Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UN endorses the Goldstone Report
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
-
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.0 -
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.
NTM0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.
Well here is an example of what I am talking about: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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
With regard to the grammar, Wes, I was only trying to help you in case you weren't aware that there was any difference. Perhaps it should have been done in a private message. What really bugs me about you (and this board in general) is the amount of antagonism. Sincerely, I was trying to help and as usual all I get back is 'look at your own grammar!'. And of course, yes, online forums are not renowned for their strict adherence to grammatical norms, and that's the way it should be. But this place too often resembles a playground or something in its tit-for-tat bickering.
Getting back on the point, Israel may not be under any official sanctions but it's being boycotted all over the world, so no, my example wasn't misguided. I'd take a guess that the Israeli boycott as effected by the Arab League, and (lamentably) Ireland among other countries has had a more detrimental effect on the Israeli economy over the years than the current sanctions placed on Iran.0 -
-
Jumping to a conclusion again.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.
Maybe they did it because they did not understand why the report was so one sided. Kinda like so many Irish voted no to a certain recent treaty for lack of proper comprehension, aka. The Full Picture.0 -
I would say it is very unlikely that boycotting by nations has had more of an affect on Israel than the UN sanctions on Iran, i would go as far to say that it is simply impossible. Approved economic sanctions by the UN versus a small global effort of boycotting. Boycotting only has a real affect if it is a global effort that is adhered to and in the case of Israel that is simply not the case. This is supported by the fact that is individuals on a personal level that boycott Israeli goods, it is not happening on a corporate or governmental level.
The best example of boycotting being successful was without doubt the effort made against apartheid in South Africa. This was a global effort involving governments, companies and individuals. Just to give you an example, found an old original copy of Star Wars IV: A new hope the other day. Written on the back of the video box is "It is an infringement of the copyright of this cassette if it is distributed, copied, sold or manufactured in South Africa". In this case, the effort was so great and unified that it had such an economic effect on South Africa. Nothing of the sort is happening in Israel.
Interestingly enough, i was at a Noam Chomsky talk last week and somebody asked him about boycotting Israeli goods and he said it would not have the desired effect except making that individual satisfied with their own moral decision. He instead said it would be better for example, to boycott Caterpillar, who make millions providing Israel with bulldozers etc that flatten Palestinians homes, that construct the wall etc.
0 -
Jumping to a conclusion again.
Maybe they did it because they did not understand why the report was so one sided. Kinda like so many Irish voted no to a certain recent treaty for lack of proper comprehension, aka. The Full Picture.
There is a huge difference between the average Joe public not understanding a political text, and a Government, who's responsibility is to read such texts in a thorough and concise manner.
I would hazard a guess that my theory might very well be true. Unless you think the idea that abstaining from voting, in order to not get on the bad side of the US with it's economic and political strength - is worthy of a "conspiracy theory".
It's moot either way, because 114 nations voted in favour of it.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions - Weren't you the one who originally proposed the idea of nations voting on it on account of anti-semitism in this post? (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62932820&postcount=21)
So really, what you're labelling as "jumping to conclusions" is really just opinion, based on the information available. I've given my opinion, you've not attacked the merit of my opinion with any counter-evidence, but rather thrown in a sneaky "jumping to conclusion" response on two seperate occasions now. If you don't find merit in what I'm suggesting, provide a counter argument.0 -
Ive backed up those statements with proper observations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations#Claims_that_the_UN_is_anti-Israel ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
If you wish to provide evidence these 40 countries are Afraid of the United States, I welcome you.
I think abstaining for want of the Other Half of the Report (The Israeli Half) is a much more likely scenario. "We dont reject the findings as false, but seek more information still" etc. Whereas 18 countries say "The whole thing is bull****: NO." and 114 others say "Yes this is the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth. I will sign."
