UN endorses the Goldstone Report

Ping Chow Chi

israelsolcamp wrote: »

i agree with manic moron that anti-Semitism wasn't to blame.

it does no good to the israeli 'side' (if you will) to level that charge at everyone who criticizes Israel. Many times it's deserved, more often though it's not.

A blind idealism leads many to sympathize with the palestinians who are incorrectly perceived as the underdogs of the conflict and irish people, given our own history vis-a-vis the british, have a natural affinity towards underdogs (israel's actually the only jewish state; there are over 20 muslim ones; there are 15 million jews in the world and over one billion muslims).

But there are palestinians who are not muslim and israelis who are not jewish. It's not a relgion issue for most people, its an issue of one state brutalising another set of people.

israelsolcamp

that's true. actually i heard about a recent talk by robert fisk where he complaimed that only 13 israelis were killed during cast lead. he then added that 3 of them were israeli arabs. to me, this shows how bigoted fisk is. it doesn't matter whether they're israeli arabs/jews - they're israeli! a lot of people tend to get religion and politics mixed up in the whole middle east conflict.

i think it's fair to say that there's mutual brutality. the palestinians have been attacking israelis since the first jews started landing in israel c.1948 and continue to terrorize them until the present.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

that's true. actually i heard about a recent talk by robert fisk where he complaimed that only 13 israelis were killed during cast lead. he then added that 3 of them were israeli arabs. to me, this shows how bigoted fisk is. it doesn't matter whether they're israeli arabs/jews - they're israeli! a lot of people tend to get religion and politics mixed up in the whole middle east conflict.

i think it's fair to say that there's mutual brutality. the palestinians have been attacking israelis since the first jews started landing in israel c.1948 and continue to terrorize them until the present.

Doesn't a group of people going to another country with the express intention of setting up there own called an invasion? Also, historically have not these invasions resulted in the the people being invaded engaging in violence to expel the invaders?

I think you are mis-representing the intentions of the Zionists invaders here, as some how being victims of Palestinains aggression, they were there to set up there own country and turf out the indigenous population, which is hardly a peaceful endevour.

Manic Moran

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

israelsolcamp

a common misperception is to call the palestinians the indigenous people. israeli jews, who can trace their lineage and connection to israel longer back than palestinians (palestine only arose as a term during the Roman conquest).

for example, hypothetically (say, after the plantations) had the british actually driven out the irish (and by the way this isn't what happened in israel - 20% of israelis are arab you probably know), had the irish then re-conquered ireland, you wouldn't call it driving out the indigenous (english).

just an analogy - know doubt one that you'll disagree with, but just trying to demonstrate a point.

the palestinians also have a claim to israel, but the point is that BOTH belligerents have valid calims to the land, not just one. unfortunately, that's why a two state solution is necessary (it would be nice if they could live in peace in a unified state but let's be realistic)

israelsolcamp

i also agree with manic moran's point. israel's refusal to cooperate with the goldstone report was sheer stupidity. obviously if israel did't give its side of the story the report would come out uneven. just amazing the obstinence of whoever made that policy call.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

How could the pressure Israel to do anything? Israel has constantly ignored UN resolutions for example.

If one of the parties refuses to cooperate in a criminial investigation, the investigation still goes ahead. If we were to not carry out investigations due to one side refusing to take part, then all any would have to do to halt any investigation would be to refuse to take part. Israel has only itself to blame for not taking part, and the UN were right to go ahead with the investigation, as if they didn't they could be held hostage by any regime, as any regime could refuse to cooperate with a investigation.

Shin Bet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, you can make the arguments that there was excessive focus on Israeli actions, or that the report cannot be treated as totally conclusive due to the fact that the Israelis failed to co-operate with it (in which case, the Israelis can rightfully expect a PR backlash), but you can't justify failing to analyse acts of the conflict on the basis that the causes of the conflict weren't addressed.

Thats equivalent to condeming the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki without taking into account the second world war,
Lets not forget this is the same UN who after getting evidence that Hezzbollah have stockpiled weapons in southern Lebannon chooses to issue a statemnt saying they havent.
hezzbollah had an arms dump explode on them,
South Lebanese locals have come out against them on Lebanese tv saying they are stockpiling,
and last week a huge amount of weaponary was Intercepted by Israeli forces bound for Hezzbollah and Hamas and also Yemen has announced it has intercepted a ship carring Iranian arms bound for terrorists.

