Israeli Double Standard Time

11/19/2009

Arab oil money 1, British Israel Lobby 0

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Lockerbie bomber — Meryl Yourish @ 4:30 pm

The Channel 4 “documentary” on The Israel Lobby, vigorously defended by its authors as not in any way antisemitic, is yet another example of the Israeli Double Standard. The specter of Jewish control over Britain’s politicians is so hideously scary, that the authors simply had to understand why a British politician, speaking to a group called The Conservative Friends of Israel, did not mention the Gaza War. Hm. Let’s think. “Friends of Israel,” not “Friends of Fictional Place Known as Palestine” might have been the reason. But here, in their own words, is what they found:

Afterwards, we resolved to ask the question: what are the rules of British political behaviour that cause the Tory leader,his mass of MPs and parliamentary candidates to flock to the Friends of Israel lunch in the year of the Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure such an event passes without even being noticed?

During an investigation lasting several months, we have been able to reach several important conclusions. We maintain there is indeed a pro-Israel lobby in Britain. It is extremely well-connected and well-funded, and works through all the main political parties.

It’s the British version of Walt & Mearsheimer. But here, in my opinion, is the single action that blows “The Israel Lobby” meme in Britain out of the water:

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

“The Israel Lobby” contributes money to British politicians and supposedly affects the U.K.’s actions toward Israel. Yet the U.K. refused to vote on the Goldstone report, is refusing to sell arms and spare parts to the IDF for certain items, constantly chides Israel regarding the current situation, and British media (particularly the Guardian) regularly excoriates Israel. In the meantime, Muammar Ghaddafi offers BP an oil deal, and the Lockerbie bomber, who murdered 270 people, including 11 people on the ground in the U.K., goes free.

Tell me again how powerful The Israel Lobby is in the U.K., because I could really use a good laugh.

Comments (2)

11/13/2009

I am not a schnook

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Richard Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

In Context observed about Judge Goldstone:

There’s something horrifying about the amount of damage that a slight to one man’s ego can do. I’m well aware that there was more to the Goldstone report than that, but nevertheless it appears to me to be a factor that can’t be ignored. The fact is that, his protestations notwithstanding, it’s Goldstone who has made the controversy over this report all about him.

Well that ego has bruised again, this time by Israeli President Shimon Peres (h/t My Right Word):

Richard Goldstone, who authored the United Nations report accusing Israel of perpetrating war crimes in its Gaza offensive earlier the year, is a man devoid of any real sense of justice and is intent on harming Israel, President Shimon Peres told Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva during their meeting in Brasilia on Wednesday.

“Goldstone is a small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence,” Peres told his Brazilian counterpart, adding that the South African jurist “was on a one-sided mission to hurt Israel.”

Goldstone didn’t try to hide his bruised ego:

South African jurist Richard Goldstone lambasted President Shimon Peres on Thursday for a personal attack on him, which the president launched in response to a damning report he compiled on Israel’s winter offensive in Gaza.

“I would say that the President’s comments are specious and ill-befitting the Head of the State of Israel,” Goldstone said in an interview with Haaretz.

“I am content to be judged by my actions over the course of my career both in terms of my professional judicial career and my voluntary service.”

Meryl observes:

His report’s “message” has been addressed, many times, by many sources—factually—and Goldstone’s response, over and over again, is that people can’t attack him on the facts so they attack him personally. He sticks to this defense even in when he is confronted with evidence that directly contradicts his report, seeming shocked that such evidence exists. So Goldstone is either utterly disingenuous, if not outright lying—and he’s been doing this dance since the beginning. The martyr role is getting tiresome.

Since he asked for it, let’s judge the judge.

One of his most damning assessments was the commission’s account of the attack on the Maqadameh mosque.

Col. Jonathan Dahoah Halevi recently reviewed some aspects of the incident. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)

The Goldstone Committee also failed by thoroughly examining the data. If Committee members had examined the names of the Palestinians killed at the Maqadmah mosque, they would have discovered that their identities and the membership of many of them in terrorist organizations contradicted the “eyewitness” claims that there were no terrorist operatives in the area, and contradicted as well the conclusions of the Report in that respect.

Seven of the 15 Palestinians killed at the mosque were members of terrorist organizations who had participated in fighting the IDF, most of them members of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military-terrorist wing, and a few of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Regarding one of them (Ahmed Abu Ita of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades), it was reported that he had gone to the Maqadmah mosque to meet “friends,” i.e., other armed terrorist operatives.

(This isn’t some sort of post facto analysis. Elder of Ziyon discovered that one of those killed was a Hamas operative prior to the release of the Goldstone report by using publicly available sources.)

Halevi notes elsewhwere that a number of the witnesses the commission to this strike were from the Silawi family, who had an agenda. (Halevi also notes there, that the questions asked of the witnesses were hardly comprehensive.) Yet the commission accepted their testimony uncritically.

The Goldstone Commission’s report is based on many omissions and distortions as shown in this case. Yet Goldstone feels:

Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.”
…
“We couldn’t use that report as evidence at all,” Goldstone said. “But it was a useful roadmap for our investigators, for me as chief prosecutor, to decide where we should investigate. And that’s the purpose of this sort of report. If there was an independent investigation in Israel, then I think the facts and allegations referred to in our report would be a useful road map.”

Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author. The report repeatedly refers, without qualification, to specific violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention committed by Israel and other breaches of international law. Citing particular cases, the report determines unequivocally that Israel “violated the prohibition under customary international law” against targeting civilians. These violations, it declares, “constitute a grave breach” of the convention.

That first paragraph should be chilling. Goldstone feels that Israel is now guilty of war crimes until proven innocent. Is it any wonder that Israel’s president would attack him? Golddstone has declared Israel a pariah, Peres should not have been silent.

Goldstone’s commission – effectively accepting a mandate from the OIC – has set out impossible standards for a democracy, specifically Israel, from defending itself against terror. All of Israel’s efforts to protect civilians were arbitrarily deemed insufficient.

So according to Goldstone, how would Israeli defend itself? And why does he fear debating Alan Dershowitz?

Like another Richard he seems unable to take criticism. Unfortunately he’s so convinced of his own righteousness that he won’t just go away for a few years.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (2)

11/11/2009

Quick, we need a commission, a resolution and a condemnation; I see collective punishment

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Saudi Arabia — Soccerdad @ 2:00 pm

Summarizing the resolution passed by the UN Human Rights ~~farce~~ Council, UN-Truth writes:

The resolution endorsed the recommendations in the Goldstone report, and recommended that the UN General Assembly “consider” the report in its current session (which lasts until late December, or eventually until next September). It also said that the Israeli restrictions on Gaza — which the HRC resolution says is occupied — is a “siege” that “constitutes collective punishment of Palestinian civilians”.

How then should the UNHRC respond to this?

Saudi Arabia on Tuesday imposed a naval blockade on the Red Sea coast of northern Yemen to combat Shiite rebels along its border, an adviser to the government said, in the latest escalation of fighting in the southern Arabian Peninsula.

An interesting observation follows:

The Saudi offensive has raised concerns of a proxy war in the Middle East between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally. Shiite Iran is thought to favor the rebels in Yemen, while Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni, is Iran’s fiercest regional rival.

The concerns are about a “proxy war,” and not about the siege that is impoverishing Yemen? Taken together with the Saudi “apartheid wall” on the border with Yemen and Saudi occupation of the Yemeni territories of Najran, Asir and Jizhan, we need a commission to declare Saudi Arabia in violation of international law with all the requisite resolutions and condemnations.

I really don’t care if Saudi Arabia is fighting an Iranian backed terror organization, the UN has an obligation to act according the standards it just established with the Goldstone report! This is collective punishment and must be treated as such! This is a Saudi Cast Lead.

(Not that Yemen deserves much sympathy as it is chasing its remaining Jews away.)

Crossposted on Yourish.

Comments (1)

French FM is shocked, shocked that Israeli left is no longer gullible

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

As always, instead of blaming the arms-smuggling, terror-attacking, missile-launching Palestinians for the lack of peace in Israel, the French foreign minister is putting the blame squarely on—the Israelis. And what bothers him the most? The Israeli left finally wised up and refuses to be fooled by the murderers masquerading as peacemakers, and is demanding, gee, real actions from the Palestinians instead of the same old words and terror.

Speaking on France Inter radio, Kouchner made clear he was not expecting any swift break through in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

“What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace,” Kouchner said.

“It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it,” he added.

Huh. You’d almost think that Israel withdrew from Gaza and was then subjected to a constant barrage of rockets and mortars into her territory. Or that Hamas would have taken over in a bloody coup from Fatah and started turning Gaza into an Islamic terror state. Or that Mahmoud Abbas would refuse to negotiate seriously, calls for the end of the “Judaization” of Jerusalem, and refuses to compromise one whit on Palestinian demands. Or that the security fence actually helped stop terror attacks on Israel.

Say, Bernard? Fu vous.

Comments (5)

11/10/2009

“Disproportionate force”

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Goldstone Commission — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The Goldstone Commission uses the term “disproportionate force” five times in describing the Israeli war against Hamas. It uses the term “proportional” or “proportionality,” 22 times. Let’s check out the use of “disproportionate force.”

62. The tactics used by Israeli military armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to
civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it
witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely
what was put into practice.
63. In the framing of Israeli military objectives with regard to the Gaza operations, the concept of Hamas’ “supporting infrastructure” is particularly worrying as it appears to transform civilians and civilian objects into legitimate targets. Statements by Israeli political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza indicate that the Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a war with Hamas viewed disproportionate destruction and creating the maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve not only military but also political goals.
64. Statements by Israeli leaders to the effect that the destruction of civilian objects would be justified as a response to rocket attacks (”destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired”), indicate the
possibility of resort to reprisals. The Mission is of the view that reprisals against civilians in armed hostilities are contrary to international humanitarian law.

More here:

1191. In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood of that name.578 Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine:
What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every
village from which Israel is fired on. [...] We will apply disproportionate force on it
and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not
civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a
plan. And it has been approved.579

Here:

1683. In this respect, the Mission recognizes that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by Israeli forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that as a whole they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the “supporting
infrastructure.” In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.

And here:

1691. The Mission has noted with concern public statements by Israeli officials, including senior military officials, to the effect that the use of disproportionate force, attacks on civilian population and destruction of civilian property are legitimate means to achieve Israel’s military and political objectives. The Mission believes that such statements not only undermine the entire regime of international law, they are inconsistent with the spirit of the United Nations Charter and, therefore, deserve to be categorically denounced.
1692. Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been
committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.

The above paragraphs contain four of the five mentions of “disproportionate force” mentioned by the Goldstone commission. (The fifth was a footnote.)

Note a few things. I’ve faulted the Goldstone commission for cherry picking evidence. In these paragraphs we see something else. There’s an effort here to define a term of international law, that is nowhere nearly as clear as the Commission presumes and uses it to condemn Israel.