I object of course, to this being the whole truth. As you may have already concluded long before I said anything.
edit: I summarized these findings yesterday, earlier in the thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62944160&postcount=72
Perhaps you simply ignored my side of the debate so that you could more comfortably draw crayola conclusions? Hmm.0 -
you do realise that one of the critics of the UN as being anti-Semitic that you have referenced is in fact herself a hardcore Zionist . Hardly an impartial opinion on the UN.
I think we should move beyond any anti Israel rhetoric as being anti-Semitic. i am an atheist, i have no affiliation to any religion, but still have my views on Israel and their actions, and any pro-Israeli supporter would most likely call me anti-Semitic. Its a knee jerk defense that simply halts any progress on this important issue.0 -
Once again, did Judge Goldstone have any of the power that the IAEA has to compel Iran, to similary compel Israel with?
As far as I know, Judge Goldstone had just as much authority as IAEA has, unless I'm missing a fine detail somewhere.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.
I've no problem with the attempt (With the exception that I thought the Goldstone report wasn't supposed to be about the Israelis running roughshod over Palestine, but maybe you are just excitable and forgot about that bit) but I'd rather it were done with an eye to integrity, not just simply a rush to the endstate without regard to how you get there.Again, take Darfur, the information provided by there investigations has resulted in the average person to take up that cause.
Has it? Everyone knows that there's conflict and a bit of a humanitarian issue there. That's why Ireland has sent troops in that direction. Yet if you go out on the street and ask a random person, how much background information do you think they would be able to provide as to who has been attacking whom and why?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.
The closest UN-involved process I am aware of is that of nuclear inspections. There are, of course, domestic criminal equivalents one can look at for perspective.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.
If you're taken to court on the most trumped up and baseless charges, you still need a lawyer.The only pointless thing would have been waiting for Israel to change its mind over cooperating, (which is what I believe you where advocating)
Not quite. I am advocating that the mechanisms for demanding co-operation should at least have been tried first. If you're going to spend any effort on a symbolic endeavour such as the Goldstone report, I think you should spend just as much effort on the entire system, not just the bits you happen to personally like.
NTM0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
israelsolcamp wrote: »With regard to the grammar, Wes, I was only trying to help you in case you weren't aware that there was any difference. Perhaps it should have been done in a private message. What really bugs me about you (and this board in general) is the amount of antagonism. Sincerely, I was trying to help and as usual all I get back is 'look at your own grammar!'. And of course, yes, online forums are not renowned for their strict adherence to grammatical norms, and that's the way it should be. But this place too often resembles a playground or something in its tit-for-tat bickering.
TBH, I think it rude to point other peoples grammatical issues, especially when the person doing the pointing out, are themselves less than perfect in that department.
I am not writing a thesis here, there will be grammatical mistakes and typo's, as its a message board, and I think as long as people here understand what is meant, then grammar really shouldn't be a issue.
**EDIT**
I do make every effort to fix mistakes, but I don't have all day to go around correcting all my typos and grammatical errors etc.israelsolcamp wrote: »Getting back on the point, Israel may not be under any official sanctions but it's being boycotted all over the world, so no, my example wasn't misguided.
Iran is also boycotted around the world (by the EU and US) btw. Again, I think you are giving a bad example, as Iran is hardly getting off scot free for the stuff they pull.israelsolcamp wrote: »I'd take a guess that the Israeli boycott as effected by the Arab League, and (lamentably) Ireland among other countries has had a more detrimental effect on the Israeli economy over the years than the current sanctions placed on Iran.
I am unaware of any Irish government boycott of Israel. Do you have a link on it?
As for the Arab League boycott, well considering that Israel is occupying land belonging to its members, a boycott is hardly unsurprising in that regard.
However, the boycotts you mention have nothing to do with the UN or international law. Individual nations and organizations can boycott whom they please. The US for example, has plenty of boycotts against countries, such as Iran or Sudan, that are due to there own laws and interests.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »As far as I know, Judge Goldstone had just as much authority as IAEA has, unless I'm missing a fine detail somewhere.
