I am not a schnook

Posted on 11/13/2009 by Soccerdad

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.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | 2 Comments

The wilful blindness of Richard Goldstone

Posted on 11/13/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Richard Goldstone has responded to Shimon Peres’ criticism in typical fashion—by insisting that no matter what people say, his report was fair and balanced.

Peres was quoted Wednesday as calling Goldstone “a small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence,” who was “on a one-sided mission to hurt Israel.”

Goldstone’s response:

Goldstone also said he had anticipated that the report would engender considerable criticism. “After all, no one likes to be accused of committing serious war crimes. However, I was surprised at the many nasty attacks made against me personally. In my view, it was a classic case of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.”

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.

Goldstone also rejected the claim that the fact that he is Jewish was exploited to make it more difficult for Israelis to challenge his conclusions. “I was approached because of my experience with regard to the investigation of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.”

Let’s take a look at the AP boilerplate that ran with every article on the Goldstone Commission, shall we?

However, Goldstone’s strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.

It’s there. And here. Oh, and here’s another media outlet touting Goldstone’s Jewish faith as a great reason for the report’s accountability. And while I haven’t heard back from the AP regarding my letter (I never do), let’s face it—they don’t have to point out that Goldstone’s Jewish faith make it any harder for Israel to dismiss his report. It’s what people do when they set Jews to investigate Jews. The intent of the UNHRC, by choosing Goldstone, was to count on exactly the response they’ve got—with the extra added bonus that Goldstone is actually not a very good friend to Israel, else why would he continue to insist that his report is fair and evenhanded, ignoring all evidence to the contrary?

And now, Goldstone goes on his world breast-beating tour, blithely ignoring real criticism, and pretending that no one can disprove his report, anymore than they can show evidence that his Jewish faith has been used all along to try to muffle Israel’s understandable reaction to an anti-Israel report. Let’s see. It worked for Walt & Mearsheimer. It worked for Jimmy Carter. And now it’s working for Goldstone.

Posted in Gaza, Israel | Comments Off on The wilful blindness of Richard Goldstone

Roger Cohen: about hinges and lack thereof

Posted on 11/13/2009 by SnoopyTheGoon

I have no doubt that all of you followed with bated breath the Iranian odyssey of the NYT grand vizier Roger Cohen. Well, if you didn’t, here is a reminder. So enamored was our jolly Roger with the regime, that I was quite sure he became a full time fellow traveler of Ayatollahs. Then, after the democratic elections in this “vibrant democracy” (according to Roger) and the following violence, Roger came up with a rare show of mea culpa, bewailing his own blindness.

One would assume that enough is enough and that Mr Cohen will do his best not to mention this professional fiasco. Even after the ominous sentence he dropped in one of the after-election pieces:

I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.

(We have already seen the attempt to outreach – quite according to Cohen’s wishes – and the results of this attempt. But this is not about the current administration. It is about Mr Cohen.)

So imagine my surprise upon seeing the article The Hinge of History where not so jolly Roger takes another approach to Iran:

What if the vast protesting crowd of perhaps three million people had turned from Azadi (Freedom) Square toward the presidential complex? What if Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, had stood before the throng and said, “Here I stand with you and here I will fall?” What, in short, if Azadi had been Prague’s Wenceslas Square of 20 years ago and Moussavi had been Vaclav Havel?

This absolutely pathetic piece, which has nothing to do with what professional journalism is about, is just an exercise in mental and moral masturbation. It made me suspect that Mr Cohen nurtures an intent to leave the field of journalism, where the possibilities of rich pickings are somewhat diminished for him, exchanging it for the “what if?” quasi-SF domain. But better people have already cornered this market, so it could hardly be. I don’t have an explanation for this miserable excuse for an op-ed column, unless it’s a cry of a tortured soul (bleh…).

What I do have, though, is a question: what if Roger Cohen and many of his oh so progressive and liberal colleagues, instead of doing their considerable best to poison the Western minds by their warm and fuzzy about the nice Iranian regime during the years that led up to the current tragedy, tried telling (for a change) not what they desire to see, but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

But then, Roger Cohen is just another link in the long chain of the fellow travelers (or useful idiots, take your pick), one of whom produced that masterpiece in 1924 for NYT:

Sad.

