Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes (1 Viewer)

[donsutherland1]

In an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post, Richard Goldstone wrote:

Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes - The Washington Post

This concession that the writing of the report "was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding" is important. One of the major criticisms of the report--and I share those criticisms--is that it went beyond principles of international law e.g., offering novel interpretations that the Hamas police officers targeted early in the military operation were civilians, even as those individuals did not meet the strict criteria that defines a civilian. Moreover, it should be noted that NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch carry out non-judicial work. Hence, what one has are admissions that the UN carried out an exercise that was redundant with work that a number of NGOs typically undertake and that the Goldstone report lacks judicial merit (something its critics understood from the onset).

Finally, the author outlines what can only be described as exceptional naivete. He writes, "At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks." Revolutionary terrorist groups i.e., Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc., have not been known to recoil when confronted with principles of international law. They do not find themselves bound by the customary legal framework that binds nations. They don't recognize obligations to a framework that they view as an obstacle to the pursuit of their long-run goals. The expectation that "Hamas would curtail its attacks" reveals an extraordinary lack of understanding, both of revolutionary groups/movements in general, and Hamas in particular.

In the end, if the UN wants to become a credible player in trying to promote conduct that complies with international law, it should ensure that all of its activities toward that end have the necessary judicial rigor. That was not the case with the Goldstone report.

 

[Gardener]

Finally, the author outlines what can only be described as exceptional naivete. He writes, "At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks."

A clearere illustration of the Peter Principle you will never see.

 

[Tashah]

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel.

I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas.

Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.

Source: The Washington Post

Although the damage done by the infamous Goldstone Report is legion, I do commend Richard Goldstone for publicly admitting its biased genesis and flawed assumptions/conclusions.

Mr. Goldstone has echoed what I have stated repeatedly. I would hope that those who wield International Law as a bludgeon against Israel... reflect on Mr. Goldstone's words and do some serious soul searching. Hold every nation and non-state actor to the same rigorous standards of warfare that you demand of Israel.

 

[Serenity]

While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.


wait a minute. he says we now know a lot more about what happened than we did when the report was first published, yet admits that 'few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded' and then he refers to just one incident in the article as a means of attempting to exonerate Israel? just one incident?? even though he admits that few of Israels enquiries have been concluded?

you have got to be kidding me.


What the Goldstone op-ed doesn't say

 

[Tashah]

you have got to be kidding me.
What the Goldstone op-ed doesn't say

Lol. At least use a neutral source.

Mondoweiss is published by the anti-Zionist bloggers Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz. It reeks of bias.

 

[Serenity]

Lol. At least use a neutral source.

Mondoweiss is published by the anti-Zionist bloggers Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz. It reeks of bias.

bias? doesn't sound like bias to me.

Condemning Hamas

Hamas certainly, and unlawfully, does deliberately target civilians. This is not only grotesque but illegal, and Hamas military leaders should be referred to the International Criminal Court for this since Hamas’ political leadership has refused to investigate the matter themselves and hold those responsible for war crimes to account. But, of course, this was already well known by anybody who read the Goldstone report, which wrote:

“The Mission has further determined that these [8000 rocket] attacks [since 2001] constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.”

 

[Tashah]

bias? doesn't sound like bias to me.

Come now Serenity. You're engaging in damage control.

Too little too late. The genie is out of the bottle.

Mr. Goldstone's stunning Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post has already been disseminated across the globe.

 

[Serenity]

Come now Serenity. You're engaging in damage control.

Too little too late. The genie is out of the bottle.

Mr. Goldstone's stunning Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post has already been disseminated across the globe.

damage control not required. i'm sure many people will be reading the same informaton i posted which is not as bias as you would have people believe. anyone that actually reads it will see that and i'm sure many people will be asking the same question i did which you conveniently ignored.

wait a minute. he says we now know a lot more about what happened than we did when the report was first published, yet admits that 'few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded' and then he refers to just one incident in the article as a means of attempting to exonerate Israel? just one incident?? even though he admits that few of Israels enquiries have been concluded?

 

[washunut]

damage control not required. i'm sure many people will be reading the same informaton i posted which is not as bias as you would have people believe. anyone that actually reads it will see that and i'm sure many people will be asking the same question i did which you conveniently ignored.

wait a minute. he says we now know a lot more about what happened than we did when the report was first published, yet admits that 'few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded' and then he refers to just one incident in the article as a means of attempting to exonerate Israel? just one incident?? even though he admits that few of Israels enquiries have been concluded?

Not biased. Where in your original post do you cite that Hamas held no inquiries? Where in that post does it cite the use of human shields.

 

[Serenity]

Not biased. Where in your original post do you cite that Hamas held no inquiries?.

if you bothered to read the link i supplied in my original post you will find it there.

