Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

[alexa]

Alexa: Is what you are asking reasonable. It is probably true that not every person in the Hamas army actually shot at Israelies.

I didn't know they had an army.

Are you really asking that someone has to verify that the person in the group you are fighting has actually fired first? Do you really believe that armed police would not reasonably be thought of as a threat to a foreign army?

If you are denying it was against International Law then you would. It is against international Law to kill civilians and the police are civilians.

Could any government you choose to demonize pass the test of scrutiny you put Israel through? Forget about places like Iran or Syria where the question is easily answered. But how about countries like France,U.K. or the U.S.

If the UK indiscriminately kills civilians then it is right and proper that she should be treated in exactly the same way. The UK has signed up to be committed to International Humanitarian Law and to answer to the International Criminal Court. The US and Israel not. I do not know about France.

However Washnut, it has struck my mind that possibly an added interest of the UN in this area is because it is part of the quartet. I could be wrong but it certainly gives an added reason and please do not forget that Hamas is accused of war crimes as well

Sadly we do not live in a world of utopia. Very few perfect people much less governmets or entire nations. So it really comes down to a matter of degree. The level of inspection you put israel through is a level no nation I know of could pass.

No, it comes down to International Law and International Humanitarian Law. That is what we are discussing. Policemen are seen as civilians by International Law so it is necessary to prove this was not the case if people are trying to argue that it was not against International Law to target them.

now I live in a different part of the world than you and it is past my bed time. Goodnight.

 

[washunut]

I didn't know they had an army.



If you are denying it was against International Law then you would. It is against international Law to kill civilians and the police are civilians.




If the UK indiscriminately kills civilians then it is right and proper that she should be treated in exactly the same way. The UK has signed up to be committed to International Humanitarian Law and to answer to the International Criminal Court. The US and Israel not. I do not know about France.

However Washnut, it has struck my mind that possibly an added interest of the UN in this area is because it is part of the quartet. I could be wrong but it certainly gives an added reason and please do not forget that Hamas is accused of war crimes as well



No, it comes down to International Law and International Humanitarian Law. That is what we are discussing. Policemen are seen as civilians by International Law so it is necessary to prove this was not the case if people are trying to argue that it was not against International Law to target them.

now I live in a different part of the world than you and it is past my bed time. Goodnight.

I am not a student of international law, so from that viewpoint perhaps not the best person to try and debate this issue with you. That being said, my observation is that this law is not applied equally. an example, I am no fan of the Libyan leader. However people call for him to be tried for international crimes, which is probably correct, but Assad of Syria or even Bush and Obama in America are asked to stand trial.

It takes a president to order drone attacks. Those attacks have killed any number of civilians in Pahistan which is an American ally.

So my question to you is why the focus on Israel, and not on Assad, Obama, the guy in Iran etc.

There seems to be something that is not discussed underlying this discrepancy.

 

[mbig]

'Refuted' by "al Haq"/JusticeforPalestinians?
Is that a Joke?
Do you expect that is fair and definitive?

I believe they were writing the truth to the best of their ability, so no it was not a joke.

It IS a joke a to any rational debater.
Using such a clearly/wildly biased source.
Your gratuitous but nonsensical response "to the best of their ability" not changing that Fact.

It's not only obviously biased, it's illogical/Inane to use the very same OLD sources as rebuttal for the NEW questions raised about the one-sidedness of those similarly sourced reports!

MBig, I have never used AL Haq before, nor have I ever spoken about the police before so give up your broken record.

I never said you used "al Haq" before. I put it in the category of those OLD Sources as it was a 2009 report- probably using the same numbers given to the UN that have SINCE been put in doubt not so much as in number, but in Characterization the Palestinian casualties.
And has to doing NOTHING to refute the New questions .. as the Links in my post did.
"al Haq", is quoting some Palestinian "Rights group". Palestinians "rights groups" being all about ostensible palestinian victimization by Israelis as Opposed to other Real Rights Groups that say... are concerned with abuses committed by a govt on it's own people or internationally. [It understood by most] they are just part of the Palestinian war and propaganda effort.