P.S. I have already posted that snapshot of NYT article before. It bears repeating.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

Posted in Juvenile Scorn, Media Bias | Comments Off on Roger Cohen: about hinges and lack thereof

Ye olde grievance shoppe

Posted on 11/12/2009 by Soccerdad

It’s hard to match the title A Chronicle of Gaza, in Kitsch Form with the opening paragraph:

“I can offer you a discount on the headbands,” said Tareq Abu Dayyeh, souvenir-store owner. “They’re just like the kind used by suicide bombers.”

I don’t think of glamorizing suicide bombers as kitschy, tasteless would be a better word. But here’s the gist of the story from the reporter Daniel Williams.

Since then, the shop has been a one-stop barometer of Palestinian fortunes, selling kitsch that chronicles war, political infighting and Gaza’s isolation since 2006, when Israel began to blockade the coastal strip.

When the store opened, it was called the PLO Flag Shop, and the souvenirs reflected hope. Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, had returned from exile to take control of parts of Gaza and the West Bank. Peace seemed to be on the horizon and in tribute the shop displayed little crossed Israeli and Palestinian flag pins and key chains, Israeli flags and menorahs, the candelabra that is a symbol of Judaism.

A big seller was an inflatable vinyl pillow imprinted with Mr. Arafat’s smiling face. One that was purchased in 1995 deflated after a few months.

Israeli-themed mementos fell out of favor in the late 1990s as peace talks foundered, the Israeli settlements expanded and Hamas carried out a suicide-bomb campaign inside Israel. Posters of Saddam Hussein, who supported Palestinian liberation, were the rage.

If you look for the word “terror” in this article, you won’t find it, though Williams acknowledges a “suicide-bomb campaign.” The problem is that the terror is presented as an afterthought. It’s probably the main reason that the “peace talks foundered.” My guess is that mementos glamorizing terrorists – such as the above mentioned headbands – were very popular sellers, and, maybe, still are.

However, this might be the most telling paragraph:

The upbeat mood did not last. In 2006, Danish flags became a hot item, purchased to torch in protest of cartoons depicting Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, published in a Danish newspaper. That summer, Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and party, fought a 33-day war with Israel, and Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, became a subject of heroic portrait posters.

What do the Danish cartoons have to do with changing fortunes of Middle East peace? Nothing, but it was an episode of international Muslim grievances against the West. Nasrallah too, fought Israel after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and the supposed reason for Hezbollah’s existence disappeared. But Nasrallah is a hero because he attacked Israel with rockets.

The PLO flag does, as Williams say, reflect the recent history of the Middle East, but it is through the lens of Palestinian (and Arab) grievances.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in palestinian politics | Tagged | 1 Comment

A handy guide to German and Israeli walls

Posted on 11/12/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Since there are so many idiots out there who cannot tell the difference between the Berlin Wall and Israel’s security fence, here’s a handy guide to tell the difference. This post is dedicated to the anti-Semitic morons like Steve Bell, who definitely need it.

Comparing the Berlin Wall to Israel’s security fence
Berlin Wall     Security Fence
Built to keep people inside Communist East Germany Built to keep terrorists outside of Israel
3.5 million Germans escaped from Communist East Germany prior to building the wall 75% of suicide bombers came from areas that were not barricaded at all prior to building the fence
200 Germans died trying to escape over the wall 293 Israelis died in terrorist attacks prior to building the fence
Wall was torn down in 1989 as the Soviet Union was dying Fence was erected in 2003 as Israelis were dying
After the wall fell, Germany was reunified 11 months after the fence was begun, terrorist attacks dropped by more than 90%
  Terrorist leaders declared that the fence made terror attacks harder to carry out
  There has not been a successful suicide bombing attack carried out across the security fence

I know it’s really difficult telling the difference between a wall that was built to prevent civilians from being murdered, and a wall that was built to keep civilians from escaping their miserable lives in Communist East Germany, but somehow, people should just slog through and figure out a way to tell the difference. Or they can just draw anti-Semitic cartoons that would be at home in the pages of Der Sturmer, which find their way now into the pages of British mainstream newspapers and magazines (among others).

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome | 4 Comments

The audacity of nope

Posted on 11/12/2009 by Soccerdad

In an excellent op-ed, Steve Huntley gives a synopsis of how the Obama administration botched the Middle East.

Enter Obama. Rather than adopting a go-slow, build-on-the-past approach to a fragile situation, he did it his way — with a speech. Inadvertently, he exploded two grenades amid the process.

First, he declared the “aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied” — a reference to the Holocaust. By not combining that with an affirmation of the 3½ millennia of Jewish history in the Holy Land, he fed the Arab fantasy that a guilt-ridden West imposed Israel on the Middle East.

