If Israel Is Accused Of War Crimes, Is The US Next?

Though Abbas's plan to go to the UN in November to have his "state" granted non-member status is almost ignored amidst the more pressing matters going on in the Middle East, there are implications that should not be ignored.

Evelyn Gordon notes that Abbas's UN Bid Carries Implications for Peace, U.S. Military:

Giving 'Palestine' the UN recognition it needs to revive its ICC case against Israel over the Gaza war could pave the way for similar cases against America

"...But while the threat UN recognition poses to peace talks is clear, the threat to American military personnel may seem less obvious. Though Abbas openly admits to wanting UN recognition primarily so he can file charges against Israel in the ICC, media reports often imply that Israel's main concern is an indictment over the settlements - an issue irrelevant to the U.S. military.

Arlene Kushner On Conference "Defending Israel and International Law" And Book "The Goldstone Report 'Reconsidered' -- A Critical Analysis"

December 5, 2011

"Keeping Afloat"

Last night I attended a multi-part event at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, with the theme "Defending Israel and International Law": 

It was, first, a book launch, as NGO-Monitor introduced its new book, "The Goldstone Report 'Reconsidered' -- A Critical Analysis." 

Professor Gerald Steinberg -- NGO-Monitor Director and co-editor, with Anne Herzberg, of the book -- explained the genesis of this work, which has been three years in the making. 

Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

It becomes more and more evident that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts--and is not even clear on the application of the International Law that it repeatedly praises.

Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category One-sided Recommendations:

30. While token recommendations are made in respect of the Palestinian side, the Report seeks to generate international pressure directed solely against Israel. For example:

* The Report calls for the United Nations General Assembly to establish an escrow fund (¶1768(2)) – but the only victims entitled to claim compensation or [read: are] "Palestinians who have suffered loss and damage" and the only party required to fund this is Israel. The Report does not make any demands on Hamas to make reparation for the damage and injury caused by its terrorist attacks – even though the Report recognizes that the rocket and mortar attacks on Sderot alone have forced Israel to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect civilian homes and buildings.

* The Report calls for an 'urgent discussion' on the "future legality of the use of certain munitions referred to in this Report". Pending the outcome of this attempt to make unlawful currently lawful munitions – and notwithstanding continued terrorist threats - it calls on Israel to "undertake a moratorium in the use of such weapons"(¶1768(2)). No similar call is directed to Hamas' with regard to its use of inherently indiscriminate rockets.

* Notwithstanding its ostensible call for a six month waiting period for the conduct of credible investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by the parties, and the established principle of complementarity which gives priority to local proceedings, the Report issues an immediate call on States Parties to the Geneva Convention to "start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction"(¶1772(2)). That the intention of the Report is that such investigations be directed only against Israel, and not the Hamas terrorists, is made clear by its statement: "In the context of increasing unwillingness on the part of Israel to open criminal investigations that comply with international standards the Mission supports the reliance on universal jurisdiction…" (¶127).

Considering the loud cry by the defenders of the Goldstone Commission that the Commission and its report is 'even-handed' ie, treats Israel and Hamas the same way, the recommendations of the report prove this excuse to be a lie.

See also: Goldstone Report: Errors of Fact
See also: Goldstone Report: Getting the Law Wrong
See also: Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?
See also: Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along
See also: Goldstone Report: Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way

It becomes more and more evident that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts--and is not even clear on the application of the International Law that it repeatedly praises.

Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category Ignoring the Israeli investigations underway:

The Report expresses doubt that Israel will “carry out genuine investigations” (¶ 122) and condemns Israel for “increasing unwillingness … to open criminal investigations” (¶ 1654). But as Israel publicly reported in July, there are scores of investigations now underway, including into many of the very incidents that the Report prejudges.[23] For example, the Military Advocate General is now awaiting the findings of field investigations into forty incidents involving deaths or injuries to civilians, and there are twenty three additional Military Police criminal investigations currently in process. These include investigations of incidents involving the alleged shooting of civilians carrying white flags and alleged use of civilians as human shields. Despite numerous public announcements about the conduct and findings of these investigations, the Report does not even acknowledge that such incidents are presently under review.

Footnote 23 enumerates the kinds of investigations the Israeli government has been doing on its own--without the Goldstone Commission:

Following the end of the Gaza Operation in January 2009, the Israel Defense Forces conducted five major "command investigations" in response to complaints and allegations raised regarding with five broad areas:

o allegations of attacks on UN facilities,
o allegations of attacks on medicalfacilities and staff
o incidents with a large number of civilian casualties
o use of munitions containing white phosphorus
o allegations regarding the destruction of private property for military needs

The findings of these investigations are currently being examined by the Military Advocate General in order to determine whether their findings give cause for the opening of criminal investigations by the Military Police. The conclusions and decisions of the Military Advocate General in this regard are subject to the review of Israel's Attorney General and the ultimate review of Israel's Supreme Court.

Within the framework of these five broad investigations, 20 specific incidents were examined including four incidents that appear in the Goldstone Report. In addition to these broad investigations, 80 other incidents have been investigated. Some of these investigations are the result of complaints directly presented to the Military Advocate General or to Israel's Attorney General by Israeli and international non-governmental organizations.

Four incidents that appear in the Goldstone report have already appeared in those reports and are currently under investigation within this framework.

Of the more than 100 incidents that have been investigated so far, 15 Military Police criminal investigations were opened almost immediately after their submission, without being referred to preliminary field investigations, since they dealt with suspected acts which were outside the course of operational military activities, such as the mistreatment of prisoners and theft. One case, thus far, dealing with theft, has already led, in July 2009, to an indictment and conviction. Recently, eight additional criminal investigations by the Military Police were ordered regarding matters more closely connected to "operational activities", including allegations of shooting towards civilians carrying white flags and directing flechette munitions towards civilians or civilian targets. Seven incidents that appear in the Goldstone report are currently under Military Police criminal investigation.

In a typical Military Police investigation, evidence is taken from Palestinian and other complainants who may have witnessed the events. In such cases, the investigative office of the Military Police approaches the complainant to assist in contacting potential witnesses. For example, the investigative office of the Military Police has approached human rights NGO's for assistance regarding currently ongoing cases.

Additionally, the investigative office of the Military Police has, via Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, approached the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to receive additional information regarding an incident where claims of use of human shields were raised. That incident remains under investigation.

Of course, it is easy to understand why the Goldstone Commission has such a low opinion of Israeli investigations: they render the Goldstone Commission irrelevant.
After all, who else was there for the Commission to investigate? Hamas??

See also: Goldstone Report: Errors of Fact

See also: Goldstone Report: Getting the Law Wrong
See also: Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?
See also: Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along
See also: Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along

It becomes more and more evident that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts--and is not even clear on the application of the International Law that it repeatedly praises.

Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category Legal and Pseudo-legal findings:

Justice Goldstone, as Head of the Mission, repeatedly insisted that the Mission was not a judicial inquiry and so "could not reach judicial conclusions."[18 'Indeed it was on this basis that Goldstone excused the inclusion of the clearly partisan Mission member Professor Christine Chinkin, admitting that: “[I]f it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter [Chinkin] signed would have been a ground for disqualification” (Interview to BusinessDay, 4 August 2009)] The Report, however, is highly judicial in nature, reaching conclusive judicial determinations of guilt, and including 'detailed legal findings' even in the absence of essential information, including sensitive intelligence information which Israel did not feel able to provide. These determinations are made notwithstanding the Report's admission that it does not "pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials"(¶ 27).

The Report is rife with purported legal analysis and findings that Israeli forces committed “grave breaches” of international law and “war crimes”, without any recognition that that such findings can only be based on affirmative evidence of intention to target civilians (as opposed to military objectives). In other words, there must have been intent to cause harm to civilians, as distinct from the knowledge that civilians may be harmed as an unintended consequence of pursuing a military goal.[19]

Please keep in mind that footnote 19 provides the sources to back up Israel's understanding of how International Law applies here:

As stated by a recognized treatise on the subject, “[t]he prerequisite for a grave breach is intent; the attack must be intentionally directed at the civilian population or individual civilians, and the intent must embrace physical consequences.” (Rüdiger Wolfrum & Dieter Fleck, Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law, in The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law 675, 697 (Dieter Fleck ed., 2d ed. 2008)). Indeed, according to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to constitute a war crime “must have been conducted intentionally in the knowledge, or when it was impossible not to know, that civilians or civilian property were being targeted.” (Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgment and Opinion, ¶ 42 (5 December 2003) quoting Prosecutor v. Blaškic; Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgment, ¶ 180 (3 March 2000)).

Israel's analysis continues:

In applying the intentionality requirement, the Report commits the following egregious errors:

o Inferring the commander’s state of mind from circumstantial evidence. The Report states that “In almost all of the cases the Mission has … been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately.” (¶ 25) In fact, the Report reaches a finding that Israeli forces intentionally targeted civilians or U.N. facilities by simply inferring this because the Mission lacked information to the contrary. (¶ 809) This approach is fundamentally flawed, as it reverses the burden of proof under international law, which requires that intentionality be established by evidence, rather than assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In dealing with Hamas, by contrast. the Report rejects the existence of specific intent to shielding its operatives from counter-attack by acting from civilian facilities, since "the Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence on this question" (¶ 450).

o Highly implausible and unjustifiable assumptions regarding malicious intent of Israeli forces. In the case of the bombing of a flour mill, the Report states that Israeli forces attacked the mill “for the purposes of denying sustenance to the civilian population.” (¶ 50) No evidence is presented to show the existence of such a nefarious motive, and there is no attempt to reconcile this conclusion with Israel’s humanitarian efforts, including enforced pauses in fighting to allow for the crossing into Gaza of food and other basic goods[20]. Instead, the malicious intent is simply presumed.

According to footnote 20:

During the conflict a total of 1,511 trucks carrying 37,162 tons of supplies from Strip including 525 trucks carrying 14,208 tons of flour entered the Gaza Strip from Israel through the Keren Shalom Crossing. See: The Operation in Gaza--Factual and Legal Aspects, para 271.

o Suggestion that intentional firing of a weapon satisfies the willfulness requirement for responsibility under international law. The Report states that Israeli fire was “intentionally directed” at civilians in numerous incidents in which it is obvious that the civilians were not the object of attack, but rather its unintended victims. (¶ 810) Moreover, in one example where a civilian home was struck due to operational error of Israeli forces, the Report makes the following incredible assertion: “The firing of the projectile was a deliberate act in so far as it was planned.... The fact that target selection had gone wrong at the planning stage does not strip the act of its deliberate character.” (¶ 861) Of course, aside from the rare case in which a weapon fires due to a malfunction, any firing can always be said to have been “planned.” This does not make every firing of a weapon that happens to injure civilians an intentional violation of international law.

o Adverse inferences on intent from the extensive Israeli efforts to protect civilians. The Report considers that Israel’s extensive system of training, operational planning and supervision to ensure compliance with international law is relevant only insofar as it establishes that Israel’s violations were deliberate (¶ 61). Furthermore, rather than applaud Israel’s use of precision weapons, the Report highlights such use only to assist it in finding intentionality of striking civilian targets (¶¶ 1186-1188). Finally, instead of recognizing Israel’s massive efforts to implement a system of warnings to protect the civilian population as evidence of intent to avoid civilian casualties, the Report uses Israel’s continued efforts to improve the warning system as evidence of its inadequacy (¶¶ 522-523).

Whatever you may think of Israel, the fact remains that there is a sloppiness and lack of professionalism in the Goldstone Commission Report that cannot be covered up with the already well-worn mantra that Goldstone is a respected judge who is Jewish and a Zionist. At some point Goldstone's defenders need to address the fact that there is credible and well-researched evidence of a deeply flawed document here.

And continued claims that this is nothing more than an ad hominen attack are just not going to cut it.

See also: Goldstone Report: Errors of Fact
See also: Goldstone Report: Getting the Law Wrong
See also: Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?
See also: Goldstone Report: Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way
See also: Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?

It seems that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts--or even notice how one section of the report makes a claim diametrically opposed to what Commission actually did.

Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category Selection of Incidents:

A troubling insight into the approach of the Mission in selecting the incidents it wished to address was provided in response by Justice Goldstone to an enquiry asking why the Mission had ignored requests to invite witnesses such as Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an adviser to the UK cabinet, and a recognized expert in the field of warfare in conditions similar to that in Gaza[8]. In an open response dated 21 September 2009 explaining the refusal to invite Colonel Kemp to testify, Goldstone admitted that the Mission had deliberately selected incidents so as to evade the complex dilemmas of confronting threats in civilian areas:

"[t]here was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because in our Report we did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers "in the fog of war". We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate."[emphasis added]

Footnote 8 suggests another reason why Col. Kemp's may have been omitted:

An alternative explanation for the Mission's refusal to invite Colonel Kemp to give evidence may be his reported comments on the BBC on January 9, 2009:

"There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."

But the excuse provided by the Goldstone Commission is problematic on its face. Again, the reason given was:

[t]here was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because in our Report we did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers "in the fog of war".

But second-guessing the decisions by officers is exactly what they did!

Israel's critique of the Goldstone Report notes:

22. The Report pays lip service to the established international law principle that the legality of military action must be assessed based on the information available to a “reasonable military commander” at the time of each individual targeting decision, and not based on hindsight. But the Report nonetheless repeatedly reaches sweeping conclusions about “war crimes” without ever examining such real-time information. The Report does not examine what information was available to the commanders in the field, how they might have perceived the immediate threats to themselves and their soldiers, what weapons were available at that moment on the ground, and what information was available about potential risks to civilians. Instead, time and time again, the Report substitutes its own hindsight judgment. For example:

* Second-guessing choice of weapons and tactics without knowledge of available resources. The Report concludes that with respect to one particular incident, Israeli forces should have used different weapons to further limit the risk to civilians in the area, and is untroubled by the fact that it has no information regarding the available troops, weapons or intelligence. The Report observes that forces had 50 minutes in which to respond to a significant threat (the time used by the force to accurately identify the source of fire), and opines that given this time, “it is difficult to believe that mortars were the most accurate weapons available” (¶ 696). Displaying a troubling disconnect from the reality of urban fighting on many simultaneous fronts, it suggests that the forces in the field should used "helicopters and fighter jets", assuming that these are readily available to commanders in the field.[14]

(in footnote 14, Israel notes that:The United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry, which investigated the same incident, refrained from making such naïve and blasé assertions, concluding that: "it was not in a position to assess whether such a means was available to the IDF at the time and, if it was not, the length and consequences of any delay until it might have been.")

