Iran Apologizes To The US!

Well, not exactly all of Iran--just a piece of it:

Iran opposition to apologise to US for embassy siege

Leaders of Iran's opposition movement are to make an unprecedented apology to the US on the 30th anniversary of the storming of the American embassy in Tehran.

In a gesture likely to provoke fury among hardliners in the Tehran regime, they will apologise on Wednesday for the hostage crisis that gripped the world for 444 days and led to a decisive break between Iran and the US, which is now routinely denounced as "the Great Satan".

Organisers of the Green Movement, the umbrella group that seeks to overturn the official result of the June presidential election, plan to use the official commemoration of the take over to make a fresh assault on the revolutionary credentials of Iran's leadership.

Michael Ledeen, commenting on this report writes, "There will be monster rallies all over Iran, mostly to challenge the regime."

This, at a time when most people probably think the protests are over.

Technorati Tag: Iran Elections.

NJ Dems Admit Campaigning For Independent Daggett To Undercut Christie

Jennifer Rubin writes about a scandal that might enrage even New Jersey voters enough to replace Corzine:

The suspicion among conservatives is that independent Chris Daggett has been helped along by Jon Corzine, who was looking to go down by a big margin in a two-man race. Now comes evidence of real foul play — even if we are talking New Jersey. This report tells us:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett. A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon. … The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address.

And it seems the Daggett team tried to cover it up: “Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.”

If New Jersey voters are capable of outrage, this is a good target for their outrage. After all, fronting an independent to take votes away from a better-situated opponent should be beyond the pale, even in the Garden State.

"If" being the operative word.

Technorati Tag: Corzine and Daggett and Chris Christie.

Rebutting Judge Goldstone's Ghostwriter

On October 23rd a non-binding resolution--House Resolution 867--was proposed, condemning the Goldstone Report

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora.

Shortly thereafter, a rebuttal of the resolution was received:

J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a document authored by Judge Richard Goldstone that is now being circulated on Capitol Hill. The document was written in response to HR 867 -- the resolution sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman condemning Goldstone's report on Israeli war crimes in Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone explains in the document that he sends his "comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors."

...Upon further inspection of the Goldstone letter, the actual author seems to be Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros's Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded here. (A check of the file's "properties" reveals the author as Morton H. Halperin.)

Sure enough, even though the top of this document reads:

MEMORANDUM

FROM: RICHARD GOLDSTONE
TO: INTERESTED PERSONS
RE: HR 867

When you look at the properties of the Word document, the author is given as Morton H. Halperin. It is not clear whether he authored the memorandum himself or wrote it out for Judge Goldstone.

To make matters more confusing, the text of the memorandum do not match the text of the letter appearing on JTA in an article by Ron Kampeas--an article in which Kampeas conveniently matches up the "Goldstone critique" with the paragraphs of the resolution being questioned.

In either case, this letter itself is full of the kinds of misleading comments it claims RH 867 is guilty of.

Utilizing Kampeas' format, let's take a look at the relevant resolution paragraphs, with the Goldstone rebuttal and its refutation. The resolution is in italics, Goldstone's rebuttal is in plain text, and my response is in bold:

The Honorable Howard Berman
Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs

October 29, 2009

Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen,

It has come to my attention that a resolution has been introduced in the Unites States House of Representatives regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which I led earlier this year.

I fully respect the right of the US Congress to examine and judge my mission and the resulting report, as well as to make its recommendations to the US Executive branch of government.

However, I have strong reservations about the text of the resolution in question – text that includes serious factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context.

I undertook this fact-finding mission in good faith, just as I undertook my responsibilities vis à vis the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, the International War Crimes Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, The International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, and the Volker Committee investigation into the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food program in 2004/5.

I hope that you, in similar good faith, will take the time to consider my comments about the resolution and, as a result of that consideration, make the necessary corrections.

Whereas clause #2: “Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission' regarding Israel's conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;”

This whereas clause ignores the fact that I and others refused this original mandate, precisely because it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows:

". . .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 themilitary operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after".

According to Goldstone, a newly revised mandate was created. If so:
o Where is it written
o Was this renewed mandate put to a vote as was the original resolution
o If not, what force does it actually have.
o In that case, the question returns: why did Goldstone take the position?

Whereas clause #2: “Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by onesidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission' to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression'”

This whereas clause ignores the fact that the expanded mandate that I demanded and received clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report carried out under this broadened mandate – not the original, rejected mandate – that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.