Yet what has the Un said about this ? Who condems the terrorists well its not Ireland and its not the Un.
Rockets have started from Lebanon again if they continue and build to a level akin to 2006 the Israel defence forces will have no choice but to act to defend its people from terror. yet the Un will sit and do nothing but as soon as Israel starts a defensive procedure they will come out of the hole they have dug for themselves and blame everything on Israel.

Rockets and mortars are still being fired from Gaza to southern Israel
where is the Un condeming these attacks on Innocent people ?

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

a common misperception is to call the palestinians the indigenous people. israeli jews, who can trace their lineage and connection to israel longer back than palestinians (palestine only arose as a term during the Roman conquest).

The common mis-conception is that the name of a people somehow denotes there ancestory. Names change over time you know. The Palestinians are the indigenous people, they are descended from the various peoples who lives in Israel/Palestine e.g. Jews, Greeks, Arabs, and Romans etc.

So to deny that they are indigenous on the basis of the current name there called, is ridiculous.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

for example, hypothetically (say, after the plantations) had the british actually driven out the irish (and by the way this isn't what happened in israel - 20% of israelis are arab you probably know), had the irish then re-conquered ireland, you wouldn't call it driving out the indigenous (english).

Israel did drive out Palestinians, just not all of them.

As for the rest, see my reply above. The Palestinians are descended from all the groups who have lived in the area. People inter marry and every one becomes mixed, so it sort of hard to say who descended from a invader or whatever.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

just an analogy - know doubt one that you'll disagree with, but just trying to demonstrate a point.

I disagree with it, as genetic evidence has shown the Palestinians to be the indigenous population , so your anaology is pretty meaningless.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

the palestinians also have a claim to israel, but the point is that BOTH belligerents have valid calims to the land, not just one. unfortunately, that's why a two state solution is necessary (it would be nice if they could live in peace in a unified state but let's be realistic)

Israeli's have a valid claim now, as they live there now.

However, when Zionists first came to Palestine, there claim was based on some stuff in the Bible for the Religous and a 2000 year old land claim for the secular, both fo which are ridiculous.

MrMicra

I am a member of the Irish Friends of Israel and in my opinion anyone claiming that opposition to any specific Israeli Policy is antisemitic should be ignored.

The claim that one can't be critical of a country whose right to exist and to defend one affirms itself is absurd. By the way Richard Goldstone is himself religiously and ethnically Jewish and a Zionist in the normal sense of the word (I am a Zionist in the ordinary sense of the word but not Jewish).

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

Yes, because the UN has such a wonderful record of pressuring Israel into co-operating on anything...infact what pressure do you think they could have put on them? If Israel decided not to co-operate it was either no report or a report from one side, its not the UN's fault.

It really is one of the strangest things I have heard you say MM.

MrMicra

wes wrote: »

However, when Zionists first came to Palestine, there claim was based on some stuff in the Bible for the Religous and a 2000 year old land claim for the secular, both fo which are ridiculous.

It was a different era. It was the age of colonialism and the construction of nationalism in Europe some of which explicitly Jews from the national communities that the nationalist intellectuals sought to create.

Political Zionism was a reaction to political factors.

That said the memory of Israel had in fact sustained the Jews in Europe for a very very long time and until recently to be Jewish and to accept the commandments were the same thing.

It is true that zionists did not think about the Arab population of that part of the Ottoman empire that they wanted to live in; in the same way the the Irish in Australia did not consider the Aboriginal population when they emigrated to Australia European Jews did not consider the Arab population.

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

It was a different era. It was the age of colonialism and the construction of nationalism in Europe some of which explicitly Jews from the national communities that the nationalist intellectuals sought to create.

It being a different era is a poor excuse, when Israel was founded, Colonialism was starting to end. Still, my point stands, Zionists were invaders and this caused violence against them.

MrMicra wrote: »

Political Zionism was a reaction to political factors.

Yes, I am well aware of that, but it still doesn't change that Zionists were invaders, which was the point I was making. They were hardly innocent victims of the Palestinians.

MrMicra wrote: »

That said the memory of Israel had in fact sustained the Jews in Europe for a very very long time and until recently to be Jewish and to accept the commandments were the same thing.

Which is pretty nuts imho. I can claim to have a "memory" of Africa (or Iran, Afghanistan or India), and it would not give me a right to go there and steal there land, and if I tried to take land from the people living there, they would of course fight me.

