The Goldstone Illusion

[shira]

<snip>

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?

As for the new “front” in asymmetrical warfare, we read in another passage, which is typical of the report’s overall biased tone, that, “On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrikes by the Israeli armed forces.” What reason could there possibly be for launching rockets from urban centers, if not shielding those rockets from counterattack? And what is the moral distinction that is purportedly being established here?

<snip>

Faced with this unprecedented and deeply perplexing situation, two extreme positions have emerged in Israel. The radical left claims that, since such a struggle necessarily involves the killing of innocent civilians, there is no justifiable way of fighting it. Soldiers ought to refuse to engage in such a war, and the government has only one option, which is to end the occupation. This view is wrong, since Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens, and without providing real security, it will fail also to achieve peace and to put an end to the occupation. The radical right claims that, since Hamas and Hezbollah initiated the targeting of Israeli civilians, and since they take refuge among their own civilians, the responsibility for harming Palestinian civilians during Israel’s attempt to defend itself falls upon the Palestinians exclusively. This approach is also wrong. The killing of our civilians does not justify the killing of their civilians. Civilians do not lose their right to life when they are used as shields by Hamas and Hezbollah. In fighting the militants, Israel must do as much as it possibly can do to avoid and minimize harm to civilian life and property.

<snip>

The second principle articulated in the code is the principle of distinction. It is an absolute prohibition on the intentional targeting of noncombatants. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is prohibited even in cases where such a policy might be effective in stopping terrorism. At the height of the violence in 2002, some suggested that the only deterrence against suicide bombers who wish to die anyway is the killing of their families. But such a policy is blatantly murderous, and it is prohibited. An Israeli soldier is prohibited from intentionally targeting noncombatants, and, in the event that he is given such an order, he must refuse it. He is obligated to engage in fighting only those who threaten his fellow soldiers and civilians.

<snip>

more in 7 pages....
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-goldstone-illusion?page=0,0

[shira]

1. this article is a must read (another snippet)

"There are different accounts of the numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza, and of the ratio between civilian and militant deaths. B’Tselem, the reliable Israeli human rights organization, carefully examined names and lists of people who were killed and came up with the following ratio: Out of the 1,387 people killed in Gaza, for every militant that was killed, three civilians were killed. This ratio--1:3--holds if you include the police force among the civilians; but if you consider the police force as combatants, the ratio comes out to 2:3. There are 1.5 million people in Gaza and around 10,000 Hamas militants, so the ratio of militants to civilians is 1:150. If Israel targeted civilians intentionally, how on earth did it reduce such a ratio to 1:3 or 2:3?

The commission never asks that question, or an even more obvious one. In operating under such conditions--Gaza is an extremely densely populated area--is such a ratio a sign of reckless shooting and targeting? One way to think about this is to compare it with what other civilized armies achieve in the same sort of warfare. I do not have the exact numbers of the ratio of civilian to militant deaths in NATO’s war in Afghanistan, but I doubt that it has achieved such a ratio. Is it ten civilians to one combatant, or maybe 20 civilians to one combatant? From various accounts in the press, it certainly seems worse. The number of collateral deaths that are reported concerning the campaign to kill Baitullah Mehsud, one of the main Pakistani militant operatives, is also alarming: In 16 missile strikes in the various failed attempts at killing him, and in the one that eventually killed him (at his father-in-law’s house, in the company of his family), between 207 and 321 people were killed. If such were the numbers in Israel in a case of targeted killing, its press and even its public opinion would have been in an uproar.

Besides the 500 civilians who were killed in the bombing of Serbia, how many militants were killed? The inaccurate high-altitude bombings in Serbia, carried out in a manner so as to protect NATO pilots, caused mainly civilian deaths. What would have been the ratio of deaths if NATO forces were fighting not in faraway Afghanistan, but while protecting European citizens from ongoing shelling next to its borders? And there are still more chilling comparisons. If accurate numbers were available from the wars by Russia in Chechnya, the ratio would have been far more devastating to the civilian population. Needless to say, the behavior of the Russian army in Chechnya should hardly serve as a standard for moral scrupulousness--but I cannot avoid adducing this example after reading that Russia voted in the United Nations for the adoption of the U.N. report on Gaza. (The other human rights luminaries who voted for the Goldstone Report include China and Pakistan.) So what would be a justified proportionality? The Goldstone Report never says. But we may safely conclude that, if the legal and moral standard is current European and American behavior in war, then Israel has done pretty well."

[shira]

2. Goldstone and the Rule of Law

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/11/goldstone-and-the-rule-of-law.php

"The Goldstone Report, therefore, has taken the best example of how wars should be fought and characterized it as the worst."

[shira]

8. from 'Rule of Law' article...

“If Hamas attempts to shield its operations with truly innocent civilians or children—it is Hamas and not Israel, who has committed an atrocity -an actionable war crime-of the most heinous proportion!”

===========

thus, Hamas cannot be held accountable and there would be no need for a Goldstone Report.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. The other side of the story

From Congressman Keith Ellison:
"Why the fear? Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that “bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.”

At the outset, note that four sections of the Goldstone report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states that these rocket attacks are war crimes.

Yet despite Goldstone’s stellar reputation, the veracity of the report — and his motives — has been challenged. The detailed Goldstone report concludes that “the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-keith-ellison/read-goldstones-report-on_b_343495.html&cp

Also, I think that the attackers of the Goldstone report should offer what motive Goldstone would have to produce a report that was unfair to Israel.

[shira]

6. what do you think of the 3 paragraphs in post #1?

I don't presume to know Goldstone's motives so I won't comment on that.

However, Hamas used the Gazan population as a human shield, stole food sent in by Israel to the Palestinian population, deliberately fired from civilian populations, dressed as civilians, used child combatants, stored weapons in and boobytrapped homes, mosques, and schools, hid within the main Gaza hospital, comandeered ambulances, etc.

In short, Hamas did everything they could to maximize their own civilians' casualties. These are serious war crimes that make it more likely civilians will be harmed by the IDF's defensive attempts to defend its own citizens from attack.

Goldstone wasn't at all interested in investigating those crimes. Anyone with sincere concern for the rights of Palestinians should be enraged not only at Hamas for what they did, but at Goldstone and other HR organizations which willingly cover for Hamas and help Hamas to deligitimize Israel's lawful defense of its citizens lives.

Are you okay with Goldstone ignoring Hamas' crimes against Palestinian civilians? No liberal should be. Remember, for HR groups to ignore Hamas deliberately maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties is to ensure it happens repeatedly in the future (Hamas knows they'll get away with it). Which if you think about it is quite disgusting behavior by HR groups supposedly dedicated to the Palestinian HR cause. Not to mention of course that the more one focuses on Hamas, the less "moral guilt" Israel assumes WRT civilian casualties, which is the main reason Goldstone and HR groups are reluctant to condemn Hamas IMO. If HR groups hold Hamas accountable for all their human-shielding warcrimes, then an alternative reality, the actual reality comes into play - and that is Israel doesn't deliberately target Palestinian civilians, but does their best to avoid it (which the numbers bear out - see ratio of civilians to combatants killed in post #1). Instead, Hamas is guilty of maximizing Palestinan casualties. Unfortunately to many, it's more important Israel is bashed, demonized, and portrayed in the darkest colors imaginable while Hamas gets off scot-free, encouraged to use Gazans cynically as their pawns in future conflicts with Israel...mostly due to the influence of the ME oil lobby.

Goldstone's Report makes Kafka's trial look fair.

[shaayecanaan]

10. The Zionists hid weapons in synagogues in the leadup to 1948

they also dressed up as civilians, conducted bombings against both Arabs and British, and conducted fighting from residential areas, even in non-Zionist areas where the resident Jews wanted nothing to do with them - I suppose by your logic this means that the Zionists used Jews as 'human shields'.

The British could have easily conducted air strikes against them. But they did not, even when provocation from Zionists was significant and severe (for example, when the Stern Gang kidnapped a soldier and had him flogged).

I quite concede that Israel's army is better disciplined and probably more judicious than most Arab armies. I have seen the Syrian army in action and it is quite apparent that they don't give a shit about civilian casualties. But by the same token it is absurd to pretend that the Israeli army is the most moral army in the world. By any reasonable measure they fall well short of the standard of most European armies.

You should probably realise that the mark of any ultranationalist is that they are unable to see it in themselves. A Serb ultranationalist sees himself as diametrically opposed to a Croatian ultranationalist, even though he is identical except in the very small distinction of nationality.

There is a saying in England, "every dog is entitled to its bite". I find it applies to countries as well. The Spaniards have on their hands the death of 90% of Latin America during the era of the Black Spanish. The British and French have their 10-15 million dead in North America. Even the Belgians have the Congo and the Italians their slaughter of the Abyssinians.