The IAEA has authority, as it investigates those who signed up to the non-proliferation treaty. Judge Goldstone has nothing to do with the IAEA, so I don't see why he would have the same powers as they do.
Again, can you provide me with details on what powers to compel Israel were at Judge Goldstones disposal? I honestly have no idea, and I think your arguement hinges on whether he actually had much power to comple Israel to do anything.Manic Moran wrote: »I've no problem with the attempt (With the exception that I thought the Goldstone report wasn't supposed to be about the Israelis running roughshod over Palestine, but maybe you are just excitable and forgot about that bit) but I'd rather it were done with an eye to integrity, not just simply a rush to the endstate without regard to how you get there.
I was talking more in general terms, as we were both exclusively talking about Israel at the time.
**EDIT**
However, my reasoning works just as well, if we expand and include Hamas. Should Hamas also be allowed to get away with firing rockets into Israel, due soley to them being uncooperative? Should people not at least try?
**END EDIT*
So how exactly was the report "rushed"? What factual inaccuracies occured due to the report being "rushed"?
Seems to me that Judge Goldstone took the neccessary time, with what was avaliable to do the report, and he seems to think that the report is fair and accurate, even with the issues he had.Manic Moran wrote: »Has it? Everyone knows that there's conflict and a bit of a humanitarian issue there. That's why Ireland has sent troops in that direction. Yet if you go out on the street and ask a random person, how much background information do you think they would be able to provide as to who has been attacking whom and why?
They probably wouldn't know, but thankfully they can read those UN reports to educate themselves on the issue, or a Darfur group can use the reports to bring that information to a random person. UN reports are very useful in educating people about situations around the world.Manic Moran wrote: »The closest UN-involved process I am aware of is that of nuclear inspections. There are, of course, domestic criminal equivalents one can look at for perspective.
We are talking about countries here, and as such, all the capabilities avaliable to law enforcent domestically, probably won't be avaliable for the UN.Manic Moran wrote: »If you're taken to court on the most trumped up and baseless charges, you still need a lawyer.
You claimed the report had no effect. If Israel needs lawyers due to it, there it has had a effect. That all I was argueing there.Manic Moran wrote: »Not quite. I am advocating that the mechanisms for demanding co-operation should at least have been tried first. If you're going to spend any effort on a symbolic endeavour such as the Goldstone report, I think you should spend just as much effort on the entire system, not just the bits you happen to personally like.
You have yet to detail what these mechanisms are? Were there even any mechanism avaliable to Judge Goldstone at all to compel Israel to do anything? Is there any point in even trying them, if the US will block it, assuming he had any in the first place that is?0 -
Please show me where in the report that it states that Israel's action in Gaza had nothing to do with the rockets fired into Israel. The report stated that: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 also stated that:1630. Since April 2001, Palestinian armed groups have launched more than 8,000rockets and mortars from Gaza into southern Israel. Communities such as Sderot, the surrounding kibbutzim and some of the unrecognized villages in the Negev have been in range since that time. During the Israeli military operations in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, the range of the rockets and mortars increased significantly to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing the Israeli towns of Yavne 30 kilometres to the north and Beersheba 28 kilometres to the southeast.
Regarding rocket fire from Gaza and its impact on Israeli civilians the report concludes:From the disengagement until November 2006, the Israeli armed forces fired approximately 15,000 artillery shells and conducted more than 550 air strikes into the Gaza Strip. Israeli military attacks killed approximately 525 people in Gaza. Over the same period, at least 1,700 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel by Palestinian militants, injuring 41 Israelis.Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel since April 2001. These have succeeded in causing terror within Israel’s civilian population, as evidenced by the high rates of psychological trauma within the affected communities. The attacks have also led to erosion of the social, cultural and economic lives of the communities in
southern Israel, and have affected the rights to education of the tens of thousands of children and young adults who attend classes in the affected areas.