MrMicra wrote: »

It is true that zionists did not think about the Arab population of that part of the Ottoman empire that they wanted to live in; in the same way the the Irish in Australia did not consider the Aboriginal population when they emigrated to Australia European Jews did not consider the Arab population.

Someone else doing it, is not a defence of any sort, but once again, you fail to address my point, which is that invading a country, will result in violence against the invader. Whatever excuses a invader may come up with to justify it is a meaningless response to my point.

israelsolcamp

actually wes most of the land was sold to jew by absentee palestinian landlords. the israelis did not drive the arabs out. on the contrary the arabs DID drive jews out of the many lands that they had lived in for centuries before the establishment of israel. actually, as we speak the jews of yemen are being attacked and are being airlifted by the us to either the us or israel.

i agree that calling anti-israel comments anti-semitic is generally counterprodutive. not always though. unfortunately some comments cross the line and deserve to be called antisemitic. for instance while wes's arguments seem well-reasoned, and i wouldn't call him anti-semitic (just virulently anti-israel), there are many posters on this board whose blind hatred of israel really makes you wonder.

Manic Moran

Thats equivalent to condeming the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki without taking into account the second world war,

Actually, I have no problem with that either. Except for the fact that under the rules that WWII was being conducted, neither event was unlawful, so I would argue such condemnation on the basis of the facts of the act itself. How the US ended up in World War II is just as irrelevant to its conduct in the war as the concept of how Israel ended up launching its Gaza offensive is to its conduct in the war. For the record, even the US Army's manuals make the distinction.

Yes, because the UN has such a wonderful record of pressuring Israel into co-operating on anything...infact what pressure do you think they could have put on them? If Israel decided not to co-operate it was either no report or a report from one side, its not the UN's fault.

It really is one of the strangest things I have heard you say MM.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

NTM

MrMicra

I agree that invading a country will result in violence against the invader. However the modern state of Israel is not the result of an invasion. I don't think that you are making the claim that Jewish displaced persons who entered British Mandate Palestine illegally after the second world war constituted an invading force.

The Jews did not take anybody's land insofar as the 1947 borders are concerned. I believe that Israel does not have a right to the west bank and the Gaza strip but I would suggest that Israel did not gain control of those territories through invasion.

My point is simply that political zionism was a movement of its time, being a victim does not give one a right to victimise others.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

actually wes most of the land was sold to jew by absentee palestinian landlords. the israelis did not drive the arabs out.
on the contrary the arabs DID drive jews out of the many lands that they had lived in for centuries before the establishment of israel. actually, as we speak the jews of yemen are being attacked and are being airlifted by the us to either the us or israel.

Ok, most of the land was not bought, firstly. Only a tiny precentage of Palestine was actually bought, there are plenty of maps and information online that proves this, and it has long ago be established that the claim your making is false.

Also, Zionists did kick out many Palestinians, as evidence by all those refugee's, calling it a "enforced exiile", is pretty damn ridiculous attemp of denialism.

Also, other Arab states kicking out Jews (which occured after 1948 btw), does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and neither can they be held responsible for the actions of other states.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

i agree that calling anti-israel comments anti-semitic is generally counterprodutive. not always though. unfortunately some comments cross the line and deserve to be called antisemitic. for instance while wes's arguments seem well-reasoned, and i wouldn't call him anti-semitic (just virulently anti-israel), there are many posters on this board whose blind hatred of israel really makes you wonder.

If you feel a poster is Anti-semetic, than use the report button and let the mods deal with it then. Making non-specific accusations of Anti-semetism against non specific groups of people, isn't going to help your cause, and will look like a general attemp at smearing the other side of the argument.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

The report was done due to requests from member states if I remember correctly.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

The report was done due to requests from member states if I remember correctly.

Because they had nothing to read that night?

You don't go spending money and effort creating reports unless there's an intended purpose.

NTM

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

I agree that invading a country will result in violence against the invader. However the modern state of Israel is not the result of an invasion. I don't think that you are making the claim that Jewish displaced persons who entered British Mandate Palestine illegally after the second world war constituted an invading force.

Zionists were showing up long before World War 2 and as such were a invading force, as they intended to set up there own country.

MrMicra wrote: »

The Jews did not take anybody's land insofar as the 1947 borders are concerned. I believe that Israel does not have a right to the west bank and the Gaza strip but I would suggest that Israel did not gain control of those
territories through invasion.

It is a well established fact that thousands of Palestinians had there land taken from them during the 1948 conflict. There is really no point in saying otherwise, as this is a well established fact at this point.