Furthermore, the commission engages in a huge reversal. Look at the final section of paragraph 1683:

What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by Israeli forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that as a whole they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the “supporting infrastructure.” In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.

One of Israel’s defenses for the collateral damage inflicted upon civilians is that Hamas hid among civilians and used civilian facilities for military purposes. With the two sentences above, the Goldstone commission takes away that justification.

Yet it is part of the Commissions lead-up to 1692:

1692. Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.

In other words, the commission’s personal opinion has now been substituted for settled law and it draws the conclusion that Israel’s military planners are responsible.

This conclusion of the Goldstone report appears to be the opinion of the commission, not a legal conclusion in any way. Worse by substituting their judgment for sound legal reasoning, the commission stacked the deck against any independent Israeli investigation. If an Israel investigation would consider Israel’s military doctrine sound and in accordance with international law, Goldstone (and those who support and rely on him) would say that the Israeli conclusions were dishonest. In other words, the Goldstone commission is ensuring that any Israeli investigation would find Israel’s military leaders guilty of war crimes or that Israel was protecting its military brass.

In a paper for the U.S. Army, Jonathan Keiler argues that proportionality is a concept that really had been defined but rarely used – before the Israel war against Hezbollah in 2006.

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war generated the first large-scale and systemic references to a heretofore mostly ignored law of war concept, the doctrine of proportionality. Occasional references to proportionality are found in accounts of the Iraq War and in histories or scholarly works of the last century. In general, prior to Israel’s 2006 campaign the proportionality
doctrine received little scholarly interest and even less attention among the governing classes and international media.1 In all likelihood, critics of American action in Iraq or Afghanistan would have more thoroughly employed this doctrine in their efforts to end or limit US military involvement had they simply thought of it. But by 2006, when the doctrine was widely known, the major battles in Iraq and Afghanistan were finished.

One important point that Keiler makes is:

A year before the Gaza offensive, in February 2008, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined a reporter’s invitation to label Israeli retaliatory action as “disproportionate.”3

This is a sound policy that the Obama Administration would be well advised to follow. Though American military action in Afghanistan or Iraq has not yet received comparable condemnation (at least on grounds of “disproportion”), it is only a matter of time before this occurs, as soon as a fight is significant enough to warrant it. There is little difference in the operational
practices used by the Israeli and American militaries, which not only share many weapon systems but also elements of tactics and training.4

In other words the idea of declaring a war “disproportionate” is an attack on a country’s ability to defend itself by nullifying part of its military doctrine. If this standard is applied to Israel, it’s only a matter of time before it’s applied to the United States.

Keiler writes further:

The problem with the proportionality rule is its frequent and remarkable misinterpretation. The extent of this confusion is so great as to severely limit the utility of this law of war concept as presently structured. As both the Lebanon and Gaza campaigns illustrate, the doctrine is subject to distortion to the degree that applying it is actually harmful to the conduct of lawful and legitimate military campaigns.7 As a practical matter, invoking the doctrine confuses important issues and undermines respect for the law of war. Michael Walzer, one of the most prominent ethicists of war and its consequences, notes that false claims of disproportion typically have the effect of justifying excessive violence, which he characterizes as a “dangerous idea.”8 This article will propose the elimination of proportionality as a law of war concept, at least by the American military. Existing doctrine, standards, proscriptions, and ethical guidelines are more than sufficient to govern proper conduct in combat without descending into the semantic, legal, and ethical miasma of proportionality.

Ive read someplace that a group of South Africans have recommended that Israel carry out an investigation of its military operations in response to the Goldstone report. But the nature of this investigation would be to compare Israeli actions in Gaza to American and NATO actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The point would be to show how Goldstone manufactured a standard and then applied it only to Israel. There may be some wisdom in that suggestion.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (5)

11/09/2009

Degrees of cluelessness

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 2:00 pm

JudeoPundit excerpts a bit of Moshe Halberthal’s critique of the Goldstone report:

In addressing this vexing issue, the Goldstone Report uses a rather strange formulation: “While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of the Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from the civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from the attack.” The reader of such a sentence might well wonder what its author means. Did Hamas militants not wear their uniforms because they were inconveniently at the laundry? What other reasons for wearing civilian clothes could they have had, if not for deliberately sheltering themselves among the civilians? [...]

But how does it work in the field? How, for example, can you know intent? Col. Ben Zion Gruber, (who recently talked to Mona Charen) gave an example at a recent talk (h/t Media Backspin) :

Further evidence of the IDF’s combat dilemma was revealed in what Gruber said was rarely seen news footage.

As the camera focuses on a wounded Arab man with a Kalashnikov rifle lying by his side, an arm is suddenly seen removing the smoking weapon. This, said Gruber, is a media-savvy tactic that, if the camera had not captured the gun being removed, makes it appear as though the IDF has injured a civilian.

The cluelessness repeatedly demonstrated by Goldstone in focusing on the effects of Israel’s war against Hamas, while failing to acknowledge the causes or context of that war inevitably taint the report. I think that Goldstone’s cherry picking of what he would consider and what he wouldn’t means that even had Israel participated, the outcome would have been no different. I think that criticisms of Israel on this count are misplaced.

What was misplaced was the American choice to get involved with the tarnished UN Human Rights Council. As Barry Rubin writes:

President Barack Obama made a controversial decision in deciding to have the United States participate in the radical-run UN Human Rights Council, reversing Bush administration policy of boycotting the group. Moreover, the president has gone out of his way to talk about how useful the UN is as a force, sometimes it seems to be in his eyes the most important force, to keeping the world peaceful and making it more so.

The new administration argued that by participating it could moderate the course of a body that never defends human rights in a long list of dictatorships (many of which are members and even leaders of it) but just focuses on bashing Israel.

But now that the point about the Council’s function as a propaganda organ for extremist dictatorships is proven, what does the United States do? Its ambassador isn’t going to the discussion in the General Assembly that’s discussing using the ludicrous Goldstone report as a basis for punishing Israel.

If you need to know just one thing about the Goldstone report, here it is: the commission did not investigate anything. It heard a lot of Palestinian and some other anti-Israel witnesses; wrote down what they said; and put it into the report without verifying anything.

Now, having implicitly given the American imprimatur of legitimacy to a corrupt organization, the Obama administration will now have to veto the results of the council’s labors. Goldstone is .clueless about his own role in this venal project, will the Obama administration come to terms with the results of its own cluelessness?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

11/06/2009

Richard Goldstone: Utterly clueless

Filed under: Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

The impression I came away with last night after watching the Gold-Goldstone debate at Brandeis is how utterly clueless Goldstone is about, well, everything. He seems dumbfounded that people don’t agree with him one hundred percent. He seems astonished that his facts can be—and have been—challenged, and utterly resists any information that contradicts what he has deemed to be the facts of the case.

He seems particularly unable to understand why everyone doesn’t just see that he changed the original mandate (the one that ordered only investigation into “Israeli war crimes,” and the one that was never officially adopted by the Human Rights Council), that the Goldstone Report is not biased against Israel, and that he implicated Hamas as much as he blamed Israel for the civilian deaths in Gaza. When confronted with facts that contradict this worldview, he insists that he did everything right, he is being slandered by people who don’t like the report, and all Israel had to do was take part in the Goldstone Commission’s investigation, and then everything would have been all right.

Last night he repeated the same allegations against Israel made in his report, because Goldstone reiterates the same major points at every stop: The report did condemn Hamas, the 36 incidents cited were proof of Israel deliberately targeting civilians, and the proof of that is the destruction that was wreaked, especially of infrastructure.

Point number one: The report never actually condemns Hamas. Not once. It does, however, keep mentioning “Palestinian armed groups” as responsible for some of the crimes (for example, the rocket launching). There is a reason, Dore Gold said, why Hamas accepted the report. Because it didn’t implicate them at all.

Point numbers two and three: Those 36 incidents were incidents that Goldstone said proved Israel was guilty of deliberately targeting civilians. But the report could find “no evidence” of Hamas booby-trapping buildings or using human shields. The report quoted Palestinian eyewitnesses, but did not interview anyone in the IDF. One of the student questioners asked Goldstone how the report could possibly be unbiased when it did not interview a single soldier. He insisted that it was unbiased. You know, when I was a child, the “Because it is” defense never really worked with my mother.

The IDF found plenty of evidence of Hamas war crimes. Dore Gold brought videos and evidence of booby-trapped houses to the debate, and Goldstone seemed flabbergasted. But that didn’t stop him from continuing with his usual points.

That’s a theme with Goldstone. All evidence brought to the contrary appears to astound him. But then he recovers and starts accusing Israel of war crimes again.

Why destroy the infrastructure if not to collectively punish? Etc., etc., yadda yadda, QED, there’s your proof. He did not interview the commanders who made the decisions to fire on those areas, but he knows they did it for collective punishment. His report found no evidence of human shields and booby-trapped houses, but he knows that the IDF destroyed all of those homes deliberately and for no military reason. He touched on the IDF’s military bulldozers destroying Palestinian farmland. That would be because the roads into Gaza were booby-trapped, so the IDF made its own roads into Gaza, destroying whatever was in its path to prevent the deaths of soldiers. That, according to Goldstone, was a war crime. According to the rules of war, it’s damned good strategy.

Goldstone utterly disregards charges of bias. But when asked by a student how the report could possibly be unbiased when Christine Chinkin, member of the Commission, signed a letter accusing Israel of war crimes in the first week of the Gaza operation, he insisted that was not relevant. He said that if it had been a judicial investigation, then yes, she should have recused herself, but that since the commission was not judicial, it didn’t effect the investigation. The fact that he sees absolutely no cognitive dissonance in admitting that she was biased enough to be thrown off a judiciary investigation, but not a UN investigation, seems astonishing—but not when you consider that Richard Goldstone will brook absolutely no criticism of his efforts. He is right, Israel is wrong, and we are wrong for not accepting uncritically the Goldstone Report.

The hubris of this man is unbelievable. And the damage his report has done is yet to be seen.

Comments (2)

11/03/2009

French hypocrisy on war crimes

Filed under: Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time, United Nations, World — Tags: Goldstone Report — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

The U.K. and France are the latest countries to jump on the bandwagon to force Israel to investigate the accusations in the Goldstone report. Let us review the French reaction to her citizens being attacked in the Ivory Coast a few years back:

The present crisis began on 6 November when the government attack on Bouaké also killed nine French peacekeepers. The French president, Jacques Chirac, ordered the destruction of the Ivorian air force. In Abidjan Gbagbo’s supporters promptly turned on the expatriate French community.

None of this settled anything, but it did clarify the nature of the conflict. This was the first time in 40 years of postcolonial apprenticeship that the lives of French citizens in Africa had been so threatened. Everyone had been happy to watch Africans kill each other, but television images of tearful French evacuees stepping off planes outside Paris were another matter – almost enough to make viewers forget that French forces had killed Ivorian civilians and destroyed a sovereign state’s air force to reassure 15,000 compatriots and to avenge the deaths of nine soldiers.