So your assertion that the report ignored the impact of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians is patently untrue.1747. In relation to the firing of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups operating in the Gaza Strip, the Mission finds that the Palestinian armed groups fail to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population and civilian objects in Southern Israel. The launching of rockets and mortars which cannot be aimed with sufficient precisions at military targets breaches the fundamental principle of distinction. Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population. These actions would constitute war crimes and
may amount to crimes against humanity.
1748. The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups operating from Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel. The attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians as well as damaging private houses, religious buildings and property and eroding the economic and cultural
life of the affected communities and severely affected economic and social rights of the population.
The report also didn't speculate on the reasons for rocket fire from Gaza. It does not give the Israeli or Palestinian justification for their actions. If the report was to engage is such an exercise it would be bogged down with claims and counter claims from each side. The report layed out a chronological account of the build up to the operation which in my opinion is the correct way to do it since as to bring in justifications of either side politicises the report.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.
The report wasn't to determine the reasons of the operation but the legality of the actions conducted in carrying it out. The report does however deal with the rockets types, capabilities, their origin and mentions that they are smuggled into Gaza in paragraphs 1649-1661.
As illustrated above, the report does not ignore the threat to Israeli civilians. Again, the report wasn't to determine how the hostilities started (although I'd like you to provide evidence for Israel's extensive diplomatic and political efforts to avoid the outbreak of hostilities) but to determine the legality of the actions taken during the operation. Self-defence is an absolute right of international law. Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself as long as it does so in compliance of international law. That's what the commission was established to investigate.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.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the report bends facts and laws, that it carefully selected its witnesses and it was acting in a political nature in carring out it's investigations? I'll look forward to reading all of your evidence for these assertions based on the contents of the report itself rather than unsubstantiated assertions of what you or others say. I beginning to wonder from what you've written in this post whether you have read the report itself or even its conclusions.0 -
Please show me where in the report that it states that Israel's action in Gaza had nothing to do with the rockets fired into Israel. The report stated that:
The Fact-Finding Mission was established by the Human Rights Council in Resolution S-9/1 adopted on 9 January 2009. Even within the context of the Council's disproportionate obsession with criticizing Israel (five out of its eleven special sessions since its founding in 2006 have been devoted to this), this resolution crossed a new threshold, condemning Israel in inflammatory and prejudicial language. This same resolution initiated no less than four separate reporting mechanisms into allegations against Israel, with not a single mechanism to examine Hamas' activities. One of these mechanisms was the Fact Finding Mission.
In operative paragraph 14 of the resolution, the Council decided: "to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission".
This wording of the resolution clearly provided that the mandate of the Mission is limited to investigating "violations" by "the occupying Power, Israel against the Palestinian people" (OP14). The explicitly one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact Finding Mission, and the resolution that established it, were the reason that so many states on the Council refused to support it - including the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan.
The prejudicial nature of the mission also led several distinguished individuals, including former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to refuse invitations to chair the mission. In doing so Mary Robinson admitted that it was "guided not by human rights but by politics"
Israel, for its part, stated that it would not cooperate with a Mission mandated to investigate the lawful use of force by a State to protect its citizens, yet required to ignore the illegal armed attacks by terrorist groups which made such action necessary. Israel, however, continued its ongoing dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, and its engagement and cooperation with numerous international organizations and NGO's conducting inquiries into events in Gaza.
A number of statements were made by Justice Goldstone to the effect that the terms of the mandate of the Mission had been changed.However, as a matter of law, no statement by any individual, only a resolution of the Council has the legal force to change the mandate of the Mission and it never did so.
Accordingly, the mandate of the Mission remained the objectionably one-sided mission established in Resolution S-9/1. Nonetheless, in the entire 575 pages of the Mission's report, not a single reference is made to OP 14, which provides the legal basis for its work.
So your assertion that the report ignored the impact of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians is patently untrue.