Not true.

According to the alleged updated resolution, the mandate was merely made more vague, ie "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".

There is still no mention of Hamas or Gaza in this 'updated mandate'. The fact that this mission was still interpreted as directed solely at Israel is supported by the fact that when the UNHRC endorsed the report, only Israel was mentioned.


Whereas clause #3: “Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission' makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel's defensive measures;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. As noted above, the expanded mandate clearly included the rocket and mortar attacks. Moreover, Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror they caused to the people living within their range. The resulting finding made in the report is that these attacks constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The reference is clearly to the original mandate, and the same criticism as in the previous note applies here too.

Chapter XXIV--being part of the report and not the mandate in the original resolution--is irrelevant, although it is interesting to note that it is brought down in the Report not in the context of Hamas but rather in the section of the Report dedicated to Israel, oddly enough.

Also, the issue of years of bombardment by Hamas is put together with the charge of Israeli repression of dissent among its citizens--an odd way of addressing the cause of the entire war itself and indicative of where the Commissions emphasis lies.

Whereas clause #4: “Whereas the 'fact-finding mission' included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel's actions `war crimes';”

This whereas clause is misleading. It overlooks, or neglects to mention, that the member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.

Thankfully, Judge Goldstone does not fall back on his earlier excuse, ie that the mission was not a 'judicial inquiry' and that he thinks Chinkin is open-minded. But instead, he writes that she condemned Hamas rocket attacks also as war crimes. So now we are supposed to think that bias against both sides makes her objective?

More to the point, in the Times article the mention of Hamas is relegated to the very last paragraph of the article, again with a swipe at Israel--while in the second paragraph it states: The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence.

Furthermore, the references to Israel are clearly the focus of the article: calling the operation in Gaza "an act of aggression" and that the "invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law." and that "the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes".

Obviously the bias of the Times letter and of Chinkin herself--which Goldstone here acknowledges--is clearly focused more strongly on Israel.


Whereas clause 5: “Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The mandate that was given to theMission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.

True, but the clause said 'many', not 'all' nor a 'majority'.

Whereas clause #6: “Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The initial mandate that was rejected by others who were invited to head the mission was the same one that I rejected. The mandate I accepted was expanded by the President of the Human Rights Council as a result of conditions I made.

This was touched upon above. Again the question remains whether the fact that the president of the HRC expands the mandate independent of the actual resolution has any binding authority.

Whereas clause #8: “Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The findings included in the report are neither "sweeping” nor “unsubstantiated” and in effect reflect 188 individual interviews, review of more than 300 reports, 30 videos and 1200 photographs. Additionally, the body of the report contains a plethora of references to the information upon which the Commission relied for our findings.

The issue of 'sweeping' is subjective and open to interpretation. The charge of being unsubstantiated, whether accurate or not, is certainly not rebutted by blindly reciting the numbers of interviews etc.

More to the point, CAMERA has 2 separate articles on the issue of contradictory Palestinian testimony in the Rabbo case--one focusing on the inconsistencies in Abed Rabbo's story as reported in media outlets and another on the inconsistencies between the Goldstone findings on the Abed Rabbo story versus earlier NGO investigations.


Whereas clause #9: “Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . 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.';”

This whereas clause is misleading. The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor of, and not against, the interests of Israel.

The fact is that the Goldstone Report did not hesitate to "make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle"

In its critique of the content of the Goldstone Report--one of those critiques that Judge Goldstone continually denies exists--CAMERA points out that the Goldstone Report does not hesitate to double-guess what was going through the mind of the IDF:

Motive was freely and falsely attributed to Israel in order to charge them with war crimes. Paragraph 74 (74) of the Report asserts:

The conditions of life in Gaza, resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government of Israel – as they were presented by its authorized and legitimate representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.

And in paragraph 1331 (1325):

The facts ascertained by the Mission, the conditions resulting from the deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Israeli Government – as they were presented by its authorized representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel's analysis of the Goldstone Report--the existence of which Goldstone also denies--also notes among the faults of the Report:

o 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]

o 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.

One would almost think that Judge Goldstone did not read his own report--something he readily ascribes to his critics.


Whereas clause #10: ‘Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict', is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission's evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.'”

The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context. What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law. It is my view, as jurist, that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations.

