed. Goldstone may have been duped into redefining the rules of engagement to make the Dahiya Doctrine acceptible.
I shouldn’t, but I do feel just a tinge of Schadenfreude over MJ Rosenberg and Phil Weiss(even more so) when they plop open the NYT and read the learned Judge Goldstone’s taking a plop on his own report. The report’s Kashrut label is now in dispute. For fellow travelers and useful idiots alike, the Goldstone oped is the psychological metaphor for western communists reaction to Hitler’s surprise pact with Stalin.
One can imagine the psychological explanations conjuring the oldest hate:
1. The all pervasive power of the lobby.
2. The Judge was bought off; he rescinded for money.
3. Never pick a zionist to investigate Israel… their loyalties are suspect.
4. A team from Israel got to him, drugged him, blackmailed him, threatened him.
All four points were put into immediate use within minutes of the Goldstone oped. A crisis of conscience, a change of opinion, so just a snarky move to ensure his viability to become the next UN major domo were virtually ignored.
I read the multitude of Mondoweiss entries detailing the Judge Zionist/Jewish credentials, in retrospect, should have voided him from his work. Using this logic, we would never had a black President, or Jewish, or Muslim president because of the fear of “the other.”
The anti-semites don’t even know when they cross into blatant anti-semitic territory. Antisemitic fall back position distinguishing Zionism from Judaism crumbles easily under pressure. Fear and loathing of Jews, Muslims, blacks is simply the external creation of one’s own ego. Hatred or prejudging an individual based on creed, sexual orientation, or color of their skin(an eye problem as Rabbi Abraham Heschel quipped) must be confronted at each instance, exposed to the sunlight.
I read the multitude of Mondoweiss entries detailing the Judge Zionist/Jewish credentials, in retrospect, should have voided him from his work.
could you please link to a sampling of these ‘multitudes’? i’m not recalling this line of argument at all. not denying your contention it’s just the first i heard he should have been disqualified because he was jewsih or a zionist. and there are almost 100 comments on the thread, just point me in this dierection or any past threads for that matter. even from before the results of his report were published i didn’t here anything about his ethnicity disqualifying him.
The report’s Kashrut label is now in dispute.
i’m not aware of a time it wasn’t disputed by someone. but my opinion of his report have remained the same. the same people who disputed it before are still disputing it, now they just have one of the authors (goldstone himself!) presumably on their ‘team’.
annie,
biorabbi went of on a tangent of his own delusions. Must have been talking to himself.
i agree, but now bdg is backing him up so this should be interesting.
i’ve read lots of comments on this site and others but can’t recall ever hearing goldstone should have been eliminated based on him being a jew or a zionist. not that it hasn’t happened but i’ve just never read it much less read it in ‘multitude’.
yes, it is a disinformation tactic unfolding right in front of us.
biorabbi makes an untrue statement. A lie, actually. Anyone following the whole developement of the Goldstone report and how it came about know this. But most do not, so the lie has a good chance to stick.
You ask for evidence of the “multitude of Mondoweiss entries …” (Heck just one would do! It does not even have to be from Mondoweiss. Find one from a credible source anywhere. )
Then his buddy bdg, ridicules your question, trying to make it look like you asked something really absurd and stupid. You know, the ole’ sarcasm and ridicule spiel when there is no answer.
can’t recall ever hearing goldstone should have been eliminated based on him being a jew or a zionist
Never, ever, happened on this blog. Like to see these Israelis back that one up. PROVE IT.
no i’m not kidding, not at all. biorabbi has made a flagrant claim. it would be less inflammatory had the claim accused one poster of this or had he not used it to build a case of such hideous accusations as this:
the allegation there have been a multitude of Mondoweiss entries detailing the Judge Zionist/Jewish credentials, in retrospect, should have voided him from his work. can either be supported here or it cannot. furthermore, the use of the phrase “in retrospect” implies looking back, as if this claim was not made previously but only now that he has written this op-ed. if this is in fact the meaning of “in retrospect” then the evidence of these mutitudes of entries should be floating around here very nearby in one of the threads discussing the op-ed.
so either this flagrant allegation is supportable or it is not. why not just cough up the evidence instead of feigning aghast at my request?
do you need some smelling salts? what is it w/these ziobots being such drama queens?
i just want to read it myself. did anyone say jews and zionists should be disqualified from investigating israel?
Annie,
You go girl.
thank you mrw
;)
Biorabbi at 1:29 PM: “Antisemitic fall back position distinguishing Zionism from Judaism crumbles easily under pressure.”
Why is it antisemitic to distinguish Zionism from Judaism?
The former is a deeply misguided concept that has led to a Jewish-supremacist state with an ill-defined Eastern border calculated to guarantee a Jewish majority while gobbling up land belonging to disenfranchised non-Jews. The latter is a beautiful and honored religion. To see that difference is antisemitic?
bill, i little over a month ago (as i recall) there were arguments made here that zionism was intrinsic in judaism (or something to that effect) or that a jew who wasn’t a zionist or didn’t support israel as a zionist state isn’t really a jew. prior to that the de jewing of jews such as phil for a lack of zionism is a somewhat common theme that rears its ugly head in waves around here. then there’s the well worn regurgitated ‘new antisemitism ‘ claim of anti zionism = anti semitism (jonathan cook has written an excellent article documenting this ‘newness’ originating w/the lobby).
so what this means “fall back position distinguishing Zionism from Judaism ” is that most non zionists do distinguish between judaism and zionism. anti semites don’t because they reject all jews which would include both categories. so this is just a slanderous charge trying to relegate all non (or anti) zionists in with the cess pool of anti semites in the world. to sweep us (and our arguments) all away in one fell swoop. claiming we ‘crumble’, and this is based on the allegation, thus far not a one of them has produced any evidence of, there are ‘multitudes’ of these comments on mondoweiss regarding the disqualification of goldstone due to his jewish or zionist cred. it’s absurd of course.