Second, he elevated Israeli settlements into a make-or-break issue for peace talks. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he said. Yes, past administrations opposed settlement expansion, but it wasn’t a first-tier issue. And every realistic plan for a resolution to the conflict recognizes that Israeli communities comprising 80 percent of the settlers and located near the 1967 borders (actually cease-fire boundaries from the Arabs’ 1948 war of extermination) would be included in Israel in a land swap.

Whereas the Palestinians once conducted talks while settlement construction continued, Obama gave them an excuse to just say no.

This puts a lot of the blame for the currently stalled “peace talks” on President Obama’s miscalculations. Still there’s a more basic miscalculation that all administrations are guilty of. Barry Rubin writes:

The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he can’t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but won’t run in them.

First of all, there won’t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatah’s afraid it won’t win.

Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Let’s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.

Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA

But what is triggering Abbas’s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obama’s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.

Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasn’t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.

The President’s audacity got him “nope” from Abbas.

This dynamic is independent of who’s in the White House. In the West, we value moderation; but in the Arab world intransigence is valued. So when the U.S. calls someone a moderate it has the effect of enhancing his reputation in the West, but damaging it in the Arab world. Until this changes, there isn’t hope for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged | 1 Comment

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

Posted on 11/11/2009 by Soccerdad

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.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | 1 Comment

Happy Veterans Day

Posted on 11/11/2009 by Meryl Yourish

And a great big thanks to all of our veterans, and to those serving in America’s armed forces today.

Posted in American Scene | Comments Off on Happy Veterans Day

Wednesday SNB

Posted on 11/11/2009 by Meryl Yourish

DC Sniper snipes no more: Funny how no one manages to mention the words “Muslim,” “jihad,” or “Islamic” in all the news stories about Muhammed’s execution. And let us all say: Buh-bye!

Wake me when they issue a UNSC resolution: The US accused, and Britain brought up “concerns” that Iran was involved in the smuggling of 500 tons of weapons to Hezbullah. In other words, nothing will happen in the world theater, because Israel didn’t kill any Palestinians while stopping the arms shipment.

Ahmedinejad to Obama: It’s Israel or Iran. Um. We choose Israel. Of course, it’s getting a little hard to tell with the Obama administration, but I’m pretty sure they’re not going to throw Israel under the bus. Yet. And oh yeah—he says capitalism sucks, too. So that’s why the mullahs are all gazillionaires? Because they hate the capitalist system, right?

Israel opens West Bank crossing, world ignores sign of progress. What’s that? One of the dreaded Palestinian roadblocks has been alleviated? Who cares, Israel is still building “settlements.” At least, that’s the attitude out there.

The blame game begins: So, let me get this straight. The FBI knew that the Fort Hood Jihadi was a jihadi. The CIA knew he was a jihadi. And the army knew he was a jihadi. But none of them did anything other than close the file and declare he wasn’t dangerous? Wow. I’m so happy that America is being protected by people who are really onto what terrorism is and isn’t. Because otherwise, we’d have terrorist attacks on our own soil, killing and wounding dozens. Oh. Wait.

Posted in Iran, Israel | 3 Comments

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

Posted on 11/11/2009 by Meryl Yourish

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.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism | 5 Comments

“Disproportionate force”

Posted on 11/10/2009 by Soccerdad

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.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | 5 Comments

Do-it-yourself post

Posted on 11/10/2009 by Meryl Yourish

I have very little time to post today. I’m back on my regular work schedule, which means trips up to NorVA, and, well, work is kinda busy right now. (And I’m up for review, so since I’m in one of the few companies in the entire country that is actually granting raises this year, it’s rather important that I do well.)

So here’s a post where you can exchange news yourselves. I’ll catch up when I’m back home and have more time.

Posted in Site news | Comments Off on Do-it-yourself post

Degrees of cluelessness

Posted on 11/09/2009 by Soccerdad

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.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | Comments Off on Degrees of cluelessness

An unworthy hack

Posted on 11/09/2009 by Soccerdad

The New York Times had a symposium on Mahmoud Abbas’s resignation. Three of the participants, Rashid Khalidi, Fawaz Gerges, and Daoud Kuttab took the approach that Abbas had his authority undermined by the Americans and has no partner among Israelis so his moderate approach had run its course. An Israeli professor, Menachem Klein looked at things in much the same way. Ronen Bergman attributes it to the Obama administration’s missteps. David Makovsky doesn’t think he’s really resigned.