In one sense Germany was the only European power of the 20th century without a significant black cross against its name, which may have made it all the more susceptible to that which followed. It seems that most countries need to pass through the fire of such an experience in order to temper their nationalism. Perhaps Israel is the same and it will need to get to the extent where Mistah Kurtz is floating down the river past heads impaled on sticks before true believers such as yourself snap out of their trance.

[shira]

11. pretty sad that you are downplaying Hamas' warcrimes that include using child combatants

and intentionally firing from dense neighborhoods, boobytrapping homes, commandeering ambulances, etc. At least you're dropping the pretense that your motivation in this is related to Palestinian HR. Like many, it's more important to you that Israel is demonized rather than Hamas held accountable for their abominable acts. I appreciate your honesty.

How do you, as a believer in the Israel is all bad narrative, account for post #1 and the civilian to combatant kill ratios of Israel during OCL in comparison to NATO (Bosnia) and US/UK efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Is Colonel Richard Kemp one of these 'true believers' requiring his own personal 'Apocalypse Now' moment?

[azurnoir]

18. what was the age of induction for the Palmach

talk about "downplaying" child combatants

[shira]

19. don't know, you tell me......I have no problem with Israel being held accountable for HR's

The question still remains, why are you and yours okay with HR organizations and Goldstone ignoring Hamas' deliberate attempts to maximize Palestinian casualties? I thought you cared about the cause of Palestinian HR's. Gazans could use "good peace activists" like yourself there to provide influence so that civil rights and true freedom can be realized in Gaza....where's the great push for Palestinian HR in Gaza by your fellow "peace activists"?

It'd be nice if you at least admitted it bothers you that Hamas does this and HR orgs, including Goldstone, don't care. It would be nice if you at least admitted LOTS more needs to be done by your fellow "peace activists" in Gaza, in order to ensure Palestinians basic rights are protected there.

Just be honest and admit your interest in all this has little to do with HR and mostly to do with bashing and demonizing Israel (you know, there are some far RW sites out there which specialize in Israel demonization and make no pretense about Palestinian HR's).

[azurnoir]

20. Uzi Narkiss

Educated in the Rehavia Gymnasia, Narkiss began his twenty-seven year military career at age 16 when he joined the Palmach. He was heavily involved in Haganah activities against the British Mandatory power and was determined to help realize the idea of Jewish state. In April, 1948, he headed the assault on Katamon, liberating the monastery at San Simon, which was considered a key strategic position. Following the final departure of the British and the Declaration of Independence, Narkiss was in charge of assisting those besieged in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. His unit succeeded in penetrating Zion Gate, bringing in supplies and evacuating the wounded from those under siege. However, when military reinforcements failed to appear, Narkiss ordered his men to retreat. Not long after, the Old City fell to Jordanian forces.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/narkiss.html

the wiki entry claims 18 but this one case shows the falsehood of that
also do you think Lehi or Irgun{now know as Likud) was asking for proof of age?

now as to the rest of OT froth posted

your statement about Goldstone is false and based on transparently disingenous claim that because Goldstone only mentions Palestinian armed groups it is letting Hamas off scot free when nothing could be further from the truth

as to the HR situation in Gaza I think that is being dealt with and for the most part we leftists seem to thionk being denied basic necessities, materials to rebuild homes and infrastructure post OCL, and other materials to be a tad more urgent at the moment than whether or not Hamas is enforcing the hajab, when the first situation is corrected the HR infringements of Hamas will become a focus that is saying Hamas still is in power

as to your claims of bashing and demonizing Israel nope doesn't fly my thing if you will is the distortion, misdirection, hyperbole, and sometimes outright dishonesty engaged in by Israel's so called supporters most but not all of whom are American

[shira]

24. so that's it? all those serious war crimes in post #6 and you believe they're being dealt with?

It goes beyond 16-17 year olds recruited into the military - which BTW calls into question classifying these militants as "children" in casualty figures, dont'cha think? :eyes:

Hamas also used children younger than 16 for intelligence gathering, tunnel digging, weapons smuggling, and collecting weapons from dead terrorists. In "summer camps" for example, children between 8-17 years old were supplied with military training and militant indoctrination with the intent of recruiting kids into Hamas' military.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459189230&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

And then there's....

- using kids as 'volunteer' human shields
- stealing humanitarian aid during OCL
- boobytrapping homes, neighborhoods, schools
- commandeering ambulances
- hiding in hospitals (Shifa hospital was used as Hamas' main base)
- firing rockets from dense population centers (adjacent to schools, UN buildings, apartment buildings)
- storing weapons in mosques and homes
- dressing and mixing with civilians while in combat roles

Goldstone and HRW ignored all the above in their reports on OCL.....so how is all this being "dealt with" accordingly, as you wrote?

[azurnoir]

28. the claims you make have as of yet to proven

the term "volunteer human shields" was what the IDF used for those civilians who were not able to flee the areas of bombardment

http://www.arabwashingtonian.org/english/article.php?issue=22&articleID=989

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/04/oh-but-they-were-voluntary-human-shields.html

as to military training for younger children that is done quite frequently in this country too, it happens at what are known as Military Academies perhaps you could Google the term, its different when its Arabs though, quite the double standard

[shira]

33. clear evidence of some of those claims are in post #17, why ignore them?

1. Here's video of volunteer children shields...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391
http://en.technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2vHDyuSTneA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Do you approve of that?

2. In the USA, Junior ROTC children under 18 are never used in combat roles and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan like Gazan children are utilized in military roles. Do you approve of Hamas using children in combat roles?

[azurnoir]

43. yet more slight of hand?

your quote from jpost

Hamas also used children younger than 16 for intelligence gathering, tunnel digging, weapons smuggling, and collecting weapons from dead terrorists. In "summer camps" for example, children between 8-17 years old were supplied with military training and militant indoctrination with the intent of recruiting kids into Hamas' military.

supplied with military training is not the same as being used in combat as per your claim, now as for children under 16 being used for other purposes no I do not approve of Hamas or anyone else doing this however as one who so cares for these children does it not bother you that they imprisoned by Israel and sent before military tribunals, recently Israel began "special" military tribunals for those under 18 however that to is not consistent with international law regarding child soldiers does this not bother you?

[shira]

56. so 16-17 year olds are good ages for Hamas militants in your view and if killed, they qualify...

as children in the final numbers? They're old enough for combat but not old enough to serve prison sentences?

As for children, isn't it bad enough that Hamas sends little kids (pre-teens) to rooftops to serve as human shields?

Lastly, dont'cha think brainwashing and inciting 8-17 year old children to hate and want to murder innocents is child abuse?

[shaayecanaan]

21. You mean 16 and 17 year olds?

Apparently that is the accusation against Hamas:-

Hamas does not systematically recruit children for military activities. However, there have been a number of serious incidents where children were involved in operations carried out by its military wing. At its most extreme, children have been recruited for suicide operations, although there have been no reports of this practice since 2004.21 However, several 16 and 17 year olds, nearly always male, have continued to take part in armed attacks on settlements and clashes with Israeli forces. In 2004 Defence for Children International (DCI-Palestine) documented 22 incidents where under-18s were killed as a result of their involvement in militant actions. Of these, one was claimed by Hamas, involving a raid on a settlement by a group in which a 17 year old from Shaja'iyya in Gaza was killed.22 Two incidents were attributed to Hamas in 2003: one involving a 16 year old who attempted to infiltrate a settlement in Gaza and the other a 17 year old killed in a gun battle in Jenin.23 Also in 2004 Gaza’s Mezan Center for Human Rights (Mezan) documented seven deaths of minors as a result of involvement in militant actions. This included two separate incidents claimed by Hamas where minors of 16 and 17 were killed in clashes with Israeli forces (from childsoldiers.org

It should be remembered that most militaries in World War II turned a blind eye to 16-year olds volunteering to enlist.

And in response to the question below, the initial minimum age for enlistees within the Palmach was 16 (initially it was mainly 16 to 20 year olds). Later, when the recruitment system shifted to being based on conscription from within the kibbutzes, it was changed to 18.

You clearly believe that Israel is entitled to launch air strikes on Arab populations because of the various misdeeds that Hamas has committed. Do you think that the British would have been entitled to launch air strikes on Jewish areas because of the exact same misdeeds that were committed by the Zionists?

Remember what I said about ultranationalists.

[shira]

25. no, younger than that - see post #24

"You clearly believe that Israel is entitled to launch air strikes on Arab populations because of the various misdeeds that Hamas has committed. "

If that means you believe I think it's okay for Israel to target civilian populations indiscriminately, I don't believe that at all.

[shaayecanaan]

38. If a plane drops a bomb on a residential building

and kills its mark along with 15 other people who just happened to be there, is that not indiscriminate?