One of the points of the semi-official EU definition of anti-Semitism – with which I think someone has tried to belabour you, annie – is that you absolutely must not, on pain of being plainly anti-Semitic, equate ‘Jewish’ and ‘Israeli’.
Everyone knows that many Jewish people reject Zionism and that many Zionists, including many very keen ones, would not consider themselves to be Jewish.
EU definition of anti-Semitism
another hasbara talking pt of late.
more than anything i think bio’s comment confirms the well worn path of accusing (and attempting to establish, even if it requires making up allegations out of whole cloth..lying) opponents of anti semitism remains the numero uno line of defense for the israel lobby and their munchkin trolls. it’s very cowardly and it’s purpose is to evade actually confronting israel’s policies. it’s just an attack the messenger instead of the message approach.
lacking in courage and integrity. it just goes to demonstrate how weak their arguments are that they need to continually resort to this. the sad thing is lightens the load for anti semites because it seeks to make the pool appear so much larger that the real ones can get lost (or hide) inside of it. it is damaging to their cause but i think they perceive it as worth it because their victimhood status in the hasbara wars is cherished above all else. anti semitism erases any need to even open the door to look at israel’s actions because it seeks to establish the idea israel’s critics are guilty from the start by virtue of our antisemitic ideology.
not very difficult to figure it out, that’s for sure.
Thank you annie.
BTW to follow up on a different thread, here are the three (3) co-authors with Goldstone who should now publicly weigh in on the views expressed in Goldstone’s WaPo op-ed:
Professor Christine Chinkin
Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science (who was a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun in 2008)
Ms. Hina Jilani
Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
Member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004)
Colonel Desmond Travers
Former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces
Member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.
Had a talk with some very religious Jews at a Palestinian Solidarity March in D.C. years ago. Was so interested in that they did not attach their religious beliefs , actions to a piece of land in the middle east.
Some believe that only One is holy and no person, place, or thing is holy unless God is present with it. So, for example God told Adam that the ground was cursed on account of his transgression, but Moses was told that the ground where the glory of God was being made manifest was holy. It was also manifestly evident that God was not with Herzl, Weizmann, or Ben Gurion.
biorabbi April 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Intellectual settler logic.
i’m not sure ‘settler logic’ could be defined as ‘intellectual’.
Noblesse oblige, darling. ;-)
You can say that again
“Antisemitic fall back position distinguishing Zionism from Judaism crumbles easily under pressure.”
Biorabbi, if you don’t understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism you can’t contribute much that is meaningful here. For the majority of the non-Zionists who post or comment at this site, Zionism is mainly a political movement and should be discussed as such. Judaism is certainly not that.
In a democracy, it is perfectly acceptable to oppose Zionism, just as for any other political movement or ideology that seeks to further its goals through the political and governmental processes. You attempt to push that tired old idea that anti-Zionism is equal to anti-Semitism, by which you mean hatred and racial antipathy toward Jews (many of whom are non- or anti-Zionist themselves). And of course, anti-Zionists hate all other “races”, whatever that means.
I know that you must have received a whole lot of indoctrination in your life, but try to get an education, would you?
(Also, I would like to ask you: Is there any particular reason that you know of why the principal author of the “Goldstone Report” HAD to be Jewish? Or HAD to be Zionist? Would you have objected if the UN had designated an esteemed Arab with impeccable qualifications? Just asking.)
“One can imagine the psychological explanations conjuring the oldest hate:
1. The all pervasive power of the lobby.
2. The Judge was bought off; he rescinded for money.
3. Never pick a zionist to investigate Israel… their loyalties are suspect.
4. A team from Israel got to him, drugged him, blackmailed him, threatened him.”
Like Israel never did anything like this in the past.
I mean, it is outrageously antisemitic to bring up Vanunu. Or AIPAC and Iraq. Or the Zionists in the UK in the 1930s.
Those chickens cannot be considered civilians. Anybody knows how easy it is to booby-trap a chicken. They had to die!
Goldstone”So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.”
Did Judge Goldstone demand that the human rights council condemn the “inexcusable and cold blooded” slaughter of the 3 daughters of Palestinian Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish?
Israeli-trained Gaza doctor loses three daughters and niece to IDF tank shell
link to haaretz.com
That demand is what is really bizarre, making Goldstone’s opinion article even more “out there…”
How can the HRC even make a statement on the murder of the Fogel family when there is an ongoing investigation of it, there is a gag order on any information, and no one knows who the perpetrators are? Jeeeesh!
Goldstone knows this. Which is another indication his hand must on penning this Wapo article must have been forced.
Correct, Ellen. This thing stinks like a five-day-old tuna.
Did Israel conduct an investigation into the killings of the Palestinian Dr. Ezzeldeen’s 3 daughters?
Did Judge Goldstone demand that the human rights council condemn the “inexcusable and cold blooded” slaughter of the 3 daughters of Palestinian Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish?
Precisely.
I can imagine The Dersh with a knife around Goldstone’s neck saying “now that you have seen the light and before we remove the electrodes from your testicles could you say a few words about Itamar ? ” Why would an international judge place the killing of 5 settlers above the murder of 1400 Gazans? Or is intentionality supposed to explain it ?
Goldstone has been the very model of judicious restraint in writing and speaking about the Report on war crimes in Gaza. And, in his Washington Post obescience, he meticulously parses the meaning of “intentionality” to refrain from accusing the IDF of a crime in, e.g, the slaughter of 28 family members in Gaza. At the same time, he breezily assumes (without, as they say, a scintilla of evidence) that Hamas is connected to the murder of the Itamar settlement family, and calls for a UN Human Rights inquiry into what remains a criminal homicide
investigation.
Alas, there goes the judge.