Logical would be some source that can NOW reiterate/answer the New questions about numbers and character of the casualties; Not the same old claims that are in dispute!

Well I am waiting for you to provide such evidence.

Another Nonsense, gratuitouis reply.
I did provide Links to Both TIME and Haaretz, far more Credible than your provincial ones.
And again, those were relevant-to-these-new-questions as to doubts about the reports Time-wise. Unlike your Old numbers that were originally accepted and not relevant to new doubts as to character of the casualties.

This from 5 months ago- when questions/serious doubts, Real rebuttal was already afoot.

I have other things to do with my life. I am not watching what is going on in Israel all the time, I am living my life and interested in other things.

This is yet Another Inane reply.
I just found the link. I don't watch the papers every day for Israel stories.
I'm just back from Month+ in the Southern Climes. You'll note the sparesness of my posts of late.
..one thing British do very well-- Islands.
Who has time.. indeed.

Having now gone through your obligatory attempt to discredit me let's deal with the situation.

I always Discredit your tricks as I did above. This time by impugning both the obvious Bias of your sources and their timing.
They did Nothing to answer New questions I raised with Credible Sources and "Admissions' AGAINST interest" by Hamas officials.
Far more weighty than anything you posted.
You don't have basic debate skills being a large part of the problem.

I am not convinced by your argument. There are police in Gaza at the moment. Are you suggesting they are all patrolling the streets one minute and off firing rockets the next and if so where is you evidence? Why are they not being fired on now?

As I was saying about debate skills...
this is a goofy attempt at a strawman, using the superlative "all'. AS IF, if I can't show 'ALL' Gaza's police are also Qassam launchers than Israel can't kill ANY of them as combatants.
It is YOU who make the unqualified statement that "Policemen are civilians" and are Caught in you backfiring 'superlative' attempt.
'Some', "any" in fact would be enough to refute YOUR statement that 'policeman are civilians'.
Understand now? (Or should I say.. "satisfied you'll never be able to pull this crap on me?")
I'm sure the board does.

You were in fact using and Caught in the strawman trap you tried to use on me.
Your 'debate' as above is so inept and I debunk it so easily.. no doubt your why you have retreated to the Lie below.

P.S.I have you on ignore.

Really? Since When?
You always answer when THINK you can.
Which is usually because you don't get it the first time- or when your ego realizes that further posting will only lead to further public embarrassment.
As above.

I have told you previously why I don't like getting into posts with you. I only answered your previous post because it went OTT with insults which I felt I should deal with and I am answering you this time as you replied to a post I made to Don and he I think is taking your post as his reply. Obviously I can see the posts, if I want to before I sign on and then have to clear the ignore button again. I have not even read the reply you made to my reply to the insulting post because I just can't be bothered.

This is your usual BS.
So many of your replies are seeded with the Excuse for the next with "I'm too busy', "I have company', "I have to go now", or the present... "I can't be bothered".
The latter just passive aggressivity; not a real reply or even your typical flight response.

Most people respond when they can- it being understood this may not be immediate.
In your case, however, you feel the constant need to make up some story why you will be unable to so immediately-- or at all. When the Real reason is you've been 100% Refuted and there is Nothing further to say. Or at least when you FINALLY understand you Have been refuted and look bad. That often taking more than one post- as here.
The ultimate of these alexa transparent excuses now necessary for you - 'Ignore'.
Self-relieving you of all further responsibility. But Of course you Will keep responding when you Think you can.
Just now you have a Permanent excuse not to when you Can't.

If I made the statement in a post "All muslims are terrorists"... You'd answer In MINUTES!
ie, You not only respond, you responded to/Sought out a near 2 month old post of Mine/Quoted me just recently!
after I linked to it a string in the Europe section.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-limits-criticism-islam-5.html#post1059359817

Does that look like 'Ignore' to Anyone.
What a Whopping Lie you tell.
That just a few weeks ago on 3/20! And to an old post of mine- no less. One old enough to let alone even if someone wasn't ostensibly on 'ignore'.
One has to question your memory as well as sincerity.
Like I said... when you Think you can answer.. you do.

