UN endorses the Goldstone Report

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.

MrMicra

dlofnep wrote: »

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

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

dlofnep

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

Right-wing America supports Israel. But that wasn't the question I asked. I asked when was the last time Israel bowed to international pressure.

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

Do they really have that much influence in fairness? I know the Israeli government does stuff to get AIPAC and the like to help them out in the states, but does AIPAC actually exert much pressure on Israel?!?

MrMicra

It isn't AIPAC as such.

To over simplify right wing politicians (who won't talk to HAMAS or close settlements) get money from rich Americans and left wing politicians don't. Israel has strict laws on foreign donations but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that these laws apply to Israeli citizens living abroad. As if you are properly Jewish your right to an Israeli passport is automatic (again I could be wrong on this but don't think I am) the contradiction is obvious. Olmert got 1/3 of his campaign funds from one American donor and it isn't at all clear that he did anything in return except 'hang tough'.

In general the diaspora are more uncompromising than most Israelis. I think that on average and always remembering that Jewish intellectual life is never monochrome only recent Russian immigrants are more uncompromising than American Jews.

After all American Jews get to feel tough without experiencing the negative consequences.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

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.

But you people are telling me that no action could ever be taken against Israel.
If that is indeed true, then any recommendations on what actions to take if Israel were found to be at fault are a complete and utter waste of time. The only possible benefit to such a report, then, would be it would be a way to enable punishment against the Palestinians, because of the other three possibilities (Palestinians not at fault, Israelis not at fault, Israelis at fault), the first two require no action anyway, and the third is, apparently, pointless.

And who's fault is that?

Israel's. I've always maintained that it was politically foolish of them not to co-operate with the investigation.

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

Brings us back to square one, doesn't it? Now you have this wonderful report which you can take at face value, what are you going to do with it?

NTM

eamo127

It is shameful and grotesque the blind support the Irish people give to palestinian terrorists. Palestine is a nation who celebrates the perpetrators of heinous crimes such as the wholesale AK-47 shooting of innocent children at a 'coming of age' ceremony (like out holy communion) and the murder of whole families out eating pizza. Imaging a terrorist doing that you your family, then seeing their faces painted in Murals and honored in triumph all over the place.

We Irish blindly support Hamas or Hezbollah (we always condemn Israel first) when they fire thousands of rockets randomly at Israel. Would any of the do-gooders here put up with that themselves? We are the most anti-Semitic western country in the world. We ran the Jews out of here a long time ago - something you won't learn in any history lesson, and we are PROUD of it.

As a nation, how could we ever condemn a terrorist act perpetrated against our people? We honour idiots like Rachel Cory who died needlessly trying to protect terrorist tunnels. What a bunch of Hippocrates we are.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Israel's. I've always maintained that it was politically foolish of them not to co-operate with the investigation.

We agree on this.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Brings us back to square one, doesn't it? Now you have this wonderful report which you can take at face value, what are you going to do with it?

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

But you people are telling me that no action could ever be taken against Israel.

Yeah, at present that seems to be the case.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that is indeed true, then any recommendatoins on what actions to take if Israel were found to be at fault is a complete and utter waste of time. The only possible benefit to such a report, then, would be it would be a way to enable punishment against the Palestinians, because of the other three possibilities (Palestinians not at fault, Israelis not at fault, Israelis at fault), the first two require no actoin anyway, and the third is, apparently, pointless.

The Palestinians tend to be punished pretty severly by Israel and her allies outside the UN.

As for it being a waste of time, I disagree, in that at least the facts of what occured can at least be confirmed, even if no action results from them. I think finding out the truth is never a waste of time.

wes

eamo127 wrote: »

It is shameful and grotesque the blind support the Irish people give to palestinian terrorists. Palestine is a nation who celebrates the perpetrators of heinous crimes such as the wholesale AK-47 shooting of innocent children at a 'coming of age' ceremony (like out holy communion) and the murder of whole families out eating pizza. Imaging a terrorist doing that you your family, then seeing their faces painted in Murals and honored in triumph all over the place.