“At the same time, he breezily assumes (without, as they say, a scintilla of evidence) that Hamas is connected to the murder of the Itamar settlement family, and calls for a UN Human Rights inquiry into what remains a criminal homicide
investigation. ”
False. He merely called for the Human Rights Council to condemn the murders. Nowhere did he claim Hamas was responsible or call for a “human rights inquiry.”
Over at Huffington Post. Three mentions of the Goldstone flip flop on front page.
An AP piece up at the top. Scroll down 2 more pieces
link to huffingtonpost.com
David Samel:
Great responses:
David Samel April 3, 2011 at 8:38 am
David Samel April 3, 2011 at 11:02 am
link to huffingtonpost.com
Israel lauds war crimes investigator’s reversal
“In December 2008 Israel launched on offensive against Gaza, a densely populated strip of land that borders southwest Israel, in response to years of Palestinian rocket fire. In three weeks of fighting, some 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including hundreds of civilians, while 13 Israelis died.
Israel said the civilian death toll was unintentional and said Gaza’s Hamas rulers hid militants in populated areas and staged attacks from residential neighborhoods, schools and mosques, making civilian casualties unavoidable.
It refused to cooperate with Goldstone’s investigation, commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, a body with a history of anti-Israel declarations.
The Goldstone report, released in September 2009, concluded both Israel and Hamas committed potential war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
“Goldstone” has since become a dirty word in Israel.
Israeli leaders across the political spectrum vilified the South African judge, who for years was active in Israeli charitable causes, accusing him of contributing to the “delegitimization” of Israel.
Writing in the Washington Post over the weekend, Goldstone said that in light of internal investigations conducted in Israel and a subsequent UN report last month, he was reconsidering his most serious accusation – that Israel deliberately targeted civilians.
“If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document,” he said, adding Israel’s investigations “indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
He also said “Hamas has done nothing” to investigate the charges against it.
Israeli leaders could hardly contain their glee.”
So why is Goldstone just accepting Israel’s findings and then so clearly says that Hamas can not fairly investigate themselves? Will Goldstone now demand that Israel open up to the investigation that they closed their doors to before? Goldstone and team should have access now right?
“Goldstone” has since become a dirty word in Israel
So have justice, morality, restraint, and the unvarnished truth.
Let us at LEAST learn something from the the repulsive Goldstone episode.
ANYONE who professes love for Israel. who declares themselves a “friend of Israel,” who claims Israel “has the right to defend itself” and so on and so forth while simultaneously pretending to stand for justice and human rights is either a liar or a schizophrenic.
Goldstone had to either renounce Zionism and condemn Israel without equivocation, as all decent people must, or he had to abandon any pretense of being a moral human being, devoted to justice. He chose the latter.
Let us in the future guard against similar betrayals.
Well Israel has a right to defend itself, but the methods are horrible.
They don’t have the right to defend themselves from the reprisals of their victims–the people whose land they are stealing, whose orchards they are bulldozing, whose citizenry they are terrorizing and torturing. I reject any such right.
The rights of Israelis at this point can be summarized in two words. The first word is “pack” and the second word is “leave.”
Pack and leave. Get out and don’t come back.
Those are the only “Israeli rights” we should uphold.
leave to where unverified?
And do the Palestinians have a right to defend their territory? Push illegal settlers off of their land?
I think we have finally reached the point where it is legitimate to use the terms “illegal settlers” and “Israelis” interchangeably.
They have to go. The idea of them living in peace and harmony alongside anyone has become absurd. They are not capable of it.
Humane approach.
No one contesting?
Where they going to go unverified? Sounds like a call for at the least ethnic cleansing at the most genocide.
BTW your writing style is very familiar, try harder.
“Sounds like a call for at the least ethnic cleansing at the most genocide.”
Under international law, it is most definitely a call for genocide.
They’re pretty common around here.
Apparently Israel did not understand the ICJ opinion on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Here is an article about Netanyahu calling together 70 foreign diplomats to listen to his suggestion that the President of Iran should be prosecuted for genocide because he might be trying to acquire some nuclear weapons:
*See Netanyahu wants Iran president tried for genocide
Here are some links to articles which say (now former) US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton was a firm supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq for the very same reason. They say he also agreed with Netanyahu’s proposal that President Ahmadinejad should be tried for genocide :
*Move to bring genocide case against Ahmadinejad as Iran president repeats call to wipe out Israel
*Bush installs Bolton as US ambassador to UN
Here is an article which says that Ahmadinejad is not operating under the influence of the Grand Ayatollahs with regard to any ambitions for Iran’s nuclear program:
*Grand Ayatollah Montazeri attacks Ahmadinejad – ‘We have lost international trust’
Here is a report that was turned over to the ICC prosecutor explaining that some Palestinians may have been killed by soldiers acting under the influence of rabbis who had encouraged them to believe that the Holy Land should be cleansed of non-Jews:
*No Safe Place. – League Of Arab States
Here are some examples of Israeli Military Rabbinate and other Rabbinical Authorities inciting soldiers or citizens to commit acts of genocide:
*Breaking the Silence- Military Rabbinate
*”IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel
*IDF Chief Rabbi: Troops who show mercy to enemy will be ‘damned’”
*The King’s Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
Here is a link to an article about MKs from Shas and United Torah Judaism joining with MK Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union (Ichud Leumi) to sponsor a bill that would grant Jewish leaders immunity from prosecution for incitement to commit genocide so they can continue to use responsa in Jewish law, whether verbal or written, in line with their current religious practices. See the subsection: “MKs: Rabbis Must be Protected” in:
*Rabbis to Explain ‘Torat HaMelech’ Controversy
There is 60 long years of documented, deliberate Israeli attacks on civilians, complete with the express endorsement of the likes of Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion. Deir Yassin, Operation Grapes of Wrath, Operation Cast Lead.
Then there is the willful, even gleeful, Israeli enabling of atrocities like Sabra and Shatila.