 

[alexa]

and your above post mbig is a clear example of why I usually keep you on ignore.

 

[alexa]

I am not a student of international law,

Nor am I but this is what we were talking about in connection to the Goldstone report and whether Israel was within International Law in targeting the Police forces.

so from that viewpoint perhaps not the best person to try and debate this issue with you.

However you need to be aware that International Law is what we are talking about and so things need to be seen in view of that.

That being said, my observation is that this law is not applied equally. an example, I am no fan of the Libyan leader. However people call for him to be tried for international crimes, which is probably correct, but Assad of Syria or even Bush and Obama in America are asked to stand trial.

Then you will need to find circumstances where each of those countries in war has acted in a way in which Israel has been criticised and present that as an example. Some people have wanted Bush to stand trial.

It takes a president to order drone attacks. Those attacks have killed any number of civilians in Pahistan which is an American ally.

I agree and they have provided many recruits for the Taliban but that is not this thread. The question would be whether they were genuine mistakes and whether they have been acting disproportionally. Maybe in the future drones will be against International Law. But this is the subject of another thread.

So my question to you is why the focus on Israel,

Because in this instance it is Israel who is being accused of not taking sufficient care of civilians and acting in a disproportionate way.

Here are the sorts of things she is being accused of:

-hostage taking and using as human shields
shooting of non combatants
shooting of non combatants seeking 'quarter' – that is those bearing white flags.
Refusal to allow ambulances to collect wounded non combatants
unlawful detention and interrogation
targeting of people in the streets or other places normally not allowed like places of worship, hospitals, ambulances.

use of prosperous in civilian areas

In addition the disproportionate destruction of the infrastructure and arable land. This was not necessary for Israel to achieve her aim.

and not on Assad, Obama, the guy in Iran etc.

There seems to be something that is not discussed underlying this discrepancy.

Well make the distinctions. Find examples of the US killing people carrying white flags, find examples of her she refusing to allow ambulances in to collect the wounded, how this sort of activity is not just limited to one or two rogues but can be visible in all her forces. Make your case. Find examples of her using uses phosphorous in heavily populated civilian areas. Find examples of her unnecessarily destroying the infrastructure, the arable land and the economic structure of the country she is attacking when these activities were not necessary for her. Take it to the UN.

 

[Tashah]

and your above post mbig is a clear example of why I usually keep you on ignore.

Moderator's Warning:

Your personal settings are not germane to a thread. Do not do this again.

 

[Tashah]

Find examples of her using uses phosphorous in heavily populated civilian areas.

Fallujah...

Find examples of her unnecessarily destroying the infrastructure...

Ditto...

 

[alexa]

Fallujah...

Ditto...

Disgusting and furthermore the UN said the Iraq war was not legal as did the UK governments legal advisers until pushed to change their minds. Now I cannot answer. You need to ask the UN but I agree if this is using white phosphorous in a highly populated area then it is war crimes. I don't have time to look but was not Fallujah more or less empty of civilians by this time and was it possibly agreed with the Government of Iraq that the place be destroyed because so many insurgents were hiding in it.

I know at another forum I was at a poster said that the US did not use white phosphorous in highly populated areas so was this possibly an isolated occurrence not in a highly populated area which was a mistake?

I am also aware that there were isolated incidents of US soldiers going against the rules and they have found themselves in court - or I remember hearing of one.

Tashah I believe we should deal with things in the same way. I have no problem with that. It maybe that this is not the same situation or there may be some other reason why this has not been called war crimes.

 

[Tashah]

Tashah I believe we should deal with things in the same way. I have no problem with that. It maybe that this is not the same situation or there may be some other reason why this has not been called war crimes.

Alexa. Let's be real here. If those Fallujah pictures were snapped in Gaza, you would be screaming about war crimes and proportionality. Even worse ocurred in Chechnya.

