However, I became so infuriated when I read MJ Rosenberg’s piece in response to Goldstone’s change of heart, that I had to respond and so I wrote an article that I believe you would enjoy reading about Jew-hatred and criticism of Israel and the line between them that I believe Rosenberg and Goldstone both crossed. In it, I note ways in which criticism of Israel mirrors traditional anti-Judaism.

I believe that most Jews living today have no concept of what Jew-hatred really is. For individuals such as MJ Rosenberg to say what he does about Israel without realizing that he is simply substituting “Israel” and “Israelis” for “Jews” in age old anti-Jewish canards boggles the mind.

Rosenberg accused Israel of not caring whether or not civilians were killed because they were not Jews. The worst Jew haters in history could not have said it better. Just sick.

If you’re interested, take a look at my article.

But—but—Hamas would never harm UN personnel: John Ging doesn’t feel safe in Gaza, so Israel has approved four submachine guns for use of his personal bodyguards. Say, how’s that Hamas moderation coming along, guys? Exit statement: Ging needs exactly zero bodyguards when visiting Israel. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s get rid of Hamas, then Ging can do his work without fear.

So that Goldstone civilian body count? Dead as the Hamas terrorists. Hamas has admitted to at least 700 more terrorist deaths than they did after the end of Operation Cast Lead, which puts even the Elder’s body count off—in favor of fewer dead civilians. You know what’s missing from this story? Any reaction from the organizations that slammed Israel for all those “civilian” casualties. Are we surprised about that? Please. Have we been reading or writing this blog for ages? Would Meryl love to see someone question Richard Goldstone about this on camera? You betcha!

So much for that Obama Arab outreach: The Saudi prince says there’s NFW that Saudi Arabia will make any kind of gesture to Israel unless Israel vacates to the pre-1967 borders. Period. End of story. You know, if anyone in the Obama administration had been reading this blog, they could have saved themselves a world of trouble trying to convince the Arabs to make any kind of gesture of peace toward Israel.

So howcome they’re still arresting terrorists? I will believe that the PA is truly cooperating with Israel when there are no more arrests of terrorists, anywhere. But Ha’aretz says the PA security forces are truly cooperating with the IDF, and that there hasn’t been a major terror suspect arrest in quite some time. (Psst… they’re all hanging out in Gaza.)

EU to Israel: Stop building in Jerusalem. Meryl to EU: Stop telling Jews what to do. You lost that right over the centuries of pogroms and annihilation. Shorter Meryl: STFU. Oh, wait. It’s just Jew-hater Catherine Ash[ole]ton. Well, STFU anyway, you Jew-hating witch.

Well, that’s that, then: John Kerry is telling the Lebanese to just accept the results of the Hariri assassination tribunal. I’m sure they’ll listen to him. Sending him to Syria kept Baby Assad from firming up ties with Iran. Oh. Wait.

Breakfast time for me and the kitties. This is what comes of going to bed at 10:30. Stupid daylight savings time. Up an hour early.

Well, at least it wasn’t the Israel-hater: The U.K.’s election appears to be a rerun of Bush v. Gore. Pass the popcorn.

And it’ll work, too! Seriously? The Iranians are hosting a dinner for members of the UN Security Council, hoping it will blunt sanctions? Geez. They didn’t need to expend the effort. There aren’t going to be any “crippling” sanctions. There may be some that “bite.” But I’m betting the bite is on the level of the sand shark. (They have no teeth.)

Can you say “Waste of time”? I knew you could. What, exactly, does slamming Goldstone’s past accomplish? The report is out, it is being used as a weapon to bash Israel, the damage is done, and the man has gotten what he wanted. How on earth does this “investigative” report do anything more than make Yedioth Ahronoth look like a publication out to smear Goldstone however possible? I thought you were better than that.

Israel, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation, at first dismissed the report as unworthy of attention. But the government quickly found that the world took it quite seriously and found itself accused of premeditated war crimes. It now considers fighting that charge a priority.

“We face three major strategic challenges,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently. “The Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.”

The rebuttal will be given to United Nations officials in the coming weeks and its contents will remain under wraps until then.

Overall the report isn’t bad. A couple of paragraphs, I think are especially good.

Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel.

“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.”

Another senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity following regular military practice, said that neither the military command structure nor the government wanted to invade Gaza in December 2008, but felt that the continual rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians forced their hand. The war, he said, followed the least aggressive of three contemplated routes — conquer Gaza and occupy it again as was done in the West Bank in 2002, retake Hamas’s weapons supply routes and hold them to dry out the organization’s arsenal, or attack the Hamas military and state infrastructure and leave. It was the third that occurred.

However, there are a few omissions that are worth mentioning. Bronner reports:

The report stated that “the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces.” It added that Israel waged “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.”

However this goes beyond anything Goldstone could possibly know. While he quotes Gen. Mandelblit in response, it behooved Bronner to point out that Goldstone didn’t prove his allegation that Israel’s attack was “deliberately disproportionate” something that’s unknowable; he simply made the reckless charge.

Goldstone himself acknowledged that his conclusions would not stand up in a court of law. So while Bronner gets bogged down in the minutiae of whether Israel’s response accords with the requirements of the Goldstone report, he doesn’t observe the implication: Goldstone presumed Israel guilty.

At the end of the article Bronner observes that even Israeli critics of the IDF think that Goldstone was unfair.

While many here think that the Goldstone report failed to expose of the practices of Hamas, they are more concerned about their own army’s conduct. Still, virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct.

“I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,” said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. “It is not convincing. But every incident and every policy has to be checked by an independent body because the military cannot check itself. They need to explain why so many people were killed.”

It’s a shame that Bronner didn’t also mention that some people have been investigating that very thing, though not in the way the B’Tselem spokeswoman means.

Here’s Elder of Ziyon:

Even though I haven’t been spending too much time lately on looking for more dead Gaza “civilians” who were actually terrorists, other people (notably PTWatch) has been diligently digging through Arabic websites and we keep adding to the list.

As of right now, we have identified 358 terrorists who were categorized as “civilians” by the PCHR. Add together the rest of the police and the “militants” that PCHR counted, and we have 667 dead Gazans who were legitimate targets, quickly closing in on half of the dead not being civilians.

So many were killed because they were legitimately targeted combatants or civilians victimized by Hamas operating nearby. The work Elder of Ziyon did was based on informaitonn that was publicly available that any reporter or human rights investigator had access to; had they been so inclined.

Finally, while only tangentially related the Washington Post is reporting (via memeorandum) that Hezbollah’s rearming since 2006 is quite extensive.

The United Nations is confident that the dense presence of its troops in the comparatively small area is helping lower the risk of conflict and minimizing Hezbollah’s ability to move weapons across southern Lebanon, but analysts in Lebanon and Israel say the U.N. mission is almost beside the point.

In other words, if Israel is again forced to go to war against Hezbollah, the UN will have been responsible for allowing an intolerable threat to grow on Israel’s northern border.

If the UN which passed resolution 1701 is “besides the point” when it comes to enforcing that resolution to protect Israel, why should any branch of the UN be trusted to judge Israel’s compliance with international law? Furthermore, Israel’s response to Goldstone as opposed to Hezbollah’s disregard of 1701 points to another problem with the UN and international law in its current state: international law applies to those countries who take it seriously, but it can be disregarded by those who don’t with no real consequence.

Crossposted on Yourish

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.

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.

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.

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.