The Report supports the so-called "right" of Hamas to use force against Israel in the name of self-determination (269), while ignoring the consistent approach of Hamas – as evident in its Charter and the statements of its leaders which not only rejects the peace process agreed by Israel and the PLO but explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. The Report describes the rocket attacks from Gaza, including those which immediately followed Israel's withdrawal of all forces and civilians from the area, as “reprisals” (109, 1662-1665(2)), in clear contradiction to the decisive position of the international community that terrorist acts are "in any circumstances unjustifiable". At the same time, the Report fails to acknowledge that stopping the rocket attacks was a valid objective and discusses the rocket attacks almost as an afterthought.
The Report seeks to limit the scope of a State's response to terrorist threats by downplaying and minimizing the effects of such attacks. For example, describing rocket and mortar attacks on the Israeli town of Ashdod, the Report describes the impact as "a brief interruption to its economy brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents"(107), simply ignoring the death and injury to Ashdod's residents caused by missile attacks.
The report also didn't speculate on the reasons for rocket fire from Gaza. It does not give the Israeli or Palestinian justification for their actions. If the report was to engage is such an exercise it would be bogged down with claims and counter claims from each side. The report layed out a chronological account of the build up to the operation which in my opinion is the correct way to do it since as to bring in justifications of either side politicises the report.
Hamas launched thousands of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and admitted embedding itself within the civilian population of Gaza. But the Report strives mightily to avoid finding that Hamas bears any responsibility for deaths and destruction in the Gaza Strip. In contrast, the Report is quick to blame Israel, presuming guilt absent compelling evidence to the contrary. Throughout, the Report deems statements of Israeli officials inherently untrustworthy, except where it misuses them to support its ordained conclusions. By contrast, the Report regularly credits statements by the “Gaza authorities” i.e, the Hamas terrorist organization as legitimate evidence, except where such statements admit wrongdoing or justify Israeli actions. Moreover, despite overwhelming evidence that Hamas and other terrorist groups operated from densely populated areas and from within hospitals and mosques, booby-trapped civilian areas, and sought to blend in with Palestinian non-combatants, the Report fails to investigate the most egregious and publicly known examples of such conduct, and even goes so far as to raise doubts regarding the intentionality of Hamas’ tactics
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the report bends facts and laws, that it carefully selected its witnesses and it was acting in a political nature in carring out it's investigations? I'll look forward to reading all of your evidence for these assertions based on the contents of the report itself rather than unsubstantiated assertions of what you or others say. I beginning to wonder from what you've written in this post whether you have read the report itself or even its conclusions.
The Report accuses Israel of discriminating against its non-Jewish citizens by not providing shelters to protect Arab towns and villages from the rocket attacks. ( 1709, 1711(1)). In fact, the relevant decision of the Government of Israel made no such discrimination, and provided all municipalities up to seven kilometers from the fence with a budget to cover the building of shelters. Municipalities located further away from the fence, which included non-Jewish villages as well as the Jewish cities of Be'er Sheva and Ashqelon, did not qualify for this funding. President Shimon Peres emphasized on 28 December 2008:
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]I feel that in our hearts, we don't have any hatred for the Gazan people. Their suffering doesn’t carry any joy in our hearts. On the contrary, we feel that the better they will have it, better neighbors we shall have. Now that Hamas is turning to the Arab world for help, the truth is that the Arab world has to turn to Hamas for the help of Hamas. If Hamas will stop it, there is no need for any help. Everything can come again to normalcy. Passages: open; economic life: free; no Israeli intervention; no Israeli participation in any of the turnarounds in Gaza. [/FONT][/FONT]
The Report repeatedly misrepresents historical facts, particularly in the context of 'explaining' Israel military operations. It states that Operation "Hot Winter" was launched by Israel in February 2008 following a rocket attack towards the city of Ashkelon that caused 'light injuries' ( 196). In fact, Roni Yihye, aged 47, a student at Sapir College, was killed after sustaining massive wounds to his chest. Similarly it states that Operation "Days of Penitence" was launched in September-October of 2004, in retaliation for the firing of rockets against the town of Sderot and Israeli settlements, but fails to mention the deaths of Yuval Abebeh (aged 4) and Dorit Benisian (aged 2) of Sderot, killed by a Kassam rocket fired into Gaza while playing in the street. In both cases Hamas claimed responsibility for the attacks.