Now perhaps you can understand the Israeli position a bit better? The IDF does not engage in battle any differently than other modern armed forces. Many IDF officers receive advanced military training in the US. But the UN rarely bitches about anyone other than the IDF. Why the double standards?

I support international law but God damn, international law is basically useless (except politically) unless it is observed by everyone and enforced equally

 

[alexa]

Alexa. Let's be real here. If those Fallujah pictures were snapped in Gaza,

Of course and I was disgusted with Fallujah just like I was disgusted Israels attack on the West Bank

you would be screaming about war crimes and proportionality.

Well your complaint has been that the UN did not and I have had a look and it appeared it did.

On August 31, declaring an "end to the combat mission in Iraq," Obama disgracefully said: "Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United Stated and Iraq, we have met our responsibility," infamously displaying his culpability as a war criminal, matching the worst America ever produced. Daily he proves it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and by reckless global marauding.

During its September Geneva session, the UN Human Rights Council's (HRC) 15th Session issued a report titled, "Testimonies of Crimes Against Humanity in Fallujah: Towards a Fair International Criminal Trial," citing the deteriorating conditions in the city and saying:

"From the (2003) outset and at the start of the indiscriminate and merciless campaign of collective punishment and willful destruction, undertaken by the occupational troops of the United States of America," innocent civilians endured an "inhumane siege and indiscriminate killing" during April and May 2004.

"The genocidal massacres" included "sustained and targeted bombing(s), aimed directly at the homes of defenseless civilians," killing and maiming dozens on the bogus pretext of "pursuing the leaders of the resistance."

A November/December massacre followed, killing, wounding, and maiming thousands more, many others still missing or displaced. At the time, peace proposals submitted to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan "were summarily dismissed and completely ignored" to let mass slaughter proceed.

It was willful, outrageous carnage, innocent civilians targeted in violation of fundamental international laws, ones America always flouts disdainfully.

US War Crimes in Fallujah | War Is A Crime .org

As I have said the US does not commit itself to International Humanitarian Law or the International Criminal Court. It can at the moment get away with anything it wants but if you imagine I approve then you are wrong.

Even worse ocurred in Chechnya.

Had it not been for 9/11 and this country making a u turn on Chechnya, Chechyna would have got support. It was and remains disgusting.

During the two Russian-Chechen Wars (1994-96 and 1999-?) extensive violations of international law and human rights have taken place. The purpose of the following is to give a brief overview of the nature of these violations and, even more briefly, to discuss the implications for international law and the observance of human rights in intra-state conflicts.

International Law, Human Rights and the Wars in Chechnya

Now perhaps you can understand the Israeli position a bit better? The IDF does not engage in battle any differently than other modern armed forces. Many IDF officers receive advanced military training in the US. But the UN rarely bitches about anyone other than the IDF. Why the double standards?

There is no difference in my opinion from the beginning except I was digging the garden and didn't take the time to check but rather used my imagination as to why this would not have been found to be against International Law imagining as you appeared to be saying that these were not considered International Law.

I didn't support any part of the Iraq war. I did not support any part of the Afghan war. There is no change in my thinking.[/quote]

I support international law but God damn, international law is basically useless (except politically) unless it is observed by everyone and enforced equally

We will have to find ways to punish more effectively those who do not go by International Law.

 

[Tashah]

I didn't support any part of the Iraq war. I did not support any part of the Afghan war. There is no change in my thinking.

Neither is there any change in UN thinking. That's the problem.

 

[alexa]

Ok, my memory is being sparked. I am glad you mentioned Chechyna. Something happened after 9/11 in the UK. It may just have been that Blair would have been like this anyway but something happened.

There were no longer any 'resistence' people of 'freedom fighters' everything became black and white. There were terrorists and there was the rest of the world. This allowed a lot of things which were a depravity to come into being. I remember for instance Condalesa Rice in this country justifying torture. Torture, what possible reason could anyone have to suggest they had any morals never mind moral superiority when they are justifying torture. I can't remember exactly what she said but it was something like these times demand we do what we otherwise would not. That is what she said meant....and guess what? Nobody called her on it.