Hamas military leaders should be referred to the International Criminal Court for this since Hamas’ political leadership has refused to investigate the matter themselves and hold those responsible for war crimes to account.

i can paste the whole of the article if you like to save you clicking on the link......

Where in that post does it cite the use of human shields.

the Goldstone report is 574 pages long. i don't believe DonSutherlands post mentions that either. but feel free to post details regarding the use of Human Shields. i can help you with that if you like. just let me know.

you are welcome to actually discuss/debate any issues in the article i posted that you disagree with rather than just ignoring the context.

 

[Serenity]

wait a minute. he says we now know a lot more about what happened than we did when the report was first published, yet admits that 'few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded' and then he refers to just one incident in the article as a means of attempting to exonerate Israel? just one incident?? even though he admits that few of Israels enquiries have been concluded?

cast lead was over 2 years ago. even though few of Israel's enquiries have been concluded Goldstein refers to just one incident and uses that as a means to exonerate Israel. Washnut, you ignored this as well even though you quoted it.

thoughts?

 

[Tashah]

cast lead was over 2 years ago. even though few of Israel's enquiries have been concluded Goldstein refers to just one incident and uses that as a means to exonerate Israel.

Let me help you with that. Goldstone's own words...

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza”

In other words, Israel is examining each accusation with significant resources and diligence. Goldstone provided one example, but he did not say it was the only example as you disingenuously imply.

 

[Serenity]

Let me help you with that. Goldstone's own words...

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza”

In other words, Israel is examining each accusation with significant resources and diligence. Goldstone provided one example, but he did not say it was the only example as you disingenuously imply.

and the fact is that the enquiries have not been concluded.

seems rather premature for Goldstein to attempt to exonerate the Israeli's just yet don't you think?

 

[Tashah]

and the fact is that the enquiries have not been concluded.

seems rather premature for Goldstein to attempt to exonerate the Israeli's just yet don't you think?

That's your "out"? Pretty weak sauce.

From Report superhero to Op-Ed stumble-bumpkin.

Life is strange indeed.

 

[Serenity]

That's your "out"? Pretty weak sauce.

From Report superhero to Op-Ed stumble-bumpkin.

Life is strange indeed.

there you go making things up again rather than staying on topic and sticking to the facts.

when you can't win a debate based on facts you resort to your silly personal attacks. you're getting very good at that lately.

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't see how it's going to change anything.

The people who have believed that report from the beginning are not rational people who are interested in the truth but are a bunch of already agenda-motivated hateful individuals who have an interest to present Israel as an evil state that deliberately kills innocent civilians for no goddamned reason. No rational person has believed that report then and no rational person will believe it now.

The anti-Israelis can now officially suck it.

 

[Serenity]

The people who have believed that report from the beginning are not rational people who are interested in the truth but are a bunch of already agenda-motivated hateful individuals who have an interest to present Israel as an evil state that deliberately kills innocent civilians for no goddamned reason. No rational person has believed that report then and no rational person will believe it now..

and there's plenty of rational people who are interested in the truth. afterall, 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in Operation Cast Lead.

they, at the very least deserve that.

from my link.

nobody seriously believes there is a high-level policy to murder civilians. This is a red-herring; nobody seriously believes there is a high-level policy to murder civilians.

If this op-ed “vindicates” anything, it seems to be about Israel deliberately targeting civilians as a matter of policy. The Goldstone report investigated 11 specific cases, which were concerned with civilians being killed “under circumstances in which the Israeli forces were in control of the area and had previously entered into contact with or at least observed the persons they subsequently attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status.” After reviewing the details of these cases, which included not only the attack on the Samouni family (discussed in the op-ed) but also attacks on a mosque at prayer time and the shootings of civilians waving white flags, the report concludes:

“From the facts ascertained in the above cases, the Mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of willful killings and willfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility.” (Goldstone report, pp. 16)

This finding, of course, is precisely why the report recommends that Israel launch credible investigations into possible wrongdoing, which Goldstone claims Israel is now doing (more on this later). In that sense, Israel’s investigations confirm many of the key findings of the Goldstone report, a point I’ve raised previously.



The actual issue is that “these incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli forces moving into Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population” (Goldstone report, pp. 16). This low threshold was an intentional policy, as has been confirmed by dozens of soldiers’ and officers’ statements. For example, many people have commented before about how the IDF “rewrote the rules of war for Gaza”, in particular by getting rid of “the longstanding principle of military conduct known as ‘means and intentions’—whereby a targeted suspect must have a weapon and show signs of intending to use it before being fired upon—as being applicable before calling in fire from drones and helicopters in Gaza last winter.” The intentional, deliberate policy was one of “literally zero risk to the soldiers”, an order that is inescapably related to the high civilian casualties among the Palestinians. For these reasons the main argument in Goldstone’s latest op-ed, which FM Lieberman erroneously believes “vindicates” Israel, is entirely besides the point.