And there is the eyewitness testimony of people like Chris Hedges, Amira Hass, and many others.
And the testimony of Palestinians themselves. But this last is routinely, systematically, and casually dismissed by Americans, Europeans and Israelis — much as Holocaust revisionists dismiss the testimony of Jews. (Is that an equation of the Holocaust with Israeli treatment of Palestinians? Obviously not. It is an equation of those who deny victim testimony with the intent of burying any revelations of truth about victimization.)
“There is 60 long years of documented, deliberate Israeli attacks on civilians, complete with the express endorsement of the likes of Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion. Deir Yassin, Operation Grapes of Wrath, Operation Cast Lead.”
But Israel has often been very successful at keeping the worlds spotlight off of their crimes against humanity. They kept journalist at quite the distance during Cast Lead, confiscated all recording equipment off the Mavi Marmara. With Palestinians and international witnesses having more access to sharing what is really going on the world is starting to have pictures that go along with decades long reports from those who have persistently tried to get the word out.
Will be interesting to hear what kind of coverage Chris Matthews will touch on. He has been on a special assignment in Israel. Will he be a part of the rebranding Israel campaign or really present a fair view of what is really taking place?
It will be very interesting to hear if the MSM’s talking heads like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, etc will be discussing the flip flop of Judge Goldstone on their programs this week.
All and I do mean all MSm outlets were silent completely silent about the Goldstone Report. Not a mention, not a show on Diane Rehms, Talk of the Nation, C-Spans Washington Journal.
This will be so interesting. Will their owners encourage them to cover this flip flop.
Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed, Chris Matthews, NPR’s Terri Gross, Diane Rehm, Neal Conan…you know all of those so called progressives were totally SILENT about the Goldstone Report
matt over at Race for Iran (incredible spot to read and learn about Iran etc) responds to my posting the Mondoweiss discussion about the Goldstone flip flop
Matt says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:49 am
Kathleen says:
April 2, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Kathleen, The Angry Arab indicates that it was mistaken to ever put trust in a white supremacist Zionist such as Goldstone: link to angryarab.blogspot.com
Shame on Norman Finkelstein for preaching the absurdity that a self-professed Zionist hoodlum like Goldstone should be a spokesman for justice and the rule of law.
Shame on ALL of us for being hoodwinked by this Zionist and career criminal who belongs behind bars.
The damage done by Goldstone’s sickening about-face is simply incalculable. It is ALREADY being used as justification for future (imminent?) massacres of Palestinians:
“The one point of light regards future actions,” Gavriella Shalev, a law professor and most recently Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, said on Israel Radio. “If we have to defend ourselves against terror organizations again, we will be able to say there is no way to deal with this terror other than the same way we did in Cast Lead.”
Israel keeps expanding old and building new illegal settlements and illegal housing in E Jerusalem. You would think the what we thought was a fair and honorable Judge Goldstone would just whisper about this ongoing illegal and criminal activity of Israel’s.
Some wise words from Seth Godin:
South African Zionist Federation admit to make Goldstone “suffer greatly”.
“We took sides against him, and it encourages us to know that our way had an effect against the international pressure and made him admit and regret his remarks.”
“Goldstone eventually attended his grandson’s bar mitzvah, escorted by many bodyguards, in a hostile atmosphere. His arrival was made possible, according to Krengel, only after Goldstone agreed to meet with the leaders of the South African Zionist Federation.”
link to ynetnews.com
thanks
Goldstone has done _worse_ than he would have had he never said anything at all, never been a part of any inquiry. Now he will be held up — Ethan Bronner does so today in the New York Times with classic TimesSpeak — as an example of a reformed critic, a critic who has seen the light of truth. He will be offered as further proof of how Palestinians have seized the public mind.
Sonja’s remarks suggest that his life was made an utter misery to a degree that few of us could have endured.
The Israelis told Ilan Pappe they would butcher his two children. That is the reason he fled Israel, though he most certainly has NOT recanted a word of his findings, outlined in his book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.”
I have no sympathy for Goldstone. He has actually managed the impossible—to outdo the Israelis in terms of utter depravity. After all, Israel denied that Cast Lead was a massacre. Goldstone showed that it WAS a massacre and then said Israel was entirely justified in committing it!
Wow. Is this true?
How horrible.
The Israelis told Ilan Pappe they would butcher his two children.
let me guess…that’s unverified?
Unverified by whom?
Pappe talks about it in an interview. He says that he is willing to risk his own life for the sake of his convictions, but not the lives of his two sons, who were threatened with murder if he stayed in Israel.
He now teaches at Exeter in the UK.
Here’s Pappe on it (I added paragraph breaks):
“My first guest for this series, the Israeli historian, Professor Ilan Pappe, told us that he had taken his leave of Israel because the lives of his two young sons as well as his own life were being threatened.
My guest tonight is another man who receives death threats from supporters of Israel right or wrong for daring to tell the truth they want suppressed. He is one of the world’s best, most courageous and distinguished journalists. Our paths crossed for the first time more years ago than either of us care to remember when we were covering the war in Vietnam. He is John Pilger.”
link to vimeo.com
Thanks, unverified. I keep copies of this stuff because I know it will disappear.
Where was Ilan Pappe?
Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein honorable very brave individuals.
Mordechai Vanunu also
thank you for the followup link. i misinterpreted your original statement and thought you meant the goi. no it does not surprise me he would receive these threats.
Sonja’s remarks suggest that his life was made an utter misery to a degree that few of us could have endured.
Try being a black man in the 20th C. in the USA.
Whoops!
I said some stuff about Al Capone that was totally untrue! He’s actually a wonderful, upstanding citizen…one of the most honest and law abiding people you’ll ever meet!
I’ve learned my lesson and will never again seek to “de-legitimize” him.