As for the West Bank and Gaza, those were occupied during the 1967 conflict, so I have no clue what you are trying to say, as that is also a well established fact.

MrMicra wrote: »

My point is simply that political zionism was a movement of its time, being a victim does not give one a right to victimise others.

Yeah, I can agree with your there, but that is the argument that Zionsts made to defend the creation of Israel, and they still make that argument to justify actions today.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

NTM

Thought it was a simple fact finding mission, as stated on the tin. One of the sides in the conflict didn't want to provide information for whatever reasons.

Still interested in knowing what pressure you think that the UN could have put on Israel to force them to do something that they didn't want to do.... every time I picture the UN trying to pressure someone I get that Team America sketch 'we will be very angry and will write you a letter telling you so'

Unsure of why it's supported by various posters here, maybe you could ask them.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because they had nothing to read that night?

You don't go spending money and effort creating reports unless there's an intended purpose.

NTM

I taught the purpose of the report was clear, and that was to investigate the conduct of both sides during the 2008/2009 conflict in Gaza, and then for the report writers to make reccommendations on what actions if any should be taken against the relevant parties.

Nodin

Shin Bet wrote: »

if (.....)on innocent school children.

The UN did indeed cover that activity in its report - as it occurred during the Israeli incursion - albeit not in the tone you're employing.

And I see somebody wants to trot out the old myths in almost numerical order.....

Israelsolcamp wrote:

A blind idealism leads many to sympathize with the palestinians who are incorrectly perceived as the underdogs of the conflict .

Just as a matter of interest....who is the one with the first world army building colonies outside its borders?

Israelsolcamp wrote:

(israel's actually the only jewish state; there are over 20 muslim ones; there are 15 million jews in the world and over one billion muslims). .

So both Jews and Muslims are members of two distinct hive minds, who have no distinct identities as individuals or subgroups, and the fact that the Jewish hive is smaller gives it the right to kick around muslims whenever possible?

Israelsolcamp wrote:

a common misperception is to call the palestinians the indigenous people. israeli jews, who can trace their lineage and connection to israel longer back than palestinians (palestine only arose as a term during the Roman conquest). .

In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians — and in some cases other Levantines — are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans.[98]

A study in October 2000 showed the majority of Palestinians tested were found to have DNA of that of Jews. The conclusion of the DNA results is as follows:According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992). On the other hand, the ancestors of the great majority of present-day Jews lived outside this region for almost two millennia. Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

Israelsolcamp wrote:

actually wes most of the land was sold to jew by absentee palestinian landlords..

Less than 10% of what now constitutes the state of Israel, if I remember correctly.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

NTM

A majority of the UN supports it, however it will never get past the UNSC.

MrMicra

wes wrote: »

Zionists were showing up long before World War 2 and as such were a invading force, as they intended to set up there own country.

They had the permission of the government of mandate era Palestine to be there and were not invaders in the way the term is generally used in english.

wes wrote: »

It is a well established fact that thousands of Palestinians had there land taken from them during the 1948 conflict. There is really no point in saying otherwise, as this is a well established fact at this point.

The nascent state of Israel accepted the UN decision as to borders, the Arab states neighboring Israel invaded. As part of the propaganda for this invasion they warned Arab peasants to leave. The Arabs lost the war and the rulers of those states have done nothing to help the people who fled from Israeli troops.

wes wrote: »

As for the West Bank and Gaza, those were occupied during the 1967 conflict, so I have no clue what you are trying to say, as that is also a well established fact.

Israel was attacked in 1967, to the extent that they carried out an invasion it was as the result of a war planned and begun by their Arab league neighbours.

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

They had the permission of the government of mandate era Palestine to be there and were not invaders in the way the term is generally used in english.

Zionists came to Palestine before the mandate even existed.

Also, the premission of another occupier is pretty irrelevant. They had no right to give away, that which did not belong to them.

MrMicra wrote: »

The nascent state of Israel accepted the UN decision as to borders, the Arab states neighboring Israel invaded. As part of the propaganda for this invasion they warned Arab peasants to leave. The Arabs lost the war and the rulers of those states have done nothing to help the people who fled from Israeli troops.

The same old myths trotted out again. Firstly, the indigenous population had every right to reject the UN giving away there land, and secondly foreign colonists declaring independence is considered a act of war generally.