[pelsar]

39. not according to the dictionary......

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions;: unselective
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.

3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

____

Not if the IDF/pilot knew there is a chance that there might be those 15 people there and decided to go ahead anyway...perhaps there was an 30 hamasnikim with a well prepared ambush planned, aiming at a a patrol that was 100yds from entering the killing zone-thats hardly "indiscriminate "according to the dictionary.

However, i have learned here, that dictionary definitions are not always acceptable if its doesn't work towards ones preferred narrative. So this may be the case with you.

and there was the case of the mosque changing their prayer time....one the mosque/ammo dumps were blown up inbetween prayer times...except the imman changed the prayer times because of the war....result? many dead. Again because of the results, you may prefer to call it "indiscriminate" but that doesn't fit the dictionary definition.

personally i thinks its best if everyone sticks to the dictionary definitions when describing the conflict....its difficult enough with the various interpretations of the agreed upon facts. add to that flexible definitions based on ones preferences and not the dictionary, and it makes it rather impossible to have an intelligent conversion/discussion.

[shaayecanaan]

45. Garbage

"Not if the IDF/pilot knew there is a chance that there might be those 15 people there and decided to go ahead anyway...perhaps there was an 30 hamasnikim with a well prepared ambush planned, aiming at a a patrol that was 100yds from entering the killing zone-thats hardly "indiscriminate "according to the dictionary."

And maybe not if instead of a residential apartment building there was a 60-ft high freestanding cock with Hamas members dancing the maypole around it.

The IAF bombed a residential apartment building. It could have been reasonably expected that a significant number of civilians would die as a result of it.

You are spouting utter gibberish.

"and there was the case of the mosque changing their prayer time."

A complete and utter lie.

There is no suggestion that the mosque changed the time of its evening prayer service (for those not in the know, our friend apparently refers to the al-Maqadna mosque). Rather, the mosque did not hold sunset prayers that day, which meant that the numbers of people attending evening prayers may have been higher.

There is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that this was deliberate, nor does it make it any less true that the Israelis attacked the mosque during the normal time for evening prayers.

[pelsar]

46. you don't like dictionary definitions?.....but i understand why.

if you stick to them you cant get to make major exagerations ot demonize israel and the IDF...and that becomes are real problem. If you can't demonize israel, you might even have to face the fact that the US and its NATO allies are infact far far worse and you can't claim that israel is the absolute worse....

and thats a problem for many....dictionary definitions and facts.

as far as the mosque goes....yes i wrote quickly and was writing from memory...the point being that there were more civilians than were believed to be in attendance during the bombing......


-------------
but out of curiosity...so why don't you like using the dictionary? specifically the word "indiscriminate"

and try to answer with clear english that relates to the question....i noticed above that you avoided it.....

[shaayecanaan]

51. Perhaps we will need to place ourselves in the hands of our audience...

Personally, I consider that dropping a bomb on a residential neighbourhood, or bombing a mosque during evening prayers is not a discriminate application of force. Quite simply it does not discriminate between civilians and combatants. It is not selective or restrained or any of the other synonymous terms that you advance.

If anyone else considers that dropping bombs on evening prayer groups is a discriminate application of force, I invite them to say so here, and perhaps advance reasons for same. Otherwise I suppose I can assume that not even the relatively proto-fascist participants on this board are willing to agree with you on that point.

FWIW, at no point did I ever claim Israel was the worst. I made the point that the Syrians were in fact worse than Israel. I would also concede that American armed forces are probably at least as bad as Israel in terms of lack of discretion, judiciousness and organisational intelligence.

The point that I made was not that Israel was the worst, but rather that by any objective measure it was certainly not the best, as it too often claims to be.

For the IDF to claim that it is the most moral Army in the world is simply bollocks.

[pelsar]

53. i'm not one for 'group think"...i believe dictionary definitions should be kept to as a standard

but that is one more imaginative idea that i find here: words shall not be defined as per the dictionary but as per any particular group decides...each to his own. A novel idea, not so good for communication, but great for the emotions. I'm just using the dictionary definition...i have not chosen the words, you did.

i get it..you don't like websters dictionary for definitions.

so lets keep this short: why dont you want to accept websters dictionary for the standard of definitions?
________________________________


as far as the IDF being the 'most moral" army...i personally think the whole concept is BS and Israel would do better to claim that its model is the chinese or russia.

and this is just a personal viewpoint..but if you do want to make a point.....you might do better to be accurate and go for the intellectual honesty as opposed to cheap emotionalism and hyperbole. True it works great on the young and emotionally needy, which may be your goal, but in the long run people like me, who read it, and frankly I conclude that little has changed,(people stiil dont like short people or their relatives).....and in my little world, I have a limited amount of influence on the conflict.

[shaayecanaan]

59. I addressed your dictionary definition...

it mentioned, amongst other things, "careful distinctions", selective and restrained.

I do not think dropping a bomb on an apartment building, a prayer service, a football stadium, busy town square, etc, qualifies for that definition.

If you think that killing 15 civilians to 1 military target is discriminate (as you clearly do), do you think that killing 50 civilians for every dead Hamas member still qualifies? What about 100? Or 200?

[pelsar]

81. sometimes....yes and sometimes no.....

5:1 works for me, if i'm being shot at and see no other alternative..in fact dropping a 1000kg bomb on the building where me and friends are being shot at from (and we have no escape route) also works for me.....how about you?

whats your number for saving yours and your friends and familys skin? 1, 10, 100?

wheres your moral line?

a footnote:
I realize that if you answer, your doing two things: your putting yourself in a situation where israeli soldiers find themselves and thereby humanizing them (this is generally considered something to be avoided) or worse your making a definitive moral statement, something also not common here. Granted, this is only a forum and merely hypothetical, and i would never wish upon anyone those kind of decisions.....yet some people are forced by situations to actually have to make them.....

so try.....its only a forum, nothing related to real life......put in any circumstances you like that can help you give a definitive answer...

[Shaktimaan]

70. I'd like to weigh in.

It seems to me that you are using the term "indiscriminate" as a synonym for "morally unjustifiable" rather than merely "arbitrary." Pelsar's argument is just that as long as the bombing was carried out to achieve a specific military objective, against a specific target, then it should not be described as indiscriminate. (correct me if I'm wrong here, pelsar.) Whether or not the human cost incurred by any given military action is ethically justifiable is a very subjective question. For instance, you ask:

If you think that killing 15 civilians to 1 military target is discriminate (as you clearly do), do you think that killing 50 civilians for every dead Hamas member still qualifies? What about 100? Or 200?

This question could just as easily be posed to you. If killing 15 civilians to get 1 Hamasnik is an indiscriminate attack, then at what point does an attack become discriminate? 5 to 1? 1 to 1? Or must it be zero? Does it matter who the civilian casualties are? For example, a Hamas leader's family will naturally be placed at more risk if they spend more time with him, a high-level target. If that Hamas leader attempts to use his family's presence as protection, and they are then killed by a bomb meant for him, would their deaths be considered the result of an "indiscriminate" attack?

If so, then doesn't this render practically any and every conceivable military action (where civilians could possibly die) to be "indiscriminate?"

Do you not see the difference between truly indiscriminate attacks, such as Qassam rockets or carpet bombing civilian areas, and attacks against specific military targets (even if collateral damage is certain to occur)?

For the IDF to claim that it is the most moral Army in the world is simply bollocks.

Well of course it is. The idea of proclaiming your army as "moral" is an offensive idea to begin with, IMO. Just because most armies are pretty much devoid of any semblance of ethics doesn't mean that being more moral is anything to brag about. That said, I think that striving for the goal of "most moral army" is worthwhile. (Assuming you absolutely must have an army to begin with, which I think Israel does.)

And when discussing ethics in warfare it is essential to establish some kind of benchmark, as the metrics of "morality" are highly subjective. For instance, look at the civilian death toll in Gaza since the second intifada began. Is it an example of Israel attacking indiscriminately, or an example of Israeli restraint?

[pelsar]

80. yes that defines it for me:

Pelsar's argument is just that as long as the bombing was carried out to achieve a specific military objective, against a specific target, then it should not be described as indiscriminate. (correct me if I'm wrong here, pelsar.) Whether or not the human cost incurred by any given military action is ethically justifiable is a very subjective question.

as far as how many civilians can be killed to kill a single military enemy...i don't have the moral formula "with me". However i will say that its very dependant upon the situation and its a judgement call. What it is not is always "indiscriminate."

a patrol that is about to be ambushed or is in the middle of a fire fight, will be morally justified (especially if im in involved) to bring down the building where the shooting is coming from....even if there are civilians there. (numbers unknown)

dropping a 1,000kg bomb to kill a single jihadnikm planner that also destroys a building complex filled with families is not.....between those two models is world of gray.
___

[shira]

60. What happened at the mosque? Goldstone's report on this is garbage

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3804323,00.html

when you're finished with that, here's a little more...
http://harris-adhoc.blogspot.com/2009/11/spinning-story-justice-goldstone-and.html

=========

it should really piss you off that Goldstone and the UN are wasting time and money demonizing Israel with this sick report that could have easily been written by Hamas officials.

think about who really loses out with such a shit effort by the UNHRC.