I find it really wierd that neither Adam, nor Alex, nor Phil, nor others posting that previously relied on Goldstone’s credentials and identity, have stated “I respect the man. I will consider his comments.”
Do you hear yourselves?
i don’t think it is weird at all. the man just helped those who’ve been trying to tank is reputation for a few years. a friend of mine just attended a debate @ stanford last week. he was sure singing another tune then.
watching someone you previously trusted do a flipflop based on …nothing, no new evidence, nothing..this isn’t a fun thing. there’s no logical compelling reason presented by goldstone that really explains this. outside of pressure from the lobby, why would he do this?
he was present at a debate and answered questions just last week @ stanford. this was followed on twitter @ jadaliyya. a friend of mine attended and said hands down the american palestinian lawyer noura erakat stole the show and goldstone was supportive of the palestinian speakers of the debate and very harsh (critical) on the zionists. i’ve read elsewhere it was an easy win for the pro p side of the debate defending goldstone.
of course there was NO press about this. so why did he flip all of a sudden. and you think it is weird people arn’t talking about trusting him? today? yesterday?
what is it w/these zionist and there asking people to condemn and profess loyalty or respect? it’s you who is weird richard, and grossly insensitive.
Thats actually the point Annie. If you trust the man, then you listen first, shoot later.
If you only care about the man because he is a weapon for you, then your movement is something less than humane.
The manner in which Adam and Phil approach this is very critical to their public reputations. They have invested a great deal in the authority of the content, and in the man himself. If they trash him in any vindictive manner, they will be seen as that.
The approach that I would recommend would be the same that I recommended that the IDF take when the Goldstone report was first published.
That is to take it seriously, to investigate, to reconsider long-held conclusions, to improve the manner in which they conduct their operations, so that their services (their commentary) can be relied on.
To go only partisan as many here are encouraging will discredit them and the site.
“If you only care about the man because he is a weapon for you, then your movement is something less than humane.”
Well, that clarifies things. The Goldstone Report wasn’t about the Israelis and the Palestinians who died as a result of war crimes–it was about Goldstone. No wonder his name is on the thing. What matters is how he is treated, and not any truth about the war itself.
If you trust the man, then you listen first, shoot later.
If you only care about the man because he is a weapon for you, then your movement is something less than humane.
Sorry, if you only care about the facts and the law, then resorting to either Argumentum ad hominem or Argument from authority is irrelevant. That is why judges sometimes overrule defense or prosecution motions to dismiss or reduce the charges.
The scope of the treaty monitoring functions of the UN Human Rights Committee is not limited to war crimes or crimes against humanity. The UN fact finding mission submitted an official report to an intergovernmental treaty monitoring body. It contained summaries of testimony given by witnesses, reliable published reports, and the on-scene observations of the mission. It provided a detailed legal analysis regarding violations of the applicable international humanitarian and human rights laws – and international criminal law. Only a few of the many law violations that were cited included the material elements of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
The Op-Ed is nothing like that. It indicates that the Judge is of the opinion that Israel has submitted some evidence to the UN which establishes that there was no official government policy of targeting civilians for attack. The WaPo Op-Ed doesn’t provide a link or UN document number, so there is no way of knowing what evidence, exactly, it might be that he has in mind.
The manner in which Adam and Phil approach this is very critical to their public reputations.
why don’t you let phil and adam worry about their public reputations, somehow your preaching doesn’t indicate to me this is a priority of your anyway.
If they trash him in any vindictive manner, they will be seen as that.
i really don’t think you have to worry your pretty little head about phil or adam being vindictive. they’re big boys and can take care of themselves, they have other tools besides vindictiveness. the only person whose reputation and credibility is at risk here is goldstone. phil and adam are in the business of exposing the truth. goldstone appears to be appeasing after the fact.
Annie,
Let Phil and Adam determine what information is useful to them.
If they are not concerned about the impact of this article on their thesis here, in public promotion of their book, morally, then they are not thinking clearly or ethically.
I would hope that they review their conclusions, their goals, their choice of presentations, the tone of presentation, everything.
“I find it really wierd that neither Adam, nor Alex, nor Phil, nor others posting that previously relied on Goldstone’s credentials and identity, have stated “I respect the man. I will consider his comments.”
That’s because you don’t look at the evidence of Israeli brutality. It’s all a matter of who says what. For you the fact that Goldstone wrote this op ed is in itself somehow a major contribution to our knowledge of what happened in 2009. But it’s not. There’s very little evidence to back up Goldstone’s absolution of Israel.
Phil, in my opinion, sometimes makes a mistake of being a cheerleader and making too much of what some particular individual says because he wants to think there are major changes going on in America regarding the I/P conflict. Goldstone is a Zionist so the fact that he helped write this report was symbolically important, but when you put too much stress on what some individual says it leaves you in the lurch if that person then backtracks, even if their backtracking isn’t supported by evidence.
For you, though, it’s all a matter of “listening” to what this person or that person says and never about the evidence backing up their claims. That leaves you free to believe what you want or to say that the facts are still in doubt and the issue forever unresolvable. You like it that way. Unless Olmert freely and openly confesses that yes, the Gaza War was meant to punish civilians, no evidence will ever be enough. That’s why you find Phil and the others here so “weird”. They’re focusing on what the evidence shows and you want them to pay homage to Goldstone as he does his backflip.
Donald,
With Richard, you should just skip all the explanation and get to the tagline: “They’re focusing on what the evidence shows and you want them to pay homage to Goldstone as he does his backflip.” He doesn’t read the in-between stuff, and is full of fantasy thinking like the Shalev stuff he quoted, which is gilding one big lily.
I actually don’t conclude one way or the other about Goldstone.
I think it is always a bad policy of shoot first, think later. Not you?
“I think it is always a bad policy of shoot first, think later.”
You thought the Gaza War was justified, Richard. Tell me another joke–that one was pretty good.