The description of Israel's military courts system (1599-1600) contains numerous errors and inaccuracies. For example, its description of the appeals process relies on provisions which were amended in 2004 and are no longer in force today.
In support of its assertion that the Gaza Strip is to be regarded as occupied territory, even following the withdrawal of all Israeli forces and all 9000 Israeli civilians in the Disengagement Initiative in 2005, the Report cites as authority UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (footnote 163 to 277). But this resolution makes no such assertion. In fact, in the negotiations prior to the adoption of this resolution, a Libyan draft which sought to insist that Gaza was still occupied was specifically not adopted by the members of the Security Council.0 -
So how exactly was the report "rushed"? What factual inaccuracies occured due to the report being "rushed"?
Seems to me that Judge Goldstone took the neccessary time, with what was avaliable to do the report, and he seems to think that the report is fair and accurate, even with the issues he had.
Plenty of factual innacuracies listed above as for your post stating he tought it was fair and accurate is quite frankly laughable.The Report's recommendations are as one-sided as its findings. It seeks to harness the Human Rights Council, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court and the international community as part of its campaign.
...snip...
"[there was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because in our Report we did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers "in the fog of war". We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate.
Source
Splease tell me how you think this report is fair and accurate, I eagerly await.0 -
-
Plenty of factual innacuracies listed above as for your post stating he tought it was fair and accurate is quite frankly laughable.
Um you literally copy and paste most of your post from here (as Nodin pointed out above):
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Israel_analysis_comments_Goldstone_Mission_15-Sep-2009.htm?DisplayMode=print
You copy and pasted huge chunks from there, and didn't attribute your source, and instead tried to pass it off as your own. So basically your proof basically amounts to the Israeli governments line.
Now, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe, just maybe that the Israeli government is a little bit biased. So, it kind make you complaints about such bias yourself a bit ridiculous imho.
Now quick question, would you think that Hamas's official response to the Goldstone report would be accepted as any kind rebuttal to the the report? Probably not.
So, I don't think my assertion of the report being fair and accurate is laughable at all, and I certainly don't believe the Israeli government.0 -
If you're going to use the official response as some sort of rebuttal, I would have thought a short extract and link would be sufficient.
I wish it would suffice but previous experience here on boards tells me otherwise when people see links to Israeli pov`s they automatically ignore it while calling the Israeli gov biased and never reply to the points made instead they go on a tangent and convieniently forget thier already wearing thin arguments have been reubutted.0 -
I wish it would suffice but previous experience here on boards tells me otherwise when people see links to Israeli pov`s they automatically ignore it while calling the Israeli gov biased and never reply to the points made instead they go on a tangent and convieniently forget thier already wearing thin arguments have been reubutted.
What rebuttals? You copied and pasted the official response of one side of the conflict. Why would anyone believe that? Also, trying to pass off the Israeli governments official response off as your own, is hardly going to help you case either btw, and is quite frankly dishonest, everyone else attributes there quotes and doesn't try to pass off other peoples work as there own.0 -
Advertisement
-
Plenty of factual innacuracies listed above as for your post stating he tought it was fair and accurate is quite frankly laughable.
Splease tell me how you think this report is fair and accurate, I eagerly await.
[/SIZE]
Please do not copy and paste copyright material, and where giving an extract, please credit the source. I have edited your post to reflect the fact that the bulk of it is a direct copy & paste from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Further, if you make a habit of doing this, I'll ban you. Anyone who wishes to read the official responses of the Israeli Government can do so.
moderately,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement