Author
|
Topic: GoldStone vs AIPAC's Poodle aka The US Congress (Read 989 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
GoldStone vs AIPAC's Poodle aka The US Congress
« on: 2009-11-04 16:51:29 » |
 |
"Don't worry about American pressure on #Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." [Sharon 2001]
With a mere 36 rejections, 22 present votes and 30 abstentions, the US Congress publicly declared its suzerainty to AIPAC, voting 236-36 in favour of a resolution (infra) known to be filled with erroneous statements, drafted by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), condemning the findings of U.N. investigator Richard Goldstone’s report into war crimes during Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza (PDF) this past winter. The house resolution is based entirely on fabrications and misstatements and has been responded to by Judge Goldstone (infra) - as has become the norm for the US government, the house chose to ignore this reality.
To place the resolution in context, let us not forget that the US provides Israel with billions of dollars worth of arms each year, arms which according to US and international law and treaties cannot be used to attack other countries or oppress its own residents, and examine a few extracts from the Goldstone Report:
Source: United Nations Report of the Fact Finding Mission. April/May 2009 which addresses the facts found, but does not assign culpability. The report covers:1. Deliberate attacks by the Israeli army on civilians
2. 1400 Gazans killed in three weeks
3. The illegal use of white phosphorus
4. Israeli violations of the right to free movement
5. Dehumanization
6. Torture and punishment
7. Violations of international human rights and humanitarian law
8. The arbitrary deprivation of life
1887. The timing of the first Israeli attack, at 11.30 a.m. on a weekday, when children were returning from school and the streets of Gaza were crowded with people going about their daily business, appears to have been calculated to create the greatest disruption and widespread panic among the civilian population. The treatment of many civilians detained or even killed while trying to surrender is one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appear to have been framed in order to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with disregard for basic international humanitarian law and human rights norms.
1889. The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the
Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses
1891. It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
1892. Allied to the systematic destruction of the economic capacity of the Gaza Strip, there appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people. This was seen not only in the use of human shields and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population.
1893. The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.
1894. The Mission has noted with concern public statements by Israeli officials, including senior military officials, to the effect that the use of disproportionate force, attacks on civilian population and the destruction of civilian property are legitimate means to achieve Israel’s military and political objectives. The Mission believes that such statements not only undermine the entire regime of international law, they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and, therefore, deserve to be categorically denounced.
1895. Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.
1919. The Mission finds that in a number of cases Israel failed to take feasible precautions required by customary law reflected in article 57 (2) (a) (ii) of Additional Protocol I to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. The firing of white phosphorus shells over the UNRWA compound in Gaza City is one of such cases in which precautions were not taken in the choice of weapons and methods in the attack, and these facts were compounded by reckless disregard for the consequences. The intentional strike at al-Quds hospital using high-explosive artillery shells and white phosphorous in and around the hospital also violated articles 18 and 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. With regard to the attack against al-Wafa hospital, the Mission found a violation of the same provisions, as well as a violation of the customary law prohibition against attacks which may be expected to cause excessive damage to civilians and civilian objects.
1921. The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51 (2) and 75 of Additional Protocol I, article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population. Moreover, in several of the incidents investigated, the Israeli armed forces not only did not use their best efforts to permit humanitarian organizations access to the wounded and medical relief, as required by customary international law reflected in article 10 (2) of Additional Protocol I, but they
arbitrarily withheld such access.
Treatment of Palestinians in the hands of the Israeli armed forces
(i) Use of human shields
1925. The Mission investigated several incidents in which the Israeli armed forces used local Palestinian residents to enter houses which might be booby-trapped or harbour enemy combatants (this practice, known in the West Bank as “neighbour procedure”, was called “Johnnie procedure” during the military operations in Gaza). The Mission found that the practice constitutes the use of human shields prohibited by international humanitarian law. It further constitutes a violation of the right to life, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, and of the prohibition against cruel and inhuman treatment in its article 7.
1926. The questioning of Palestinian civilians under threat of death or injury to extract information about Hamas and Palestinian combatants and tunnels constitutes a violation of article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits physical or moral coercion against protected persons.