I thought that it was the IDF responsibility to protect Israeli civilians from military assault.
You?
Historical and policy questions are up for legitimate discussion. I don’t see any way for a responsible government to just accept the shelling of civilians (as “just resistance”). I couldn’t believe it when a couple posters have suggested so, that Israel did not have a legal right to defend against attacks and by “international law”.
What kind of fools digest that crap?
Then you understand the amount of restraint Hamas and other factions are exercising in Gaza in doing ‘not much’ in response to Israel killing scores of civilians in Gaza in the two years since the last major bloodbath.
How many Israeli civilians has Gaza action killed in the last two years please Richard?
a) one
b) two
c) three
d) other
Would that be an accurate description (shoot first, think later) of Israeli behaviour since they overwhelmingly are the first to kill after a period of calm or ceasefire:
Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?
Or maybe not, maybe continued Israeli violence is calculated to enrage Palestinians to the point where they strike back, and Israel can then exploit it as hasbara.
“What kind of fools digest that crap?”
If you want to understand how some can justify the illegitimate attacks on Israeli civilians, then look in the mirror, Richard. I think it is people like you who provoke the more extreme people on the left. You regularly ignore context–no one reading your posts would ever know that Israel is engaged in apartheid and uses its power to steal land and oppress Palestinians and that all this involves violence, often lethal violence. They wouldn’t know that when Israel “defends” itself, more often than not Israel is the one that ended a lull in violence by committing violence.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself, but this is like saying that Tony Soprano has the right to defend himself. That’s absolutely correct and if Tony is jumped by a mugger or his family is attacked he can defend himself and his family. But someone who described the Soprano TV show as the story of Tony defending himself would not be taken very seriously by TV critics.
>> Then you understand the amount of restraint Hamas and other factions are exercising in Gaza in doing ‘not much’ in response to Israel killing scores of civilians in Gaza in the two years since the last major bloodbath. . . . Or maybe not …
The answer is “not”. RW believes that Israel has a right to “belligerent reprisals” even if it “started it”.
So, according to this Zio-supremacist “humanist”, Israel – a nation engaged in ON-GOING aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder – can undertake offensive military actions designed to invoke a reaction from the Palestinians, and then use that reaction as justification for destructive reprisals.
RW has “rationalized terror” and, therefore, “invested in it”.
“I respect the man. I will consider his comments.”
I do too, but I think you are reading much more into his comments than is warranted.
The jurisdiction of the international criminal court is strictly limited by Article 25 to “natural persons”. That means it does not put legal persons like “states”, “terror organizations”, or “corporations” on trial in the first place.
The fact that the report described “widespread and systematic” attacks that targeted a civilian population or massacres of groups carrying white flags does not automatically mean that the Prosecutor can put all of the members of the Israeli cabinet on trial. A person will only be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if the material elements of the crime are committed “with intent and knowledge”. It is still quite possible for individual ministers or commanders to be held liable for those acts without it entailing any intent or knowledge on the part of others within the government of Israel. So targeting of the civilians may not be a joint criminal enterprise involving the government of the State of Israel.
The fact that the State of Israel didn’t have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians still might not relieve it of criminal or state responsibility for wrongful acts mentioned in the report. Those matters can still be referred to the ICJ.
The ICJ (vs the ICC) has inherent jurisdiction to determine “state responsibility for wrongful acts of state” or “genocide”. It is clear that internationally wrongful acts were committed by Israel during operation Cast Lead and that the Goldstone report mentions the findings of the ICJ in connection with the Wall and settlements in the West Bank.
The Arab League report cited many of the same incidents mentioned in the Goldstone report. That mission concluded that Israel did not have a deliberate policy of destroying the population of Gaza in whole or in part. However, it noted that Israel may have failed to take appropriate action to prevent rabbis from engaging in deliberate incitement to commit genocide and acts of settler violence. Those findings were based in part “on the brutality of some of the killing and reports that some soldiers had acted under the influence of rabbis who had encouraged them to believe that the Holy Land should be cleansed of non-Jews”. See for example Breaking the Silence- Military Rabbinate and paragraphs 30-34 (page 6) and 607-608 (page 148) in No Safe Place. – League Of Arab States
If individual members of the armed forces committed acts of genocide, Israel could be held responsible under the Genocide Convention for failure to prevent incitement or to punish those acts after the fact.
One of the landmark genocide cases that I’ve discussed elsewhere on Mondoweiss involved an attack on a group of 22 people. Some of the attacks in Cast Lead involved similar groups. See for example, Article 6 Genocide (a) “Killing members of the group;” & Article 8 War Crimes (2)(b) (xii): “Declaring that no quarter will be given;”IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel and IDF Chief Rabbi: Troops who show mercy to enemy will be ‘damned’
The government of Israel is considering legislation that would grant immunity to rabbis who make similar statements.
I think you are reading too much into my comments as well Hostage.
If you read my comments, I used the same language that Ben White used in an article here, that Judge Goldstone “qualified” his allegations, not utterly and clearly recanted the as the Israeli right is presenting.
I do believe that the qualifications were material, significant, and change the tenor of all responsible discussion on Cast Lead.
Until the op-ed, the accusations of systematic war crimes were occassionally considered as plausible by members of the US government. That tension is largely gone now. Congress and administration are also breathing a sigh of relief.
The tenor of the official discussion on war crimes will now be limited to incidents or if pressed for elements of policy, rather than overarching, systemic and intentional efforts.
The scope of feasible dissent will have to shift from blame to proposal, from demonization to criticism. It is three steps back for the anti-Zionist movement, 4 steps forward if it desires to and can learn.
Witty the Op-Ed does not say there were no widespread or systematic attacks against civilians. It says there was no official policy on the part of the Israeli government to target civilians. If you think that is a “get out of jail free card” for everyone involved, you’re mistaken.