* Second-guessing what commanders should have anticipated. The Report concludes with respect to another incident that Israeli forces should not have been surprised that they were faced with anti-tank missile fire in the vicinity of a UNRWA installation, and therefore should have taken different steps to respond to this hostile fire, other than applying the commonly used technique of smoke screening (¶ 588). Again, the Report seeks to substitute its judgment for that of the commanders in the field, without any of the information necessary to conduct a proper analysis under the applicable law.

* The Report also ignores Israel's extensive efforts, even in the midst of fighting, to maintain humanitarian standards and protect civilians. It makes no mention, for example, of IDF precautions such as cross-verification of intelligence prior to targeting or the numerous incidents in which operations were aborted due to concerns about disproportionate civilian harm[See The Operation in Gaza--Factual and Legal Aspects para 249-283]. And while the Report does, reluctantly, acknowledge Israel's "significant efforts" to issue warnings before attacks, it dismisses these as not having been effective (¶ 1717(2)).

So the Commission said it would not try to make assumptions about how a war is fought--before it went ahead and tried to second guess what the commanding officers were thinking and doing.
Is their excuse for excluding the testimony of Col. Kemp really that hollow?
Or did the Commission really feel they are competent on ruling on military operations--something totally outside their area of expertise.

There are other kinds of flaws in the Report as well.

See also: Goldstone Report: Errors of Fact
See also: Goldstone Report: Getting the Law Wrong
See also: Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along
See also: Goldstone Report Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way
See also: Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Getting The Law Wrong

It seems that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts. Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category Misstatements of law:

o The description of Israel's military courts system (¶1599-1600) contains numerous errors and inaccuracies. For example, its description of the appeals process relies on provisions which were amended in 2004 and are no longer in force today.

o In support of its assertion that the Gaza Strip is to be regarded as occupied territory, even following the withdrawal of all Israeli forces and all 9000 Israeli civilians in the Disengagement Initiative in 2005, the Report cites as authority UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (footnote 163 to ¶277). But this resolution makes no such assertion. In fact, in the negotiations prior to the adoption of this resolution, a Libyan draft which sought to insist that Gaza was still occupied was specifically not adopted by the members of the Security Council.

Keep in mind that this is from an initial response--the fact that 2 mistakes are documented does not mean that there are not others.

The first error raises the question as to just what sources the Goldstone Commission is using--and this is only one error of many in terms of Israeli law.

And apparently the Commission is having no better luck when it comes to International Law. The fact that a specific reference is being given which does not say what the Commission is claiming again raises question of just how careful they are being with the facts.

There are other kinds of flaws in the Report as well.

See also: Goldstone Report: Errors of Fact
See also: Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?
See also: Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along
See also: Goldstone Report: Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way
See also: Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Errors Of Fact

It seems that the Goldstone Commission did not check out all of their facts. Take a look at the Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (PDF here)

Under the category Misstatements of fact:

o The Report accuses Israel of discriminating against its non-Jewish citizens by not providing shelters to protect Arab towns and villages from the rocket attacks.
(¶ 1709, 1711(1)). In fact, the relevant decision [Govt. Decision number 2341] of the Government of Israel made no such discrimination, and provided all municipalities up to seven kilometers from the fence with a budget to cover the building of shelters. Municipalities located further away from the fence, which included non-Jewish villages as well as the Jewish cities of Be'er Sheva and Ashqelon, did not qualify for this funding.

o The Report repeatedly misrepresents historical facts, particularly in the context of 'explaining' Israel military operations. It states that Operation "Hot Winter" was launched by Israel in February 2008 following a rocket attack towards the city of Ashkelon that caused 'light injuries' (¶ 196). In fact, Roni Yihye, aged 47, a student at Sapir College, was killed after sustaining massive wounds to his chest. Similarly it states that Operation "Days of Penitence" was launched in September-October of 2004, in retaliation for the firing of rockets against the town of Sderot and Israeli settlements, but fails to mention the deaths of Yuval Abebeh (aged 4) and Dorit (Masarat) Benisian (aged 2) of Sderot, killed by a Kassam rocket fired into Gaza while playing in the street. In both cases Hamas claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Keep in mind that this is from an initial response--the fact that 2 mistakes are documented does not mean that there are not others.

As far as the Report's first mistake, the Goldstone Commission could very well blame that on the Israeli government for not cooperating with the Commission. Fair enough, but then the obvious question is just how many other errors of fact does the Report contain because of this. Even if you feel that Israel's decision not to cooperate was wrong--that does not justify validating a faulty report.

As far as the second mistake made by the Commission, if the Commission knows enough to get this information then the question is whether they got it from a reliable source and if they in fact recorded it properly. The onus is on them, unless they insist they copied correctly from a reliable source--in that case, they should make known what resources they are relying on. The distortion here is consistent with the overall slant of the report to play down Israeli casualties.

There are other kinds of flaws in the Report as well.

See also: Goldstone Report: Getting the Law Wrong
See also: Goldstone Report: Did The Commission Even Read Their Own Report?
See also: Goldstone Report: Making It Up As It Goes Along
See also: Goldstone Report: Doubts That Israel Will Carry Out Investigations Already Under Way
See also: Goldstone Report: More Under-Handed Than Even-Handed

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Goldstone Report: Why Is Everyone Quoting The Same Imaginary Mandate?

When referring to the original resolution that provided the mandate for what came to be the Goldstone Commission, everyone is studiously avoiding quoting the original language of the resolution. And for good reason.

Original language:
to investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.

Now you can't have that kind of text being quoted all over the media and the Internet--there are enough issues of bias in connection with the Goldstone Commission Report as it is. So instead there is an amended version of the mandate that is being quoted:

Goldstone in Geneva
As you all know, the Mission was established in April of this year with the mandate to investigate "all violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza from 27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009, whether before during or after"

Much better! Now, instead of investigating "all violations...due to the current aggression", the text reads that they are investigating violations that might have been committed in the context of the military operations. And of course, Israel is no longer the sole focus.
This change was informal, was not made in the original resolution, and was not done with the approval of a formal vote.
Of course, you would never know the language was changed--or what the original language of the resolution even was--based on the way interested parties are now quoting the resolution:

UN Press Release:(9/15)
The four members of the Mission* were appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council in April with a mandate to "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

-----

HRW (5/17)
"Justice Goldstone's mandate from the Human Rights Council is "to investigate all violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period 27 December 2008 to 18January 2009, whether before, during or after." Goldstone agreed to lead the Human Rights Council investigation only after the mandate was broadened to look into violations by all parties to the Gaza conflict and not only by Israel.