[shira]

40. you realize the IAF has aborted bombing bad guys when they knew the toll on civilians would be high?

[azurnoir]

41. You mean when they were standing high on their rooftops? n/t

[shira]

42. not only has the IAF aborted when human shields (including children) were standing on rooftops...

not that you care Hamas enlists little children to act as shields....but the IAF chose to go with a smaller bomb when they had the opportunity to take out Sheikh Yassin (a larger bomb would have taken out all the Hamas leadership but it was thought civilian casualties would be high - compare to what Marc Garlasco of HRW thought was standard practice for killing civilians in Iraq).

Why else would the IAF use bombs like the ones that 'knock on the roof' if not to minimize casualties?

The fact is, if it's known that the civilian costs will be high - the IAF and IDF aborts attacks. The facts in post #1, in which civilian casualties between Israel and NATO are compared, confirm that Israel is at least as disciplined (actually moreso) than other western nations fighting in asymmetric conditions.

How do you account for the facts in post #1 if the IAF/IDF show no restraint in their combat missions?

[azurnoir]

44. yes I do remember it was claimed that

civilians desperately protecting their own homes in this manner was the result of Hamas using "human shields". As to IAF veering off my guess would be they being older and a bit more mature than most IDF they had the humanity to do that bravo conversely perhaps also the intelligence to realize the hasbara machine could only cover so much

[pelsar]

47. im getting to enjoy the demonization...

conversely perhaps also the intelligence to realize the hasbara machine could only cover so much

I'll translate...the pilots dont give a shit about killing Palestinians..they are just worried about how it looks...

thank you...you and others here constantly confirm what i've come to believe despite my upbringing....

[azurnoir]

50. Odd you only choose to translate half

interesting and quite revealing

[pelsar]

52. yes i chose the demonization half.....

the part where the pilot as some kind of demon.....its part of the cloaking i've come to notice here and other places. One demonizes israelis at the same time leaving a little opening that one can proclaim that...well maybe its not true.

just the fact that there is the demonization is enough......and that is what i reveled.

[azurnoir]

54. actually you revealed nothing

except that I gave an alternate possibility to my first

[pelsar]

55. yes it was an alternative......the usual one...that israelis are (or can be) demons

nothing new....i just think that when people demonize israelis it should be recognized as such.....

same true for Palestinians......btw...or americans for that matter
---

you follow the philosophy of the throw up enough mud and some will stick.....it doesn't have to be true, but the concept is always there.....israelis maybe, can be, possible, etc etc etc....not really nice people or maybe inhumane people who think PR is more important than lives....plausible denial is integrated in your posts as a standard.

like i wrote before....little has changed over the years.....

[azurnoir]

49. You seem to confuse opinion with fact n/t

[shira]

57. so the civilian to combatant ratios in post #1 are only opinion, not fact?

[azurnoir]

58. yes they are

because of the fact that not only the exact number killed but also who was a civilian and was a combatant are so disputed well at least when the numbers apply to Palestinians

[shira]

61. compared to USA and European nations in asymmetrical warfare, Israel still does better

and even if the Hamas police are civilians (which is absurd) the ratio is still 1:3 and considering 1:1500 Gazans are Hamas, how exactly does such a ratio prove indiscriminate actions by the IDF?

seriously - if 1 in every 1500 Gazans are Hamas and Israel killed 1 Hamasnik for every 3 Palestinian civilians, how did that happen indiscriminately?

and if 1:3 is indiscriminate and the USA and Europe do far worse, would that mean in your opinion that the USA and European nations fight way dirtier than Israel and should be Goldstoned to a larger degree than Israel?

[pelsar]

12. a little off subject...but interesting to compare..

as the US/NATO have now been seen using preditor and manned strikes....we are also seeing a rise in their mistakes and civilian casualties as a result.....as they continue to use them, continue to kill non combatants...at one point, if not already, they will surpass the israeli IDF civilian death count...well actually they surpassed it long ago, if we count in bosnia, iraq and afganistan, but we will just look at the obvious future.

what then?...out of curiosity will you be willing to claim that its the US/NATO that are now leading the way in civilian casualties, creating a new standard....... and the IDF is fallen behind?

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. You have no credibility. I think most fair-minded DU'ers can easily see that

You write,
"I don't presume to know Goldstone's motives so I won't comment on that."

After reading many of your posts, I think you should be required to at least offer some explanation why a man of Judge Goldstone's pedigree would be unfair to Israel in this report. The fact is that for most fair minded people, Goldstone's resume lends much weight to his report.

You write,
"However, Hamas used the Gazan population as a human shield, stole food sent in by Israel to the Palestinian population, deliberately fired from civilian populations, dressed as civilians, used child combatants, stored weapons in and boobytrapped homes, mosques, and schools, hid within the main Gaza hospital, comandeered ambulances, etc."

Says who? Goldstone? The IDF? What exactly is your source for such a claim? Is this source credible and independent? You keep repeating this exact phrase, but offer nothing to support it.

You write,
"Goldstone wasn't at all interested in investigating those crimes."

Wha? I thought you would not presume to know Goldstone's motives yet here you are doing just that. As was written in my previous post, Goldstone did, in fact, include many paragraphs in his report that dealt with actions by Palestinians that he called unambiguous war crimes.

I have read many of your posts and you have convinced me that you are not a fair observer of the situation. I think most fair minded DU'ers can see that very easily. You do Israel no favors by being such a willfully ignorant defender of their horrific treatment of the Palestinian people.

[oberliner]

16. UN halts aid into Gaza after 'Hamas theft'

The UN agency for Palestinian refugees said today it has halted all aid shipments into the Gaza Strip after the Hamas government seized thousands of tonnes of food and other provisions.

The UN Relief and Works agency said it made the decision after Hamas personnel intercepted an aid shipment for the second time this week.

In a statement, the agency said 10 truckloads of flour and rice delivered into Gaza yesterday were taken away by trucks affiliated with the Hamas-run social affairs ministry. Earlier this week, Hamas police took away thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/gaza-un-aid-hamas

A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery

Unwilling to take Israel’s bait and come into the open, Hamas militants are fighting in civilian clothes; even the police have been ordered to take off their uniforms. The militants emerge from tunnels to shoot automatic weapons or antitank missiles, then disappear back inside, hoping to lure the Israeli soldiers with their fire.

In one apartment building in Zeitoun, in northern Gaza, Hamas set an inventive, deadly trap. According to an Israeli journalist embedded with Israeli troops, the militants placed a mannequin in a hallway off the building’s main entrance. They hoped to draw fire from Israeli soldiers who might, through the blur of night vision goggles and split-second decisions, mistake the figure for a fighter. The mannequin was rigged to explode and bring down the building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html

[shira]

17. so what do you think about civilian casualty ratios in post #1?

As for proof of Hamas warcrimes that Goldstone and company couldn't be bothered to investigate, start with this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x279660#280076

For more, you'll see other credible media sources and video here...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1607
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1736

Finally, Maurice Ostroff has been in constant contact with Goldstone for the last 8 months, but Goldstone chose to ignore all this too...
http://www.goldstonereport.org/controversies/human-shields/114-maurice-ostroff-hamas-hides-among-civilians-2nd-thoughts-27909

-------------

The fact is Goldstone and company ignored video and news reports that describe major Hamas warcrimes like I mentioned. I don't know why Goldstone and HR groups ignored them, I can only guess.

Are you okay with Goldstone and other HR organizations deliberately turning a blind eye to that, therefore encouraging Hamas to keep it up?

[bstender]

23. obviously

you can be as logical and patient as you like, the end result will always be the same. "bla bla bla, you're demonizing Israel" nice work if you can stomach it.

[shira]

26. so if it's obvious, then how's about an honest reply to posts #1 and #6?

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Why bother?

You haven proven conclusively that you are not at all interested in a factual, substantial discussion of Israel's treatment of the Palestinains. You are simply a naked, rabid backer of the extremist right wing of the Israeli government. It is my opinion that you do Israel no favors with your posts. I believe that the vast majority of DU'ers recognize your posts as being nothing more than an avalanche of propaganda, misdirection and willfull ignorance.