[...] On 7 November 2004 there were minor skirmishes between Fanci, Ivory Coast’s national armed forces, and French Operation Unicorn soldiers. Although these were of no military significance, it would be unwise to underestimate their symbolic importance. Even before these confrontations, and despite the fact that it was operating under a UN security council mandate, Operation Unicorn was perceived as an occupation force. The disproportionate nature of its response confirmed this, sending a signal not just to Ivory Coast but to other client states in France’s sphere of influence. It is easy for the weight of history to give young soldiers the impression of being stuck in an isolated garrison on the remote tribal fringes of the empire. Although African heads of state – all fervent democrats, of course – sided with France, there was fierce condemnation in French-speaking countries of what had become a bloody colonial adventure.

There were no UN resolutions or worldwide outrage that the French were using disproportionate force on a former colony. There was no call for investigation of the deaths of civilians. There were no charges of war crimes. There was only the expectation that since French citizens were being attacked, France had the right to defend them with all means at her disposal.

Funny, isn’t it, how the French can get away with this, yet Israel cannot defend herself against eight years of missile attacks on her civilian population without raising the anger of the collective world community—including the hypocrites in France?

What time is it? That’s right. Israeli Double Standard Time. But don’t worry, it only occurs on days that end with a “y.”

Update: Found this after I posted. The hypocrisy is even worse.

UN and US back French intervention in Ivory Coast
France has received international backing for its intervention in its former colony, Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) where a civil war has been raging for five months. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that “welcomes the deployment of Ecowas (Economic Community of West African States) forces and French troops” and endorses the peace agreement signed by both the government and rebels in the current civil war.

A UN resolution backing France’s action. Wow. Words just fail.

Comments (3)

10/28/2009

Ignoring a decade

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: J-Street — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Matthew Yglesias (via memeorandum):

I was debating with Jon Chait at a J Street panel this morning on the subject of “what does it mean to be pro-Israel?” As expected, we disagreed on a number of points, most of which I was right on and he was wrong on. But one thing he said in his opening remarks that I really disagreed with was that there was an ambiguity running through the J Street constituency as to whether the group was or should be pro-Israel at all.

That just struck me as kind of nuts. My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” It’s not a subtle aspect of the messaging. But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. I was, of course, aware that those views existed but it had seemed to me that it was clear that that wasn’t what J Street is there to advocate for. Apparently, though, it wasn’t clear to everyone.

So Yglesias was surprised that folks who came to J-Street’s conference didn’t want to be considered pro-Israel? Why would that be? Here’s Spencer Ackerman’s view on the topic:

I don’t really have any interest in affixing a label to people that they don’t embrace themselves. But I think the answer is that it would be shortsighted to view them outside the “pro-Israel” community. If Israel doesn’t get out of the West Bank soon, demographic realities will force Israel to make the most painful existential choice of its life: whether to abandon Jewish democracy or whether to abandon Jewish statehood in favor of a binational homeland. Both of these options, in fundamental ways, represent the end of Israel. Not from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not from a super-empowered Palestinian intifada. But from political failure and international diplomatic failure, the end of Israel can, actually, be achieved.

In other words, then, it is pro-Israel to demand that Israel make concessions to an enemy who still denies its right to exist. But this is what’s really problematic with Ackerman’s formulation: Israel’s legitimacy rests on the ability of the Palestinians to create a state. Worse, there seems to be no test for the legitimacy of Palestine. For Ackerman the creation of an Islamist Palestine would not have to answer the same “existential” question as Israel would. In other words Israel’s legitimacy would be defined by its enemies; Palestine’s legitimacy is a given.

Perhaps Ackerman would have an argument twenty years ago, but since Israel has abandoned Gaza and the major cities of Judea and Samaria, there is no demographic threat. There is only a Palestinian failure to create a state. Ackerman prefers to put an impossible onus on Israel. That’s not “pro-Israel” by any definition.

In Yglesias at JStreet David Bernstein writes:

I perfectly understand the difficulty that one could have with these ideas, because when in my twenties, I remember arguing with members of the older generation that they were too paranoid about anti-Semitism, that Israel needs to be much more flexible to achieve a peace accord, and that the murderous rhetoric about Israel emanating from the Arab world and elsewhere would go away once the parties all recognized their rational self-interest and came to a peace deal. It took many years, and, among other things, an intifada that involved a remarkable number of “progressive” Western intellectuals apologizing for, or even justifying, blowing up kids in pizza parlors in response to a serious peace offer from Israel, and a series of modern-day blood libels in Europe during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 to realize that I had been extremely naive. It’s not that I’ve given up hope; but I learned to take what seemed to a younger me like pure craziness that couldn’t possibly be serious-such as the continuing popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the Muslim world-very seriously.

This is an excellent synopsis of the past decade. And yet, there are those who don’t accept it. Yes the J-Street crowd pretends that none of this happens and that Israel is at the heart of the failure to achieve peace in the Middle East. Never mind, for example, that the Palestinians still don’t accept a Jewish right to a state.

Bernstein’s generous to the J-Streeter’s and their fellow travelers. He doesn’t think that they are anti-Israel. I don’t see how someone could witness the events in the Middle East since 2000 and still put the onus of compromise on Israel and still be pro-Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

10/27/2009

The PA’s torturers: Made in the U.K. (and USA?)

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias, palestinian politics — Tags: Israel, Palestinians — Meryl Yourish @ 12:30 pm

The proponents of peace have declared for years that if only the Palestinians had western-trained security forces, the terrorism would stop. But they didn’t seem to notice that their millions of dollars per year to fund the Palestinian police force was going to a force that uses torture on a regular basis.

The horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank is being funded by British taxpayers.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has found that the forces responsible get £20million a year from the UK.

The victims – some left maimed – are rounded up for alleged involvement with the militant Islamic group Hamas, yet many have nothing to do with it.

I will be waiting for the UN to denounce this. But first, the Daily Mail, being the British press, must blame Israel for it somehow.

Not only are PA forces carrying out torture, the authority ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees. Last month at least 30 journalists, teachers and students were arrested – as the crackdown on Hamas was praised by a senior Israeli defence official as a necessary ‘iron fist policy’.

Say, do you think the Brits are aware that the Palestinians are using their money to pay torturers?

A British diplomat in Jerusalem said: ‘Obviously we are very aware of problems with the Palestinian security forces. We are working hard to improve their standards across the board – including human rights standards.’

This is some of what the Brits’ £20 million pounds per year is paying for:

The commonest ‘mini’ method, known as ‘shabah’, involves hanging up shackled victims by their arms. The teacher told how he was held in a cellar at Jenaid prison last month.

‘First they shackled my hands behind my back, tied a rope round the shackles and looped it over a beam. They pulled until I was standing on tiptoes, just still able to take some weight on my legs. Then they jerked the rope so it all came on to my arms and held me there until I was on the point of passing out. They were laughing, saying it would dislocate my shoulders. They did it over and over for five or six days.’

Sometimes sharp-edged sardine cans were placed under his heels, so that when weight came back on his legs, they inflicted deep cuts. Two other victims independently described this, too.

The Brits are now going to send intelligence officers into the West Bank to teach the PA torturers to stop torturing. Their initial budget? £100,000.

Interestingly, none of the wire services have managed to find this story worth picking up and spreading. Apparently, only Israel can be guilty of human rights abuses. Just imagine the number of headlines around the world media if it were the Israeli police forces that were abusing prisoners like this.

What time is it, kids? That’s right. It’s Israeli Double Standard Time.

Comments (1)

10/23/2009

Gaza report’s author is really full of himself

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Judge Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 8:30 am

Today the New York Times reports Gaza Report Author Asks U.S. to Clarify Concerns. The article is flawed for what it gets wrong and for its failure to scrutinize any of Justice Goldstone’s self-aggrandizing claims.

What’s wrong with the first paragraph?

Richard Goldstone, the lead author of a United Nations report that found evidence of war crimes committed by Israel and Hamas during last winter’s Gaza war, challenged the Obama administration in an interview broadcast Thursday to explain what it has called serious concerns about his report.

Except as Hamas observed, the Goldstone commission did not explicitly mention that Hamas was guilty of war crimes. Besides, even if the report did mention Hamas, the mention of war crimes committed against Israel was negligible. The balance suggested in the news story was in no way reflected in the report.

The report found evidence that some Israeli soldiers had intentionally killed Palestinian civilians during the three-week conflict in violation of the laws of war. It described the Israeli military assault on Gaza as “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”

It also said there was evidence that the Palestinian militant rocket attacks on towns in southern Israel constituted war crimes.

How Goldstone could conclude that Israel’s goal was to “punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” is beyond me. That is precisely the behavior that Israel was responding too. After eight years of provocation. (h/t OyVey Blog) And especially after Israel no longer occupied Gaza. But of course, one of the flaws, of the report was to ignore the provocations of Hamas. If he really needs an Obama administration to explain that, his willful blindness is beyond belief.

As far as evidence that “rocket attacks” against Israel are war crimes, none is needed. The action is self-evidently a war crime.

“People generally don’t like to be accused of criminal activity, so it didn’t surprise me that there was criticism, even strong criticism, and it has come from both sides,” Mr. Goldstone said in the interview. “But I do regret the extremes to which some of the criticism has gone and the fact that it has been so personalized.”

He then lashed out at his detractors, saying, “I’ve no doubt, many of the critics — I would say the overwhelmingly majority of the critics — haven’t read the report. And, you know, what proves that, I think, is the level of criticism doesn’t go to the substance of the report. There still haven’t been responses to the really serious allegations that are made.”

As noted above, there wasn’t strong criticism from Hamas. Hamas loved the report. Goldstone is being disingenuous here. And of course, the “personalized” nature of the attacks has been in response to the smug self-righteousness he wraps himself in.

Enough time has elapsed since Goldstone released his report for plenty of substantive critiques to have appeared. Presumably, he is computer literate enough to do some searches and find those critiques and respond. The way Goldstone has wandered from media outlet to media outlet feigning outrage that someone would not take his word as gospel and asking others to point out the flaws in the report, positively begs for mockery.

And I take exception to his conclusion that many of his critics haven’t read the report. I have not read the whole report. I’ve read sections. And I’ve concluded that Goldstone drew his conclusions before his investigation and tailored the narrative to fit those conclusions. Frankly I’m offended that Goldstone’s been too lazy to seek out and respond to the substantive critiques that he – falsely – laments do not exist.

But the most damning critique of Goldstone, came from Goldstone himself. This is what he told the Forward.

For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”

Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.”

Goldstone himself said that he proved nothing – nothing that could stand up in court – and yet he demands that Israel take his accusations as convictions that must be disproved. That Goldstone simultaneously refuses to stand by his report and demands that it be taken seriously makes his position untenable.

Finally, let’s take read a section of the Goldstone report. (.pdf) It is the part about whether Israel provided sufficient warning to civilians to get out of harms way. And nearly every single one of Israel’s efforts were deemed insufficient.