The complete quote is: “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” If what Goldstone says is true, they why are recommendations included in the report?

Whereas clause #11: “Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;”

It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.

Actually, the clause says "in effect" and is not referring to any statement in the report but rather the overall effect of it. And don't forget, Christine Chinkin signed on to a letter which said that "the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence."

Whereas clause #12: “Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;”

This whereas clause is misleading. Nowhere that I know of has it ever been suggested that the Mission should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. Such an investigation was never on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.

No, the clause is not misleading--you just don't agree that Iran needed to be mentioned. There's a difference.

Whereas clause #14: “Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;”

This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.

I note that the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate.

This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is theresult of Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence.

If the reference was solely to evidence that Israel alone had, Judge Goldstone may have a point. However, there is evidence on YouTube that support the charge. Yet the report says that no such evidence exists.

Whereas clause #15: “Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [theIsraeli military]' specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.';”

This whereas clause is misleading, since the quotation is taken out of context. The quotation is part of a section of the report dealing with the very narrow allegation that Hamas compelled civilians, against their will, to act as human shields. The statement by the Hamas official is repugnant and demonstrates an apparent disregard for the safety of civilians, but it is not evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party.

And yet the report states that "the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack". Odd that the damaging quote from the Palestinian leader is quoted in the report in the context of homes where it is not applicable--and rejected as a proof--and not in the context of mixing with the civilian population, where the quote is both relevant and damaging.

Whereas clause #16: “Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission's report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals';”

The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.

Does Judge Goldstone honestly believe that the Palestinian Arabs he interviewed did not have reason to fear the Hamas government? Would he deny that such fear would indeed shape the findings?

Take a look at the full text of the Goldstone Report being discussed:

440. In its efforts to gather more direct information on the subject, during its investigations in Gaza and in interviews with victims and witnesses of incidents and other informed individuals, the Mission raised questions regarding the conduct of Palestinian armed groups during the hostilities in Gaza. The Mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian 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.

Take a look also at Der Spiegel:

One of his neighbors weighs in: "Many people are now against Hamas but that won't change anything," he says. "Because anyone who stands up to them is killed." Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip. There were news agency reports that during the war they allegedly executed suspected collaborators with Israel. The reign of terror will go on for some time, says the neighbor who doesn't want to give his name. "There will never be a rebellion against Hamas. It would be suicide."

Is Judge Goldstone seriously suggesting that fear of being killed by Hamas did not "shape the findings" of his report?



Sincerely,
Justice Richard J. Goldstone

The arguments made by Goldstone's ghostwriter as well as the selection of Christine Chinkin on his commission prove the truth of the old saying: good help is hard to find.

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.

The Mask Covering UN Human Rights Councils's Agenda Slips--And Is Replaced

It seems like the party's over. Back on May 28, following the defeat of the Tamil Tigers terrorist group by the Sri Lanka government, the UN Human Rights Council was all smiles and congratulations:

...Condemning all attacks that the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) launched on the civilian population and its practice of using civilians as human shields, Reaffirming its commitment to promoting international co-operation, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 1, paragraph 3, as well as relevant provisions of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25 1993 for enhancing genuine co-operation among Member States in the field of human rights,

Recognizing that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of co-operation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings,

Welcoming the conclusion of hostilities and the liberation by the Government of Sri Lanka of tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages, as well as the efforts by the Government to ensure safety and security for all Sri Lankans and bringing permanent peace to the country;

Welcoming further the recent reassurance given by the President of Sri Lanka that he does not regard a military solution as a final solution, as well as his commitment to a political solution with implementation of the 13th Amendment to bring about lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, [emphasis added]

Back then, the UN Human Rights Council had no problem pointing out--and condemning--attacks on civilians and the use of human shields by the Tamil Tigers.

As far as they were concerned, it was a happy ending.
End of story--almost.

Not everyone shared the UNHRC's enthusiasm. The Times responded:

Sri Lanka claimed a propaganda victory last night after the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution praising its defeat of the Tamil Tigers and condemning the rebels for using civilians as human shields.

China, India, Egypt and Cuba were among the 29 developing countries that backed a Sri Lankan-proposed resolution describing the conflict as a “domestic matter that doesn’t warrant outside interference”. The resolution also supported Colombo’s insistence on allowing aid group access to 270,000 civilians detained in camps only “as may be appropriate”.