I hope all readers notice that shira simply refuses to address what motive Dr. Goldstone would have to produce a biased report. The reason for this is quite obvious I think. Shira simply cannot come up with any credible reason for Goldstone, a highly respected jurist and a jew, to be unfair in his treatment of Israel in his report.

[shira]

34. I'm not interested in factual, substantive discussion? It's in posts #1, 6, 17....why ignore that?

1. There are plenty of liberal, leftist Israelis who agree with my positions (actually, the majority as only a very tiny percentage of Israeli leftists hold your views).

2. Explain what exactly is propaganda or "rightwing" in posts #1, 6, and 17 please.

3. What does addressing Goldstone's motives have to do with facts from posts #1, 6, and 17 that utterly refute his mission's findings? I have my ideas as to why he produced a biased report and I'll share them with you as soon as you seriously address the 3 aforementioned posts, not that my guesses have anything to do with the fact that his findings and conclusions are horribly biased and false.

[bstender]

30. Shira, because you are a shill

i dont get paid to create endless posts.

[shira]

35. weak - now I'm a paid shill and part of the 'zionist conspiracy'? oooh....scary.

It's not that you won't address posts #1, 6, and 17.....you can't. And rather than be serious or concede an argument, you resort to personal attacks...the very thing Goldstone accuses the opponents of his report of doing. Fact is, neither Goldstone or his "fans" like yourself are capable of addressing substantive criticism of his report.

You know it and I know it.

[aranthus]

32. To be fair to Goldstone.

He was was only one of several members of a commission. To say that, "Goldstone wasn't at all interested in investigating those crimes." may not be true. The mandate of the commission was not to look into Hamas crimes; it was to create a tool with which to beat the Israelis. Was there anyone on the commission with military experience? How about urban anti-terrorism warfare? Not that I have heard of. The commission was a political tool. It was going to whitewash Hamas (by not mentioning it by name) and damn Israel, whether Goldstone chaired it or not. Goldstone suggests that he knew that when he says that he joined the commission to prevent it from being even more biased than it was. So the trade off is that by joining it he may have made it more "fair" at the cost of lending it his prestige and credibility. A most foolish decision on his part.

All that being said, and all of the reasonable critique of the methodology of the report does not mean that Israeli soldiers did not commit war crimes. The truly unfortunate thing about the report is that it leaves the question of Israeli war crimes unanswered, and that it doesn't even allow reasonable people to decide whether further investigation is warranted at this point, or whether it is simply part of the propaganda war against Israel.

[shira]

36. Goldstone said he'd be fair and only look into Pal'n rocket launching at civilians...

...he never intended to find "evidence" of serious Hamas warcrimes like those in post #17 above. If he was seriously interested in investigating those crimes, he'd have included it in the update to his original mandate. He'd have made it clear that "ALL" warcrimes would be investigated, not just indiscriminate Pal'n rocket firing at Israeli civilians. It was a foregone conclusion that his "investigation" wouldn't find the evidence we see in post #17.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Another snippet

"The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future. Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo."

[cqo_000]

5. Yawn, Israel committed war crimes, get over it!

...

[shira]

7. see posts #1 and #6 and then we'll talk war crimes, okay?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Whitewashing the murders of 100s of kids, and hundreds more civilians must be EXHAUSTING. Poor Shira

[shira]

14. it's about facts, not fiction - I'm interested in your thoughts on posts #1 and #6 above

In post #1, a credible argument is made showing that Israel compares favorably to any other military on earth (according to Colonel Kemp, better than any military in history). Your thoughts?

=========

In post #6, HR groups turn the other way and ignore (and therefore encourage) Hamas maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties. You're okay with that?

I can't imagine anyone truly interested in Palestinian HR being okay with the way Hamas is given a free pass to ruin Palestinian society. One would have to completely loathe Palestinians in order to be okay with that, or be so apathetic that to hear them bring up HR anywhere is hypocritical, to say the least. My guess is that you're more interested in seeing Israel demonized than seeing Hamas held to account for the abominable things they do to Palestinians. Even if holding Hamas to account led to better life for Gazans. And that leads me to believe you don't have a leg to stand on when you bring up the HR situation in Gaza or the W.Bank. It takes a lot of nerve for anyone okay with HR groups taking it easy on Hamas to bring up Israeli violations of Palestinian HR.

[bstender]

22. Shira sounds so honest and sincere

but it's a Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown

[shira]

27. testing your honesty and sincerity - still waiting for a serious reply to posts #1 and #6

Goldstone often references Israel's "intentional strike" on a mosque in interviews. Check this out...
http://harris-adhoc.blogspot.com/2009/11/spinning-story-justice-goldstone-and.html

Still trusting Goldstone, and if so why?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

37. parsing words? that's Goldstone's main "proof" of Israeli wrongdoing and it's full of holes

How much evidence do you require that will convince you Goldstone's findings are crap? Or are you a true believer in which no amount of evidence will do?

[shira]

48. 12 page PDF: "A Careful, Critical Reading of the Goldstone Report"

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AY5gJhLdDCqqZGd4c2h0czZfNjZjbjlueHZneA&hl=en

<snip>

These representative examples – they are representative, not cherry-picked – show that the authors approached their investigation with a one-sided and tendentious understanding of the conflict, eager to embrace bogus depictions of facts which could have been easily checked, and with an image of Israeli society unrecognizable to most Israelis. This is crucial, as the single most important finding in the Report is that Israel purposefully targeted the population of Gaza. Even before reading the descriptions of events, it is reasonable to wonder "what Israel" it is the investigators were investigating; it certainly isn't the one its citizens recognize.

<snip>

These are all illegal behaviors according to IHL, yet the IDF cannot break those laws just because its enemies routinely do. The fact of having enemies who regularly fight with illegal tactics demands that the IDF must devise new methods to defend the citizens of Israel, even while respecting the laws of war. When Prof. Halbertal wrote of his disappointment that the Report failed to relate to his questions about waging asymmetric war, this was his complaint. The report contains hundreds of paragraphs of detailed descriptions of the alleged behavior of IDF troops, without ever hinting at their logic. Forcing Palestinians civilians to disrobe is not meant to be demeaning; it's self defense against potential killers. Forbidding civilians to approach soldiers is necessary when attacks by civilian teenagers are standard practice among Palestinians. Breaking into homes through walls is a response to booby-trapped doors, as is the bulldozing of buildings on a field of battle where the defenders have mined buildings to collapse on troops. The Goldstone Report explains nothing of this. Its authors probably never wanted to know.

<snip>

There is only one watertight way to know what the attackers intended: to peer into their minds. Since this can't be done, the second best is to collect as much relevant and diverse information as possible. One way is to ask, though answers must be treated gingerly because memory can be fallible and self serving. A second way is to read what the attackers wrote and listen to recordings of what they said, before during and after the war. A third is to find third-party testimony. A fourth is to cross verify all the sources. Freshman college students learn to do this, as do police cadets, cub journalists, and viewers of popular TV crime shows. All will recognize at a glance that it is logically impossible to know what the intentions of an army at battle were merely by peering at rubble and interviewing victims, be they honest and sincere, or intimidated by local thugs.

<snip>

The authors of the report complain endlessly that the Israeli authorities didn't cooperate. Whatever one's opinion about this, it left the investigators with no way of knowing what the Israeli intentions had been, and the only intellectually honest response would have been to admit it. Their insistence in dozens of cases to compensate for what they couldn't know by inventing damning assumptions from whole cloth, is breathtaking. This intellectual dishonesty alone proves the Israeli authorities were right when they refused to cooperate: if Goldstone and his colleagues are capable of inventing things they have no way of knowing, how much more could they be relied on to twist whatever evidence Israel might have supplied into the mold they wished it to have.

<snip>


Having not talked to either warring side, the investigators built their case upon testimony of Gaza civilians. They repeatedly insist these witnesses were reliable, without explaining how they determined this, or if they ever met a single unreliable witness or even merely an 'iffy' one. On November 5th, there was a first public encounter between Justice Goldstone and a semi-official Israeli speaker, retired ambassador Dore Gold, at Brandeis University. Gold presented a number of documents which portrayed Hamas differently than it was described in the Report. Justice Goldstone complained that the Israelis should have submitted this documentation at the time, as it might have bolstered their case. Yet it wasn't secret Israeli documentation Gold was presenting. It was Hamas material such as TV broadcasts, which he had gleaned from the Internet. After not asking either of the warring sides, it appears the investigators didn't even mine Google for what could have been relevant documents.

The methodology chosen by the Fact Finding Mission can be compared to a hypothetical fact finding mission wandering between Vietnamese villages in 1976, trying to understand the events of the war by asking villagers under the watchful eyes of communist handlers. The result would have been intellectually worthless, but most people wouldn't have read the report anyway, convinced they knew the truth anyway. This is exactly what's happening to the Goldstone Report. Its findings are useless and most people aren't reading them anyway, but they're being embraced or rejected according to political camp.