535. While noting the statements of the significant efforts made by the Israeli armed forces to issue warnings, the sole question for the Mission to consider at this point is whether the different kinds of warnings issued can be considered as sufficiently effective in the circumstances to constitute compliance with article 57 (2) (c).

536. The Mission accepts that the warnings issued by the Israeli armed forces in some cases encouraged numbers of people to flee and get out of harm’s way in respect of the ground invasion, but this is not sufficient to consider them as generally effective.

537. The Mission considers that some of the leaflets with specific warnings, such as those that
Israel indicates were issued in Rafah and al-Shujaeiyah, may be regarded as effective. However, the Mission does not consider that general messages telling people to leave wherever they were and go to city centres, in the particular circumstances of this military campaign, meet the threshold of effectiveness.

538. The Mission regards some specific telephone calls to have provided effective warnings but treats with caution the figure of 165,000 calls made. Without sufficient information to know how many of these were specific, it cannot say to what extent such efforts might be regarded as
effective.

539. The Mission does not consider the technique of firing missiles into or on top of buildings as capable of being described as a warning, much less an effective warning. It is a dangerous practice and in essence constitutes a form of attack rather than a warning.

540. The Mission is also mindful of several incidents it has investigated where civilians were killed or otherwise harmed and met with humiliation and degrading treatment by Israeli soldiers, while fleeing from locations about which some form of warning was issued. The effectiveness of the warnings has to be assessed in the light of the overall circumstances that prevailed and the subjective view of conditions that the civilians concerned would take in deciding upon their response to the warning.

On the other hand Col. Richard Kemp a military commander with actual experience in urban combat, reviewed Israel’s procedures for warning civilians and concluded.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

(emphasis mine)

Faced with a choice of using their own judgments to condemn Israel, or take the word of an expert and exonerate Israel, Goldstone’s commission chose the former.

The chutzpah of this self-important man to claim that his critics have not read his report or addressed its substance is amazing. Those of us who have read it – or even parts of his report – are amazed at how flimsy his proofs are in contrast with the importance he and his allies attach to his shoddy work.

It’s almost as if he didn’t read his own report.

See this takedown of a similar Goldstone sobfest.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (3)

10/22/2009

Degrading self-defense

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Michel Massih, Richard Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Twenty years ago In “Legitimizing the PLO,” the late Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote about how international law was subverted over the years by the PLO and its advocates to excuse terrorism. One of the earliest steps in this process was the passing of the Declaration on principles of International Law Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, passed October 24, 1970, which states:

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

About this declaration Dr. Kirkpatrick observed:

With this declaration, the General Assembly, more clearly and unambiguously than ever, took the position not only that “peoples” had rights superior to those of member states, but that states resisting the rights of “peoples” could themselves become a “threat to peace.” The General Assembly thus subordinated the principle of the “sovereign inviolability” of states to the struggle of “peoples” against “colonialism” and put important new restrictions on the right of states to self-defense.
The U.S. and the other Western nations joined in these resolutions without much thought, dis-
missing them as without significance outside the halls of the United Nations. This fundamentally
frivolous attitude ignored the cumulative impact of such resolutions in focusing attention, in ex-
pressing what is widely considered to be “world opinion,” and, finally, in having an impact on
international law.

And so began a slow process of allowing terror against Israel and restricting Israel’s right to defend itself.

It’s no wonder that Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu has embarked on an effort to change the laws of war.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu directed the relevant ministries on Tuesday to look into ways of launching an international initiative to change the laws of war to deal with the modern-day scourge of terrorism.

This new initiative comes fast on the heels of the Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes for its military operation in the Gaza Strip against Hamas earlier this year.

Needless to say Judge Goldstone is not impressed.

When asked about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s initiative to change the international law to allow states to fight terrorist groups, Goldstone said Israel was apparently “clutching at straws.”

“I think it’s sad… Israel is clutching at straws. International law can’t be changed just because one side doesn’t like the laws of war,” Goldstone said.

“I think it’s wrong, very unfortunate and inappropriate,” Goldstone said of the Israeli response to the report compiled by the UN fact-finding commission he led.

Does Goldstone really believe this? The purpose of his mission, he has said, was to end the “culture of impunity.” But if he effectively binds states from legally responding to terror attacks, isn’t he granting impunity to the terrorists? And the problem with his assertion is that international law has been changed, as noted above, to favor terrorists. International law wouldn’t be changed because Israel doesn’t like it; but because it’s been perverted for decades.

In the “Lawfare pioneer,” Petra Petra Marquardt-Bigman writes about the career of Michel Massih. who is making it his goal to hamstring Israel.

Mr. Massih’s quest to bring Israeli officials to trial is doubtless motivated by a principled concern for human rights and international law. However, Massih has also acknowledged that his goal is “to end the impunity that Israel has enjoyed. The field of freedom for Israel will narrow. More and more of these warrants will be applied for. And people will become much more aware of the difficulties of waging war in this unlawful way. Frankly, all you need is one case – one case which sticks.”

But Massih is involved in other activities too:

It seems that by now, at the age of 59, Massih has additional priorities: according to his profile, “he is advising the Syrian government and military officials who are being investigated by the United Nations Security Council over the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon; and he is advising the president of Sudan, Omar al Bashir, who has been accused of presiding over genocide in Darfur by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.”

Which brings us to this observation:

How much more absurd can it get? Imagine the scenario: the man who does his professional best to help Sudan’s president avoid being held responsible for the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens hauls Israel’s defense minister before a British court to accuse him of conducting a limited military campaign that was necessitated by the fact that a terrorist group, hiding in a densely populated urban area among the civilians it rules, used this area as a launching pad for thousands of rockets endangering some one million Israeli civilians.

Goldstone is not as reprehensible as Massih. Goldstone thinks that by applying the law as he sees it to both sides he can effect some sort of world peace. But his methods would only apply to the side that cared about international law. Massih, on the other hand, openly sides with the bad actors. Still the effects of both their efforts will be the same: to stymie legitimate governments from fighting terror.

UPDATE: I’ve corrected a few errors and omissions.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Comments Off

10/21/2009

The Human Rights Watch bias against Israel

Filed under: Bloggers, Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Gaza, Human Rights Watch, Israel — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

Matthew Yglesias, who was for Israel before he was against it, takes issue with David Bernstein’s citing of the founder of HRW criticizing its anti-Israel bias in the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

It’s certainly news that Human Rights Watch’s critics were able to get a former HRW chairman to slam the organization for having the temerity to hold Israel to the same standards of international humanitarian law to which it holds every other country. But Bernstein doesn’t appear to have any arguments to make that any of the instances of human rights violations HRW has documented didn’t take place. Instead his view is basically that Israel ought to be exempt from criticism because its enemies are mean:

No, Bernstein’s argument is that HRW is spending far more time and effort portraying Israeli violations than it is the human rights offenders that surround Israel. And Yglesias’ ever-astute commenters (the ones that aren’t slamming Zionism as racism) are comparing search result pages with number of reports, and declaring that since Israel and Egypt have the same number of pages, they have the same number of HRW reports. Argument over.

Except, well, let’s take a look by date, shall we? And include news releases as well as reports. For Israel and the Territories, we have the following press releases dating back to July. I’m going to put in bold those releases that do not concentrate on Israel:

Hamas: Investigate Attacks on Israeli Civilians   Oct 20, 2009
UN Security Council: Demand Justice for Gaza Victims   Oct 12, 2009
Israel: Stop Blocking School Supplies From Entering Gaza   Oct 11, 2009
UN: US Block on Goldstone Report Must Not Defer Justice   Oct 2, 2009
UN Human Rights Council: ‘Traditional Values’ Vote and Gaza Overshadow Progress   Oct 2, 2009
UN: US, EU Undermine Justice for Gaza Conflict   Sep 30, 2009
US: Endorse Goldstone Report on Gaza    Sep 27, 2009
EU: Demand Justice for Victims of Gaza War   Sep 25, 2009
Any chance for justice for victims of the Gaza war?   Sep 11, 2009
Israel: Gaza ‘White Flag’ Deaths Inquiry a Step Forward   Sep 10, 2009
‘Better than’ is not always good enough   Sep 9, 2009
Gaza: Rescind Religious Dress Code for Girls   Sep 4, 2009
Human Rights Watch plays no favorites in probes   Sep 3, 2009
Right of Reply: Don’t Smear the Messenger   Aug 25, 2009
False Allegations about Human Rights Watch’s Latest Gaza Report   Aug 14, 2009
Israel: Investigate ‘White Flag’ Shootings of Gaza Civilians   Aug 13, 2009
Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful   Aug 6, 2009
Will Arab States help end the Scourge of Cluster Munitions?   Aug 6, 2009
Israel: Ensure Improved ‘Attack Warnings’ to Civilians Are Effective   Aug 3, 2009
Palestinian Authority: Lift the Ban on Al Jazeera   Jul 17, 2009

The total: One release a month on the Palestinians. All the rest about Israel. Now, let’s take a look at the press releases about Egypt from July through the present.

Nobel Spotlights Need for Obama to Act on Rights   Oct 9, 2009
Egypt: Stop Killing Migrants in Sinai   Sep 10, 2009
US/Egypt: Obama Should Highlight Rights at Meeting With Mubarak   Aug 17, 2009
Will Arab States help end the Scourge of Cluster Munitions?   Aug 6, 2009
African Civil Society Urges African States Parties to the Rome Statute to Reaffirm Their Commitment to the ICC   Jul 30, 2009

Now let’s look at the totals. Twenty press releases under the category “Israeli and the Occupied Territories” since July. Four concern the Palestinians. Eighty percent of the HRW press releases in that time period concern Israel. Was Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians during that time? Yes. Was Hamas torturing Fatah prisoners during that time? Yes. Was Hamas killing “collaborators” without trial during that time? Yes. Was Hamas shooting at Israeli civilians on their farms during that time? Yes. What does HRW consider newsworthy? Lifting the press ban on Al Jazeera in the West Bank.

Look at the press releases concerning Egypt. Only one of them directly concerns Egyptian human rights abuses—the killing of migrants trying to get into Israel. Egyptian border guards have killed dozens of Africans fleeing over the border, and they’ve been doing it for years. A million African immigrants are poised along the Israeli border, so many that Israel will be building a fence to keep them out. And yet, there is only one news release about the deaths of civilians trying to make a better life for themselves than they can find in the Egyptian refugee camps. Why is that?

The commenters at Yglesias cite the number of pages in a search result as evidence that the reporting is equal. Clearly, their research skills need a little brushing up. HRW released three reports on Israel so far this year. HRW also released two about the Palestinians, one regarding the rockets from Gaza (in August, the first in two years about the nonstop rocket attacks on Israel), one regarding Hamas’ human rights abuses against Fatah and others in Gaza. HRW wrote zero reports about Egypt this year. That’s right. None.

In other words, Matthew, Robert Bernstein’s main point—that Human Rights Watch spends far more time on Israel than it does on the human rights abusers in the neighborhood around her—is true. Bernstein never said that Israel should be exempt, only that HRW should pay more attention to the human rights abusers in the countries without a free judiciary and laws on the books preventing such abuses. It’s a point I’ve been making for years. But when the founder of Human Rights Watch makes it—well, then one would have to think that there’s some validity to it. And if not, there’s always the evidence I’m citing in this post. But why would Yglesias let a little thing like facts get in the way of his opinion?