-----

UN HRC
On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established an international independent Fact Finding Mission with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.” [See press release of 3 April 2009 and transcript of press briefing] (the emphasis is theirs)

The relevant section also appears in quotes, implying that it is written down somewhere authoritative--so it appears that January 12 was the original resolution with the anti-Israel text, while April 3 was the establishment of the commission with the mission and new language.

So if we see the press release and the transcript of the press briefing on April 3, one might think that we would see that new text being quoted, right?

Wrong.

The press release of 3 April 2009 does not use that language:

"I am confident that the mission will be in a position to assess in an independent and impartial manner all human rights and humanitarian law violations committed in the context of the conflict which took place between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 and provide much needed clarity about the legality of the thousands of deaths and injuries and the widespread destruction that occurred", Ambassador Uhomoibhi stated.
Today's appointment comes following the adoption of a resolution by the Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its Special Session on 9 and 12 January convened to address "the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip".[emphasis added]

Even during Goldstone's first Press Conference on April 3, he did not use the language that he would use later in Geneva

Transcript of Goldstone during his April 3 Press Conference:
There are substantial allegations of war crimes and serious violations of international human rights law having been committed before, during and after the military operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.

So what we have is the mandate of the Goldstone Commission, being repeated word-for-word by those backing the mission and appearing in quotes--while the actual mandate is worded very differently.

Apparently, the current text of the bandied about of the mandate was created out of thin air.
That kind of deception doesn't say much about the results of such a commission.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad
Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report

Forget What's In The Goldstone Report--What Did They Leave Out?!

In a memorandum he sent to the UN Human Rights Council, Maurice Ostroff notes the evidence available to the fact-finding commission that was rejected:

1. Rejection of credible relevant evidence
The Report omits, without explanation, a great deal of highly relevant, credible information that would certainly have a bearing on the HRC's evaluation. In fact it could be considered that the Mission had a duty to at least disclose in the Report, the existence and contents of such available evidence even if it disagreed with the contents. For example

1.1. Memorandum from Australian lawyers.
A professionally prepared document submitted by a group of 15 eminent Australian lawyers earned only the briefest mention in footnote 297. See
http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/australianlawyers.pdf

1.2. Colonel Richard Kemp (see Appendix A)
That highly significant evidence was totally ignored, not even earning a footnote, on the grounds that "there was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because the Report did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers in the fog of war. The Mission avoided having to do so in the incidents it decided to investigate". This explanation is completely unacceptable, since it is a sine qua non that investigating alleged war crimes essentially involved investigation of the military operations in civilian areas. See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id199.html.

1.3. Reluctant witnesses
The Mission failed to take advantage of leads to trace some critical witnesses, as well as to view video presentations in which Palestinians who had fled from Hamas described Hamas' abuse of hospitals and ambulances.
(See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLFAJK5LtwY
The report must be considered incomplete unless such evidence is included.

Read the whole thing.

To this list we can add Dr. Mirela Siderer:

Judge Richard Goldstone, in July you invited me to testify. I told you my story. I am known by my patients -- including many women from Gaza. For me, every human being is equal.

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

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

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

Read the whole thing.

Then, there is Prof. Elihu D. Richter, who writes:

...I submitted Elena Bonner's eloquent statement on behalf of Gilad Schalit, data on Israel providing ever more medical permits to Gazans during a period of increasing rocket attacks, and documentation of Hamas' and Iran's incitement to genocide using the dehumanizing metaphors of Mein-Kampf type hate language. Iran, as is well known, is a supplier, enabler, instructor and enabler of Hamas, and its government is now the world's epicenter for incitement to genocide.

The Goldstone Commission ignored all the above. In short, the Commission was not driven by the evidence, but by its preset agenda and rigged mandate.

According to an advance transcript of Goldstone's speech to the UN Human Rights Council today in Geneva, Judge Goldstone will say:

We relied on reports from others where they corroborated the views we had formed.

So the question is not only what the Goldstone Commission left out, but why.

Technorati Tag: Richard Goldstone and Goldstone Commission Report and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Goldstone Mis-Speaks

Yaacov Lozowick absolutely nails Judge Goldstone's comment during an interview:

Goldstone: I understand that and I’m sure that’s one of the reasons for the lack of cooperation, but you know at the same time I don’t believe this was an issue, the shelling. I don’t believe was really taken to the Security Council by the Israeli government. I may be wrong but that’s my impression.

An innocuous comment that Lozowick greets with an avalanche of proof demolishing Goldstone's 'impression'.

Check it out.

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Amnon Rubinstein: Goldstone's Unconscious Humor

The following is a translation by the author of the article.
The original Hebrew article is available online on Globes.

Goldstone's Unconscious Humor

By Amnon Rubinstein


It is not true that the Goldstone report is exclusively anti-Israeli. After having established that Israel is guilty of crimes against international law and (possibly) humanity, after advocating punishing it with and arsenal of all conceivable sanctions, it also chides the Palestinians for some inappropriate measures taken by them.

First, there is Hamas. Goldstone does not let them go Scot free. Thus he blames the Hamas for a grievous offense:

"The mission remains unconvinced that any genuine and effective initiatives have been taken by the (Gaza) authorities to address the serious issues of violation of international human rights in the conduct of armed activities by militant groups in the Gaza strip".

This refers to the shelling of southern Israel from Gaza in the eight years preceding operation "cast lead". But what does Goldstone have in mind when he chides the Hamas for not taking genuine and effective initiative against the militants who do not adhere to international human law? Does he refer to their failure to petition the local High Court of Justice to issue a writ of mandamus against the militants? Or does he have in mind the fact that the Hamas Solicitor General has failed to issue an indictment against the offending militants?

Judge Goldstone rebukes the Hamas again for their treatment of Fattah 'affiliates'. Goldstone finds that "such actions" – i.e. killing the Fatah detainees – "constitute serious violations of Human Rights or the Palestinian Basic Law". Again, one may ask: what went wrong here? Did the Hamas Supreme Court of Justice ignore the Palestinian Basic Law? Where was the Hamas attorney general? Goldstone is not content with slapping Hamas' wrist, he also reprimands the Palestinian authority:

"The Palestinian Authority continues to discharge a large number of civil and military service employees, or suspend their salaries, under the pretext of "non-adherence to the legitimate authority" or "non-obtainment of security approval" on their appointments, which has become a pre-requirement for enrolment in public service". In effect, this measure means the exclusion of Hamas supporters or affiliates from public sector appointment…. The Mission is of the view that the reported measures are inconsistent with the Palestinian Authority's obligations deriving from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Palestinian Basic Law". In other words, the PA is obliged, by international law, to employ those who want to unseat them.

This surely is an uncontrollable outburst of surreal humor but it pales in comparison with another outburst.