[shira]

62. What happened at the mosque?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3804323,00.html

[shira]

63. Goldstone, I too am a war criminal

<snip>

And now I am confronted with the Goldstone Report, according to which Israeli military personnel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, Israel's military action in the Gaza Strip last year, aimed at silencing constant shelling of Israeli cities. In the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished department, Hamas seems to feel such shelling is the most appropriate response to Israel?s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. I don?t know, and it?s not clear anybody knows, from where Goldstone got his version of events.

I, on the other hand, have listened to stories of soldiers who served in the operation who told me it's not always possible to know when an approaching figure is a combatant, a suicide bomber, or a harmless civilian, especially when the enemy fights from among concentrations of civilians. It can?t be pleasant to have Israeli, or for that matter any, troops occupy your house while they?re trying to clean out nests of terrorists in the next house. But there's a big difference between unpleasant and committing war crimes. I have heard the reports of hundreds of Palestinian civilian casualties and seen photos of the massive destruction caused by Israeli shelling. I?m very sorry about this, but don?t feel guilty. Apparently, Hamas, the responsible party, doesn?t feel too guilty about it either. Shrug.


Israeli military and political analysts now caution that due to Goldstone, Israel will have to put ground forces at increased risk in responding when Hezbollah and Hamas resume their shelling of Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with the new and improved arsenals they have accumulated in violation of UN resolutions that have not been enforced, with the sole intention of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible.

Shrug. If Goldstone is right, then I am a war criminal, because Operation Cast Lead was carried out with my acquiescence. And if he's right, than I am morally culpable when I say that it is not right to risk Israeli soldiers' lives to avoid civilian casualties caused by Hamas and Hezbollah fighting from the midst of and hiding behind civilians. I don't want my army to feel hamstrung in taking out the tens of thousand of missiles that Hezbollah has stockpiled, in clear violation of international law. I don't feel guilty of imposing collective punishment on Lebanese or Gazans, because Hezbollah and Hamas have put innocent civilians on both sides at risk, and they, and only they, are the ones who are guilty of war crimes.

So when told by Goldstone that I'm a war criminal, the best I can come up with is a shrug. That is the best one can do in the Goldstone world in which the crimes of Hamas and the reactions of Israel, and by extension, myself, are seen as morally equivalent. In a world that hasn?t had surgery to have its Goldstones removed, to be moral is to submit to evil without resistance. Sorry, Mr. Goldstone, that doesn?t work for me. Shrug

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131974.html

[azurnoir]

64. thanks what an interesting article

it should be pointed out that the manner in which it was posted would lead one to believe that the statement is from Goldstone himself it is not it is in fact a first person statement from the author indicating that by Goldstones standards he too is a war criminal the author also states this

But I don't feel any moral doubts about the main blocks of settlements inhabited by law-abiding hard-working citizens. Between the extremists on both sides who have acted persistently to thwart any accommodation, I judge the Palestinians as worse. Because even when Israel has made concessions and given up territory, the Palestinian extremists have responded with stepped-up violence to the detriment of both Israelis and Palestinians. So I shrug and take the position that as long as the Palestinians seem more interested in eliminating the Jewish state than in achieving a compromise, I'm off the moral hook.

thank you for posting this and I would encourage people to READ the article and not just the snippet posted which albeit I am sure accidental can be very misleading as to the actual content of the article

[shira]

65. tsk, tsk....here's the paragraph before the one you quoted

I live on land in Jerusalem that was empty when I arrived, but who knows who owned it before 1948. Many of my friends live in Arab houses that were definitely owned by Palestinians in the past, and some have even looked them up to ascertain that the previous owners have no desire to make a claim. I have watched as Palestinians from the territories conquered in 1967 benefited from improvements in their quality of life that came from Israeli health and social services, all the while chafing, and often reacting with barbaric disproportionate violence including suicide bombings to what they call "occupation." I detest the minority of obnoxious, ethnocentric Arab-baiting Israeli settlers who place their obsession with physically living in certain areas of Jewish historical significance above any other consideration, including the rule of law.

=====

Now your exact problem with this, is what exactly?

[azurnoir]

66. well I suppose its "nice"

that he took some old fashioned values with him like we improved life for the natives and they weren't doing anything with it or did not want it anyway yes Americans with those types of values can emigrate just about anywhere they please but sigh- for better or worse most them stay here

eta there was something familiar about thew author perhaps it was his "Americaness"

[shira]

67. Law professor clashes with Goldstone Report

NYU's Taub Center for Israel Studies held a lecture called "The Goldstone Report: Armed Conflict and the Duty to Investigate" at the Silver Center's Hemmerdinger Hall last night.
David Kretzmer, a post-doctoral fellow at the NYU School of Law and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, spoke about what he thinks are problems with both the Goldstone Report and investigations of armed conflict in general.

The Goldstone Report, the UN's recently published investigation, charged Israel and Palestine with war crimes during their 22-day conflict in Gaza last December and January. Both the Israeli government and the US House of Representatives have denounced the report as biased against Israel.

Kretzmer made his position about the report clear: "Let me state from the start that I don't agree with the report." He said he thinks the report is flawed because it confused fact finding with political analysis, consistently gave Hamas the benefit of the doubt and made statements that were not factually accurate.

Kretzmer said Israel should conduct its own investigation about what happened in Gaza, and that it would be "for the good of the health of Israelis if the government ordered an investigation right now."

Taub Center Director Ronald Zweig, who organized the event, said he hoped the attendees gained "an insight into how lawyers of human rights interpret political events and an understanding of how human rights law can make the world a better place for all of us."

Sinan AbuShanab, a CAS foreign exchange student from Palestine, said he attended the event because he wanted to hear Kretzmer's thoughts on the Goldstone Report.

"I am one of those who is exposed to the army every day," AbuShanab said. "I don't feel like they are moral to me."

Despite Kretzmer's view that the Goldstone Report was inaccurate, AbuShanab said he thought the lecture provided a valid perspective.

"I thought it really gave an inside look because he obviously had a good knowledge of the Goldstone Report," he said. "I didn't feel like he was attacking the report."

http://nyunews.com/news/2009/dec/02/goldstone/
======

Kretzmer has authored, among other works: The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories; The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse, a co-edited volume; and The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel. For the last two years he has been co-chair of the executive board of B’Tselem, the Israel Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

A professor emeritus of international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Kretzmer was a founding member and past chairperson of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

[shira]

68. Goldstone responds to CAMERA open letter

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=76&x_article=1764

Dear Ms. Hollander,

I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your open letter.
Sincerely,
Richard Goldstone

===========

From a few weeks ago...

"I have yet to hear what the flaws of the report are. I'd be happy to respond if I know what they are."

""no one has been able to show any error of substance in the report nor any of its findings"

:eyes:

[shira]

69. Hamas building 'offensive' tunnels

Israel is likely to face advanced Iranian weaponry, long-range rockets, large missile silos and dozens of kilometers of underground tunnels connecting open fields with urban centers in the event of a future conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, according to the latest Israeli assessments.

Since Operation Cast Lead ended almost a year ago, Hamas has increased its weapons smuggling and today operates hundreds of tunnels along the Philadelphi Corridor. It has smuggled in dozens of long-range Iranian-made rockets that can reach Tel Aviv as well as advanced anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles.

Hamas is believed to have a significant number of shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles and 9M113 Konkurs, which have a range of four kilometers and are capable of penetrating heavy armor.

In addition, Hamas is believed to have today a few thousand rockets, including several hundred with a range of 40 kilometers and several dozen with a range of between 60 and 80 km. Intelligence assessments are that Hamas smuggled the missiles into the Gaza Strip through tunnels, possibly in several components.

Iran already supplies Hamas with 122mm Katyusha rockets that are smuggled into Gaza in several pieces and then assembled by Hamas engineers.

One of the main lessons Hamas learned from Cast Lead was the need to reinforce its defenses and as a result has invested efforts in digging additional tunnels, which connect open fields with homes belonging to key operatives as well as command centers.

The idea is to enable freedom of movement for the operatives between different battlefields, which it found difficult during Israel's ground offensive in Gaza earlier this year.

Hamas has also increased its use of civilian infrastructure, particularly mosques, which the terror group already used quite extensively for storage and launching rockets during the operation. Hamas is believed to have taken control of almost 80 percent of the mosques in Gaza, using them to store weapons and set up command-and-control centers.

Hamas, is "padding" itself as well by setting up its command centers in large apartment buildings. This way, it believes, the IDF will not attack them by air, and will need to send ground forces deep into the population centers, where it will lose its technological advantage.

In addition, Hamas is hoping to increase the effectiveness of its rocket capability during a future conflict and has created large missile silos.