Hostage,
My points about the affects on the US administration and Congress stand. They will not take the assertion “it was in the Goldstone report” as seriously now.
And, I think I am still accurate that the most effective and most benign dissent will be dissent that offer constructive criticism, without any implication of seeking Israel’s demise or forced federation.
My points about the affects on the US administration and Congress stand. They will not take the assertion “it was in the Goldstone report” as seriously now.
richard, i am very interested in reading about how the US administration and congress at one time took the goldstone report seriously. i thought there was some kind of a resolution not to consider it. please link to any reports about this alleged ‘seriousness’, i want to read about it. thanks
They didn’t adopt the conclusions of the Goldstone report in the slightest, but they couldn’t ignore it. They were waiting.
In Congress, there are maybe a dozen that adopted the Goldstone Report as descriptive, already accepted its conclusions. There were maybe 50 that thought that it might be true, that they would eventually face a decision as to their position on Israel, that they would at some point have to declare opposition to policies.
That number is down, way down.
Richard Witty,
The members of the Assembly of State Parties pay for the International Criminal Court, not the UN, and certainly not the US administration or Congress. The countries that DON’T belong have no say in how the Court is operated. That is something that may eventually come back to haunt those US officials. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the plot to overthrow the elected Hamas government involve crimes that were committed after the Court came into existence. There is no statute of limitations going forward from 2002.
link to nytimes.com
“The one point of light regards future actions,” Gavriella Shalev, a law professor and most recently Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, said on Israel Radio. “If we have to defend ourselves against terror organizations again, we will be able to say there is no way to deal with this terror other than the same way we did in Cast Lead.”
And on the other hand, sometimes lessons are just not learned.
“Mr. Halbertal added, “These have to do with to what degree soldiers assume risks in order to minimize collateral harm to civilians. This is where the moral challenge lies. And his retraction could now force the international community to look at these problems in a more serious way rather than by propaganda.” ”
And then again, maybe someone will get to learn.
From here on out, it’s more or less a waste of time to report on Israeli atrocities in the Occupied Territories. The standard response is certain to be: “sure–that’s what Justice Goldstone claimed in the most authoritative report ever to expose Israeli wrongdoing, before Goldstone recanted the whole thing.”
We ought to be clear: Goldstone has single-handedly demolished DECADES of public awareness-raising concerning Israel’s stomach-turning violence against innocent people. The move gives such an astounding boost to Israel’s ongoing, consequence-free assault on life and limb, one could be excused for wondering if the whole thing was cooked up from the beginning by the Mossad (or one of the other innumerable, Nazi-inspired organizations so common to that hideous state).
“From here on out, it’s more or less a waste of time to report on Israeli atrocities in the Occupied Territories. The standard response is certain to be: “sure–that’s what Justice Goldstone claimed in the most authoritative report ever to expose Israeli wrongdoing, before Goldstone recanted the whole thing.”
We ought to be clear: Goldstone has single-handedly demolished DECADES of public awareness-raising concerning Israel’s stomach-turning violence against innocent people.”
That’s how I see it, except that I’d say that much of the damage (perhaps not all) is limited to the US, where the press tends to spin things Israel’s way as much as possible. I don’t think Goldstone was a spy or anything paranoid like that, but I do think that his retraction was an monumental propaganda victory for the deniers of Israeli war crimes–you can see it in the threads here. The details don’t matter. Phil and Adam and Alex and Tom can post refutation after refutation of the details and you can see in the threads here how little impact that makes on people who want to believe in Israel’s basic innocence. The headlines are what matter and the headline here is that the author of the Goldstone Report retracted. Israel has been vindicated and once again, it’s “established” that they don’t target civilians while the barbarous Arabs do.
It has always been a waste of time to report on Israeli atrocities. Remember the UN report on the (last) Lebanon war?
***
UN Rights Council report condemns flagrant Israeli violations in summer war
4 December 2006 – Israel’s use of weapons such as cluster bombs during this summer’s war with Hizbollah in Lebanon was a flagrant violation of the right to life and property, excessive, not justified by military necessity and went beyond the arguments of proportionality, according to a report mandated by the Human Rights Council.
Israel violated obligations of international and humanitarian law and it disregarded its international and individual responsibility, according to the report of the High-Level Commission of Inquiry set up by the Council in August to probe “systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel,” which was presented to the 47-member body in Geneva on Friday.
link to un.org
***
Not for the squeamish! And were there consequences? None! Well, some war criminals got promoted. One of them, Michael Oren, is now ambassador in the US. It’s sickening.
I agree with Goldstone: intentionally targeting civilians by Israël is not a policy. It’s a TRADITION.
I hope I m wrong : Various articles about a possible Cast Lead II, Israel’s escalation in violence towards Gaza and now a re read of the Goldstone report … Sounds like Israel is flexing its muscle both militarily and judicially ?
Strategic escalation is already in operation.
“Israel has a long history of deliberately using violence and other provocative measures to trigger reactions in order to create a pretext for military action, and to portray its opponents as the aggressors and Israel as the victim. According to the respected Israeli military historian Zeev Maoz in his recent book, Defending the Holy Land, Israel most notably used this policy of “strategic escalation” in 1955-1956, when it launched deadly raids on Egyptian army positions to provoke Egypt’s President Nasser into violent reprisals preceding its ill-fated invasion of Egypt; in 1981-1982, when it launched violent raids on Lebanon in order to provoke Palestinian escalation preceding the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; and between 2001-2004, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon repeatedly ordered assassinations of high-level Palestinian militants during declared ceasefires, provoking violent attacks that enabled Israel’s virtual reoccupation of the West Bank.”
Read article:
War of Choice: How Israel Manufactured the Gaza Escalation
link to antiwar.com
Ultimate question: was Goldstone so vexed by the book written by Adam Horowitz, Lizzy Ratner, Philip Weiss and Naomi Klein (paperback – Jan 11, 2011) and titled The Goldstone Report, that he decided to cut it off at the knees by retracting his own report?