But no one in this group actually questions the premise if Abbas is really the moderate (implicitly) supposed by the question. (To Gerges and Khalidi, presumably he was too moderate.)

Khaled Abu Toameh though, calls the move a “big bluff,” and puts much of the onus on Abbas for his own weakness.

Fatah’s failure to come up with new faces is also seen by many Palestinians as evidence that the faction is not serious when it comes to implementing reforms. With candidates like Muhammad Dahlan, Jibril Rajoub and Nabil Sha’ath, Fatah is certain to lose the vote once again. Decision-makers in the US and the EU have clearly forgotten that these three men were part of the Fatah list that lost the elections to Hamas in 2006. And they appear to have forgotten that Barghouti, who is often described by mainstream media in the US as a popular and charismatic leader, was the head of that list.

(My impression is that Hamas isn’t all that popular right now as it hasn’t succeeded in doing much but making the people of Gaza more miserable.) And of course, how seriously could Abbas’s commitment to fighting corruption be, when his sons benefit from a cellular franchise? This is the way Fatah always did business, giving the favored few, lucrative business deals?

But it is Evelyn Gordon who really blows the lid off Abbas. She actually recalls his record!

Indeed, Abbas’s total lack of interest in a deal was evidenced by his handling of Ehud Olmert’s (overly) generous September 2008 offer, which included 94 percent of the territories, 1:1 territorial swaps to compensate for the remainder, international Muslim control over the Temple Mount, and absorption into Israel of several thousand refugees. Last week, Abbas said that he and Olmert “almost closed” a deal, implying that the current impasse stems from Olmert’s replacement by Benjamin Netanyahu. But in reality, Abbas never even bothered responding to Olmert’s offer until nine months later, long after Olmert had left office — and even then, he did so via a media interview rather than directly. And, most important, he rejected the offer, saying “the gaps were wide.”

Even Abbas’s vaunted opposition to terror has proved false. In 2005, his one year in sole control over the PA before Hamas’s electoral victory, Palestinians killed 54 Israelis and wounded 484, while 1,059 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from Gaza. Yet not only did Abbas never order his forces to combat this terror; he explicitly and repeatedly refused to do so. He first cracked down on Hamas only in 2007, after its violent takeover of Gaza convinced him that Hamas threatened him, not just Israel. And he recently agreed to end this clampdown under a reconciliation agreement with Hamas.

Now go back, if you wish, and read the New York Times “debate” and you’ll realize it was a less a debate than an agreement (from different perspectives) for more Israeli concessions to an unworthy political hack.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in palestinian politics | Tagged | Comments Off on An unworthy hack

Monday Snark News Briefs

Posted on 11/09/2009 by Meryl Yourish

I do not think that word means what you think it means: The Turkish Prime Minister says he’d be more comfortable talking to the Sudanese president responsible for the genocide in Darfur than he would be talking to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Why? Because “A Muslim could not commit genocide.” Yes, really. The Turkey-Israel relationship, she is over. And good riddance to bad rubbish, if that’s the way the Turks think. Of course, it is. Because they never committed genocide against the Armenians. Oh, no. It was a civil war, you see, that wound up murdering a million and a half Armenians.

The frequent kassam attacks return: I guess there’s going to be a Goldstone 2, because if the terrorists keep this up, Netanyahu will likely send in the troops again. The constant drip-drip-drip of rocket fire can only be taken for so long.

Make peace with us or we’ll kill you: It’s the Arab way. The Palestinians threaten it, the Syrians threaten it—it’s only a matter of time before more countries jump on the bandwagon. It’s good to see that the Obama outreach to Syria is also paying dividends—this was in Assad’s speech to the OIC.

Jordan’s “moderate” king: The time for peace is now or never. That is starting to be an absolutely familiar refrain these days. Except I’ve heard it a whole bunch of times. “If we don’t make peace soon, there will not be peace for decades! Or forever!” But here is the most hypocritical piece of garbage uttered by the man whose father destroyed Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem:

“The Israelis must understand Jerusalem’s standing among the Arabs, the Muslims and the Christians, and should not play with fire.”

Like he gives a damn about Christians. Notice what’s missing from that statement, though? A man truly bent on peace and understanding would say something along the lines that Jerusalem is holy to all three faiths and must be adminstered accordingly.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Terrorism | 4 Comments