1930. In addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, these extensive wanton acts of destruction amount to violations of Israel’s duties to respect the right to an adequate standard of living of the people in the Gaza Strip, which includes the rights to food, water and housing, as well as the right to the highest attainable standard of health, protected under articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
1932. The Mission finds that, despite the information circulated by Israel about the humanitarian relief schemes in place during the military operations, Israel has essentially violated its obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital objects, food and clothing that were needed to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of the civilian population in the context of the military operations, which is in violation of article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1933. In addition to the above general findings, the Mission also considers that Israel has violated its specific obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, including the rights to peace and security, free movement, livelihood and health.
1934. The Mission concludes that the conditions resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Government with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
(g) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and acts raising individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law
1935. From the facts gathered, the Mission found that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by the Israeli armed forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The Mission notes that the use of human shields also constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
1936. The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.
2. Actions by Israel in the West Bank in the context of the military operations in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009
(a) Treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli security forces, including use of excessive or lethal force during demonstrations
1936. The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.
2. Actions by Israel in the West Bank in the context of the military operations in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009
(a) Treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli security forces, including use of excessive or lethal force during demonstrations.
1937. With regard to acts of violence by settlers against Palestinians, the Mission concludes that Israel has failed to fulfil its international obligations to protect the Palestinians from violence by private individuals under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. In some instances security forces acquiesced to the acts of violence in violation of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
When this acquiescence occurs only in respect of violence against Palestinians by settlers and not vice versa, it would amount to discrimination on the basis of national origin, prohibited under ICCPR.
1938. Israel also violated a series of human rights by unlawfully repressing peaceful public demonstrations and using excessive force against demonstrators. The use of firearms, including live ammunitions, and the use of snipers resulting in the death of demonstrators are a violation of article 6 of ICCPR as an arbitrary deprivation of life and, in the circumstances examined by the Mission, appear to indicate an intention or at least a recklessness towards causing harm to civilians which may amount to wilful killing.
1939. Excessive use of force that resulted in injury rather than death constitutes violations of a number of standards, including articles 7 and 9 of ICCPR. These violations are compounded by the seemingly discriminatory “open fire regulations” for security forces dealing with demonstrations, based on the presence of persons with a particular nationality, violating the principle of non-discrimination in ICCPR (art. 2) as well as under article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1940. The Mission finds that Israel failed to investigate, and when appropriate prosecute, acts by its agents or by third parties involving serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
1941. The Mission was alarmed at the reported increase in settler violence in the past year and the failure of the Israeli security forces to prevent settlers’ attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property. These are accompanied by a series of violations by Israeli forces or acquiesced by them, including the removal of residential status from Palestinians, which could eventually lead to a situation of virtual deportation and entail additional violations of other rights.
(b) Detention of Palestinians by Israel
1942. The Mission analysed information it received on the detention of Palestinians in Israeli prisons during or in the context of the military operations of December 2008– January 2009 and found those practices generally inconsistent with human rights and international humanitarian law. The military court system to which Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subjected deprives them of due process guarantees in keeping with international law.
1943. The Mission finds that the detention of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council by Israel violates the right not to be arbitrarily detained, as protected by article 9 of ICCPR. Insofar as it is based on political affiliation and prevents those members from participating in the conduct of public affairs, it is also in violation of its articles 25 recognizing the right to take part in public affairs and 26, which provides for the right to equal protection under the law. Insofar as their detention is unrelated to their individual behaviour, it constitutes collective punishment, prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Information on the detention of large numbers of children and their treatment by Israeli security forces point to violations of their rights under ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Source: huffingtonpost.com
Authors: Rep. Keith Ellison, U.S. Congressman from Minnesota
Dated: 2009-11-03
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-keith-ellison/read-goldstones-report-on_b_343495.html
Who is afraid of Richard Goldstone? No one should be. Not even the U.S. Congress — yet it is poised on Tuesday to condemn the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report on violations of international law related to the Gaza war of late 2008.
Why the fear? Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that “bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.”
At the outset, note that four sections of the Goldstone report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states that these rocket attacks are war crimes.