Not a single person here has expressed support for Palestinian terrorism, firstly. Of course, let facts be damned, as it easier to try and smear everyone as a terrorist lover.

Secondly, plenty in Israel celebrate there atrocities btw, take for example familys in Israel going to hills near Gaza to watch the carnage there, or Israeli children writing messages on rockets fired in Lebanon. Both sides have some pretty disgusting people, who celebrate atrocities, such as dropping white phophorous shells on children (you see I can play the atrocitiy game too).

eamo127 wrote: »

We Irish blindly support Hamas or Hezbollah (we always condemn Israel first) when they fire thousands of rockets randomly at Israel. Would any of the do-gooders here put up with that themselves? We are the most anti-Semitic western country in the world. We ran the Jews out of here a long time ago - something you won't learn in any history lesson, and we are PROUD of it.

Nice lot of hyperbole here. How about you prove all this then? How exactly are we the most Anti-smetic country in the west? What support has the Irish government supplied to Hamas or Hezbollah? Are we talking military support, or what exactly? Please enlighten us on how you came to your conclusions.

eamo127 wrote: »

As a nation, how could we ever condemn a terrorist act perpetrated against our people? We honour idiots like Rachel Cory who died needlessly trying to protect terrorist tunnels. What a bunch of Hippocrates we are.

I like this collective "we" your employing. Are you royalty or something?

I do have to say I am appaled at you called Rachael Cory a idiot, especially after your tirade against the Palestinians above. So basically you have no respect for people murdered by Israel, and instead blame them. Profoundly distrurbing to blame the victims death on them being stupid. Also, why no respect for the her family? Do there feelings not matter or something? Just imagine someone saying this about one of you family members (see I can play at this trying to make you feel guilty game too, except you actually said something pretty insulting about a murdered Woman, as opposed to a made up smear).

Scofflaw

Let's keep it as civil as possible, people. It's been pretty good so far, let's keep it that way.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

I can think of a few things.

The Negroponte Doctrine outlines the conditions which must be met by any UN resolution regarding Israel. If these conditions are not met, the US has and will exercise its Security Council Veto,

For any resolution to go forward, the United States — which has a veto in the 15-nation council — would want it to have the following four elements:

• A strong and explicit condemnation of all terrorism and incitement to terrorism;
• A condemnation by name of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups that have claimed responsibility for suicide attacks on Israel;
• An appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the crisis;
• A demand for improvement of the security situation as a condition for any call for a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to positions they held before the September 2000 start of the Second intifada Palestinian uprising in which 1,467 Palestinians and 564 Israelis have died.

This Doctrine has been in effect since July 2002. Should a resolution ever be passed it would mark the beginning of the Negotiating Table.

MrMicra wrote: »

Unfortunately Israel is under constant foreign pressure from the American right wing. The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

I'd never, ever regard it as Pressure. What nonsense.

The American Jewish lobby is now like the tail wagging the Israeli dog.

If you bother to do even the basic Wiki-searching, you'd find that many Jewish sects condemn Zionism and many more abstain from commenting on the matter at all. I wouldnt call it Tail Wagging, and again, I would not call it Pressure.

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

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? .

Im confused, are you trying to say the UN doesnt pressure Israel enough?

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

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'

You are, aren't you.

Heres the Full Article but I'll direct you to this subsection which deals primarily with how UN has addressed all matters Israel in the last 50-60 years. Granted, its Wikipedia, and you're free to discredit it with evidence (and not just the awl' Its Wikipedia-rawr$^(@#$-Ad Hominem') These are some of the highlights that piqued my own interest:

In a lecture at the 2003 UN conference on anti-Semitism, Anne Bayefsky said:

There has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the more than a million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia being kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, UN bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning, and cross-amputation. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.[55]

(Not that Id ever expect a Resolution against China. Again, SC Veto)

resolutions passed in the same period by the General Assembly were far more explicit in their condemnation of Israel. (...) Violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms. Violence against Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, is described far more explicitly. Israeli occupying forces are condemned for the “breaking of bones” of Palestinians, the tear-gassing of girls’ schools and the firing on hospitals in which a specific number of women were said to be giving birth.