A good book to donate to the local library.
Actually, I wondered about something like that myself. He’s probably very sorry he ever got involved in this–a book coming out from the pro-Palestinian pov would just make it that much harder for him to get out from under all the vilification he’d gotten for his “blood libel”.
I wondered about that.
One of the most important lines in Goldstone’s op-ed is this one:
“Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies.”
I recommend everybody here read this and digest it. Because a lot of people here don’t seem to want to admit the truth of this fact.
““Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies.”
I recommend everybody here read this and digest it. Because a lot of people here don’t seem to want to admit the truth of this fact.”
Read it, digested it, agreed with it decades ago. And I agree with Goldstone–Hamas committed war crimes and did so deliberately. So did Israel.
And the elephant crushed the wasp for stinging him.
The elephant crushed the wasp and in the act of crushing the wasp stung him.
Not really an adequate analogy. We need third and fourth parties to represent innocent victims.
The elephant mother stamped on the anthill. In response, soldier ants bit the elephant’s baby.
>> One of the most important lines in Goldstone’s op-ed is this one:
>> “Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies.”
Very true. So how, exactly, does this excuse Israel’s ON-GOING aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder? How, exactly, does it entitle Israel to undertake offensive military actions in order to invoke a response against which it can then execute “belligerent reprisals”?
“Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies.”
I read that, but attributed the error to the fact that the Washington Post Op-Ed was not peer-reviewed in advance of publication.
Judge Goldstone was the Prosecutor in the case of “The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic – Case No. IT-02-54-T (Rule 98 bis test – Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State)”. He knows better than to conflate the laws of armed conflict and international human and humanitarian law (IHL and IHRL). See for example paragraphs 303-307 of the Goldstone report. The Amici Curiae motion in the Milosevic case argued that all Geneva Convention “grave breaches” counts in the Croatia indictment before January 15, 1992, had to be dismissed because the Prosecution failed to establish that Croatia was a state before that time, making the conflict one of a non-international nature. That meant there might not have been any forced transfer across international borders. So, the Appeals Chamber had to determine when Croatia came into existence as an intermediate question.
Israel has used the same argument for years to claim that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and that it can hold Palestinians in Israeli prisons, & etc. Israel claims that it is free to target the unrecognized communities living in Palestine with all sorts of measures under military directives that international law would prohibit if the victim were a “state”.
All of the rules of armed conflict contained in the Geneva Conventions have been recognized as part of the body of customary international law, but only Common Article 3 applies to non-international armed conflicts involving “non-state actors”. You can compare other differences between international and non-international rules of armed conflict (IAC/NIAC) in The ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law
In similar fashion, Israel has objected that the Palestinian National Authority is not a state and therefore cannot accept the jurisdiction of of the International Criminal Court in accordance with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. There is no question that Israel could accept the Court’s jurisdiction with regard to Hamas attacks on the territory of the state of Israel.
So, it is remarkable that a expert with Judge Goldstone’s first-hand experience would say that the law of armed conflict applies equally to all of the actors.
Hello Hostage,
I’ve read many of your replies and just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate them. Your obvious knowledge on this subject and the fact that you source your posts so thoroughly and in great detail, is simply stunning and I’ve learned a great deal from them. Do you happen to have your own website/blog and if so, would you care to share the link?
I’ve been reading this website for many years on an almost daily basis and there are countless others here who also often make their points extremely well but I find all of your replies in particular, exceptionally well researched. Thanks again for all the time and energy you, and many others here, have put into sharing your knowledge with us. Cheers.
Goldstone” they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
As a “matter of policy” Israel does not target civilians. Their actions speak much louder than their stated policy. When a crime is committed do those holding those accused of the crime accountable present what the alleged criminals stated policy is or their actions and results of those actions?
When a crime is committed do those holding those accused of the crime accountable present what the alleged criminals stated policy is or their actions and results of those actions?
You asked a good question, the answer in many instances can be either the stated policy or the situation that results in actual practice.
For example, the crime of apartheid is defined in article II of the Convention as both “policies and practices” and “Any legislative measures and other measures“. Article III stipulates that international criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved. So, officials would still be liable if the necessary material elements of the offense were committed with intent and knowledge – even in the absence of a formal written policy or law – and despite any claim regarding security or self-defense.
Lebanon cited a “resulting situation” in the 2004 Wall case:
“The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment.” See Written Statement of Lebanon
The ICJ findings included many of those acts in paragraphs 132-134. It said that Israel could not rely on the right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of those actions (paragraphs 140-142). The Court also noted that the interested state parties had contended that Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law resulting from the construction of the wall (paragraph 145). That situation invites ICC action since Israel has never taken any action.
The Goldstone report contains references and analysis concerning that situation and the 2004 Wall case on pages 18, 72, 73,74, 78, 79, 80, 279, 334, 335, 401, 402, and 412. The mission reported on the impunity enjoyed by settlers carrying out attacks on Palestinians; the dual legal system and entitlements for “persons of Jewish race or descendency”; and a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin in the movement and access policy. The report also said that a Court might reasonably find that the crime of persecution has been committed. That is an aggravated offense, like a hate crime, that requires a finding of some other crime against humanity – like the crime of apartheid.
The bottom line is that the ICC Prosecutor would have to review the ICJ exhibits and findings from the Wall case. So, the crime of apartheid would come into play regardless of the fact that it might not be a stated public policy.
Going to be very interesting to hear if the so called liberal media cover Goldstone’s retractions since all of them ignored the original Goldstone Report.
Silence. Now will Neal Conan, Diane Rehm, Terri Gross, RAchel maddow, Chris Matthews all suddenly decided to discuss this issue. Not that Goldstone rolled over to Israel and barked.