Comments (25)

10/20/2009

HRW founder blasts HRW

Filed under: Gaza, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

In an astonishing op-ed in the New York Times, the founder of Human Rights Watch resoundingly criticizes HRW’s anti-Israel bias.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

There’s so much to choose from, it’s almost impossible to excerpt.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

Read it all. And the countdown to Bernstein’s criticism of HRW being dismissed because he is Jewish in 3, 2, 1….

Comments (3)

10/19/2009

Richard Goldstone: Liar, liar, pants on fire

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Goldstone Report, Israel, Media Bias — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

Richard Goldstone is bringing his lies to the pages of the Jerusalem Post. The man has no shame.

Five weeks after the release of the Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza, there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with its substance. It has been fulsomely approved by those whose interests it is thought to serve and rejected by those of the opposite view. Those who attack it do so too often by making personal attacks on its authors’ motives and those who approve it rely on its authors’ reputations.

There have been many, many attacks on its substance, but the well-respected jurist appears not to have noticed them. And in fact, it is the Goldstone supporters that are using the author’s motives as a means of defense: Since Richard Goldstone is Jewish and a supporter of Israel, the meme goes, the report cannot be biased. But of course, that isn’t true. Neither is Goldstone’s description of the report’s mandate:

Israel could have seized the opportunity provided by the even-handed mandate of our mission and used it as a precedent for a new direction by the United Nations in the Middle East.

This is the mandate issued on January 12:

14. Decides to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission;

If you read the entire mandate, there is not a single reference to Hamas. Goldstone may have been told that they would make the mandate “even-handed,” but in practice, it was not, and the report is not. To say that it is is a blatant lie. The UN Human Rights Council did not pass a resolution to send both Hamas and Israeli “war crimes” to the ICC—only Israeli “crimes” are referenced. Goldstone criticized that resolution, but so what? The barn door’s been open for months, and there are no horses left.

Even the press release following Goldstone’s appointment does not specifiy any violations by Hamas.

Today’s appointment comes following the adoption of a resolution by the Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its Special Session on 9 and 12 January convened to address “the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip.”

The fact that Goldstone thought he had a mandate to investigate both sides makes his one-sided report even more reprehensible. And really, when you read this:

notwithstanding the decision of the government of Israel, we took whatever steps were open to us to obtain information from victims and experts in southern Israel about the effects on their lives of sustained rocket and mortar attacks over a period of years.

And then read this:

Some of the Israeli witnesses who testified before the committee were injured by rocket fire before Operation Cast Lead, but their testimonies were left out of the report.

Dr. Mirela Siderer, a resident of Ashkelon, was severely injured by a Grad missile and is about to undergo her eighth operation.

“I didn’t have high hopes, so I wasn’t very disappointed, but I still feel awful after reading the report,” she said. “They didn’t refer to incidents that occurred before Operation Cast Lead, including my injury.”

You have to wonder: Who does Goldstone think he’s fooling? Does he think Israelis are that stupid? To come into the pages of the Jerusalem Post and think that Israelis won’t know these stories? Or that Goldstone fell asleep when Noam Bedin was testifying?

“When I stood up and started to testify before the judges, Justice Goldstone fell asleep in front of me. It was an embarrassing moment but I continued talking, realizing that I should not have high hopes,” he added.

Really. 93.5% of Israeli Jews think that the Goldstone report is biased. Who does he think he’s kidding?

Comments (6)

10/16/2009

UNHRC: Ignoring human rights abuses (unless they’re Israel’s)

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, United Nations — Tags: Gaza, Goldstone, Israel, United Nations — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

The UN Human Rights Council voted to send the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council for further consideration. Of course they did. The fix has been in since the biased mandate was given last year—the mandate that the news media all pretend was evenhanded.

The resolution – which also condemns recent Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem – endorses the report’s recommendation that both sides in the conflict should show the Security Council within six months that they are carrying out credible investigations into alleged abuses. If they are not, the matter should then be referred to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

Both sides are in violation of… well, something. Both sides must carry out “credible” investigations. And if not, both sides will be referred to the ICC. Shall we start a pool now on how, in six months, Hamas doesn’t even come up in the resolution to refer Israel to the ICC?

But let’s step back a moment and see exactly how the UNHRC works. In particular, let’s take a look at part of the report on the review of the Central African Republic. (For some light background reading, you can read this 23-page report at Human Rights Watch. Or just read the summary here.)

Here are a few choice bits of the draft of the UNHRC report from the current (12th) session:

219. In relation to recommendation 35, the delegation indicated that all press offences had been abolished, while noting that journalists may be guilty of common law offences, such as defamation and press offences defined by the High Communication Council.

221. Regarding recommendations 25 and 33, the delegation underlined that, in accordance with the Constitution, the judiciary was a branch power which independence was guaranteed through a number of management bodies. Despite some problems, such as arbitrary arrests, corruption and other irregularities, several projects were being undertaken, with the financial assistance of the United Nations Development Programme.

223. In relation to recommendations 11, 16-19, 27-29, and 30, the delegation underscored that the Central African Republic had ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Female genital mutilations are not practiced throughout the territory and are prohibited by law. However, cultural beliefs/practices and the interests of practitioners made its full implementation challenging. The Family code was being reviewed to ensure its compliance with international standards, and with a view to either maintaining or abolishing polygamy. The delegation stressed that due to cultural concerns, the Central African Republic was not ready to sign a declaration on discrimination based on sexual orientation, adding that no law prohibited or authorized it.

Let us note that the Central African Republic is shutting down press freedom, making arbitrary arrests, has a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, refuses to end discrimination against homosexuals, and insists that female genital mutilation is not a state problem, but rather a cultural phenomenon. Hold those thoughts, though, because this is my personal favorite part of the report:

224. On the recommendation to remove reference to the crime of witchcraft in the penal code, the delegation indicated that witchcraft was a reality in Central Africa. The Government envisaged training prison wardens who committed violence against women suspected of witchcraft and developing sensitization programmes to modify behaviours of the population and of the justice system.

Now, remember this. The representatives of the CAR told the UNHRC that witchcraft is a reality in Central Africa, and therefore, they will not remove the laws against witches on the books. They might, however, educate prison guards to stop raping women who are in prison for being accused of witchcraft. That is, they “envisage” it. Could happen. Someday.

What was the result of this review of a major human rights offender?

228. The Russian Federation congratulated the Central African Republic for having given its consent to approximately two thirds of the recommendations and for having expressed its willingness to study others. It noted the voluntary commitments taken by the State including the adoption of the national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights and a new criminal code. It wished the Central African Republic maximum success in realizing all accepted commitments and future progress in promoting and protection of human rights.

229. Egypt welcomed the comprehensive presentation by the Central African Republic. It stressed that despite many challenges and constraints, the government had made efforts to promote human rights, which resulted in considerable progress and the attainment of stability since the adoption of the 2004 Constitution. It appreciated the responses given to recommendations and reiterated its call that the State continue its efforts to promote all universally agreed human rights and fundamental freedoms and to resist attempts to enforce any values or standards beyond the universally agreed ones. It also encouraged the State to implement its penal code in conformity with the universally agreed human rights standards, including the application of the death penalty.

230. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya commended the government for its efforts, including regarding poverty reduction, economic reforms, ratification of most human rights international instruments and reforms aimed at guarantying women’s rights. It stressed that support from the international community was important to reach the Millennium Development Goals and to promote human rights. It considered that voluntary commitments made by the State during the presentation of its national report were highly important.

232. The United States welcomed the Central African Republic’s efforts to improve human rights. It remained concerned about the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights abuses in the security forces, including the presidential guard. It strongly supported the recommendations to investigate abuses and hold those responsible of violations accountable, and to incorporate human rights training into the military training. It appreciated the State’s efforts on the issue of child soldiers and to undertake reforms of the justice system, its willingness to work with human rights organizations and encouraged the State to continue allowing special procedures to visit the country. It welcomed the national action plan on gender-based violence.

Compare this to what the same states say about Israel on a regular basis. And then, tell me there is no anti-Israel bias in the United Nations. No, I’m not speaking to my regular readers, who already know that. I’m speaking to the rest of the world. J’accuse.

Comments (2)

10/15/2009

Mia Farrow: Newest member of Legion of Morons

Filed under: Gaza, Hamas, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Gaza, Hamas, Israel — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

It almost makes you like Ruth Gordon in Rosemary’s Baby. Mia Farrow joined the Legion of Morons by denouncing Israel for the Gaza blockade while whitewashing the reason for it. The direct quote about firing rockets into civilian areas (which, by the way, devastated especially Sderot’s children, but Israeli children aren’t on the UN goodwill ambassador’s list of needy children.

In criticizing militant rockets, Farrow advised Gazans not to “give the international community ammunition to view you in a negative way.” Stopping them, she said, could lead to greater international aid.

Got it? Don’t stop firing rockets at Sderot’s schoolchildren because it’s immoral, illegal, and outright wrong. Stop firing rockets so that you can get more money.

Way to be a goodwill ambassador.

Asshat.

Comments (6)

10/14/2009

Breaking UN resolutions only counts if you’re Israel

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Lebanon, United Nations — Tags: Israel, Lebanon, United Nations — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

How many times have we heard the tired old argument that Israel is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions? The fact that the resolutions that most people think of are nonbinding makes no difference; Israeli is in violation of that dreaded shibboleth, international law.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is in plain violation of an actual, binding resolution, and nobody but Israel seems to notice or care. The explosion last month of a weapons depot underneath a home in southern Lebanon raised no angry response from the UN, or even lifted eyebrows from UNIFIL, who are, uh, right there in southern Lebanon. Israel has complained. Nothing happened.

The explosion this week of another house in southern Lebanon has once again raised no apparent concern in the UN, or with UNIFIL, or even with Nobel peace prize winner Barack Obama, who is very, very concerned about peace in the middle east—when it comes to Israel’s actions, anyway. In fact, UNIFIL has sprung into action in the usual UN way.

UNIFIL said it was aware of an explosion and was in contact with the Lebanese army. “We are looking into the circumstances of the incident,” UNIFIL spokeswoman Yasmina Bouziane said.

Ah. They’re investigating. That’ll show Hezbollah.

This time around, Israel is launching an all-out effort to see if the UN and the world will cease its hypocrisy. Instead of imagined war crimes as found in the Goldstone report, this is an actual violation of UN 1701, forbidding Hezbollah from arming south of the Litani. And Israel has proof that was what they were doing.

Of course, the AP has to spin it negatively. Note the language implying that Israel doesn’t really have proof. The IDF just said that’s what happened. It could be any old film of anyone smuggling weapons into any house, right?

The Israeli military released footage it said was shot by one of its drones in the area. It said the video shows Hezbollah members sealing off the explosion site, recovering dozens of rockets from the home and driving them away in two covered trucks.