During its first year of existence (2006), the UNHRC passed seven resolutions, all (100%) critical of Israel.[68] In its second year (2007), Israel has so far been the subject of 4/11 resolutions (36%)[69]
The Council voted on June 30, 2006 to make its review of human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. This decision was renewed in June 2007. Israel is the only country subject to a permanent review. The UNHRC sits in Geneva, thus excluding Israel from participating due to its limited membership to the WEOG group;

Many observers noted this anti-Israel bias. The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel. This obsession with bashing Israel and turning a blind eye to so much else has disappointed those who hoped that the new council might perform better than its predecessor.[76] . Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch said in a July 26, 2007 testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee: In its first year, the Human Rights Council has failed to take action regarding countries facing human rights crises such as Burma, Colombia, Somalia, Turkmenistan, and Zimbabwe, ended the mandates of human rights experts on Belarus and Cuba, and rolled back its consideration of the deteriorating situations in Iran and Uzbekistan. At the same time, it focused disproportionately on Israel’s human rights record and worse still, did so in a manner doomed to be ineffective because it failed to look comprehensively at the situation, including the responsibilities and roles of Palestinian authorities and armed groups.[77] Similar accusations were voiced by the Washington Post[78] , Kofi Annan[79] , Ban Ki-moon[80] and US President George W. Bush[81]

Manic Moran

I would hope economic sanctions. What do you suggest to start bringing Israel onboard to the negotiating table?

So you do believe that it is possible to bring actions against Israel. In which case, why not do so to bring compliance with the investigation in the first place?

I disagree, in that at least the facts of what occured can at least be confirmed, even if no action results from them. I think finding out the truth is never a waste of time.

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

MrMicra

Support for the implementation of a two state solution is not celebrating Palestinian terror.
One can
strongly support Israel's right to exist as a 'Jewish state,
assert that there should be no more than token compensation for the descendants of Arabs who left Palestine in 1948
condemn Palestinian terror
accept Israel's right to security
and
recognise that Israel is deliberately engaging in collective punishment of Palestinians and is reacting with excessive violence.
To the claim that this is to hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours I would simply agree.

MrMicra

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

In what way is the Goldstone report untruthful?

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fantastic. In which case, go for the truth, don't just take the easy way out and say "ah well, they're not letting us ask, so we'll just go ahead and do a half-job of it anyway"

NTM

If someone refuses to cooperate, there really is no other choice but to go ahead and investigate. The police wouldn't stop a investigation, just because the accused refuses to cooperate.

The best situation would of course be to get Israeli cooperation, but seeing as they refuse, there isn't a whole lot that can be done in that regard. Having said that, just because Israel refuses to take part, does not mean that the facts of the conflict in 2008/2009 can not be established. Its certainly makes it a bit harder, but it can be done imho.

Also, Judge Goldstone seemed to be able to establish Hamas's part in the conflict as well, and I doubt they were very forthcoming as well btw.

Manic Moran

MrMicra wrote: »

In what way is the Goldstone report untruthful?

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

f someone refuses to cooperate, there really is no other choice but to go ahead and investigate. The police wouldn't stop a investigation, just because the accused refuses to cooperate.

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

The best situation would of course be to get Israeli cooperation, but seeing as they refuse, there isn't a whole lot that can be done in that regard.

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

Also, Judge Goldstone seemed to be able to establish Hamas's part in the conflict as well, and I doubt they were very forthcoming as well btw.

I'd need to re-read the report (it's been a while) to see how much he tried to talk to them, but I'm not sure how good a job he did at that either. It's not as if Hamas has a recognised uniform chain of command he could have worked with to investigate any particular incident.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

You can't subpeona a country last time I checked. There really was nothing Judge Goldstone could to compel Israel to take part in the investigation.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

Was such a power available to Judge Goldstone? I don't think he would have been able to do that, so I think your criticism here is overly harsh, as it seems to me that Judge Goldstone would be unable to do what you suggest.