Goldstone, after quoting heavily from Ha'aretz, Israeli jurists, B'tzelem and other Israeli human right NGO's, states.

"…the Mission received allegations that sources of criticism of actions by Israel during and following the military operations of December 2008-January 2009 from inside Israel were subjected to attempted or actual repression, and that the rights of freedom of association and expression for individuals and groups had been violated. In this regard, concerns were also raised about the denial of access to the media and to human rights monitors prior, during and after the military operations in Gaza".

The humor stems from the fact that the evidence of this repression was given by Israelis – including those who addressed Goldstone's committee. Israeli NGO's who complained about this repression of dissent appear almost daily – loud and clear – on Israeli newspapers and state – owned radio and television.

For some obscure reason, there is no parallel finding about suppression of dissent by Hamas. Indeed, the report should have a sub-heading - Eyeless in Gaza - lifted from John Milton and Aldous Huxley.

* * *

The humor stops where the report alleges actions of wanton brutality and killings by Israeli soldiers; even if only partially true, these cases should be a reason for sleepless nights for every law-abiding, humane Israeli. The IDF authorities state that they have investigated these allegations and, except for one case of looting, found no evidence of such war crimes. However, it is the opinion of this author that due to the severity of the allegations and the number of Palestinian civilians killed in the operation, Israel should re-investigate these thirty-plus cases and that this reinvestigation should be conducted by an independent body headed by an acting or retired judge of the Supreme Court. Such a body should be empowered to see army documents and make recommendations. This step is vital not because of Goldstone's ludicrous report, replete with its instances of unconscious humor, but because we, Israelis, must be doubly sure that no crimes were perpetrated by our soldiers. We should not be "eyeless in Gaza".

Prof. Amnon Rubinstein is a Professor of Law at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Israel), a former Minister of Education and Knesset Member, as well as the recipient of the 2006 Israel Prize in Law [www.amnonrubinstein.org].

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

Did Richard Goldstone Really Say That?!

There is an advance transcript of what Judge Richard Goldstone is supposed to say in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council.

Let's hope he doesn't follow the script too closely!
Here's why:

According to the transcript, Goldstone will say:

Mr. President

As you all know, the Mission was established in April of this year with the mandate to investigate "all violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza from 27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009, whether before during or after".

But that is not what the mandate actually is, according to the actual UN resolution that originally created the Commission.

Instead, the orginal mandate was:

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

The original mandate--as was the entire resolution--focused on Israel and targeted it as the sole subject of the mission. According to Goldstone, he did not accept the position to head the commission until after the mandate was changed--that is all well and good. But the change was merely an oral understanding, the text of the resolution was never changed, and this oral agreement was not done based on a vote of all parties.

For Goldstone to imply anything else is disappointing.

Goldstone also bemoans that Israel has not responded to the report:

We regret that the response to date of the Government of Israel avoids dealing with the substance of the report.

Now that is outrageous!
Israel clearly and decisively did respond and dealt directly with the substance of the report.

• September 15: Israel's initial reaction to the report of the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission
• September 17: Israeli investigations into allegations regarding the Gaza Operation - Status Report
• September 24: Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza
• Most recently: Gaza… Hamas… Conflict… Facts!

Clearly, not only has Israel responded to the Goldstone Commission Report, but it has responded directly to the substance of that report--something that anyone can plainly see.

It should also be noted the status update from September 17 indicates that Israel has in fact been conducting its own investigation, and has found issues that the Goldstone Commission overlooked:

Following the end of the Gaza Operation in January 2009, the Israel Defense Forces conducted five major "command investigations" in response to complaints and allegations raised regarding IDF's conduct during the Operation. The investigations dealt with five broad areas: allegations of attacks on UN facilities, allegations of attacks on medical facilities and staff, incidents with a large number of civilian casualties, use of munitions containing white phosphorus, and allegations regarding the destruction of private property for military needs. The findings of these investigations are currently being examined by the Military Advocate General in order to determine whether their findings give cause for the opening of criminal investigations by the Military Police. The conclusions and decisions of the Military Advocate General in this regard are subject to the review of Israel's Attorney General and the ultimate review of Israel's Supreme Court. Within the framework of these five broad investigations, 20 specific incidents were examined including four incidents that appear in the Goldstone Report. [emphasis added]

We can only hope that the transcript is in error when it indicates that Goldstone will say:

We relied on reports from others where they corroborated the views we had formed.

Surely an evenhanded fact-finding mission would not show such bias towards preconceived notions.

Judge Richard Goldstone is an honorable man. We can only hope that his actual speech did not hew too closely to the advanced transcript.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Richard Goldstone and Goldstone Commission Report.

Why Do Obama And Richard Goldstone Have The Oddest Friends?

Just a few days ago, we found out that the man Obama wants to return to power in Honduras--Manuel Zelaya--thinks Israel is secretly torturing him with high levels of radiation:

It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

"We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.

Now, it turns out that one of Judge Richard Goldstone's witnesses in his controversial report accusing Israel of war crimes thinks that Israel is up to something even more insidious in Gaza.

Gazan police spokesperson Islam Shahwan accuses Israel of smuggling gum into Gaza that increases the sex drive:

Is Israel targeting the Palestinian population in Gaza by distributing libido-increasing chewing gum in the Strip? A Hamas police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan claimed Monday that Israeli intelligence operatives are attempting to "destroy" the young generation by distributing such materials in the coastal enclave.

Shahwan said that the police got their hands on gum that increases sexual desire that, according to him, reaches merchants in the Strip by way of the border crossings. According to him, a Palestinian drug dealer admitted that he sold products that increase sex drive. The dealer said that he received the materials from Israeli sources by way of the Karni crossing.

This is the same Islam Shahwan whose testimony is accepted at face value in the Goldstone Commission Report, despite being contradicted by Commission's own findings. In paragraph 414 of the report, the report confirms that on January 1st, Shahwan informed the media how Hamas would counter a ground invasion from Israel:

an action plan has been put forward, and we have conducted an assessment of the situation and a general alert has been declared by the police and among the security forces in case of any emergency or a ground invasion. Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded. [emphasis added]

This would seem to clearly prove that the Palestinian 'police' were much more than just police--unless you are a member of the Goldstone Commission, in which case you take at face value Shahwan's explanation:

Confirming to the Mission that he had been correctly quoted, Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places, and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen. [emphasis added]

So police who "received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy" were actually actually working on crowd control? Must be, because the Goldstone Commission buys it.

Also, the Commission apparently has no problem with Shahwan's claim that no policemen were killed in combat--despite the fact that this claim is clearly contradicted in the very next paragraph (415) of the report:

On the basis of the information provided by the Gaza authorities and of the above-mentioned study of the Orient Research Group Ltd., it would appear that 75 per cent of its members killed in the course of the military operations died as a result of the air strikes carried out during the first minutes of the Israeli attack. These men had not engaged in combat with the Israeli armed forces.

If 75% were killed during the initial strike, then 25% were killed in combat--yet this contradiction to Shahwan's testimony is not even accounted for.