You can go online and see the footage for yourself. Ynet has it. It’s at the IDF website. Israel isn’t just saying that Hezbollah is smuggling weapons. They’re proving it. But since it isn’t a Palestinian eyewitness supplying the testimony, obviously, it can’t be believed. (I’m feeling very sarcastic this morning, yes. Why do you ask?)

Comments Off

10/12/2009

No sympathy for Goldstone – in Sderot

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Michael Oren — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

In Moshav Yated Journal, Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports:

According to the Israeli military, some 3,300 rockets and mortar shells were launched from Gaza at southern Israel in 2008, compared with fewer than 300 since the end of the war.

So then you wouldn’t be surprised to learn:

“People scoffed” at the Goldstone report, said Sasson Sara, the owner of a newspaper store in Sderot, the border town hit by thousands of rockets. “What does he understand? He sits in an air-conditioned room and he writes.”

Yafa Malka, a glamorously made-up Sderot hairdresser, said she felt “pain and humiliation” when she heard about the report.

“I am very sorry for all those who were killed in Gaza,” Ms. Malka said, “but I expect my country to defend me no matter how.”

Imagine that, the UN (Human Rights Council) considers it scandalous (not to mention illegal) for Israel to defend its citizens.

This was essentially the message of Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, last week:

The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves. If a country can be pummeled by thousands of rockets and still not be justified in protecting its inhabitants, then at issue is not the methods by which that country survives but whether it can survive at all. But more insidiously, the report does not only hamstring Israel; it portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents–as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed.

Matthew Yglesias, of course, willfully misinterprets Oren. (via memeorandum) The rules of war, which are routinely invoked when Israel defends itself seem tailored (and applied) only to prevent Israel’s self defense. Rarely are they ever invoked in reaction to countries who completely ignore them.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

10/05/2009

Why did Israel jail the pregnant woman?

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Gilad Shalit — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The media likes to boast that they are the “first rough draft of history.” Part of that claim is that they are disinterested parties just reporting the facts as they are. Rafael Broch of Just Journalism had an excellent op-ed in Ha’aretz demonstrating the falseness of that claim.

But the media is more active than we may realize, and journalists profoundly affect what we understand about international law. One way is through the language that journalists popularise in their reports and broadcasts.

The first reference to war crimes by the British press in relation to the Gaza conflict came less than 48 hours into Israel’s operation. It was a quotation from a Hezbollah militant in Lebanon, claiming the assault was a “war crime and represents genocide”.

What is most interesting is not the readiness of the journalist to include war crimes allegations in his report so soon, but that the journalist saw it fit to quote the legal judgement of an avowed enemy. Somewhere in the mind of the journalist is the logic that these soundbytes convey drama and sell papers.

And so every Israeli self-defense is subject to a filter, which suggests that each such action might well be a violation worthy of condemnation if not punishment.

Consider the other side of the coin. On Friday Israel released twenty female security prisoners in exhange for a video of captured soldier, Gilad Schalit. Schalit has been held for three years and not allowed any visits by the Red Cross. How did the Associated Press orient its story? On the plight of the prisoners!

Women make up only a tiny minority of more than 7,000 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, but they often pay a high personal price for what has largely been a supporting role in the Palestinian uprising.

Some have raised babies behind bars, and others have watched their families torn apart in their absence.

Now notice in these opening paragraphs there’s nothing about what the women may have done to deserve incarceration. It’s as if the Israelis arbitrarily picked the women off the street.

Fatima Ziq, 41, was pregnant when she was arrested in May 2007 as an alleged accomplice in a foiled suicide bombing. She returns to Gaza City with a toddler — her ninth child — who has known only prison life.

Zhour Hamdan, 45, was a married mother of eight when she was picked up in 2003, also as an accomplice in an aborted bombing. Her husband has remarried, and her children were forced to fend for themselves.

“Our mother was the heart of our family,” said one of her daughters, Neveen, 22. “When she was arrested, our entire life changed.”

“Alleged accomplice?” Was she not tried and convicted? And the only reason she’s being released is because the action she abetted was unsuccessful. Does the article ask what kind of society impels pregnant women to be actively involved in the destruction of innocents?

As far as Zhour Hamdan, was she abandoned by husband because of her absence or on account of her age? If her husband abandoned their children too, what does that say about her husband?

But if glossing over the crimes the women were involved in wasn’t bad enough, the AP goes further:

The release of prisoners is an emotional issue for both sides.

Palestinians view the prisoners as heroes fighting Israeli occupation at great personal cost, and virtually every Palestinian family has current or former detainees in its midst.

In contrast, many Israelis see the inmates as terrorists.

Israelis “see” these inmates as terrorists? Please. They are, by definition, terrorists. They attempted to kill civilians. Their success in doing so isn’t really relevant to what they are. It’s not a subjective judgment. That Palestinian society views them as heroes, says something about the society and about the apologists who glorify the terrorism.

The Israeli public is divided over whether to release large numbers of prisoners in exchange for Israeli captives. Some argue that such releases only drive up the cost of future exchanges and increase the dangers of future attacks.

“Some argue?” Well it’s more than an argument. It’s documented that a portion of those terrorists who are released early return to terrorism and innocents again pay the price.

As Meryl noted, there have been other articles of this ilk about Gilad Schalit or more generally.

The media may claim that they report the news, but what they report is a narrative, shaped by ideology. It has the effect of shaping opinion to fit the views of “journalists” and advocating for their preferred causes. It is generally not what we would consider “news.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (14)

10/02/2009

A story about Gilad Shalit that does not discuss Gilad Shalit

Filed under: Hamas, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias, Terrorism — Meryl Yourish @ 3:00 pm

The Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper that has never been a friend to Israel, carries a story with this headline:

Israel’s captured youths: Gilad Shalit and a Palestinian girl with braces

You would expect it to be a profile of both Gilad Shalit and a Palestinian girl. You would be wrong. It is a story about the girl, with references to Shalit thrown in.

The teaser explains what the story is really about:

In an interview, Baraah Malki – one of the first of 20 female Palestinian prisoners to be released by Israel in exchange for a video of kidnapped soldier Shalit – talks about her time in prison.

Ah. So it is a profile only of the Palestinian. It is a long, weepy tale of how the poor thing suffered by being imprisoned. And while the story mentions her crime—attempting to stab an Israeli soldier—it barely mentions Gilad Shalit at all.

Here’s one mention:

Like Sergeant Shalit, who was 19 at the time he was captured by Hamas militants in a cross-border raid, her youth seems to underscore the extent to which young people here continue to pay the price of a conflict their elders have failed to solve.

And another:

Qraqe says this week’s deal appears to be a test of readiness for a more substantial exchange that would involve a much larger number of prisoners in exchange for Shalit.

And that’s it. Except for the lead paragraph:

Baraah Malki, one of 20 Palestinian prisoners Israel released in exchange for a video of captured soldier Gilad Shalit, can hardly believe that she’s home.

And that is the narrative across the media world today: It’s all about the poor, poor, pitiful Palestinians, most of whom were arrested for crimes related to terrorist activity, and barely a mention of the soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists—those selfsame terrorists that these women tried to help in other times. The media act like the “prisoners” are equal when, in fact, Gilad Shalit is not a prisoner who committed a crime. He is a hostage, kidnapped and taken by terrorists, so they can get more prisoners who actually committed crimes released.

I’m guessing that more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners will be released for Shalit. But only one member of the exchange will be innocent of any crimes—and you won’t read about that in the media narrative.

Comments (2)

Goldstone leaves many stones unturned

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Judge Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 7:00 am

Yaacov Lozowick watched Christiane Amanpour’s interview of Judge Goldstone. (video available) He observed:

The second is his comparison of the Israeli judicial system and that of the Hamas: Israel’s is secretive and not reliable. Hamas, on the other hand, has a fine legal system. Of course, he adds, if they wish to be reinforced by international outfits, that can also happen.

Surely you are thinking that the internationally respected Judge Goldstone didn’t say that Hamas had a fine legal system. Well actually he did. Here’s Richard Landes’s transcript, (read it along with the pertinent fisking):

CA: We talked about each side conducting their own investigations; Israel has its justice, the wheels of justice that turn. [What] would you expect really that you could get out of Hamas in Gaza.

RG: Well Hamas has courts open. There are courts in Gaza. People are convicted. Some people are, regrettably in my view, are sentenced to be executed. But if Hamas hasn’t got the sufficient resources, hasn’t got sufficient lawyers and judges, which I doubt, I’ve no doubt that the international community will fill any gap that there may be in such an absence of resources.

If you read any significant portion of Judge Goldstone’s report you will understand that he wasn’t looking for the truth, he was looking to confirm his (uninformed) conclusions. it wouldn’t have taken Judge Goldstone and his commission much effort to discover how Hamas’s fine judiciary works. All they had to do was to find a New York Times article from December 29, 2008 described Hamas’s fine “open” courts:

On Monday, Dr. Ashour was not the only official in charge. Armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roamed the halls. Asked their function, they said it was to provide security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.

In the fourth-floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late 20s asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hajoj was carried out by young men pretending to transfer him to another ward. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head.

Mr. Hajoj, like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges; when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.

What is “open” to Judge Goldstone, is called “summary execution” in the rest of the world.

There is quite a bit that Judge Goldstone ignored. And of course this article, in addition to demonstrating the falsity of his own impression of Hamas’s legal system, supported two more contentions of Israel’s that Goldstone refused to acknowledge.

1) Hamas terrorists don’t wear uniforms.
2) Hamas terrorists operate from hospitals.

Judge Goldstone worked from a premise that all destruction caused by Israel was arbitrary and/or unnecessary. Anything that contradicted that premise was disregarded.

The good judge was so intent on “Goldstoning” Israel he ignored the truth.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

10/01/2009

“Can this trash”

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: United Nations — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The New York Times has a completely unremarkable account of Tuesday’s proceedings. Apparently neither Dr. Siderer’s testimony nor Cuba’s plea for “freedom of expression” were noteworthy to the Times reporter.

Interestingly neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post have featured an unsigned editorial on the Goldstone commission. However, yesterday the NY Daily News had an excellent editorial on the topic.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner yesterday condemned the report’s claim that the Israeli military intended to terrorize. He attacked Goldstone’s failure to hold Hamas to account for using Palestinian civilians as human shields. And he exposed Goldstone’s outrageously lopsided call on Israel to stop using certain munitions – while saying nothing about Hamas’ indiscriminate firing of rockets.

The council, whose members include Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia, will now consider acting on the report, with many urging referral to the Security Council for prosecution by the International Criminal Court. The U.S. must lead the opposition – and must win.

With the unquestioned support of most of the world(’s dictatorships), the Goldstone Commission’s report is likely to be passed on to the UN General Assembly. The United States has an obligation to stand by Israel and ensure that no diplomatic harm befalls Israel on its account.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

09/30/2009

Goldstone impeaches self

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Judge Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Stephanie Guttman noted who Judge Goldstone listened to.

I wrote the other day about the ludicrously biased Goldstone Report issued by the UN’s Human Rights Council, which accuses Israel of war crimes in last winter’s war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As details about the backgrounds of Goldstone’s witnesses (many of them Hamas operatives, as it turns out) roll in, Tom Gross has noticed that one of them is Islam Shahwan, the same Hamas spokesman who appeared in the Israeli press (as well as the Telegraph) last summer trumpeting the news that Israeli intelligence was in the Strip distributing chewing gum to make their youth horny.

Then she goes in for the kill:

You’d think the UN would have learned a thing or two about the credibility of Hamas and Al Fatah spokesmen since its experiences in 2002. That year it launched an investigation into rumours that Israel had perpetrated a massacre in the the Jenin refugee camp during a military incursion undertaken after sustaining nearly year of suicide bombings believed to have been dispatched from towns like Jenin in the West Bank. The “massacre” charges had been spread by official spokesmen and amplified by reporters like Phil Reeves of the Independent, who famously started a front page story with the sentence, “A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed.” After weeks of work, the UN ended up backing the IDF’s contention that about 45 people had died, most of them men of draftable age. Reeves ended up acknowledging that it has “long been obvious that [a massacre] did not occur” in an article titled “Even Journalists Have to Admit They’re Wrong Sometimes.”

Actually I do think that they’ve learned since Jenin. They’ve decided not to restrict charges against Israel to the field but adopt a commission approach so as to pretend that a process was followed rather than just making reckless charges.

And who did Goldstone ignore? As noted elsewhere, he ignored Dr. Mirela Siderer. A video or her statement is here.

Here is Goldstone’s response.

UN Watch transcribed his response to Dr. Siderer:

With regard to the statement made by Dr. Siderer, I’m clearly upset that she feels humiliated by the report. She was treated in the report in no way different to that of other victims who spoke to us. She was referred to in the report as one of the people who was injured as a result of a rocket attack on a shopping center in Southern Israel. The report also refers to the fact that the evidence of the people who gave evidence to us are available on the website of the OHCHR. It is there for anybody to see.

If you can watch the video. Judge Goldstone addresses Dr. Siderer at about 1:45 into the video. (Before that he’s dismissing calls for Israel to be charged with genocide.) The equanimity with which he addresses her is chilling. He claims that he’s upset by her charges, but there’s no trace of emotion in his voice. Goldstone’s performance ought to impeach his credibility.

UN Watch provided this helpful rebuttal to Goldstone’s prepared remarks.

UN Watch Note: Dr. Siderer posed 8 simple questions. Goldstone avoided all except one, and on this was non-responsive and misleading. Dr. Siderer never said that she wasn’t “referred to,” but rather complained that her story was ignored, and that her name was mentioned only “in passing, in brackets, in a technical context;” and that this underscored how he overlooked 8 years of suffering of the rocket victims. Here is Dr. Siderer’s original testimony; here is Goldstone’s report. Search her name — it turns up but once, in passing, in par. 1640. Goldstone’ s claim that other witnesses were given similar treatment is manifestly false: see, e.g., the report’s repeated and in-depth discussion of witness Abu Askar. What is clear is that the report gives short shrift to Israeli suffering by its selective focus on the period of Israel’s response to the rocket attacks (Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009), instead of to the attacks themselves (2001-2009).

In the video, Goldstone addresses Anne Bayefsky too (after dismissing Dr. Siderer)

During another NGO statement, Anne Bayefsky of the Hudson Institute slammed the mission, the report and the HRC, ending with a stunning attack on Goldstone: “There is only one question to put to you, Richard: How does it feel to have used your Jewishness to jeopardize the safety and security of the people of Israel, and to find yourself in the company of human rights abusers everywhere?”

Bayefsky was scolded by the council president, and Goldstone called her remarks “unfortunate.”

“It should not be regarded as a matter for criticism that a member of the Jewish people should criticize the government of Israel or the Israeli Defense Forces for what are seen to be violations of international law,” Goldstone said.

“The history of the Jewish people, a very sad history of persecution over two millennia, I would have thought should be an absolutely compelling reason for all Jews to speak out against injustice and the violations of human rights.”

But what Judge Goldstone doesn’t acknowledge is that much of that persecution has been justified by false claims of crimes committed by Jews – individually or collectively. He is now participating in a stacked tribunal whose job it is to declare Israel guilty. He is not honoring Jewish history; he is debasing it. (A full transcript of Goldstone’s remarks is here.)

If you need one more example of the absurdity of the proceedings it’s this:

The representatives of Libya and Iran both accused Israel of “genocide,” prompting Sweden’s envoy, speaking on behalf of the European Union, to intervene on a “point of order,” asking the council president to ensure speakers did not make “gross and baseless allegations.”

Cuban envoy Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez in turn complained about the Swedish intervention, saying points of order should not be misused to curb freedom of expression.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

09/29/2009

The wrong accounting

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

In an affront to Jews worldwide, the Chicago Tribune published an op-ed essay by Rabbi Brant Rosen, before Yom Kippur, “A call to moral accounting.” Rosen uses the Hebrew term “cheshbon hanefesh” to give a religious patina to his blatantly political argument.

I don’t mean to suggest that the report is perfect. No human endeavor is. Evidence of bias in the commission’s make-up is important, and should be honestly addressed, as the White House has suggested. But to categorically reject the Goldstone findings — which echo the work of highly respected Israeli and international human rights groups such as B’tselem and Human Rights Watch — is to thrust our heads into the sand. In the end, the report’s most critical recommendation is that Israel and Hamas thoroughly and credibly investigate themselves, and hold accountable any combatants or commanders who violated the law.

True, no human endeavor is perfect – certainly not Rosen’s op-ed – but this underplays the Goldstone Commission’s report’s faults. The makeup of the Commission isn’t a cosmetic problem, but one that goes to the purpose of the report. Including Christine Chinkin on the commission was problematic for she signed a letter arguing that Israel has no right of self-defense. So the commission’s biased charge – to focus on Israeli violations – was reinforced by the personnel. Goldstone’s claim that he sought to change the focus of his commission’s mandate is undermined by the fact that he paid only cursory attention to Hamas’s terror gererally and its campaign against Israel civilians that necessitated the Israel invasion.

The actions of the Jewish State ultimately reflect upon the Jewish people throughout the world. We in the Diaspora Jewish community have long taken pride in the accomplishments of the Jewish State. As with any family, the success of some reflects a warm light on us all. But pride cannot blind us to the capacity for error on the part of the country we hold so dear. We cannot identify with the successes, but refuse to see the failures.

As we approach Yom Kippur, I call on America’s Jews to examine the Goldstone findings, and consider their implications. In the spirit of the season, we must consider the painful truth of Israel’s behavior in Gaza, and understand that we must work, together, to discover the truth — and then urge on all relevant parties in the search for peace.

On the other hand I would consider the Israeli effort to avoid civilian casualties to be a success.

I have, by the way, examined some of Goldstone’s findings and found that they showed a lack of curiosity and a predisposition to find Israel guilty. The implications are that Goldstone deliberately ignored exculpatory evidence that would favor Israel and accepted at face value any charge against Israel.

Take for example the testimony of Gaza police spokesman Islam Shahwan. In at least 3 cases, the Goldstone commission accepted his testimony at face value. Yet as bloggers Elder of Ziyon and Israel Matzav note, Shahwan recently promulgated the rehashed fiction that Israel was flooding Gaza with gum laced with aphrodisiacs in order to corrupt Palestinian youth. Isn’t this someone whose testimony should be treated with at least a grain of skepticism.

On the other hand take the testimony of Dr. Mirela Siderer.

On May 14, 2008, my life was changed forever. I was working in my clinic. Suddenly, the building was hit by a missile, fired from Gaza. I was terribly wounded. Blood was everywhere. My patient was also wounded, and more than 100 others. Next month will be my eighth operation.

Judge Goldstone, I told you all of this, in detail. I testified in good faith. You sent me this letter, saying, “Your testimony is an essential part of the Mission’s fact-finding activities.”

And how essential was Dr. Siderer’s to Judge Goldstone’s report?

But now I see your report. I have to tell you: I am shocked.

Judge Goldstone, in a 500-page report, why did you completely ignore my story? My name appears only in passing, in brackets, in a technical context. I feel humiliated.

Why are there only two pages about Israeli victims like me, who suffered thousands of rockets over eight years? Why did you choose to focus on the period of my country’s response, but not on that of the attacks that caused it? Why did you not tell me that this council judged Israel guilty in advance, in its meeting of last January? Why did you not tell me that members of your panel signed public letters judging Israel guilty in advance?

Got that, Rabbi Rosen? The Goldstone Commission took the testimony of a confirmed propagandist in order to make its case against Israel and rejected the testimony of a doctor who treats both Arabs and Jews. This kind of discrepancy could not occur by accident. It can only be the result of a deliberate attempt to condemn Israel.

Rabbi Rosen asks American Jews to accept the findings of the Goldstone report in order to effect a “moral accounting.” Rabbi Rosen is the one who ought to be doing the accounting as he supports the slander of Israel. But before he does he could use an introductory course on debit and credits.

Thanks to Daled Amos for the sources for this post.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (10)

Arab refugees the UN doesn’t care about

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Israel, Yemen — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

While Karen AbuZayd goes begging for more millions for the Palestinians, thousands of Yemen refugees aren’t even getting relief supplies allowed through Saudi Arabia. But the UN isn’t issuing resolutions demanding that the world take care of these refugees. There are not headlines throughout the world media decrying the horrid conditions these civilians are forced to live in. There are no claims of starvation, disease, lack of shelter or medical care—because once again, these are not people being “oppressed” by Israel. It’s Arab-on-Arab fighting, and thus, easy to ignore.

Fighting has dramatically escalated since August between government forces and the rebels, causing turmoil in a nearly 160-mile (260-kilometer), mountainous stretch between Yemen’s capital San’a and the Saudi border. Even before the current escalation, the fighting had displaced some 150,000 people since it began in 2004.

Since August, tens of thousands more have been forced to flee their homes, but exact numbers are unclear, a reflection of the chaos. Government officials put the number at around 60,000, while the international aid agency OXFAM estimates them at 100,000.

The U.N. refugee agency and International Red Cross say they have about 37,000 newly displaced people who have been registered and are receiving assistance, many in camps around the north.

Thousands more are stranded around the area, some living along roadsides, some trapped in Saada – the home of the rebels, which has been at the center of fighting. Two cease-fires declared by the government in the past month fell apart within hours.

Up to 30,000 are trapped north of Saada near the Saudi border, said Laure Chedraoui, a spokeswoman for the U.N. refugee agency said. The UNHCR has appealed to Saudi Arabia and Yemen to let relief supplies across its border to reach them but has yet to get permission, she said.

Furthermore, old camps that were holding those who fled earlier fighting have filled with a new influx and are inaccessible because of the turmoil, she said.

I’m not hearing about how the Saudis are refusing to let in humanitarian aid to refugees, but we do read about that just about every day regarding Gaza—where Palestinians live in actual buildings, with utilities, grocery stores, automobiles, and the ubuquitous smuggling tunnels to bring in luxury items that Israel forbds.

Once more, we have evidence of the world’s double standard on Israel.

Comments (2)

09/25/2009

Goldstone’s double standard’s double standard

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

Ehud Barak in an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recalls:

While such logic eluded Mr. Goldstone and his team, it was crystal clear to the thousands of Israeli children living in southern Israel who had to study, play, eat and sleep while being preoccupied about the distance to the nearest bomb shelter. When I accompanied then-presidential candidate Barack Obama on his visit to the shelled city of Sderot, he said “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” Too bad the Human Rights Council wasn’t listening.

It’s not just that any country would have the right to defend its citizens, it’s also that no other country would be subject to this kind of scrutiny.

As long as Judge Richard Goldstone doesn’t probe the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka or Turkey, just as he probed Israel, he is not a moral figure. A law is a law only when it applies to everyone and does not discriminate, as Goldstone did.

The message of the Goldstone report is that Israel must not defend itself, and if it dares to do what any other country is allowed, it must be condemned. The double standard has a double standard.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (2)

09/24/2009

2 excellent responses to Goldstone

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

The Wall Street Journal – The U.N.’s Anti-Antiterror Report

After a brilliant opening analogy and laying out the sordid histories of the UN’s Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Commission – as well as some of the commission’s blind spots – the editorial nails the main issue:

The Goldstone report includes some pro forma condemnation of Hamas’s behavior, but Hamas leaders quickly endorsed the findings because they know they have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court or any other special tribunal. Hamas violates the laws of war as a matter of daily routine, not least in the murder of Palestinian dissenters. The U.N. report can only hurt a Western nation like Israel that cares about world, or at least American, opinion.

In the end the editorial brings up the more universal problem: that which applies to Israel could be applied to the United States in its war on terror.

Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren contributed an op-ed to the Boston Globe that starts with that point (though as a hypothetical). In the middle Oren makes this important point:

Despite Hamas’s cynical use of civilians as human shields, the Israel Defense Forces repeatedly called off operations deemed too dangerous to civilian populations and endangered its own troops by warning Palestinian neighborhoods of impending attacks. Yet even the most moral army can make mistakes, especially in dense urban warfare; for every Serbian soldier killed by NATO in 1999, for example, four civilians died. By comparison, more than half of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza were military. Still, Israel launched investigations into some 100 cases of alleged misconduct by its soldiers, 23 of which continue. If found guilty, as one soldier already has been, the perpetrators will be brought to justice under Israel’s internationally respected legal system.

Finally Oren returns comes to his point:

Ironically, the greatest victim of the UN report is not Israel’s ability to wage a moral war but its willingness to make an historic peace. If asked to take immense risks for peace, Israelis must be convinced of their internationally recognized right to self-defense should that peace be broken. Deprived of that right, even after being subjected to years of murderous rocket attacks, an Israeli electorate will understandably recoil from such risks.

Both are worth reading.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (4)

09/22/2009

The Goldstone Standard Part II

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Richard Goldstone — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

The Goldstone Commission report discusses the case of the al-Samouni family (.pdf page 202).

712. In the morning of 5 January 2009, around 6.30 – 7 a.m., Wa’el al-Samouni, Saleh al-Samouni, Hamdi Maher al-Samouni, Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni and Iyad al-Samouni, stepped outside the house to collect firewood. Rashad Helmi al-Samouni remained standing next to the door of the house. Saleh al-Samouni has pointed out to the Mission that from where the Israeli soldiers were positioned on the roofs of the houses they could see the men clearly. Suddenly, a projectile struck next to the five men, close to the door of Wa’el’s house and killed Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni and, probably, Hamdi Maher al-Samouni.403 The other men managed to retreat to the house. Within about five minutes, two or three more projectiles had struck the house directly. Saleh and Wa’el al-Samouni stated at the public hearing that these were missiles launched from Apache helicopters. The Mission has not been able to determine the type of munition used.

In additions to those killed part of the testimony accepted by the Goldstone commission is that after the fight Israel did not allow rescue workers to the area for two days. Later, in giving its “factual findings”, the Goldstone commission writes:

724. The Mission also reviewed the submission it received from an Israeli researcher, arguing generally that statements from Palestinian residents claiming that no fighting took place in their neighbourhood are disproved by the accounts Palestinian armed groups give of the armed operations. The Mission notes that, as far as the al-Samouni neighbourhood is concerned, this report would appear to support the statements of the witnesses that there was no combat.411

725. Regarding the attack on Ateya al-Samouni’s house, the Mission finds that the account given to it by Faraj al-Samouni is corroborated by the soldiers’ testimonies published by the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence. The assault on Ateya al-Samouni’s house appears to be the procedure of the Israeli armed forces referred to as a “wet entry”. A “wet entry” is, according to the soldier’s explanation, “missiles, tank fire, machine-gun fire into the house, grenades. Shoot
as we enter a room. The idea was that when we enter a house, no one there could fire at us.” his
procedure was, according to the soldier, thoroughly practised during recent Israeli armed forces manoeuvres.412

Paragraph 724 shows that evidence to the contrary was arbitrarily disregarded and 725 shows that “corroboration” came from a highly suspect source. Israel Matzav laid out the case against Breaking the Silence here and Honest Reporting had more here.

According to Goldstone then Israelis soldiers arbitrarily attacked civilians and then unconscionably refused to allow help to reach them for two days. Of course, if the accounts of the armed groups, so casually dismissed by Goldstone are true, than the attack on the civilians was, in fact, a battle and the reason no help was allowed for two days was because there were still enemy combatants in the area.

Col. Jonathan D. Halevi summarizes the reports that the Goldstone commission rejected.

The al-Samouni family members firmly adhere to the version that there was no Palestinian military activity near the house and that the nearest military activity was at least a mile away, and that, they claimed, was limited to firing rockets into Israeli territory, not close fighting.

However, the official Palestinian Islamic Jihad version is completely different. In a statement issued on January 5, Palestinian Islamic Jihad said that on the evening of January 4 its fighters had fired an R[PG] from the Zeitun neighborhood at an Israeli tank and had opened fire at IDF soldiers. At 1:20 a.m. on January 5, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad engineering unit detonated a 50-kg. bomb near an Israeli tank not far from the Al-Tawhid mosque near the house of Wail al-Samouni. At 6:30 a.m., the engineering unit detonated a bomb near an IDF infantry unit operating near the Al-Tawhid mosque in the Zeitun neighborhood.23 According to another official Palestinian Islamic Jihad statement, one of its operatives was killed in fighting nearby. His name was Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni.

The significance of the foregoing is that the four men who left the al-Samouni house in the early hours of the morning, among them Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni, did not necessarily do so for the innocent reasons given by their family. They might have gone out for a reason connected to the military activities taking place in the same area between Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operatives and IDF forces. Palestinian Islamic Jihad reported that operatives of its military-terrorist wing, the Al-Quds Battalions, “surprised the occupation forces and attacked them from behind their lines, and there was a fierce battle in the southern part of the Zeitun neighborhood.” Another report, given “exclusively to the Muslim Brotherhood website,” detailed Palestinian Islamic Jihad activities in the Zeitun neighborhood on January 5: “According to eye-witnesses, the fighters of the resistance waited and barricaded themselves in secure locations, remaining in places inhabited by civilians, from which they left to carry out planned attacks against the forces of the Zionist occupier.”

These accounts have the advantage that the are detailed and contemporaneous. However they show that fighting was going on in the area of the al-Samouni house contrary to the testimony that Goldstone accepted uncritically.

The way this finding was reported was also problematic. Colum Lynch of the Washington Post – without mentioning the claims to the contrary – reported it like this:

The panel’s findings corroborate reports, including a detailed account in The Washington Post, that Israeli forces shelled the crowded home of the Palestinian Wael al-Samuni family in the neighborhood of Zaytoun on Jan. 5, killing 21 civilians, and prevented international relief agencies from tending to the wounded.

Actually the Goldstone commission didn’t corroborate the newspaper reports. It reached the same conclusion as the newspapers after considering the same limited testimony.

Elder of Ziyon concludes

…this doesn’t mean that Goldstone is incorrect concerning the immediate area of the Samouni house, but it does indicate that the commission ignored easily-available data that could indicate that their implication that no fighting was taking place in Al-Zaytoun is wrong.

It’s not just the Goldstone commission. As I observed above the Washington Post didn’t consider contrary evidence either.

After Philip Karsenty prevailed in court over Charles Enderlin, I was disappointed that no major newspaper covered it. (The New York Times covered it in its blog, but not on paper.) But the Karsenty verdict clearly should have raised questions about the way the media reports on the Middle East. Clearly they didn’t care about getting the story right.

Clearly that’s still a problem.

Previously: Goldstone Standard.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

NOTE: I’ve edited the original slightly for clarity.

Comments (1)

09/17/2009

Goldstone report ignores Israelis injured by rockets

Filed under: Gaza, Hamas, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism, United Nations — Tags: Gaza, Israel, United Nations — Meryl Yourish @ 6:00 am

I know my readers will be shocked, shocked to hear stories like this:

Some of the Israeli witnesses who testified before the committee were injured by rocket fire before Operation Cast Lead, but their testimonies were left out of the report.

Dr. Mirela Siderer, a resident of Ashkelon, was severely injured by a Grad missile and is about to undergo her eighth operation.

“I didn’t have high hopes, so I wasn’t very disappointed, but I still feel awful after reading the report,” she said. “They didn’t refer to incidents that occurred before Operation Cast Lead, including my injury.”

Don’t you understand, Mirela? It’s not about Israeli suffering. The narrative can only take into account Palestinian suffering. They, the victims, and only they, the victims, can have testimonies embedded into the report. Israelis, the oppressors, are not counted when they are killed or injured, except as victims of what is, ultimately, their own fault—for stealing Palestinian land and causing untold misery.

That would be the misery in Gaza like the misery of having to smuggle brand-new 2009 vehicles into Gaza. Oh, the misery! They have to cut the cars into four pieces and weld them back together for the wealthy Gazan owners.

Eight thousand rockets flying into civilian areas of Gaza? Pshaw! Not worth paying much attention to in the Goldstone report.

“When I stood up and started to testify before the judges, Justice Goldstone fell asleep in front of me. It was an embarrassing moment but I continued talking, realizing that I should not have high hopes,” he added.

Bedin said the testimony had felt pointless. “One of the judges on the committee had already expressed the very clear opinion that Israel was committing war crimes against the Palestinians,” he said.

When the outcome of the report is determined by its mandate, one cannot be surprised to hear that the author of the report fell asleep while listening to testimony of rockets injuring and killing Israeli civilians.

The kangaroo court’s verdict is partially in. Next comes the General Assembly, then the ICC. The delegitimization of Israel continues apace.

Comments (2)