How much power did Judge Goldstone have to compel Israel, is a question you need to ask before criticizing him for not doing enough imho. Also, did he do things any differently than other people working on similar reports for the UN, when regimes they were investigating were uncooperative?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd need to re-read the report (it's been a while) to see how much he tried to talk to them, but I'm not sure how good a job he did at that either. It's not as if Hamas has a recognised uniform chain of command he could have worked with to investigate any particular incident.

Hamas civilian leaders wouldn't wear uniforms, and they do have uniformed police force, as they control that now.

dlofnep

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

While Manic Moran's idea of giving Israel more opportunities to go along with the report is nice, it doesn't mean that it was possible. It's quite clear that Israel wasn't willing to co-operate, regardless.

So why does Israel now protest about the report being one-sided, when they had their chance to have their say. I am of the opinion that they knew that they could not defend their case, and subsquently decided to put their head in the sand.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

Well, even the ICJ can make binding rulings on cases even when one of the parties refuses to take part in the case if they determine that they have sufficient evidence in order to establish the truth. This happened in 1986 when the US refused to take part in a contentious case with Nicaragua. Perhaps a similar rationale was undertaken here.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

When the ICJ doesn't have to power to make states cooperate I don't think a fact finding mission has the power to do so. These fact finding bodies have no coercive powers available to them. On top of this, Israel actually refused to allow the fact-finding mission enter Israel or the West Bank and had to enter Gaza through Egypt.

Israel's lack of cooperation in this is not new or surprising. By refusing to engage in the process Israel can seek to delegitimize the outcome by stating that it is one sided. Israel did this in the 2004 ICJ case regarding the Wall in which Israel refused to provide evidence for its side of the arguement. Knowing that the outcome would likely be against them, Israel pre-emptively seeks to delegitimize the process so it can state afterwards that the outcome was biased.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

While Manic Moran's idea of giving Israel more opportunities to go along with the report is nice, it doesn't mean that it was possible. It's quite clear that Israel wasn't willing to co-operate, regardless.

So why does Israel now protest about the report being one-sided, when they had their chance to have their say. I am of the opinion that they knew that they could not defend their case, and subsquently decided to put their head in the sand.

youre jumping to conclusions.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

youre jumping to conclusions.

I don't feel that I am. I said it was my opinion that I felt they could not defend their use of excessive force. Perhaps you might explain why that opinion might be wrong.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the whole truth. It's one side of the story. That is not the fault of Goldstone et al who did the best job they could in the circumstances.

Persons can at least be subpoenaed. Of course, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the person would say a word once on the stand, but I must have missed the bit where the 'subpeona' was issued to Israel. If people were really interested in the truth, they could at least have put an effort into it.

Was there any motion to attempt to censure Israel for not acommodating Goldstone et al? It's not as if they'd have been asking Israel to withdraw from land, open security checkpoints or any such issue with larger ramifications. Might have been more support for such a lowly goal than you think.

To be honest, I'm suprised that you've posted that. It bears no relation to reality at all.

Shin Bet

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.

Palestinian or pakistani history books will never tell you Nasser started the war when he blocked the straits of Tiran in May 1967..

Shin Bet

The Saint wrote: »

Israel's lack of cooperation in this is not new or surprising. By refusing to engage in the process Israel can seek to delegitimize the outcome by stating that it is one sided. Israel did this in the 2004 ICJ case regarding the Wall in which Israel refused to provide evidence for its side of the arguement. Knowing that the outcome would likely be against them, Israel pre-emptively seeks to delegitimize the process so it can state afterwards that the outcome was biased.