What a mess.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Goldstone Commission Report.

The Lies, The Researches And The Facts, About The Last War In Gaza

The following is a translation of an article by journalist and essayist Ben Dror Yemini. He is the opinion-editor of the daily newspaper Maariv. His articles and essays appear in a number of other journals.

How many civilians were killed in Gaza?

Every week new reports are published on the number of civilians killed in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. Again and again, Israel is blamed for "disproportionate casualties among civilians." Here and there, claims of "war crimes" are raised. It must be said that, first, any civilian death is deplorable and everything possible must be done to prevent such deaths. Second, any reasonable allegation must be investigated. There is not an army in the world that has not made mistakes, and the IDF is no exception. But apparently there are many entities that are enamored of lies. Hamas claimed from the start that only a small number of those killed in Gaza were fighters. Many human rights organizations adopted the claims made by Hamas and other Palestinian organizations. So the time has come, if truth has any meaning whatsoever, to present the real story.

Abdullah Abdel Hamid Muammar, a 22-year-old student from the village of el-Nassar north of Rafah, was killed in Operation Cast Lead. So we are told by the official report of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). This report contains details about the war casualties that purport to be accurate. The purpose is obvious: to prove to the whole world that most of the casualties were innocent civilians who were hurt by the bombing of the civilian population.

Many human rights organizations, including Amnesty, B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch (HRW), relied, in whole or in part, on the PCHR data, which turned Muammar into an innocent victim. But there's a problem with that. According to a publication issued by the Press Department of the Al Qassam Brigades, Muamar was a member of Hamas, and he appears in a picture on an Arabic website in which he is carrying a Qassam missile. This is also the case with many other "innocent civilians." They were terrorists. It turns out that, to discover that lie - which was just one of many - meticulous investigations were required. Dr. Tal Pavel of the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, and Jonathan Dahoah-Halevy, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center, investigated each name on the list of casualties.

The various organizations announced that between 1,200 and 1,400 were killed in Gaza. The number may have been inflated, as claimed, for example, by journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi, reporting from the Gaza Strip for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about inflation of the numbers and the manipulations by Hamas. We should also mention the investigation conducted by the IDF which appears to be a bit more reliable and puts the number of killed at 1164, as well as the fact that Hamas issued explicit instructions to conceal and deceive.

According to Pavel's research, 564 of the dead were members of Hamas. All of them were honored, as fallen fighters, on Hamas websites. In addition to them, according to IDF investigations, about 100 Islamic Jihad members were killed. Assuming that other terrorists were killed, for example those belonging to Fatah, then most of the dead were not innocent civilians. And that's just the beginning.

The bombing of the Hamas Police Academy earned wall-to-wall condemnation because, according to international law, police are considered civilians. Here we will go into the results of the research conducted by Dahoah-Halevy. According to a name-based investigation of each of the "policemen", it turns out that 88.4% of them belong to the security - i.e., terrorism - mechanisms of Hamas. One of them, Muhammad el-Dasuqi, a member of the Resistance Committee, is suspected of being one of the perpetrators of the terrorist attack on the American convoy in 2003.

One of the most prominent events in the Gaza operation was the bombing of the UN school in the Jabalya refugee camp on January 6. All the media around the world publicized horrific pictures of "over 41 killed in the Al Fakhura school." The condemnation was worldwide, from the UN Secretary General, through the President of the United States, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Many long weeks passed before it was shown to be a libel. First, the three artillery shells did not hit the school at all. Second, Hamas people were firing from the area and the IDF aimed its fire at them. Third, the number of killed was far smaller than originally reported. Most of the media and human rights organizations that publicized the original news did not bother to publicize the information that was disclosed. Those who are infatuated with libel are not prepared to be confused by the facts.

There were still many killed who are not identified as fighters. That is also worth investigating. If the IDF strike lacked discernment, the demographic breakdown of the casualties (erroneously called "uninvolved civilians") should have been identical to the demographic breakdown of the general population. However, a different picture emerges. A quarter of the population are adolescent girls. Actually, 8% of those killed were adolescent girls. A quarter of the population are adult women. Only 14% of those killed were women. The higher percentage of male casualties - much higher than their proportion of the population - proves that among them were a higher percentage of men involved in the fighting. In other words, the percentage of civilian casualties was dramatically smaller than the claims made against Israel. According to a more in-depth investigation by a team of researchers from the Interdisciplinary Center, between 900 and 1,070 of the casualties (63% - 75%) were killed because they were involved. If we add to that the fact that Hamas used civilians as human shields, or adolescent boys who were forced to participate in the fighting, the percentage of the casualties who were involved in the fighting only increases.

It is interesting to note the behavior of the armies of western countries when they had to conduct a similar war. Let's assume that there is no comparison with the World War II Allied bombing of Tokyo and Dresden. We'll deal with something more similar and closer in time. In 1999, NATO forces conducted a similar war, mainly by aerial bombing, against Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force). 462 soldiers, 114 policemen and 489-512 civilians were killed.

Because there, the policemen were actually policemen, and in Gaza they are terrorists, the general balance shows that Israel hurt far fewer civilians than NATO did. And with regard to the demographic breakdown and the forced use of adolescent boys and civilians, the number of innocent casualties is apparently far lower.

The Israeli media, which publicized the stories of soldiers from the pre-military preparatory course - which turned out to be rumors and outright fabrications - did not publish the results of the serious investigations below. On the contrary. An editorial by Ha'aretz stated that it involved the "criminal killing of dozens of policemen...knowing that these policemen were nothing but enforcers of civilian order." Hamas is snickering. They publicize pictures of the "policemen" armed with Qassams, and Ha'aretz calls them "enforcers of civil order." The West reads Ha'aretz in English, not Hamas in Arabic. So sometimes, when Ha'aretz is around, Hamas does not need a propaganda department.

Even when this research was available, no one bothered to make corrections. On the contrary. The hara-kiri continues. The media, in Israel and around the world, are tainted with a peculiar selectivity. Any serious research that proves that there were no war crimes is rejected. Any fabrication that doesn't have a shred of basis in fact rates enormous headlines. That is what happened with the bombing of the Al Fakhura school in Jabalya, and in other cases as well.

Prof. Arnold Toynbee, who was no friend of Israel, wrote in one of his books, "In the history of man's endeavors to develop culture, there has never been a society whose progress and cultural level were so advanced that in time of revolution or war, its members could be depended upon not to commit evil acts." That is true of Israel and it is true of every country that finds itself in a state of war. So I will reiterate that every deviation should be investigated. But by the same token, there is no need to hide the true picture: with regard to the fact that Gaza is controlled by an entity whose way is terrorism, whose platform is anti-Semitic, and whose official objective is the destruction of the State of Israel, the number of innocent casualties in the course of the operation was far smaller than the stories fabricated by Palestinian organizations, human rights organizations and newspapers in Israel and around the world, such as Ha'aretz, which feeds many news agencies worldwide. We can, and should, publicize serious claims of deviations. But we also can, and should, at least to the same extent, present the serious research.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Goldstone Commission Report: Hamas Who?