...Sri Lanka, unable to stop the Human Rights Council taking up its case, rushed its own motion to the floor in time to beat a more censorious resolution tabled by Switzerland.

And even the NGO's spoke up:

“The vote is extremely disappointing and is a low point for the Human Rights Council. It abandons hundreds of thousands of people in Sri Lanka to cynical political considerations,” Amnesty International said.

...Tom Porteous, the London director of Human Rights Watch, said: “The Human Rights Council had a chance to prove itself by calling for a serious inquiry into violations of the laws of war and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and they failed dismally.”

Considering the pressure and discontent at the Human Rights Council stand, it was only a matter of time before they reversed themselves:

UN proposes Goldstone-type mission to investigate Sri Lanka war crimes

Following the release of U.S. State Department's report that detailed alleged war-crimes committed by Sri Lanka's protagonists towards the end of war, conducted under Colombo imposed blackout, spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said Friday that an inquiry similar to one that looked into fighting in Gaza may be needed to determine if war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka in the final weeks of the war. Brad Adams of HRW had earlier said "[g]iven Sri Lanka's complete failure to investigate possible war crimes, the only hope for justice is an independent, international investigation." Sri Lanka rejected the report as "unsubstantiated and devoid of corroborative evidence."

So where does that leave Sri Lanka, now faced with a Goldstone-style fact-finding investigation?
Will Sri Lanka unite with Israel, which has already pointed out numerous factual and legal issues with the Goldstone Report, in addition to the obvious biases?

Not if this article in the Sri Lanka Guardian is any indication:

It is indeed a bizarre state of affairs when the US secretary of State Hilary Clinton accuses the Sri Lankan military forces of war crimes and remains passive and silent and makes every effort to prevent the Israelis from being hauled before the International Criminals Court for war crimes in Gaza, such attitudes and actions have incensed the people of the world and hatred for the Obama administration grows by the day. All the Obama euphoria has evaporated and in Afghanistan a creeping Vietnam syndrome is gathering with Pakistan becoming slippery and Iraq again sliding into anarchy. Despite the war on terror, the US and its allies have not succeeded, in fact terror has grown and is growing.

Sri Lanka is the only country in the world that has put down terror. We expected plaudits and cheers for this success, but the US and its allies are openly down playing the victory with inane charges of rape, war-crimes and abuse of human-rights. Now the Sri Lankans can clearly see the unmasked face of the ugly American clearly.

Coming back to Israel the great friend of the US despite irrefutable evidence, Israel rulers, civilians and military-stubbornly maintain they have done nothing wrong and the Palestinians are to blame for whatever misfortune has befallen them. A series of reports have confirmed that war crimes were committed in Gaza. If there are war crimes there must be war criminals, and they must be accountable and punished as Gordon Levy wrote in the Israeli daily

“ Ha’aretz” “ This is the harsh conclusion to be drawn from the detailed United Nations report” produced by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa.

Justice Goldstone is a Jew and a self-confessed Zionist and supporter of Israel, hence he cannot be accused of anti-Semitism, a standard allegation hurled by Israelis at anyone criticizing their murderous ways. Every report on Gaza has given identical details: prolonged and illegal siege; illegal use of white phosphorous on civilian population, deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians; destruction of infra-structure- homes, schools and hospitals. These constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity as enunciated in the International Humanitarian Law. Apart from the UN report the whole worlds saw it in their television screens and were horrified at the cruelty of the Israelites.

There is no escaping the fact that the Zionist rulers are war criminals and those in the US and its allies that support Israel are accessories to war crimes. Let us name names Israel and others: Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown and the rest of rulers of the complicit countries in the West.

...Not to condemn Israel of war crimes in Gaza and falsely accuse Sri Lanka of war crimes without evidence is a horrendous crime in itself. Hilary Clinton’s image as a promising politician has been shattered beyond repair.

Sri Lanka, which apparently manipulated their original positive HRC resolution seems likely to tow the line when it comes to Israel. After all, they know who the real outcast is in the UN--and their best chance at defending themselves is to distance themselves from Israel and go it alone.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Sri Lanka and Human Rights Council.

Founder Of Human Rights Watch Interviewed About His Criticism Of The Group

Here is the English translation of the answers given by Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, to questions posed to him by Maariv.