You should really read up on why Israel pulled its cooperation from the so called "fact finding mission"
lets start,
In the eyes of the authors of the Report, Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with the 12,000 rockets and mortars fired by Hamas over eight years on towns and villages inside Israel, nor with the fact that close to one million Israeli citizens had to live their lives within seconds of bomb-shelters because they were in range of Hamas attacks. Nor, in their view, did it have anything to do with the smuggling of weapons and ammunition to terrorist groups through hundreds of tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border. Indeed, neither the right to self defense nor the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip are even mentioned in the Report.
Rather, the Report advances a narrative which ignores the threats to Israeli civilians, as well as Israel's extensive diplomatic and political efforts to avoid the outbreak of hostilities. In this narrative self defense finds no place – Israel's defensive operation was nothing other than a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population"
In support of this vicious and unfounded assertion, the Report has no qualms about bending both facts and law. In the spirit of the one-sided mandate it was given by the HRC resolution, and the clearly stated political prejudices of some of its Members, of the Mission carefully selected its witnesses and the incidents it chose to investigate for clearly political ends. Yet even within this self-selected body of evidence, the Report engages in creative editing, misrepresentations of facts and law, and repeatedly adopts evidentiary double standards, attributing credibility to every anti-Israel allegation, and invariably dismissing evidence that indicates any wrongdoing by Hamas.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you do believe that it is possible to bring actions against Israel. In which case, why not do so to bring compliance with the investigation in the first place?

You're trying to lump two seperate issues into one.

I'm not sure if it's possible to bring sanctions against Israel (Unsure of the US's veto power on it), and secondly - even if Israel was sanctioned, it doesn't neccessarily mean that they would comply with the International community.

You seem very optimistic about Israel's co-operation with the international community. What has Israel done in the past few years to give merit to this optimism? Genuinely curious.

Shin Bet

dlofnep wrote: »

You seem very optimistic about Israel's co-operation with the international community. What has Israel done in the past few years to give merit to this optimism? Genuinely curious.

well the international community seems to realise the war against terror thats why so many states on the Council refused to support the Goldstone report - including the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

You can't subpeona a country last time I checked. There really was nothing Judge Goldstone could to compel Israel to take part in the investigation.

Was such a power available to Judge Goldstone? I don't think he would have been able to do that, so I think your criticism here is overly harsh, as it seems to me that Judge Goldstone would be unable to do what you suggest.

I don't believe that IAEA inspectors have any power to compel countries to let them inspect either. So why don't we simply skip any other process to aid them in accessing Iran and go straight to the conclusion phase? Mr Goldstone was an agent of the UN. The UN can back them up if they're serious about the report.

Also, did he do things any differently than other people working on similar reports for the UN, when regimes they were investigating were uncooperative?

I have no idea. What has the UN tried doing in such cases?

Hamas civilian leaders wouldn't wear uniforms, and they do have uniformed police force, as they control that now.

Are you implying that the uniformed police were the ones lobbing the rockets?

The real issue lays in could we have put sufficient pressure on Israel to cooperate? The answer is most likely no. Israel do not like external influence on their policies and actions, unless it is in support of it.

Which, again, brings us back to step one. If it is impossible to put sufficient pressure on Israel to simply let an inspector in, then what chance is there of achieving anything from the Goldstone report? Instead all it has done as added further fuel to flames, and provided another discussion point for people on web boards and will, in fact, achieve absolutely nothing positive.

To be honest, I'm suprised that you've posted that. It bears no relation to reality at all.

Neither does the thought that the Goldstone Report will have any effect, apparently.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that IAEA inspectors have any power to compel countries to let them inspect either. So why don't we simply skip any other process to aid them in accessing Iran and go straight to the conclusion phase? Mr Goldstone was an agent of the UN. The UN can back them up if they're serious about the report.

Iran lets the inspectors in because there are a few powerfull nations pushing for sanctions etc if they do not. I do not see America or any of those nations threatening similar against Israel to be honest. Now it would be nice to believe that they would, but sometimes you have to live in the real world and deal with the situation the best you can.

The alternative would have been to wait until Israel decided it would talk to the inspectors, which we both know, would never have happened.