Also, there was a policy of ethnic cleansing enacted by Zionist forces, to ensure a Jewish majority. Also, the claim of radio message telling Palestinians to leave, has actually never been proven by Israel, and even if it was true, there own plans to drive out the Palestinians still existed and were enacted, making them irrelevant either way.

MrMicra wrote: »

Israel was attacked in 1967, to the extent that they carried out an invasion it was as the result of a war planned and begun by their Arab league neighbours.

So you admit an invasion occured then? Great, was that so hard?

Also, Israel attacked first in 1967 btw, due to what they claimed was imminent attack from the Arab states, as to whether this is true or not is another matter and could fill another thread, but it does show you version of events to be inaccurate.

OldJay

wes wrote: »

Also, Israel attacked first in 1967 btw, due to what they claimed was imminent attack from the Arab states, as to whether this is true or not is another matter and could fill another thread, but it does show you version of events to be inaccurate.

While you lot argue the same old point again, I found the above quote very strange. And yes, Israel struck first.
However are you seriously denying that Israel was not about to be attacked by Nasser's coalition in 1967??

wes

Justind wrote: »

While you lot argue the same old point again, I found the above quote very strange. And yes, Israel struck first.
However are you seriously denying that Israel was not about to be attacked by Nasser's coalition in 1967??

There is conflicting evidence on whether he was going to attack:

Rethinking Israel's David-and-Goliath past

You can read that article that disputes Israel's narrative of the conflict, but as I said earlier, discussion of the 1967 conflict could easily fill another thread.

The Saint

israelsolcamp wrote: »

firstly, it is not impartial; it is pro-Israeli. the ipsc (ipsc.ie) is also not impartial; it is pro Palestinian. That will taint anyone's perception of the veracity of fact sheets. Just as I wouldn't consider the IPSC's fact sheet section to be what I consider fact, I wouldn't expect a Palestinian sympathizer to consider our fact sheets fact.

OK, I don't want to drag this off topic but I will just briefly respond to this. I apologise if I came across as being short with you but I can't stand people on either side of the arguement stating things as "facts" when they are clearly not.

BTW I couldn't give a monkeys about the IPSC. As far as I can gather they tend to be a bunch of clowns. Why complain about them but do exactly the same thing but from the oposite perspective? Seems hypocritical to be honest. Also, facts are facts, not what you consider to be facts. There are clear falsehoods in your factsheets.

Here's one from your piece on the Wall:

The decision to submit the issue to the Court ignored Article 36 of the Court‟s Statute which stipulates that politically contentious issues can only be brought before it with the consent of all sides.

Article 36 of the ICJ Charter deals with Contentious Cases. The Court was not asked rule on a contentious case but for an advisory opinion so Article 36 is not relevant at all to the case. Only in contentious cases do parties (states) have to give permission to be party to a case (unless they have signed the optional clause in the ICJ Charter). In an advisory opinion there are no parties to a case, just the Court ruling on the legal status of an issue.
There is obviously a clear misunderstanding of how the ICJ works.

This is a fact. What you state is wrong. There's nothing about opinion or interpretation. It's a legal fact based in the charter of the Court.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

The 'ad hominem' attack (I can't take you seriously) shows the usual level of ignorance and antagonism on these forums. The literature is not poor. Wikipedia is only occasionaly used as a source. More often than not than not the material is based on the work of major periodicals, journals, books, etc.

Again I apologise for my being short. Lazy research is just a pet peeve of mine, especially when it claims to be truthful. I suggest you source and reference your "factsheets" and "opinion" pieces so the validity of the sources can be verified.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

But attacks on our website notwithstanding, I can accept that the distinction between fact and conclusion is narrow, but that still doesn't get over the point that the Goldstone Report found Israel guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of war crimes and RECCOMENDED its prosecution in the ICC as such. This is definitely beyond its ambit.

The distinction between fact and conclusion are not narrow. Facts are facts and conclusions should be drawn from these facts, not what you deem to be facts.

On Goldstone, again I suggest you read other UN reports if you think that Goldstone was unique by goingbeyond it's remit by drawing conclusions and making recommendations.

Here's a 2004 report on Darfur that accuses the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed of violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws and recommends the Security Council to refer the issue to the ICC. I don't recall massive objections to this. I presume you object to this report and also think that it went beyond it's remit in this case also?

http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties.

And who's fault is that?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation.

And when was the last time Israel gave in to international pressure?

Fact of the matter is Israel was given more than enough opportunities to co-operate with the report, and refused to do so.