The following is a translation of an article by journalist and essayist Ben Dror Yemini. He is the opinion-editor of the daily newspaper Maariv. His articles and essays appear in a number of other journals.

GOLDSTONE IS THE CRIMINAL

By Ben-Dror Yemini
Ma'ariv
September 25, 2009

Let's start at the end. Richard Goldstone perpetrated a moral crime. Not against the State of Israel but against human rights. He turned them into a weapon for dark regimes. Goldstone was not negligent. He did this with malice.

The criticism that was made in the first days following the report was on the basis of preliminary study. But time passes. And the more that the details of this report are revealed, the more it becomes clear that it is a libel. A libel with legal cover. A libel that was prepared in advance to incriminate the State of Israel, in the service of Libya and Iran. Goldstone willingly took up the loathsome role. He supplied these countries with the goods. The claim that "the discourse of rights" has become the dark forces' most effective tool is a familiar one. The Goldstone report is the supreme expression of this. Its legal terminology is exemplary. It gushes about international human rights treaties. But it cannot hide the result: It is a libelous indictment of the State of Israel, in the service of the axis of terrorism and evil. Yes, there is marginal – very marginal – lip service regarding criticism of Hamas. Goldstone's ilk is a sophisticated lot. They now reiterate from every stage, and Goldstone does it well, that they were actually objective. Here, they also leveled criticism at Hamas. How enlightened of them!

Goldstone sold his soul for an endless series of lies. Even Mary Robinson, who is not known as an admirer of Israel, understood that, "[urlhttp://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/002925.html]This is unfortunately a practice by the [UN Human Rights] Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable.[/url]" She refused to take the post. Goldstone took it and carried it out with excessive enthusiasm. If international law worked as it should, if the representatives of dark regimes did not have an automatic majority in it, Goldstone would have to stand trial. But this is impossible. And therefore, not only Israel but every moral person, every person for whom human rights are important, must declare Goldstone a criminal. Here is the proof.

***

Let's start with what is not in the report. In its almost 600 pages there is not one word – there simply isn't! – about Hamas's ideology. Hamas has a covenant. This covenant is the basis for the conflict between Israel and the demonic entity that has arisen in Gaza. This covenant is pure anti-Semitism. This covenant makes it clear that Hamas is no different from the Taliban. On the contrary, it is worse. The leaders of Hamas also declare – in their own voices – their solidarity with the Taliban, their desire to take over the entire free world, their hatred of Jews and their abrogation of the ceasefire with Israel. But there is not one word in the Goldstone report about this. Contrary to the general impression, Israel is not Hamas's main victim. As in other cases where radical Islam grows, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict]most of Hamas's victims since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza – have been Muslims[/url]. Hamas's Kassam rockets, suicide terrorists, abductions and military operations do not stem from the occupation or the blockade, as the Goldstone Mission either claims or hints. All of these actions stem from an Islamo-fascist ideology that massacres mainly Muslims. Even during Operation Cast Lead, Hamas killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Goldstone and his cohorts did not hear about this.

It was one thing if Goldstone had just ignored the link between ideology and actual practice. But in addition, when he jumps to Israel, he takes the trouble to disparage the Zionist enterprise. Thus, for example, in Article 207 of the report, in a footnote, he tells about confiscated Palestinian property. Not that it has any relevance. But the sophisticated Goldstone had to provide Hamas with justifications. Historic accuracy? Certainly not. This is another product of the industry of lies. Because the property robbed and confiscated from Jewish refugees who were forced out of Arab countries was greater than Arab property left behind in Israel. But let us not confuse Goldstone by investigating the truth.

***

There is no need to go far in order to expose the lies. It is possible to start with the first paragraph. There, Goldstone says that he was granted the authority, "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza." Really?

At this stage, let us go to the UN Human Rights Council decision to appoint the mission. Article 14, regarding the mission's authority, says: "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission."

The difference is Heaven and Earth. Goldstone, I repeat, is not stupid. He is a sophisticated jurist. He understands that the Human Rights Council decision puts him in a bind. There is no demand for an investigation. There are instructions to investigate only Israel, while fixing blame in advance. Thus Article 14 and thus others in the same document. How does Goldstone square the circle? First, he does not mention Article 14 – which is the source of his authority – throughout the entire report. And second, in cooperation with the Council President, who was authorized to appoint the mission (but not to change its responsibilities), the authorization is improved in order to present a false objectivity. You see, Goldstone will claim in fawning interviews – we were authorized to investigate both sides. He is lying and he knows that he is lying.

It is not only the lie in the first paragraph. It goes on. In order to supply the goods, Professor Christine Chinkin, an expert on international law, was recruited to the mission, for example. There is only one problem. Before being appointed to the mission, Chinkin signed a petition that determined in advance that Israel had perpetrated war crimes. Can someone who took a position in advance sit on the mission? And indeed, the mission was presented with a legal suit for her dismissal. The suit was denied. There is absolutely no difference between the "judge's" pre-determination and the Council's. And when dozens of jurists petitioned the mission to dismiss Chinkin, Goldstone rejected them. It is clear why. The identity between the judge and the Council was absolute.

We must tarry another moment on the Council's decision. Any enlightened person should give deference to human rights and the international bodies dealing with them. This Council is the UN's most important body. And indeed, it seems that 33 countries participated in the vote on establishing the mission. And the results: Not one western democracy supported the decision; most abstained. One country voted against – Canada. The third-world countries voted in favor, as did all of the Islamic countries.

Can such an automatic majority – of non-democratic countries – be taken seriously? Certainly not. The Council will not send a Libyan representative to discuss human rights The representative from Pakistan, a country which caused millions of refugees only two months ago, in the framework of a just struggle against several hundred Taliban fighters – will find it hard to talk about "collective punishment" on CNN. For the charade of accusing Israel, one needs an internationally renowned jurist. He'll do the work. The automatic dark majority does not need to convince itself. It needs someone to publish articles in The New York Times and Ha'aretz, and appear on the BBC.

This is how to turn Israel into a pariah. This is propaganda that even Goebbels the genius didn't dream of. He is also a Jew; he even has a "Zionist" past. There could be no casting more perfect.

***

A precise study of the report reveals how the libel was perpetrated. This is no cheap, old-fashioned libel. This is a much more sophisticated libel. Now it is called a "narrative." The Goldstone mission builds the narrative one stage after another. Does libel start with the Kassams that began to fall in 2001? No way. Does the Executive Summary say anything about the thousands of Kassams that have been fired since and have turned the lives of the residents of southern Israel into hell? Not with Goldstone. After the clauses regarding the appointment of the mission members, relevant international law, methodology and Israel's non-cooperation, the mission gets down to business. The findings. The factual determinations and the verdict.

***

And indeed, the narrative begins with Article 27 (of the Executive Summary), entitled "The Blockade." According to the article, Israel imposed a blockade. Why? What happened? How did it start? Were there thousands of rockets? Did Hamas take military control of the Strip, while massacring dozens – maybe hundreds – of Palestinians? There is not a word in the opening account. Neither is there any mention of Hamas's internal terrorism against innocent Palestinians.

And this isn't all. If there is a blockade, it is not only Israel's responsibility. The Hamas regime has a long border with Egypt. It seems that this border is completely open. Hundreds of tunnels operate there on a regular basis and deliver everything the Hamas regime wants. The mission's Executive Summary makes no mention of the tunnels, the open border with Egypt or the smuggling. And what does the report say about the blockade? "Gaza's economy is further severely effected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen." This is an amazing example of the mission's being recruited for the industry of lies. And the Palestinians established industries before the "blockade"? See, there is free movement of materials, through the tunnels. The problem is that Hamas has chosen only one raw material. Explosives. And there is also a flourishing industry. The production of rockets. "For the Palestinian people," claimed Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of Parliament, "death became an industry."

This even appears in Article 475. But Goldstone, the Devil's advocate, insists on blaming Israel. The same Fathi, in the same speech, admits with his own voice that Hamas, " created a human shield of women, children, [and] the elderly." This is also cited in the report. But Goldstone, " does not consider it to constitute evidence." (Article 476) Certainly. When the result has been pre-determined, even the explicit, filmed and recorded admission of a senior Hamas official, like the video footage of the use of children, will not change the conviction. Is it possible to call such work by Goldstone "negligence", or is it a crime, in the service of a terrorist regime?

Article 28 simplistically determines that Israel is the occupying power. Why? Because. Only in Article 88 does the mission see fit to mention the disengagement. As if it had no bearing on the story. As if Israel had not proven that it had no interest in the Strip. As if Israel had not fulfilled all of its obligations. As if Israel had not left the Palestinians to their fate, so that they could govern themselves, without a single soldier or settler.

Article 29 says that Israel embarked on Operation Cast Lead. Were there barrages of rockets beforehand? They appear later on but not in the Executive Summary. Apparently, they are not relevant. This is how one constructs a lie. Start with a blockade. Then a criminal assault. That's the Executive Summary.

The mission's lie repeats itself when it presents a false picture of permanent Israeli aggression. In exactly the same way, the mission says, in Article 193, that Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and caused the killing of hundreds of Palestinians. There is not even one word about the series of terrorist attacks on cafes, restaurants and buses. There is not one word about the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, in which 30 Israelis were murdered – a massacre which broke Israel's long restraint.

Article 30 deals with the number of casualties but ignores – of course – any study which proves that most of the Palestinian casualties were Hamas personnel. In order to strengthen the impression, the report presents the number of Palestinian dead as opposed to the number of Israelis. The proportionality creates the result. So many Palestinians were killed. So few Israelis. According to this logic, NATO perpetrated war crimes in bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, because the results were similar to those in Gaza: Over 1,000 Yugoslav dead (mostly civilians) and zero casualties among the NATO forces. Thus in Afghanistan as well. Far more Afghans, civilians and fighters, have been killed than NATO soldiers. Does this turn the NATO countries and soldiers into war criminals? And there will yet be proportionality issues. Pakistan sought to get rid of the vexing problem caused by several hundred Taliban fighters. It caused thousands of dead and millions of refugees. Thus also in Lebanon, when it was obliged to fight a few hundred Fatah al-Islam fighters. Their refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared, was destroyed. Hundreds were killed and tens of thousands became refugees.

The world understands that these are the proportions of dealing with terrorists, who hide among civilians. But when Goldstone comes to Israel – he refuses to understand even though Hamas's threat to Israel is greater than the Taliban's threat to Europe or Fatah al-Islam's to Lebanon. Goldstone knows the new battlefields. But he ignores because the goal was to demonize Israel. And therefore, he must lie and mislead.

Article 32 deals with Israel's bombing of Palestinian Authority buildings, rejects the Israeli claim that these were part of the, "Hamas terrorist infrastructure," and determines that these were, "deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law." Certainly. If they ignore the fact that Hamas is a terrorist entity that uses terrorism mainly against innocent Palestinians as well – the result is that this is a legitimate political body. Maybe even a charitable organization. Now it is possible to understand why the mission ignores the Hamas Covenant. It is no coincidence. It is easier to square the circle that way.

***

How is Hamas absolved of responsibility for serious crimes? The Goldstone report cites hundreds of inquiries that were carried out by various groups. One of the groups cited is, of course, Amnesty International, which has provided countless hostile reports against Israel. These are cited extensively. But there was another Amnesty report, issued on 21.2.09. This surprising report reviews a series of incidents in which Hamas eliminated dozens of Fatah members, during the time of Operation Cast Lead, in Gaza. And here's the surprise: Of all the reports, it is this one which is not mentioned in the Goldstone report. There is mention of attacks on Fatah personnel (in Article 80, for example), but with exaggerated effort to minimize the significance of the matter.

The general impression is that Goldstone is much more critical towards Fatah than towards Hamas. For example, Goldstone blames Fatah for the "refusal to cede control of the security institutions" in favor of the Hamas (Article 190), causing the confrontation between the factions. Hamas, according to the whole report, is a completely legitimate body that should control the security institutions. Goldstone stubbornly refuses to see the very anti-Semitic and terrorist nature of Hamas, an entity whose very existence is a crime against humanity.

***

It is possible to continue, article after article, in order to expose the construction of the deceptions and the lies. The mission details 36 factual events that prove, as it were, that Israel perpetrated war crimes. In their reduced framework below, let us examine the attack on the Abd Rabbo family. This event became one of the most prominent symbols of Operation Cast Lead, received widespread coverage and was mentioned in many reports. The Goldstone report devotes ten articles (768-777) to this incident. The mission repeated the claim that family members waived a white flag and that its daughters were murdered in cold blood by Israel. This claim is not only negligent, it is also a malicious lie. Thorough checks have shown that family members agave different and contradictory versions. One of the claims was that this was cold-blooded murder because there were no Hamas personnel in the area. It seems that this claim has also been refuted, by contradictory testimony, even by Time magazine, to the effect that there were indeed Hamas personnel in the area. Moreover, it seems that Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that, "The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress." The testimony is contradictory and the Time and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports were supposed to be before the mission. But there is not even a hint of them in the Goldstone report, which publishes a libel, even though it has already been contradicted. The objective has been marked. The facts will not confuse the mission.

***

The foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg. Space is too short to detail the parade of lies known as "the Goldstone Report." We have presented here only isolated examples about the method. Goldstone, who chose to collaborate with the dark majority, supplied the goods. The report deserves a much closer study. The State of Israel must establish a commission of inquiry, led by top-notch jurists, in cooperation with their colleagues from around the world, in order to examine article after article, claim after claim, and refute the libel. The deeper one digs into the report, the more it becomes clear that Goldstone is a criminal hiding under the umbrella of human rights. On behalf of human rights, he and his lies must be exposed. The truth must come to light.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead and Goldstone Commission Report.