OldJay

Shin Bet wrote: »

In the eyes of the authors of the Report, Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with the 12,000 rockets and mortars fired by Hamas over eight years on towns and villages inside Israel, nor with the fact that close to one million Israeli citizens had to live their lives within seconds of bomb-shelters because they were in range of Hamas attacks

It didn't.
It was a pre-election attempt by a severely damaged party (with leader in the dock on corruption charges) at winning Israeli voters more to the right back over from the increased support of the Likud etc, by showing zero tolerance of Hamas' idiotic activities.

However this UN group is itself also a sick joke. When the likes of its members such as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia can boast of exemplary civil rights records then maybe it would have more credibility as a civil rights watchdog.

Israel ignore a UN report/resolution/whatever. So what? Everyone in this thread ignores a good ole UN resolution. Mostly nr.181 in fact. The sick irony is that now the pro-Palestinian side of the conflict wants the basic tenets instilled of the bloody resolution that was passed in the first place.

First steps to be taken are
1) Unseat the coalition led by Bibi Netanyahu (already Lieberman's prospects looking grim)
2) Fatah and Hamas conflict requires resolution
3) Settlement expansion to be halted in West Bank and East Jerusalem.

I don't think reverting Palestine to pre-1967 borders and the previous occupiers, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will ever happen.
Nor will the all-strategic Golanim ever be ceded to its former occupier, Syria.

OldJay

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Iran lets the inspectors in because there are a few powerfull nations pushing for sanctions etc if they do no

They're only letting IAEA inspectors which can only cast eyes over civilian nuclear instalments.
Thats why.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that IAEA inspectors have any power to compel countries to let them inspect either. So why don't we simply skip any other process to aid them in accessing Iran and go straight to the conclusion phase? Mr Goldstone was an agent of the UN. The UN can back them up if they're serious about the report.

Iran is currently under sanctions for not cooperationg with the IAEA, so the are some measures that can be used in the UN when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

So quick question, do you think the US would have sanctioned Israel to get them to comply with the Goldstone report, if such a thing is even possible that is.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no idea. What has the UN tried doing in such cases?

I have no idea, its why I asked you, to establish if Judge Goldstone is doing things differently in the case of Israel.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you implying that the uniformed police were the ones lobbing the rockets?

No, of course not. I was just pointing out that Hamas had the capability to comply with the Goldstone.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which, again, brings us back to step one. If it is impossible to put sufficient pressure on Israel to simply let an inspector in, then what chance is there of achieving anything from the Goldstone report? Instead all it has done as added further fuel to flames, and provided another discussion point for people on web boards and will, in fact, achieve absolutely nothing positive.

So, basically people should stop trying then?

Sure why not wash our hands of Darfur, as the Sudanese government is being protected by China, and any UN reports just provide fuel to flame discussions on the Internet, and doesn't achieve nothing positive.

Of course, what the Goldstone report achieves was to show the facts of what happened using the best information avaliable, and did a fine job of it too. I personally disagree that this was a waste of time.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Neither does the thought that the Goldstone Report will have any effect, apparently.

The report has had a effect actually. The Israeli government is now fearful that countries that apply universal jurisidcation will arrest members of there miltary due to the evidence reported in the Goldstone report. So, while the US will of course protect Israel from sanctions, to say there is no effect is simple wrong imho.

wes

Justind wrote: »

I don't think reverting Palestine to pre-1967 borders and the previous occupiers, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will ever happen.
Nor will the all-strategic Golanim ever be ceded to its former occupier, Syria.

So, you don't think a 2 state solution is possible? So what are the alternatives? A 1 person, 1 vote solution like South Africa? Constant conflict between all sides?

OldJay

wes wrote: »

So, you don't think a 2 state solution is possible?

No. I never said that for a second.

wes

Justind wrote: »

No. I never said that for a second.

You said:

I don't think reverting Palestine to pre-1967 borders and the previous occupiers, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will ever happen.
Nor will the all-strategic Golanim ever be ceded to its former occupier, Syria.

That gave me the impression that you didn't think a 2 state solution is possible, and hence why I asked.