I remember when Iraq was taken watching it with my daughter. The Brits had Iraqi prisoners and they had hoods over their heads and I could see one of them shaking with fear. I pointed it out to my daughter. The reporter saw no problem. Years later when there was an inquiry into the behaviour of these troops, the BBC again showed the footage but this time pointed out that the Iraqi's were not being treated properly.

When that American was captured I watched in the night on news24. They did not know that he was an American at the time and the American soldier told him it was up to him whether he lived or not. He could speak to them and then he could get help from the red cross or.... On the main news they cut this out and said instead that the US soldier was saying he would get help from the red cross.....and all the people caught there were shot with their hands tied behind their backs and I don't think there was anyone brought to court over that, nor was a fuss made of it. (What I picked up was that the US allowed the Northern Alliance to do it or turned a blind eye)

The Western World lost it, that is what I think. This country though it is still denying it was almost certainly complicit in allowing torture but I think things are turning back. I hope we are moving out of this madness - the UK that is, but maybe not.

Neither is there any change in UN thinking. That's the problem.

They are. One example. Direct participation in hostilities . It is the United States that most people see as the stumbling block. If they supported International Law then we might see some improvements. It is up to countries who are committed to International Law to find ways to punish those who do not.

 

[Demon of Light]

Alexa: Is what you are asking reasonable. It is probably true that not every person in the Hamas army actually shot at Israelies. Are you really asking that someone has to verify that the person in the group you are fighting has actually fired first? Do you really believe that armed police would not reasonably be thought of as a threat to a foreign army?

Unless the police are an arm of the military there is no legitimacy in attacking them and I cannot think of an instance where another military has indiscriminately targeted the civilian police force.

Fallujah...

Ditto...

Those pictures are basically worthless without telling us what they represent. Your claim about Israel acting just like other countries requires you to show more than just buildings that have been bombed. Another key difference is that, unlike Israel, the U.S. actively went about rebuilding what it had destroyed as well as financing to a great extent. Israel has only in the past year allowed any construction material and last I read they were coming in at such a crawl that it was basically worthless.

While I would not suggest other militaries do not engage in reprehensible behavior, your specific claim is that Israel just does what every other country does. That is a very specific claim and something that demands reliable proof.

 

[Tashah]

Unless the police are an arm of the military there is no legitimacy in attacking them and I cannot think of an instance where another military has indiscriminately targeted the civilian police force.

Hamas itself says they served a dual role... police and rocketeers. Scroll back. Quote provided earlier in this thread.

Those pictures are basically worthless without telling us what they represent.

Strange... you never voiced the same logic with the pic of Israeli girls writing on artillery shells. Funny how such logic only works to your benefit.

Your claim about Israel acting just like other countries requires you to show more than just buildings that have been bombed.

Scroll back. I believe alexa provided some pertinent links about US behavior.

Another key difference is that, unlike Israel, the U.S. actively went about rebuilding what it had destroyed as well as financing to a great extent.

That's only because anyone in Fallujah who could pose even a minimal threat was dead.

While I would not suggest other militaries do not engage in reprehensible behavior, your specific claim is that Israel just does what every other country does. That is a very specific claim and something that demands reliable proof.

I would suggest that the posted Fallujah pics say more about "reprehensible behavior" (your phrase) than I ever could.

 

[gunner]

To suggest in some kind of comparative way we can compare Fallujah with Gaza is to believe we can equate to very dissimilar conflicts. I would go as far as saying its a thread derailment.

Paul

 

[washunut]

Nor am I but this is what we were talking about in connection to the Goldstone report and whether Israel was within International Law in targeting the Police forces.



However you need to be aware that International Law is what we are talking about and so things need to be seen in view of that.



Then you will need to find circumstances where each of those countries in war has acted in a way in which Israel has been criticised and present that as an example. Some people have wanted Bush to stand trial.

