Reconsidering the Goldstone Report

[Mike Renzulli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Richard Goldstone is the former head of the UN Human Rights Council that alleged in a 2008-2009 report to the body claiming that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. In the above op-ed he repudiates/retracts what the commission concluded in its report.

Islamists (like Hamas) have used the report's conclusions and the fact that the Israelis would not participate in the investigation as a way to drive home their claims about Israeli oppression in the Gaza Strip. Now, fortunately, they have had the wind taken out of their sails.

[Richard Wiig]

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

He doesn't actually fully realise that he's in a war yet. Great that he's beginning to see some light though.

[Mike Renzulli]

Goldstone also said:

We had no evidence that Israel didn't intentionally target civilians, so we concluded that Israel did so. Now we have evidence to the contrary. If only Israel had provided that sooner...

Essentially, Goldstone's notion is that Israel is guilty until proven innocent. Such excuse making and idiocy leaves me in awe!

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

He doesn't actually fully realise that he's in a war yet. Great that he's beginning to see some light though.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Richard Wiig]

Well, the whole idea of the report in the first place - born and bred by the OIC - was to continue the attack on Israel, so who else could head that other than an anti-semite? In typical PC fashion he sees what he wants to see.

[Greybird]

Erhm ... not so fast.

[anthony]

Well, the whole idea of the report in the first place - born and bred by the OIC - was to continue the attack on Israel, so who else could head that other than an anti-semite? In typical PC fashion he sees what he wants to see.

Well, the proposition that a Jew can also be an anti-Semite has been hypothesised in the past, mainly by Jews.

Goldstone's report caused bitterness among his fellow Jewish community in South Africa, and a rift with the Jewish liberals here, who, like most South Africans, presume Israel's de facto guilt on every controversy.

(I have not seen a single media report as yet in SA about this retraction, or whatever it's going as. Mike's post alerted me first. The silence speaks volumes.)

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

A jew can clearly be an anti-semite, just a westerner self-loathe his own western roots.

[Mike Renzulli]

Of course the U.N. is going to stand by the report or the conclusion of it's other bodies that conduct investigations. Most the U.N. member nations are dictatorships in which many of them are Islamist despots.

If Israel intentionally targets civilians then why does their military warn them prior to their attacks on Gaza? The Associated Press in 2008 reported that the IDF send texts and pre-recorded cell phone messages to Gazans prior to an attack. The IDF did the same thing for Lebanese civilians prior to an Israeli attack on a village in Lebanon in 2006.

The truth is that Hamas purposely positions weapons caches near civilian targets hoping such defacto human shields will prevent their positions from being destroyed by Israeli precision fire weapons.

However, despite their best efforts at warning the populace if Gaza Palestinian civilians are killed or wounded as a result of Israeli retaliation, Hamas blames Israel and (worst of all) the media will report it as such.

Hamas has turned the Gaza strip into a terrorist base and the group has broken every cease fire agreement negotiated with the Israelis in which Egypt has been the moderator. So the blame for civilian deaths in Gaza lies with Hamas. Not Israel.

Erhm ... not so fast.

[anthony]

A jew can clearly be an anti-semite, just a westerner self-loathe his own western roots.

Mmm, that could open a whole kettle of worms. (Or a can of fish.)

I think it's rare that a person loathes everything about himself, and would indicate severe neurosis when he does.

Mostly, one can despise one part. Mixed premises, as you know.

In Goldstone's case - a liberal judge who did brave and principled work undermining apartheid - he apparently is sensitive about and prejudiced against Israel and its comparisons (false, I believe) with apartheid S. Africa.

Otherwise, he is I gather, an unashamed Jew.

You apparently view such matters in black and white, Richard.

Doesn't it seem likely to you that a Muslim may be proud of his faith, and yet despise those of the same religion who practise violence in its name?

Are you as westerner proud of everything the West has stood for?

I'm sure not.

Sweeping assertions do not help your position.

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

Tony, I really don't care about his mixed premises, or the parts of him that does and doesn't loathe. He is dishonest and evil and sets out to hurt people. He is an enemy of war. If he wants to redeem himself that's up to him, not me.

Richard