1- Why did you write this op-ed at the TN [NY] Times last week? what was the 'straw that broke the camel back' from your point of view?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 – Actually it has been brewing for a long time. I had been trying to do a long piece because many of my views about human rights in the Middle East are different from those being expressed by Human Rights Watch. The Goldstone Report made me feel I should get something out, so I wrote the NY Times op-ed piece.


2- What was your vision when you founded Human Right Watch and does the organization follow your vision in the recent years?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2 – My vision, I should say our vision because it was supported by a wonderful board – was to go into closed societies and try and help people in those societies who wanted free speech. I was a book publisher so that was an especially important principle to me and it’s a key part of the Declaration of Human Rights. But, of course, other basic human rights are also vitally important. – freedom of religion, equal rights for women, to name just two. When governments of closed societies asked us what we were doing about our own country we would explain that the United States had many faults but because we were an open society we had many organizations and other ways to try and bring change. But after a while we decided we would do some work in the United States but try to not replicate what was being done by others.

I also believe there can be times to do some work in open societies but, now focus is on the Middle East. I think Israel is a country where most people believe in human rights. But at this time many Israelis, and I share their view, do not believe that HRW in the issues it chooses, its tone, and even its interpretations of law are not helping to bring Arabs and Israelis together.

I had a lot to learn when I began feeling uncomfortable with HRW positions on Israel-Palestine issues in 2005 and certainly still do have a lot to learn, but almost from the beginning HRW has cast me as pro-Israel. I think that is the easiest thing to do – say someone is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I like to think I am pro-human rights. Now that I have stated publicly, very sadly incidentally, that I am in disagreement with HRW, this will play out and others can decide if my views make sense.


3- You told me the you are amazed by the reaction, from general people and mostly from people inside the HRW. Can you explain?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 – I was amazed and encouraged by the reaction to my op-ed. Because so many of the positive comments have come, not from those considered hard liners but from people who think a lot about human rights, I have been particularly encouraged.


4- What do you think about the last Goldstone report? Is it part of the big problem you were talking about with me? and if so, why does he, and other human rights organizations, focus mostly on Israel?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 – I think the Goldstone Report is deeply flawed. I was surprised Judge Goldstone, who I know and admired, took the job. He had to head a commission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which I think any fair-minded person would say had to clean up itself before it dared to criticize anything.

When I read Judge Goldstone’s op-ed in the September 17 issue of the NY Times and he said “While Israel has begun investigating into alleged violations they are unlikely to be serious and objective” I felt he was just “judging” too much.


5- What do you think should be Israel respond to Goldstone report as well as to some of the HRW reports?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 5 – I can’t tell Israel what to do. I do not think any country would want to put up with a war of attrition, which can explode into real war any time. However I certainly don’t know the best way to stop it. I fault HRW for not taking a position on the war. The fact that Hamas-Hezbollah and Iran have declared it is their intention to try and wipe out Israel and all Jews seems to me, to be incitement to genocide, especially when it is backed by rocket attacks.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Human Rights Watch and HRW and Robert Bernstein.

Morning Caption

Technorati Tag: Ahmadinejad.

"Pro-Israel"--One Size Fits All, Almost

An administration that appoints Chas Freeman and Chuck Hagel, awards Mary Robinson the Medal of Freedom, dedicates itself to putting “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, adopts the Palestinian bargaining position by insisting on an absolute freeze of Israeli settlements, and declares Palestinians to be analogous to enslaved (by Israel, it must be) African Americans has a very peculiar definition of what it means to be “pro-Israel.” Somehow that escaped the notice of many during the last election.
Jennifer Rubin

The reference to Chuck Hagel is in regards to the fact that the Former Nebraska Senator has been named co-chair of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board.

So, who says that Chuck Hagel--who spoke at the J Street Conference--has a questionable record when it comes to Israel?
The National Jewish Democratic Council, for one:

March 12, 2007

Indecisive Senator Hagel has Questionable Israel Record

As Senator Hagel sits around for six more months and tries to decide whether to launch a futile bid for the White House, he has a lot of questions to answer about his commitment to Israel. Consider this:

- In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

- In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

- In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refsued [sic] to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

- In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authroity [sic] to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

- In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

Here's what the National Review wrote about Hagel's stance on Israel in 2002:

"There's nothing Hagel likes less than talking about right and wrong in the context of foreign policy. Pro-Israeli groups view him almost uniformly as a problem. "He doesn't always cast bad votes, but he always says the wrong thing," comments an Israel supporter who watches Congress. An April speech is a case in point. "We will need a wider lens to grasp the complex nature and consequences of terrorism," said Hagel. He went on to cite a few examples of terrorism: FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Palestinian suicide bombers. Then he continued, "Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism." He didn't exactly say he shares this view — but he also failed to reject it."