Hamas has also recently increased its efforts to dig what the IDF calls "offensive tunnels" close to the border with Israel, which the terror group could use to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap soldiers.

These tunnels are believed to be of strategic value for Hamas, which would only use them for large-scale attacks and high-value targets.

Well what do you know, Hamas is using mosques and apartment buildings in order to use Gaza once again as one big shield....things the Goldstone commission cannot find evidence of Hamas intentionally doing, or better yet those "armed Palestinian groups" - not Hamas.

Hamas hearts Goldstone.

Gotta love that Swedish award for HR going to Goldstone recently. Job well done!

:eyes:

Now for the outrage and hand wringing by all the "pro" Palestinian saints who hate seeing Palestinians put in such danger by Hamas.

Any time now.

:sarcasm:

[shira]

71. Between Goldstone and Gaza, what's one more zero?

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/kramer/entry/between_goldstone_and_gaza_what

I've been reading through the part of the Goldstone Report treating the economic impact of Operation Cast Lead - a part that hasn't gotten much attention. It's largely a crib of a March 2009 report compiled by the Palestinian Federation of Industries, whose deputy general-secretary, Amr Hamad, was interviewed three separate times by the mission. The mission deemed both the report and Hamad's testimony to be "reliable and credible."

The most important sentence in this section of the Goldstone Report is this one: "Mr. Amr Hamad indicated that 324 factories had been destroyed during the Israeli military operations at a cost of 40,000 jobs" (paragraph 1009). I did a double-take when I read that: 40,000 would be astonishing in an economy like Gaza's.

This is what Hamad said in his testimony (June 28, Goldstone in the chair):

The industrial sector that was destroyed, for example, the 324 factories that were destroyed, that we destroyed used to employ four-hundred thous..., uh, 40,000 workers. And these have lost their uh, jobs, uh, forever."

So that's the source of the number. But if you return to the report of the Palestinian Federation of Industries, it puts the job losses at these 324 factories not at 40,000, but at 4,000. That's an order-of-magnitude misrepresentation by Hamad of his own organization's findings.

The Goldstone Mission should have wondered at the figure, checked Hamad's testimony against the Palestinian Federation of Industries report, detected the discrepancy, and gotten it right. But it didn't. Perhaps the mission members, hearing the word "factories," thought that 40,000 jobs sounded credible. In fact, more than a quarter (88) of these 324 "factories" employed five people or less, and over half (189) employed from five to twenty people (Federation report, p. 12). The vast majority of these "factories" should really be described as "workshops." Only three employed a hundred or more people.

Of course, that 40,000-lost-jobs figure has made its way to numerous websites, and might eventually surface in an op-ed in a major newspaper. (That sort of thing has happened before.) So it would behoove the mission to issue a correction, and post a corrected version of its report. After all, this isn't a matter of interpretation.

And as you ponder all those figures in the Goldstone Report, just keep in mind that it contains at least one order-of-magnitude error regarding a very basic statistic. The report isn't just biased. It's shoddy.

[shira]

72. David Matas, The Goldstone Report: Stone or Gold?

David Matas is an international human rights lawyer based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is honourary senior counsel to B'nai Brith Canada and the author of the book Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism. He has kindly permitted us to post this lengthy and careful critique of the Goldstone Report at UtGR even though it has yet to be published elsewhere.

http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/495-david-matas-the-goldstone-report-stone-or-gold

[shira]

73. David Forman, Rabbis for HR, as well as other HR reps slam Goldstone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=295131&mesg_id=295179

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=295131&mesg_id=295299

[shira]

74. Goldstone still lying: claims no substantive critiques of his report, only personal attacks

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2009/12/goldstone_again_plays_attackin.html

Goldstone Again Plays "Attacking the Messenger" Card

Once again, Judge Richard Goldstone attempts to evade substantive criticism of his Gaza report by playing the "they're attacking the messenger" card. In an interview with the New Statesman today, Goldstone states:

There has definitely been a consistent effort to attack the messenger rather than read the report. Clearly, personal attacks have been unpleasant for me, and unpleasant for my family.

Yet, critics have consistently dealt with falsehoods and distortions in the content of his report. When CAMERA's Ricki Hollander sent him a detailed open letter which questioned the report's findings about the Al Bader flour mill, the al-Maqadmah mosque and the military use of mosques, as well as the question of Palestinians engaging in combat while wearing civilian clothes, among other issues, Goldstone refused to respond, writing:

Dear Ms. Hollander,
I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your open letter.
Sincerely,
Richard Goldstone

Goldstone has apparently likewise declined to respond to other serious critics who addressed the content of his report in detail. How long will he continue to hold up the false ad hominen deflector?

[shira]

75. VIDEO from Israeli TV: Goldstone, Lies, and Videotape - parts 1 and 2

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FydDjPlko4&feature=player_embedded

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8cFReOYnA4&feature=player_embedded

[shira]

76. VIDEO from CNN: Phone call Jan 2, 2009 during Gaza War regarding Hamas blending with civilians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ab1hCeJ2wc&feature=player_embedded

The man on the phone with the CNN reporter is the same camera man responsible for taping the Muhammad Al-Dura hoax that many believe is true.

Goldstone, HRW, etc.. say there's no evidence Hamas did what is being reported here.

:eyes:

The real victims here are the Palestinians being taken advantage of by Hamas and used as shields. One would think "pro" Palestinians like Goldstone, HRW, etc.. would try to defend innocent Palestinians from Hamas, since they purport to "care" so much about Palestinian civilians.

[azurnoir]

77. Goldstone on Palestinian rocket fire

South African justice Richard Goldstone's Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict offers a damning indictment of Palestinian projectile fire, of which his mission found evidence was often directed toward civilians rather than military targets during the winter assault.

"The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, the mortars fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and have been fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that, where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.

"Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror among the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.

"Noting that some of the Palestinian armed groups, among them Hamas, have publicly expressed their intention to target civilians in reprisal for the civilian fatalities in Gaza as a result of Israeli military operations, the Mission is of the view that reprisals against civilians in armed hostilities are contrary to international humanitarian law."

The report notes that the vast disparity between victims of Israeli attacks, estimated at some 1,400 deaths, and Palestinian operations, leaving dead 13 Israelis, most likely had little or no relationship to armed groups' efforts to protect civilians. In fact, according to the mission, the relatively few casualties sustained by Israeli civilians is due in large part to the precautions put into place by Israel. This includes an early warning system, the provision of public shelters and fortifications of schools and other public buildings.

Israeli civilians also enjoyed protection from injury because the bulk of armed groups' artillery consisted of homemade projectiles fashioned from rudimentary materials, such as hollow metal pipes. "They are relatively unsophisticated weapons and lack a guidance system, and so cannot be aimed at specific targets," the Goldstone report notes.

While the mission acknowledges an occupied people's right to resistance, "including the right to resist forcible deprivation of their right to self-determination and the right to live, in peace and freedom, in their own State," it insists that Israelis also "have the right to live in peace and security. Both peoples are entitled to justice in accordance with international law." In turn, the report alleges that armed groups in Gaza have displayed and continue to display consistent disregard for international humanitarian law.

"The Mission is aware that Hamas continues to view all armed activities directed against Israel as resistance to occupation and practices of the occupation, and, therefore, a legitimate right of the Palestinian people. The Mission fully recognizes the Palestinian people's right to self-determination," the report states. "It also acknowledges that United Nations bodies and others have repeatedly pointed out practices of the Israeli occupation that deprive Palestinians of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the Mission forcefully reiterates that the peremptory norms of customary international law ... apply to all actions that may be undertaken in response to, or to oppose, human rights violations."

It continues: "There is no justification in international law for the launching of rockets and mortars that cannot be directed at specific military targets into areas where civilian populations are located. Indeed, Palestinian armed groups, among them Hamas, have publicly expressed their intention to target Israel civilians. The al-Qassam Brigades, on their website, claimed responsibility for the deaths of each of the Israeli civilians killed by rocket fire during the operations in Gaza.

"From the facts it ascertained, the Mission finds that the Palestinian armed groups have failed in their duty to protect and respect civilians. Even though the al-Qassam Brigades and other armed groups in Gaza have recently claimed that they do not intend to harm civilians, the fact that they continue to launch rockets at populated areas without any definite military targets and are aware of the consequences to civilians indicates an intent to target civilians."

Given the gravity of its allegations, the commission said it sought clarification from armed groups during its investigations over the summer, requesting consultations with representatives. "However, the groups were not agreeable to such a meeting. ... Despite various attempts, the Mission was unable to contact members of armed factions operating within the Gaza Strip." The commission, consequently, "had little option but to rely upon indirect sources to a greater extent than for other parts of its investigation."