Yet despite Goldstone’s stellar reputation, the veracity of the report — and his motives — has been challenged. The detailed Goldstone report concludes that “the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”
I agree with my congressional colleagues — and with Goldstone — that the initial U.N. resolution of Jan. 12, 2009, calling for an investigation of abuses committed during the Gaza crisis was one-sided, focusing exclusively on Israel. That resolution was used by some countries to criticize Israel without acknowledging the abuses by Hamas. Goldstone initially refused to lead the investigation because of the original flawed mandate.
But Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of the actions of both Hamas and Israel.
Israel, however, refused to cooperate with the investigation because of the original “one-sided mandate.” What if Israel had participated from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the U.N. Human Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. It could have described Hamas’s abuses, and it could have elaborated on the context of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, which includes a long history of attacks on civilians. Israel could have observed the difficulties of combat in urban areas. But instead, Israel condemned the effort and then attacked the final product.
I visited Sderot in southern Israel and saw the havoc and trauma created by Hamas rocket fire. Israelis there live with fear. I have condemned these attacks as war crimes and will continue to do so.
I also visited Gaza and witnessed the devastation wreaked by the recent war. I toured an American school and medical clinics devastated by Operation Cast Lead. A blockade keeps out items such as paper for textbooks and nutritious food. Gazans live in poverty, and most cannot drink their own water. These are cruel violations against the people of Gaza, 56 percent of whom are children.
The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future. Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo.
Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.
This is a mistake. The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress’s and President Barack Obama’s reputation as honest brokers.
Israel can still pursue its own investigation, and critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations — however uncomfortable — their people and politics have emerged stronger.
We stand for the values of democracy, truth and justice. There is no reason for Congress, Israel or any other party to fear an honest judge. Richard Goldstone is such a judge, and his report should be studied, not dismissed.
Source: Thomas.Loc.Gov
Response from Goldstone sourced from Mondoweiss.net (infra) and Hermit's comments Interspersed in Hermitish Markup supplemented with color. Goldstone in Green, Hermit in Yellow.
[Congress 0] 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. RES. 867
[Congress 0] Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.
[Congress 0] IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
[Congress 0] October 23, 2009
[Congress 0] Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and
[Congress 0] Mr. ACKERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[Congress 0] RESOLUTION
[Congress 0.1] Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.
[Congress 0.2] Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;
[Congress 0.3] Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’;
[Goldstone 0.3] That is why I and others refused the original mandate – it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: ". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 20089, whether before, during or after". That mandate clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report with that mandate that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.
[Congress 0.4] Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;
[Goldstone 0.4] This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
[Hermit 0.4.1] I consider this finding to be arguable. The argument is that when the targets are Israelis, then inaccurate, unreliable, unguided rockets, even if fired in the general direction of military bases located in civilian areas even where the civilians have protective structures and warning systems, are inherently illegal, as they are as likely to strike civilian targets as military targets. I suggest that this is an unfair conclusion. The International Conventions on Warfare provides the right to resist occupation. The Palestinians regard all of Palestine to be occupied and the UN and the world (except for the USA and Micronesia) regard the territories not ceded to Israel in 1948 to be under occupation. This means that the Palestinians have the right to resist occupation. This right is meaningless unless ad hoc weapons are permissible, as the territory would not be occupied unless the occupier had overwhelmed and controlled the area. The opposition has high accuracy, high probability of kill (POK) weapon sysytems and delivery platforms, both locally developed and internationally supplied, and still claims that the Palestinian resistance (which Israel and the US refer to as terrorist organizations) is illegally operating from within civilian areas (in an area with some of the highest population density in the world living totally without protection of any sort).
[Hermit 0.4.2] The effective disparity and unequal treatment of the two sides is made clear by examining a few numbers. The total number of unguided rockets fired by the Palestinians between 2001 and January 2009 is well under 9000, killing 28 Israelis in the entire period [ Wikipedia ]. Quoting Wikipedia:Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 locally-made Qassam rockets into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians and injuring 75 others. During the same period, Israel fired more than 14,600 155mm artillery shells into the Gaza Strip, killing 59 Palestinians and injuring 270. The Palestinian fatalities were, according to Human Rights Watch, "primarily if not exclusively civilians."[45]
[Hermit 0.4.3] According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including civilians and Israeli security forces, which includes Israeli police, Israeli Border Police and members of the armed services, were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured.[46] During this time, 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 wounded in "direct conflict related incidents".[46]
[Hermit 0.4.4] I suggest that, unless and until the UN agrees to supply accurate weapons with a high POK to the Palestinians, an idea I find invidious, or the occupation ends, we have to accept that the occupied have the right to use whatever weapons they have access to or can fabricate, and that exercising their right to resist occupation is not terrorism no matter what some people call it. Or we have to agree that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is inherently terrorism too, no matter how the idea offends Zionists wherever they are located. I don't think that Justice Goldstone has addressed this dilemma with sufficient independence, although seeing what has been said about Judge Goldstone's attempt at impartiality, it is quite possible that the credibility of anyone who attempts to address this Catch-22 that has been projected onto the Palestinians will suffer an even worse fate.
[Congress 0.5] Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions `war crimes’;
[Goldstone 0.5] The member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.
[Congress 0.6] Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
[Goldstone 0.6] The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. That is factually incorrect. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.
[Congress 0.7] Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;
[Goldstone 0.7] This too is factually incorrect. The mandate that had been rejected was the one I rejected. Mary Robinson, for example, has written in support of the mandate given to and accepted by me.
[Congress 0.8] Whereas, on September 15, 2009, the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ released its report;
[Congress 0.9] Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;
[Goldstone 0.9] (See Goldstone 0.10 infra)
[Congress 0.10] Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . 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.’;
[Goldstone 0.10] The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor and not against the interests of Israel. I do not consider that it is fair or just to label the findings as "sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations".
[Congress 0.11] Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.’;
[Goldstone 0.11] What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law and that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context.
[Congress 0.12] Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;
[Goldstone 0.12] It is again factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.
[Congress 0.13] Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;
[Goldstone 0.13] This is the first suggestion that I have come across to the effect that we should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. It was simply not on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.
[Hermit 0.13] Not only was this unsubstantiated assertion as to the alleged "support" by the Governments of Syria and Iraq not within the remit of the Goldstone Commission, the assertion that Hamas is a "foreign terrorist organization" is unsupported and likely unsupportable, given that Hamas was founded as an Israeli supported Islamic organization initially to disempower the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization and successor organizations, and subsequently elected by a vast majority of Palestinians in elections certified as free and fair by numerous International organizations and the US State Department.
[Congress 0.14] Whereas the report usually considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the `Gaza authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas;
[Goldstone 0.14] (See Goldstone 0.15 infra)
[Congress 0.15] Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;
[Goldstone 0.15] This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.
[Congress 0.16] Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]‘ specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’;
[Goldstone 0.16] Again, this is an unfair and selective quotation taken our of context.
[Congress 0.17] Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;
[Goldstone 0.17] That Hamas was able to shape the findings or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth and I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.
[Congress 0.18] Whereas even though Israel is a vibrant democracy with a vigorous and free press, the report of the `fact-finding mission’ erroneously asserts that `actions of the Israeli government . . . have contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the government and its actions . . . is not tolerated’;
[Hermit 0.18] Israel is repeatedly referred to as a "Jewish State" by Congress, and while it may please Congress to imagine that an apartheid state that has "first class" Jewish citizens, "second class" Christian citizens, "third class" Islamic citizens, and a vast "zero class" of disenfranchised refugees from its ethnic cleansing programs spread across a third of the planet is a vibrant democracy, it is perhaps woth noting that while Israel has a press which is far more willing to criticize Israel than the media in the USA, that Israel's massive military press-censorship program is not a secret to anyone except those that will not look. For example, in mid 2006 Associated Press reported that the military censor, Col. Sima Vaknin, said "I can, for example, publish an order that no material can be published. I can close a newspaper or shut down a station. I can do almost anything." Further evidence that this accusation is a crock-of-shit is freely available to anybody competent to put search terms into Google. A starting point muight be, "censorship suppression dissent Israel"
[Congress 0.19] Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations Human Rights Council endorse its recommendations, implement them, review their implementation, and refer the report to the United Nations Security Council, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations General Assembly for further action;
[Congress 0.20] Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations Security Council–
[Congress 0.20.1] (1) require the Government of Israel to launch further investigations of its conduct during Operation Cast Lead and report back to the Security Council within six months;
[Congress 0.20.2] (2) simultaneously appoint an `independent committee of experts’ to monitor and report on any domestic legal or other proceedings undertaken by the Government of Israel within that six-month period;
and
[Congress 0.20.3] (3) refer the case to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court after that six-month period;
[Congress 0.21] Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations General Assembly consider further action on the report and establish an escrow fund, to be funded entirely by the State of Israel, to `pay adequate compensation to Palestinians who have suffered loss and damage’ during Operation Cast Lead;
[Congress 0.22] Whereas the report ignored the issue of compensation to Israelis who have been killed or wounded, or suffered other loss and damage, as a result of years of past and continuing rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in southern Israel;
[Hermit 0.22] Using the data above, and the 100:1 ratio of casualties, and 1000:1 ratio of damage imposed upon the Palestinians under Israel's doctrine of "an eye for an eyelash" might be fair. Would Congress really support such an equitable proposal? I doubt it, but would love to see a Congressman propose such a "fair and balanced" policy.
[Congress 0.23] Whereas the report recommended `that States Parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 start criminal investigations [of Operation Cast Lead] in national courts, using universal jurisdiction’ and that `following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted’;
[Hermit 0.23] If Congress is suggesting that "alleged perpetrators" should not be "arrested and prosecuted", should we assume that Congress is mandating that investigations, arrests and prosecutions for allegedly violating laws are to be suspended in areas under their jurisdiction, in which case, will we see funding for the FBI and other policing being removed from the tax burden?
[Congress 0.24] Whereas the concept of `universal jurisdiction’ has frequently been used in attempts to detain, charge, and prosecute Israeli and United States officials and former officials in connection with unfounded allegations of war crimes and has often unfairly impeded the travel of those individuals;
[Hermit 0.24] Who determines what "unfounded" means? The US embarked on illegal wars of aggression against Afghanistan based on unfounded accusations against bin Laden and against Iraq on specious accusations against Saddam Hussein. Should Congressmen who voted for these wars, so providing solid evidence in the Congressional Record not be subject to prosecution for war crimes? If not, is this not rather like a convention of foxes determining that the potential prosecution of hen-house violators is unfair?
[Congress 0.25] Whereas the State of Israel, like many other free democracies, has an independent judicial system with a robust investigatory capacity and has already launched numerous investigations, many of which remain ongoing, of Operation Cast Lead and individual incidents therein;
[Hermit 0.25] And the US congress supports burglars policing themselves, murderers prosecuting themselves and drug dealers enforcing law upon themselves? Why then does the US waste a fortune in maintaining a police state?
[Congress 0.26] Whereas Libya and others have indicated that they intend to further pursue consideration of the report and implementation of its recommendations by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and other multilateral fora;
[Hermit 0.26] The US Congress has not provided any reasons why this should not be the case, and having voted for this bill in the presence of responses by Goldstone showing that the assertions made above were faulty and prejudicial, and thus blatantly rejecting fact to protect Israel, demonstrating for all to see that is incapable of acting impartially in this matter, is there any reason why, and the US does not recuse itself, its input on this matter should not be ignored?
[Congress 0.27] Whereas the President instructed the United States Mission to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva to vote against resolution A-HRC-S-12-1, which endorsed the report and condemned Israel, at the special session of the Human Rights Council held on October 15-16, 2009;
[Hermit 0.27] Without providing reasons or justification. Although Zionist controlled contributions to the American political system and politicians do speak for themselves, as does AIPAC's status as a foreign controlled entity able to manipulate the American political system at will.
[Congress 0.28] Whereas, on September 30, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the mandate for the report as `one-sided’;
[Hermit 0.28] As a long-time Likudnik, Hilary Clinton is recognized throughout the Islamic world as an expert in one-sided mandates. But why should anyone who is not unidimensional pay attention to her?
[Congress 0.29] Whereas, on September 17, 2009, Ambassador Susan Rice, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, expressed the United States’ `very serious concern with the mandate’ and noted that the United States views the mandate `as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable’;
[Hermit 0.29] This was addressed by Goldstone in [Goldstone 0.3] Supra
[Congress 0.30] Whereas the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ reflects the longstanding, historic bias at the United Nations against the democratic, Jewish State of Israel;
[Hermit 0.30] By a self-described Zionist, famous for his roles as an International jurist of impeccable integrity and a life-long record of opposing injustice and prejudice? Ridiculous!
[Congress 0.31] Whereas the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ is being exploited by Israel’s enemies to excuse the actions of violent militant groups and their state sponsors, and to justify isolation of and punitive measures against the democratic, Jewish State of Israel;
[Hermit 0.31] So when Congress mandates actions, justified or not, when others use those actions to justify a response Congress does not like, this invalidates what Congress mandated. What a beautiful example of a total logical collapse.
[Congress 0.32] Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted 25-6 (with 11 states abstaining and 5 not voting) to adopt resolution A-HRC-S-12-1, which endorsed the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ and condemned Israel, without mentioning Hamas, other such violent militant groups, or their state sponsors; and
[Hermit 0.32] Surely Israel, well armed with thousands of weapons systems including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and its state sponsors like the USA which provides it with some 3 billion per year in military aid, having inflicted damage at a rate of 100:1 to 1000:1 on the Palestine (and Lebanon) and having repeatedly attacked its neighbours and the US, and acted repeatedly to prevent the democratically elected government of the occupied Palestine from exercising its sovereignty, the appellation "violent, militant groups" applies more to Israel and its "state sponsors" than to Hamas and "other groups and their state sponsors"?
[Congress 0.33] Whereas efforts to delegitimize the democratic State of Israel and deny it the right to defend its citizens and its existence can be used to delegitimize other democracies and deny them the same right: Now, therefore, be it
[Hermit 0.33] Before something can be delegitimized it has to be legitimate. Even without asking why the UN rejected its "sacred trust" to hold the Palestine for the Palestians and their descendents and the legal basis for the partitioning of the Palestine, perhaps the Congress should turn its attention to which parts of what is today occupied by Israel was assigned to Israel by the UN and to the reasons why the US insisted that the 800,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel prior to the foundation of the UNHCR had the right to return and thus should not fall under the UNHCR. And attempt to determine when and upon what legal basis the US has changed its positions.
[Congress 0.34] Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
[Hermit 0.34] The basis for this resolution having been shown by Goldstone to be, "sweeping and unfair… devoid of truth" any action taken on the grounds of this resolution are "poisoned fruits" in the legal and common sense. Which is unfortunately what the world has come to expect of the US Congress in matters regarding Israel. I say unfortunately, because the US was the one party that might previously have been able to bring Israel to an equitable accommodation with the Palestinians. This having been made impossible, a single state solution is almost inevitable, and aside from the oceans of pain likely to be involved in reaching this resolution, where the "Jewish" nature of Israel will perforce be vacated as Islamic inhabitants eventually outnumber them, is probably a non-ideal outcome for both parties, as Israelis will need to reject a century of anti-Palestinian propaganda and accept a much lower standard of living and Palestians will have to accept sharing what was once their birthright and probably never being compensated for what the Israelis have stolen from them, or the devastation imposed by Israel on their environment.
[Congress 0.34.1] (1) considers the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ to be irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy;
[Congress 0.34.2] (2) supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, its characterization of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ as `unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable’, and its opposition to the resolution on the report;
[Congress 0.34.3] (3) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to continue to strongly and unequivocally oppose any endorsement of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora;
[Congress 0.34.4] (4) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to strongly and unequivocally oppose any further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ and any other measures stemming from this report in multilateral fora; and
[Congress 0.34.5] (5) reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish State of Israel, for Israel’s security and right to self-defense, and, specifically, for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors.
Goldstone attacks House resolution on his report as ’sweeping and unfair… devoid of truth’
Source: Mondoweiss.net
Authors: Philip Weiss
Dated: 2009-10-30
Covering its right flank, J Street says that it is working against the Goldstone report in Congress. But neocons say that J Street is quietly working to scuttle the House resolution against the Goldstone report. [ Hermit : If they were working against it, their failure was signal. ] Certainly J Street’s friend, Peace Now, has come out against the House resolution, saying Israel should conduct an investigation of Gaza, and semi-dissing the Goldstone report.
Here is Judge Goldstone’s response to the House Resolution (thx to Goldfarb). You have to refer to resolution to understand his points.
Here are some comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors:
1. Paragraph 3: That is why I and others refused the original mandate – it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: ". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 20089, whether before, during or after". That mandate clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report with that mandate that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.
2. Paragraph 4: This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
3. Paragraph 5: The member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.
4. Paragraph 6: The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. That is factually incorrect. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.
5. Paragraph 7: This too is factually incorrect. The mandate that had been rejected was the one I rejected. Mary Robinson, for example, has written in support of the mandate given to and accepted by me.
6. Paragraph 9: The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor and not against the interests of Israel. I do not consider that it is fair or just to label the findings as "sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations".
7. Paragraph 11: What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law and that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context.
8. Paragraph 12: It is again factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.
9. Paragraph 13: This is the first suggestion that I have come across to the effect that we should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. It was simply not on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.
10. Paragraph 14: This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.
11.Paragraph 16: Again, this is an unfair and selective quotation taken our of context.
12. Paragraph 17: That Hamas was able to shape the findings or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth and I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.
Related Posts
1. There’s nothing you can do about it. Well actually, you can support the Goldstone report
2. House weighs bill to condemn Goldstone for giving ammo to ‘enemies of the democratic Jewish state’
3. Let Goldstone testify in Congress before you rush to judgment
4. Ask and you shall receive: the US appears willing to help Israel stonewall the Goldstone report
5. Read no evil (the NYT on the Goldstone report)
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
 |
Re:GoldStone vs AIPAC's Poodle aka The US Congress
« Reply #1 on: 2009-11-05 09:55:10 » |
|
I guess my question is; does this indicate any sign of hope for justice ?
Cheers
Fritz
American Jews and Israel
J Street puts a foot in the door
Source: The Economist
Date: Oct 29th 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC
Author: The Economist print edition
Can a handful of peaceniks challenge the power of AIPAC?
AP Ben-Ami’s tricky path
POLITICAL lore in Washington has long ascribed mighty powers to the Jewish lobby—and especially to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 2007 two academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, went so far as to write a book accusing “the lobby” of hijacking American foreign policy and luring America into the quagmire of Iraq to serve Israel’s interests. Henceforth, however, it will not be possible to write of a monolithic pro-Israel lobby in America. AIPAC now has a small but vocal competitor.
More than 1,500 people, mostly American Jews, but including both Israelis and a few Palestinians, showed up in Washington this week for the first annual conference of J Street, a one-year-old, self-describedly “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, whose executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, says it is fighting for the “heart and soul” of the American Jewish community. Unlike AIPAC, J Street intends to push aggressively for a two-state solution based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
AIPAC has maintained a lofty public silence about this doveish upstart. But J Street’s first job has been to rebut a posse of detractors who question how “pro-Israel” it really is. Israel’s ambassador to the United States declined to attend. In print and in the blogosphere, in America and Israel, foes have excoriated J Street for having called for an immediate ceasefire during last year’s Gaza war, paying excessive heed to Richard Goldstone’s report accusing Israel of war crimes, making room at its conference for people who do not support the Zionist idea of a Jewish state, and other alleged heresies against the orthodox line of Israel’s traditional supporters in America.
If this flood of denigration was intended to drown J Street at birth, it seems to have failed. Israel’s Likud-led government may have stayed away from its conference, but its president, Shimon Peres, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of its opposition Kadima party, expressed their support. James Jones, America’s national security adviser, not only gave a speech but made a point of saying that the Obama administration would be represented at future meetings as well. Although some invitees pulled out, more than 40 members of Congress attended a gala dinner.
So J Street has planted a foot in the door. Yet it remains puny compared to AIPAC. The new organisation has an annual budget of around $3m and a handful of staff. AIPAC has an annual budget of around $60m, more than 275 employees, an endowment of over $130m and a new $80m headquarters building on Capitol Hill.