 

[Tashah]

I don't see how it's going to change anything.

The people who have believed that report from the beginning are not rational people who are interested in the truth but are a bunch of already agenda-motivated hateful individuals who have an interest to present Israel as an evil state that deliberately kills innocent civilians for no goddamned reason. No rational person has believed that report then and no rational person will believe it now.

That pretty much sums it up. Apparently, Goldstone is only acceptable when his words dovetail with a particular viewpoint.

 

[Apocalypse]

That pretty much sums it up. Apparently, Goldstone is only acceptable when his words dovetail with a particular viewpoint.

Don't expect anything better from a person who knows that the truth and his agenda are following different roads.

 

[Gardener]

The anti-Israelis can now officially suck it.

You didn't get the memo, Apoc?



Gotta get with the new vernaucular. The hatred isn't called anti-Israel these days. It's now called "not taking sides" .

 

[Baltim]

...Goldstein...

Why do you keep calling him Goldstein?

 

[Serenity]

Why do you keep calling him Goldstein?

wow, someone finally noticed. i guess that means you actually read what i wrote.

Mendy Schwartz, i owe you another ten.

 

[Lykaios]

I don't see how it's going to change anything.

The people who have believed that report from the beginning are not rational people who are interested in the truth but are a bunch of already agenda-motivated hateful individuals who have an interest to present Israel as an evil state that deliberately kills innocent civilians for no goddamned reason. No rational person has believed that report then and no rational person will believe it now.

The anti-Israelis can now officially suck it.

The pro-Israel lobby is just as irrational. Judge Goldstone's retraction is not a retraction of the entire report. It's specific: he no longer believes that Israel specifically targeted civilians and the fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to investigate the incidents is a plus. The negatives however are still there - the use of white phospherous in urban areas for example, and their notable lack of cooperation (cooperation which had it been given initially may have altered the outcome of the report).

The pro-Israel lobby is intent on making Israel a victim ignoring the provocative actions Israel has engaged in such as ethnic cleansing and settlement building in occupied territories. They are not innocents - yet they get to define who and what is "right" because they are the victors in a Middle East land grab. None of this absolves Hamas from responsibility for it's actions. Israel should not be absolved either from the portions of the report that are legitimate.

 

[Gardener]

The pro-Israel lobby is just as irrational. Judge Goldstone's retraction is not a retraction of the entire report. It's specific: he no longer believes that Israel specifically targeted civilians and the fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to investigate the incidents is a plus. The negatives however are still there - the use of white phospherous in urban areas for example, and their notable lack of cooperation (cooperation which had it been given initially may have altered the outcome of the report).

The pro-Israel lobby is intent on making Israel a victim ignoring the provocative actions Israel has engaged in such as ethnic cleansing and settlement building in occupied territories. They are not innocents - yet they get to define who and what is "right" because they are the victors in a Middle East land grab. None of this absolves Hamas from responsibility for it's actions. Israel should not be absolved either from the portions of the report that are legitimate.

Your charges of "ethnic clensing" and repetition of the "Israel lobby" meme reveal you to be little but a propagandist. Israel has a sizeable Arab population, and that Arab population is growing by leaps and bounds.

Jews, on the other hand, have been completely removed from Gaza, and this despite the historical evidence placing Jewish communities there predating Islam.

 

[Apocalypse]

The pro-Israel lobby is just as irrational. Judge Goldstone's retraction is not a retraction of the entire report. It's specific: he no longer believes that Israel specifically targeted civilians and the fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to investigate the incidents is a plus. The negatives however are still there - the use of white phospherous in urban areas for example, and their notable lack of cooperation (cooperation which had it been given initially may have altered the outcome of the report).

The pro-Israel lobby is intent on making Israel a victim ignoring the provocative actions Israel has engaged in such as ethnic cleansing and settlement building in occupied territories. They are not innocents - yet they get to define who and what is "right" because they are the victors in a Middle East land grab. None of this absolves Hamas from responsibility for it's actions. Israel should not be absolved either from the portions of the report that are legitimate.

The report isn't legitimate as the writer of that report admits that facts were not known to him back then as they are known to him today. He realized that his document was promoting lies and a false picture and has been hit by feelings of guilt and the desire to redeem himself.
It's about time that you folks realize as well that you can only fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time - but not all of the people all of the time.
Your campaigns of lies against Israel get a weaker and weaker effect the further they go in their demonizing of Israel and in the manipulation of the facts.