Manic Moran

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Iran lets the inspectors in because there are a few powerfull nations pushing for sanctions etc if they do not. I do not see America or any of those nations threatening similar against Israel to be honest. Now it would be nice to believe that they would, but sometimes you have to live in the real world and deal with the situation the best you can.

The alternative would have been to wait until Israel decided it would talk to the inspectors, which we both know, would never have happened.

So what you are saying in effect, then, is that some pointless formalities are so pointless as to not bother with, whilst other pointless formalities (which really should rely on the previous ones for legitimacy) should be continued?

Iran is currently under sanctions for not cooperationg with the IAEA, so the are some measures that can be used in the UN when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

And I fail to see why such pressure could not even be tried to be brought to bear against Israel. If the futility of trying to pass any sort of condemnation against Israel is so self-evident, then why have there been so many attempts in the past for much more difficult/unlikely goals?

So quick question, do you think the US would have sanctioned Israel to get them to comply with the Goldstone report, if such a thing is even possible that is.

No idea. But the first stage would have been to pass the compliance demand, and I'm fairly sure the US would not have vetoed that. Cross the second bridge after the first has been completed. You're skipping the first one entirely. (I'm fairly big on due process, if you haven't noticed: And in fairness, the technicality that Israel objected to in the first place is a valid one. Maybe the UN should have crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's before sending Mr Goldstone out and about. Search warrants have been thrown out for less on the civilian side).

The Israeli government is now fearful that countries that apply universal jurisidcation will arrest members of there miltary due to the evidence reported in the Goldstone report.

Which members? Maybe I've missed something in the report, but I don't believe it has come to any conclusion or recommendation that anyone (or more to the point, anyone in particular) be arrested or detained. I don't believe that anyone on either side was even mentioned by name as being culpable for any incident.

NTM

dlofnep

Shin Bet wrote: »

well the international community seems to realise the war against terror thats why so many states on the Council refused to support the Goldstone report - including the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan.

So many states? 18 states rejected the report. 114 supported it. Of the 40 odd that abstained, I am going to go out of on a limb and assume that they did so to not get on the bad side of the US. If they really didn't agree with the text, they would have just rejected it.

The overwhelming majority of states supported it.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

And I fail to see why such pressure could not even be tried to be brought to bear against Israel. If the futility of trying to pass any sort of condemnation against Israel is so self-evident, then why have there been so many attempts in the past for much more difficult/unlikely goals?

Once again, did Judge Goldstone have any of the power that the IAEA has to compel Iran, to similary compel Israel with?

Do you have alternative to just allowing Israel to run rough shod over the Palestnians, without at least some attempts at stopping it? The way I see it, I would rather have people try and rein in regimes that murder people, than to have them not try at all.

Again, take Darfur, the information provided by there investigations has resulted in the average person to take up that cause.

Manic Moran wrote: »

No idea. But the first stage would have been to pass the compliance demand, and I'm fairly sure the US would not have vetoed that. Cross the second bridge after the first has been completed. You're skipping the first one entirely. (I'm fairly big on due process, if you haven't noticed: And in fairness, the technicality that Israel objected to is a valid one. Maybe the UN should have crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's before sending Mr Goldstone out and about. Search warrants have been thrown out for less on the civilian side).

The US would have vetoed any action taken that could possibly make Israel take part, as the only thing that may have had a hope would have been sanctions.

If your so big on process, why can't you tell what the regular process is for these type of investigations then? You seem to be applying a process of you own choosing regardless of what the UN process is for these investigations.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which members? Maybe I've missed something in the report, but I don't believe it has come to any conclusion or recommendation that anyone (or more to the point, anyone in particular) be arrested or detained. I don't believe that anyone on either side was even mentioned by name as being culpable for any incident.

Well here is an example of what I am talking about:

South Africa's legal war over Gaza

So the Goldstone report has had a effect, it may be a small one right now, but it has certainly damaged Israel rep internationally, and leaves if miltary people open for prosecution.

israelsolcamp

wes,

there = location (over there)
their = posessive pronoun (their bicycle)
they're = contraction of they + are.