Among those were media reports in which military representatives confirmed and justified the use of projectiles during the assault. The Goldstone report cites remarks, during an interview with Ma'an, in which a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) stated two days before the end of the war that "the rockets are both practical and a symbolic representation of our resistance to the occupier."

Additionally, in its efforts to gather more direct information on the subject, the team raised questions regarding the conduct of certain groups. According to its final report, those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of armed groups. "Whatever the reasons for their reluctance, the Mission does not discount that the interviewees' reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals."

For its part, the de facto government reportedly cooperated in full, responding that it "had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with al-Qassam Brigades or other armed groups and had no knowledge of their tactics." "While noting that the weaponry used by the armed factions was not accurate, the Gaza authorities discouraged the targeting of civilians," according to the report.

In the de facto government's view, it took "the initiative to spare civilian lives when they renounced suicide attacks in April 2006. ... a Government spokesperson stated that the resistance factions did not aim their rockets at civilians but rather at IDF artillery and other positions from which attacks against Gaza were launched," the report states.

However, the team "found no evidence of any system of public monitoring or accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law set up by the Gaza authorities. The Mission is concerned with the consistent disregard for international humanitarian law with which armed groups in the Gaza Strip conduct their armed activities ... Despite some media reports, the Mission remains unconvinced that any genuine and effective initiatives have been taken by the authorities to address the serious issues of violation of international humanitarian law in the conduct of armed activities by militant groups in the Gaza Strip.

"The Mission was also given no evidence of any arrests, investigation or prosecution connected with the serious violations of the peremptory norms of international law that have been alleged."

Among the commission's conclusions are that the de facto government is responsible for ensuring that effective measures for accountability for violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law committed by armed groups acting in or from Gaza are established. It points out that such responsibility would continue to rest on any authority exercising government-like functions in the Strip.

"The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups operating from Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel. ... The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups should undertake forthwith to respect international humanitarian law, in particular by renouncing attacks on Israeli civilians and civilian objects, and take all feasible precautionary measures to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians during hostilities."

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=250397

[shira]

78. Then: Guardian Newspaper Slammed ‘Richard-Richard’ Goldstone Inquiry as ‘Rubbish Bin’

<snip>

For example, these days, The Guardian of London has shown itself to be one of the most enthusiastic admirers of Richard Goldstone, running countless news articles, op-eds and editorials supporting his UN report on alleged war crimes in Gaza, including this one from December, which invokes the Goldstone Report to support the thesis that the UK’s public interest lies in prosecuting visiting Israelis for war crimes.

Interestingly, however, when there was no incentive to skewer Israel, the same Guardian of London once accused Richard Goldstone of running a “much vaunted judicial commission of inquiry” that “failed dismally,” and that was a “rubbish bin” used by the South African government; of Goldstone’s “disturbing” practice by which he acted with “overt political ’sensitivity’,” including his being “at pains to involve the politically distinguished in the conduct of his inquiry”; and of harboring such ambition to succeed Boutros-Boutros Ghali’s post as UN Secretary-General, that Goldstone’s legal colleagues gave him the nickname of “Richard-Richard.”

That Goldstone has aspired to high U.N. office — and was twice named as being on the short list for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — demonstrates his affinity and proximity to U.N. circles in which a mimimum measure of public hostility to Israel, especially if the aspirant is a suspect Jew, is de rigueur.

more...
http://cifwatch.com/2010/01/10/then-guardian-newspaper-slammed-‘richard-richard’-goldstone-inquiry-as-‘rubbish-bin’/

[Jefferson23]

79. About UN Watch:

UN Watch is a Geneva-based front for the American Jewish Committee <1> established to pressure the United Nations against a critical stance on Israel. UN Watch claims to have 'complete independence' from the AJC<2> however this is belied by a press release on the AJC website which notes that UN Watch was 'fully integrated' into the AJC. The release concludes:

Eighteen months ago, the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress reached an agreement, approved by the international board of UN Watch, to transfer full control of the organization to AJC, an agreement that went into effect on January 1, 2001.<3>

Key Activities

From the record of its press releases and lobbying efforts UN Watch's key activities can be summed up as follows:

* Monitor UN activities, resolutions, or official statements that are construed to be critical of Israel.<4>
* Challenge UN bodies for their critical stance towards Israel.
* Lobby for the removal of UN personnel who are considered critical of Israel.
* Form coalitions to leverage influence at the UN.
* Lobby for the inclusion of AJC approved personnel (e.g., see AJC News Update Number 212).

The organization also issues occasional press releases on topics not related to its key interest in order to preempt the charge that it is a single issue lobbying operation.
Defending Israel

UN Watch claims in its Mission statement to simply "monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter."<5> It claims that its main focus is not Israel:

We primarily speak against gross human rights violations all around the world, including Darfur, Zimbabwe, Russia etc. You can get any idea by browsing our website. In parallel, part of our work is to combat anti-Israel bias within the UN system, which we believe hampers its ability to effectively respond to urgent human rights situations around the world.<6>

However its true agenda is betrayed by the following section in its Mission Statement.

UN Watch notes that the disproportionate attention and unfair treatment applied by the UN toward Israel over the years offers an object lesson (though not the only one) in how due process, equal treatment, and other fundamental principles of the UN Charter are often ignored or selectively upheld. (emphasis added)<7>

No other country or struggle or issue is specifically identified. From this, the known politics of its parent organization, the American Jewish Committee, and its earlier dissembling with regards to its affiliations one can safely conclude its role as lobby group for pro-Israel interest in Geneva.<8>.

remainder in full: http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/62-international-politics/4998-un-watch-front-group-for-the-american-jewish-committee

[shira]

82. misleading

It's not that UN Watch is against criticism.....it's the demonizaiton, exaggeration, hyperbole.

What do we call that WRT irrational 'criticism' of Muslims or Arabs?

[Jefferson23]

83. The only thing here that is misleading, is UN Watch. n/t

[shira]

84. Dershowitz, THE CASE AGAINST THE GOLDSTONE REPORT: A STUDY IN EVIDENTIARY BIAS, 27/01/10

Goldstone continues to complain that no one has read his report. Dershowitz has. Unpublished essay published with his permission.

The Case Against the Goldstone Report: A Study in Evidentiary Bias
by Alan Dershowitz<1>

I. Introduction

The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group. As Major General Avichai Mandelblit, the advocate general of the Israeli Defense Forces, aptly put it:

“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League. 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.”<2>

The Goldstone report is, to any fair reader, a shoddy piece of work, unworthy of serious consideration by people of good will, committed to the truth.

Most of the criticism and praise of the report has been based on its highly publicized and controversial conclusions, rather than on its methodology, analysis and substantive findings. The one statement Richard Goldstone has made, with which I agree, is that many of the report’s most strident critics have probably not read the entire report. But it is also true, though I have not heard the report’s biased author say this, that many of the report’s most vocal defenders and advocates have also not read it.

MUCH MORE...
http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/517-alan-dershowitz-the-case-against-the-goldstone-report-a-study-in-evidentiary-bias-270110

[shira]

85. GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE

The first part of this two-part article explores the pervasive flaws that mar the UNHRC's "Gaza Fact-Finding Mission Report." It focuses on an interlocking combination of problems: 1) its failure to investigate seriously the problem of Hamas embedding its war effort in the midst of civilians in order to draw Israeli fire and then accuse Israel of war crimes; 2) its astonishing credulity concerning all Palestinian claims, contrasted with a corresponding skepticism of all Israeli claims; 3) its harsh judgments on Israelis for war crimes (i.e., deliberate targeting of civilians), contrasted with its resolute agnosticism concerning Hamas intentions. The result is that Goldstone actually participates in Hamas' strategy and encourages the sacrificing of their own civilians.

http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2009/12/landes1.html

[shira]

86. GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART TWO: A MISCARRIAGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The second part of this two-part article explores two main themes: 1) How journalists and human rights NGOs created the body of information Goldstone largely replicated, and 2) the role of intimidation and advocacy on journalists, NGO workers, witnesses, and judges. It concludes with an analysis of how such a systematic misrepresentation of events repeatedly occurred and the dangerous results for the very cause Goldstone espouses--the protection of civilians and the human rights culture.

http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2009/12/landes2.html

[shira]

87. LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO ERRONEOUS ALLEGATIONS AND FLAWED LEGAL CONCLUSIONS...

Both during Operation Cast Lead, and subsequently, a number of international
organisations have alleged that specific actions taken by the Israeli military and some
of its soldiers constituted violations of the laws of war. The overwhelming majority
(at the very least) of these claims are without merit, as even non-Israeli military
experts have attested.

MUCH MORE...

http://www.eclj.org/pdf/ECLJ_MemoonGoldstoneReport_20100126.pdf