I agree and they have provided many recruits for the Taliban but that is not this thread. The question would be whether they were genuine mistakes and whether they have been acting disproportionally. Maybe in the future drones will be against International Law. But this is the subject of another thread.

Because in this instance it is Israel who is being accused of not taking sufficient care of civilians and acting in a disproportionate way.

Here are the sorts of things she is being accused of:

-hostage taking and using as human shields
shooting of non combatants
shooting of non combatants seeking 'quarter' – that is those bearing white flags.
Refusal to allow ambulances to collect wounded non combatants
unlawful detention and interrogation
targeting of people in the streets or other places normally not allowed like places of worship, hospitals, ambulances.

use of prosperous in civilian areas

In addition the disproportionate destruction of the infrastructure and arable land. This was not necessary for Israel to achieve her aim.




Well make the distinctions. Find examples of the US killing people carrying white flags, find examples of her she refusing to allow ambulances in to collect the wounded, how this sort of activity is not just limited to one or two rogues but can be visible in all her forces. Make your case. Find examples of her using uses phosphorous in heavily populated civilian areas. Find examples of her unnecessarily destroying the infrastructure, the arable land and the economic structure of the country she is attacking when these activities were not necessary for her. Take it to the UN.

Every war and actions taken are different. So to ask to show the exact same problem or " crime" as you would call it I find disengenuous.
The point you seem to evade is that war is a horrible/messy business. There are horrible excesses almost always. To try and paint one nation as being especially guilty, a nation that has been in continuous war since the day of it's creation seems to have a purpose other than "justice".

I will leave this thread now as the back and forth ( mine included) saying the same thing differently is getting boring.

 

[Tashah]

I would go as far as saying its a thread derailment.

International Law. War Crimes. UN bias (Goldstone). Alexa brought up Willy Pete and infrastructure damage. Just going with the flow.

 

[Tashah]

I will leave this thread now as the back and forth ( mine included) saying the same thing differently is getting boring.

I agree. Most everyone's personal position is fairly well known at this juncture.

 

[alexa]

International Law. War Crimes. UN bias (Goldstone). Alexa brought up Willy Pete and infrastructure damage. Just going with the flow.

I was responding to this post by washnut http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-israel-and-war-crimes-13.html#post1059400767 and thought his complaint was that the UN only focused on Israel. I suggested if he found the US had been doing what Israel was accused of then he should inform the UN.

So, I misunderstood what he was saying. Obviously in this thread we are talking about Israel. I will take care not to be misled in future.

 

[alexa]

Every war and actions taken are different. So to ask to show the exact same problem or " crime" as you would call it I find disengenuous.
The point you seem to evade is that war is a horrible/messy business. There are horrible excesses almost always. To try and paint one nation as being especially guilty, a nation that has been in continuous war since the day of it's creation seems to have a purpose other than "justice".

I will leave this thread now as the back and forth ( mine included) saying the same thing differently is getting boring.

and I would have to say you are being disingenuous. In this thread we are discussing the Goldstone report. This is to do with the UN report on Cast Lead which like it or not concerns International Law. It is nothing to do with who is the most guilty. What we were discussing, begun with Don's post was whether the Goldstone report was or was not being honest about International Law.

As far as I can gather from this thread, Israel is not going by International Law. That bares out with what I had read previously was known by Kasher and Yadlin.

There is nothing about trying to ' paint one nation as being especially guilty' there is just dealing with the reality as known.

 

[Demon of Light]

Hamas itself says they served a dual role... police and rocketeers. Scroll back. Quote provided earlier in this thread.

No, all anyone in Hamas has said is that there are people in the police that are also in the armed forces. The same is true for police forces in the United States and, big surprise, Israel.

Strange... you never voiced the same logic with the pic of Israeli girls writing on artillery shells. Funny how such logic only works to your benefit.

I think the only time I might have said anything about such pictures is after someone posted pictures of Palestinian kids doing something of that same nature. However, those pictures pretty much say all there needs to be said concerning the point about indoctrination. Your pictures say nothing with regards to your claim.