Now, Israel is not fearful of its leaders being arrested or araigned overseas simply because they have put together an excellent legal team. There was a recent example in Britain. A petition filed in the House of Lords against a senior Israeli military official was dismissed on the basis of a foreign diplomat's immunity from suit. Courts all over the world are likely to reason along similar lines and its highly unlikely that Israeli will ever be brought to 'justice' as you see it.

Speaking of violation of UN Resolutions, just read an interesting report that the US has appealed (or rather pointed out) to the UN that the Iranian shipment of arms between Iran and Syria was in violation of the UN Arms Embargo as well as countless other non-proliferation of weaponry to paramilitaries embargoes. Yet will Iran be subject to a Goldstone Report, etc? I wouldn't count on it (and if you argue that no, damage wasn't actualized, the sheer quantity of the arms seizure was enough to arm an entire batallion of a modern army. Had this made it through to its intended recipients (Hizbullah and Hamas) the loss of Israeli life could have been simply enormous.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

wes,

there = location (over there)
their = posessive pronoun (their bicycle)
they're = contraction of they + are.

My grammar is a mess, but I am sure everyone knows what I am saying.

You should btw, look at your own posts before going grammar cop on other people. You forget to capitalize the first letter in a number of sentences, in several of your posts on this thread. Perhaps, you should worry about your own posts first, before correcting others.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Now, Israel is not fearful of its leaders being arrested or araigned overseas simply because they have put together an excellent legal team.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. If they aren't afraid of legal problems, then why do they need the lawyers? By getting the lawyers ready, they show they are afraid of potential legal problems.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

There was a recent example in Britain. A petition filed in the House of Lords against a senior Israeli military official was dismissed on the basis of a foreign diplomat's immunity from suit. Courts all over the world are likely to reason along similar lines and its highly unlikely that Israeli will ever be brought to 'justice' as you see it.

The petition failed as he had diplomatic immunity, now presumbaly it could have been successful, if he wasn't there on diplomatic business, and as such have no such immunity. Looks like Israel's leaders will have to be careful where they book there holidays.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Speaking of violation of UN Resolutions, just read an interesting report that the US has appealed (or rather pointed out) to the UN that the Iranian shipment of arms between Iran and Syria was in violation of the UN Arms Embargo as well as countless other non-proliferation of weaponry to paramilitaries embargoes.

Iran is incidently under UN sanctions meanwhile, Israel isn't under any sanctions for there violations. Regardless the actions of Iran in no way absolve Israel, so I don't see much relevance.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Yet will Iran be subject to a Goldstone Report, etc?

There already under UN sanctions, and Israel isn't. There also being investigated by the IAEA, and they have published numerous reports on Iran. So you picked a really bad example, as Iran is being investigated for there nuclear activites, and we know who isn't being investigated for such activities.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

I wouldn't count on it (and if you argue that no, damage wasn't actualized, the sheer quantity of the arms seizure was enough to arm an entire batallion of a modern army. Had this made it through to its intended recipients (Hizbullah and Hamas) the loss of Israeli life could have been simply enormous.

Yet, in Gaza the loss of life was enourmous and the US of course will protects those responsible, as it always does.

Still the fact remains Iran is under UN sanctions and Israel isn't. Odd how you seem to ignore this. Looks to me that Iran is being punished plenty by the UN, meanwhile Israel can do as it please, due to US protection.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what you are saying in effect, then, is that some pointless formalities are so pointless as to not bother with, whilst other pointless formalities (which really should rely on the previous ones for legitimacy) should be continued?

confused the life out of me there, I don't think that either the inspections in Iran or the report should have been stopped and I dont think that either of them was pointless. (sorry if that was the impression I gave, but I dont see how I did)

The only pointless thing would have been waiting for Israel to change its mind over cooperating, (which is what I believe you where advocating) because it simply wouldn't have happend.