Beyond the disparity in resources, Mr Ben-Ami now faces the nightmarish job of retaining the loyalty of the doves who flocked to this week’s conference without alienating mainstream Jewish opinion in America. This requires some contortions. J Street criticises the “flawed” mandate Mr Goldstone received from the UN but says Israel should take the findings seriously. It favours imposing harsh new sanctions on Iran, but only if the Obama administration’s efforts to engage it fail. Mr Ben-Ami says American Jews take “very sophisticated and nuanced positions” on the Middle East. But many will continue to prefer AIPAC’s simpler view that the government of Israel is the best judge of where Israel’s interests lie.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:GoldStone vs AIPAC's Poodle aka The US Congress
« Reply #2 on: 2010-04-26 14:31:32 » |
|
[Blunderov] Some vindication for Goldstone. Mazel tov to the rabbis.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20100426&articleId=18862
Rabbis Condemn Israel for War Crimes Committed in Gaza: Open Letter to Judge Goldstone
Global Research, April 26, 2010
Jewish Fast for Gaza - 2010-04-21
Dear Judge Goldstone,
As rabbis from diverse traditions and locations, we want to extend our warmest mazel tov to you as an elder in our community upon the Bar Mitzvah of your grandson. Bar and Bat Mitzvah is a call to conscience, a call to be responsible for the welfare of others, a call to fulfill the covenant of peace and justice articulated in our tradition.
As rabbis, we note the religious implications of the Report you authored. We are reminded of Shimon Ben Gamliel’s quote, “The world stands on three things: justice, truth, and peace as it says ‘Execute the judgment of truth, and justice and peace will be established in your gates’ (Zaccariah 8:16).” We affirm the truth of the report that bears your name.
We are deeply saddened by the controversy around the report. We affirm your findings and believe you set up an impeccable standard that presents strong evidence that during the war in Gaza Israel engaged in war crimes that revealed a pattern of continuous and systematic assault against Palestinian people and land that has very little to do with Israel’s claim of security. Your report made clear the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, agricultural properties, water and sewage treatment centers and civilians themselves with deadly weapons that are illegal when used in civilian centers.
This is the ugly truth that is so hard for many Jewish people to face. Anyone who spends a day in Palestinian territories sees this truth immediately.
Judge Goldstone, we want to offer you our deepest thanks for upholding the principles of justice, compassion and truth that are the heart of Jewish religion and without which our claims to Jewishness are empty of meaning. We regret that your findings have led to controversy and caused you not to feel welcome at your own grandson’s Bar Mitzvah. We believe your report is a clarion call to Israel and the Jewish people to awaken from the slumber of denial and return to the path of peace.
This letter is endorsed by Taanit Tzedek- Jewish Fast for Gaza , Shomer Shalom Institute for Jewish Nonviolence, Tikkun and the Shalom Center.
Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence
Rabbi Brant Rosen, Taanit Tzedek –Jewish Fast for Gaza
Rabbi Brian Walt, Taanit Tzedek –Jewish Fast for Gaza
Rabbi Haim Beliak
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Community
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center
Rabbi Rebecca Alpert
Rabbi Phyllis Berman
Rabbi Michael Feinberg
Rabbi Zev-Hayyim Feyer
Rabbi Margaret Holub
Rabbi Shai Gluskin
Rabbi Douglas Krantz
Rabbi Eyal Levinson
Rabbi Mordecai Liebling
Rabbi David Mivasair
Rabbi David Shneyer
Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill
Rabbi Erin Hirsh
Rabbi Michael Rothbaum
Rabbi Benjamin Barnett
Rabbi Julie Greenberg
Rabbi Linda Holtzman
Rabbi Ayelet S.Cohen
Rabbi Jeffrey Marker
Rabbi Nina H.Mandel
Rabbi Victor Reinstein
Rabbi Everett Gendler
Rabbi Meryl M. Crean
Rabbi Sheila Weinberg
Rabbi Pamela Frydman Baugh
Rabbi Lewis Weiss
Rabbi Shaul Magid
Rabbi Stephen Booth-Nadav
Rabbi Phillip Bentley
Rabbi Anna Boswell-Levy
Rabbi Chava Bahle
This letter is supported by Taanit Tzedek- Jewish Fast for Gaza , Shomer Shalom Institute for Jewish Nonviolence, Tikkun and the Shalom Center.
If you are a rabbi and would like to add your name to this statement, send an e-mail to Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb (rabbilynn at earthlink dot net).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