And here's what the anti-Israel group, CAIR wrote in praise of Hagel:

“Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel …” [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06]

Hagel will fit right in.

[Hat tip: Michael Goldfarb]

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and J Street and Obama and Chuck Hagel.

There Must Be As Many UN Special Rapporteurs As Obama Has Czars

With predictable results.
(Actually, there are more rapporteurs than czars, but we'll get back to that later)
If you thought the US had tzuris from the UN about its drones, you ain't heard nothin' yet.

From The New York Post:

Looks like the notorious UN Human Rights Council has taken a break from its constant bashing of Israel and is focusing on (ready for this?) housing violations in US cities, including New York.

You didn't know that "adequate housing" (whether you pay for it or not) was a universal human birthright?

Neither did we.

Nonetheless, the panel sent its "special rapporteur on adequate housing," Raquel Rolnik, on a whirlwind tour to sniff out these "violations" -- not to say, crimes -- against humanity.

It's nice to prioritize.
Well, at least the US was not Rolnik's first stop:

Actually, since 2000, the UN has had a housing investigator looking into shortages in such obvious places as Cambodia, Kenya and Iran. (Notably, the first place visited was the Palestinian territories.)

But this is its first foray into US territory -- and it remains to be seen whether she'll call for Donald Trump and other landlords to be hauled before the International Criminal Court.

It's just difficult to wrap one's brain around something like this, when you would think there are so many other far more pressing problems in the world.

After all, the problem here does have an easy solution--at least in New York:

On the other hand, there is a perfect site for new "affordable housing": that patch of land along the East River that's been wasted for 60 years on the UN.

After all, the UN should do its part.

-----

By the way, there are an awful lot of Special Rapporteurs--46 in all:

Thematic mandates

• Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living (2000-)
• Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (1990-)
• Special Rapporteur on the right to education (1998-)
• Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (1982-)
• Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty (1998-)
• Special Rapporteur on the right to food (2000-)
• Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (1993-)
• Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986-)
• Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (2002-)
• Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders (2000-)
• Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (1994-)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (2001-)
• Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons (2004-)
• Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (1999-)
• Independent Expert on minority issues (2005-)
• Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (1993-)
• Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity (2005-
• Independent expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (2000-)
• Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism (2005-)
• Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1995-)
• Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights (1995-)
• Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children (2004-)
• Special Representative of the SG on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (2005-)
• * Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (1994-)

Country mandates

• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus (2004-2007)
• Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi (2004-)
• Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia (1993-)
• Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba (2002-2007)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2004-)
• Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2004-)
• Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Haiti (1995-)
• Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia (2003-)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (1992-)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (1993-)
• Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Somalia (1993-)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in the Sudan (2005-)
• Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (2005-)

African Union

African Union Special Rapporteurs of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights:

• Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial, Arbitrary, Summary and Arbitrary Executions
• Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
• Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
• Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa
• Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa
• Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa

Organization of American States

Organization of American States Special Rapporteurs under the aegis of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

• Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
• Special Rapporteur on Migrant Workers and their Families
• Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women

And in case you are curious, here is a list of Obama's 32 czars as of August--From Glenn Beck
NOTE: positions that also existed under previous administrations are indicated with an *.

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar * - Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
4. Border Czar * - Alan Bersin
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske
11. Economic Czar * - Paul Volcker
12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar * - Joshua DuBois
14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried
18. Health Czar * - Nancy-Ann DeParle
19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra
20. Intelligence Czar * - Dennis Blair
21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell
22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *
24. Science Czar - John Holdren
25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney
26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration
27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison
28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.
31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter
32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore

Is it only coincidence that both the UN and Obama are about equal in accomplishments?
After all, both the UN and Obama have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: UN and Special Rapporteur.

For Now, J Street Is Just Not-AIPAC, And It Shows (Updated)

Could it be that the power and influence of J Street is limited to sabotaging anti-Ahmadinejad rallies?

When a dozen senators and congressmen said they would not be coming to the J Street Conference after all, that was merely a clue of things to come. The fact that the J Street university arm changed their slogan from Pro-Israel to Pro-Peace, was not encouraging either.

It may reflect deeper issues in how J Street identifies itself. Marissa Brostoff of The Tablet writes:

J Street has devoted much of its young life to trying to convince the conservative segments of the Jewish community that it’s not a left-wing organization. And indeed, nowhere at the left-leaning Israel lobby’s first conference this week did J Street organizers give an indication of being anything but staunch supporters and lovers of Israel—though ones who see that country’s political future darkening without a two-state solution. But it also seemed that the liberal blogger Richard Silverstein was onto something when he told Tablet Magazine, “The impression that a lot of us are getting is that the rank and file of attendees of the conference are to the left of J Street.” [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin writes about the stands that J Street is taking at its conference--all one of them:

The “J Street Lobby Day Participant” instructions are being circulated around. The guide is remarkable on a number of counts. First, the only “ask,” as the guidelines put it, is for the participants to ask lawmakers “to make a clear and unequivocal public statement in support of U.S. leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by the end of the year.” Wow. You think they could “achieve” that aim? It reminds me of a gay-rights protest organized in my freshman year at U.C. Berkeley in which students were asked to show support by wearing jeans. Gosh, they had about 90 percent participation. Likewise, J Street’s “ask” is pabulum, undifferentiated from what every other Jewish group would ask and what virtually every lawmaker would do with no prompt at all.

Where is the “ask” for no sanctions against Iran? Where is the “ask” for a total settlement freeze? Seems like the J Street crowd has wimped out. [emphasis added]

On the flip side, Rubin notes that AIPAC supports the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act which has been passed by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee's on a voice vote. The bill gives Obama the authority to impose sanctions on any entity that either provides Iran with refined-petroleum resources or engages in any activity that could contributing to its ability to import such resources. In addition, the bill urges the president to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or in support of terrorist groups.

Comparing the actions of these 2 groups, Rubin asks:

So is J Street influential? Not with Congress, which seems to favor measures that J Street despises. It’s wise perhaps then for them to stick to the plain-wrap ”ask” for support for a two-state solution.

J Street's influence on Jewish opinion--and to what degree it reflects that opinion--is also somewhat doubtful. James Kirchick writes that as opposed to AIPAC, J Street opposes sanctions on Iran--

at least for the foreseeable future--one of the many examples of how it is out of step with the views of the mainstream Jewish and pro-Israel communities it claims to represent; a Washington Post poll released last week found that 78% of Americans support sanctions and a clear majority of American Jews support either the United States or Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites if sanctions don't work.

In other words, for the time being, J Street is identifying itself as not-AIPAC.
They're going to have to do better than that.

UPDATE: Martin Peretz also sees J Street's identity crisis:

J Street is having an identity crisis right in front of the cameras. For a year and a half it's been trumpeting that it's both "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace."

...But in a very palpable sense it was not pro-Israel in that it favored every cockamamie strategy and tactic, personality and group (and grouplet), slogan and world-view that put the Jewish homeland in peril. In the end, almost everyone came to realize that J Street would not and maybe could not be supportive of a Jewish homeland until every last Palestinian was satisfied.

Technorati Tag: J Street.

Look Out Obama, Now The US May Be Guilty Of War Crimes

Israel has the Goldstone Report.
Sri Lanka may be facing the same.

And now, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston has a problem with the US using drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(Is it my imagination, or does the UN have as many Special Rapporteurs as Obama has Czars? )

"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said.

US strikes with remote-controlled aircraft against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan have often resulted in civilian deaths and drawn bitter criticism from local populations.

"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.

Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General Assembly.

Ed Morrissey points out that in the article, the AFP mentions collateral civilian deaths, implying that is part of the issue, while Alston himself does not mention that issue. He notes:

The UN is concerned with whether the US has justification for killing Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, not whether we got the wrong targets. “Summary executions” mean that we have not provided these poor dears with proper due process to determine whether they should have been killed at all. It takes the law-enforcement approach to its natural, absurd conclusion, which is that armies are really nothing more than police officers with cooler weapons.

The article concludes with 3 points of accountability that Alston is demanding from the US:

"I would like to know the legal basis upon which the United States is operating, in other words... who is running the program, what accountability mechanisms are in place in relation to that," Alston said.

"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law.

"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see addressed," the UN official said.

Can we expect UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston to be making similar demands of Hamas?

And if not--why not?

Technorati Tag: UN and International Law.