Goldstone « Yourish.com

11/09/2009

Degrees of cluelessness

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)

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)

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)