Scroll back. I believe alexa provided some pertinent links about US behavior.

I don't believe there was anything of note. The key here, that you are consistently overlooking, is that it is an issue of whether Israel is only just as bad or if it is in fact worse. Nothing mentioned has suggested the former to me.

That's only because anyone in Fallujah who could pose even a minimal threat was dead.

There were more insurgents captured than killed in Fallujah. Also, Israel doesn't have to re-occupy Gaza in order to take significant efforts towards rebuilding it. It would only require allowing more aid into Gaza.

I would suggest that the posted Fallujah pics say more about "reprehensible behavior" (your phrase) than I ever could.

Except they present nothing about behavior. You have a picture of some dead bodies, with no indication of who they were or how they were killed, a picture of an artillery gun firing, with no indication of what it is firing at, and some pictures of rubble without indicating what it was or why it was bombed (hell, with some of them it isn't even clear that the U.S. caused the damage).

 

[shanners]

That or Jewish guilt finally overwhelmed him and he could no longer feel comfortable speaking out against his people.

“Debating face to face with the community really shook him,” said David Saks, associate director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, who received a read-out on the meeting right after it took place. “When he saw the extent of the anger and he couldn’t answer the accusations against him… I think he realized he was wrong.”

Did a Private Meeting Prompt Goldstone To Change His Mind?

Or has he received death threats? Since his “recantation,” he's being sued in both the US and Israel by Jews who claim that he committed blood libel:

“The Goldstone Report is nothing less than a modern version of the infamous blood libels against the Jewish people,” said [Israeli lawmaker Danny] Danon. “The distorted image that Judge Goldstone spread about Israel and the Israel Defense Forces has caused immeasurable damage to our citizens, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. I call on Goldstone to publicly apologize for his erroneous report with the hope that perhaps this will begin to repair some of the immense damage that has been inflicted on the international standing of the State of Israel.”

Prodded by Danon, U.S. lawyers set to sue Goldstone

 

[Demon of Light]

“Debating face to face with the community really shook him,” said David Saks, associate director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, who received a read-out on the meeting right after it took place. “When he saw the extent of the anger and he couldn’t answer the accusations against him… I think he realized he was wrong.”

Did a Private Meeting Prompt Goldstone To Change His Mind?

There we go, pretty much indicating exactly what I said. It is said that even high-level officials can be so predictably weak-minded.

 

[shanners]

even high-level officials can be so predictably weak-minded.

Perhaps he's worried about the Jewish laws of din moser and mesirah which can incur a death sentence on any Jew who informs on the group or reports to the civil authorities on illegal or immoral activities within the Jewish community:

"A group of rabbis have issued a halachic opinion implying that OC Central Command Maj.Gen. Yair Naveh deserves to be killed. The rabbis, all connected with a movement to resurrect the Sanhedrin, the ancient Jewish governing body, said in their halachic ruling this week that Naveh was guilty of being a moser, a Hebrew word that can be roughly translated as an informant or traitor."

- Matthew Wagner, "Rabbis: Naveh deserves to be killed", The Jerusalem Post, 18 January 2007.

 

[Mika-El]

Perhaps he's worried about the Jewish laws of din moser and mesirah which can incur a death sentence on any Jew who informs on the group or reports to the civil authorities on illegal or immoral activities within the Jewish community:

"A group of rabbis have issued a halachic opinion implying that OC Central Command Maj.Gen. Yair Naveh deserves to be killed. The rabbis, all connected with a movement to resurrect the Sanhedrin, the ancient Jewish governing body, said in their halachic ruling this week that Naveh was guilty of being a moser, a Hebrew word that can be roughly translated as an informant or traitor."

- Matthew Wagner, "Rabbis: Naveh deserves to be killed", The Jerusalem Post, 18 January 2007.

Yah I am running around with a killer blade hidden in my bagel and when I get up close to Goldstone, I'll slit hsi throat.

Let me know when you are done with the crazed Jew references.