George Jonas: Judge Goldstone — "peace criminal"

[shira]

Our generation hasn’t injected more justice into politics than previous generations, but we’ve certainly injected more politics into justice. One pioneer in the lucrative field of politics in black robes has been Judge Richard Goldstone, a former South African jurist and UN war crimes prosecutor. A leading figure in the dispensation of bewigged politics, Judge Goldstone’s latest product has been a 575-page report on the 2008 “war” between Israel and Hamas, issued on behalf of the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, whose members include such bastions of human rights as Libya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

UNHRC is an organization former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan reportedly described as one of his biggest mistakes. Considering the whoppers Annan has made, that’s saying something. Anyway, UNHRC investigating war crime allegations has the credibility of a commission made up of Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jack the Ripper investigating allegations of sexual misconduct.

<snip>

Israeli President Shimon Peres, not exactly a hawk, has responded to Goldstone’s report by saying it “makes a mockery of history and fails to distinguish between aggressor and those acting in self-defence.” He observed that the report legitimized terrorism and ignored the right and obligation of a state to stop mortar and rocket fire from reaching its citizens and their children. Peres didn’t add that if silencing rocket launchers that target civilians is a war crime, criminalizing self-defence is a peace crime. I’ll add it for him. “Peace criminal” fits Judge Goldstone perfectly.

<snip>

This week the American lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that “if the methodology and conclusions of Goldstone’s infamous report were ever applied generally to democracies seeking to combat terrorists who hid behind civilians — as in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq — it would constitute a great victory for terrorism and a defeat for democracy.” Dershowitz went on to say that we don’t have to worry because the report isn’t intended to establish general principles of international law and is directed — “for shame” — only at “the Jew among nations — Israel.”

more...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/19/george-jonas-judge-goldstone-quot-peace-criminal-quot.aspx

[FarrenH]

1. The first thing that is humorous about this article,

is that the author doesn't even understand the report, or the international law it rests on. First he writes "Peres didn’t add that if silencing rocket launchers that target civilians is a war crime, criminalizing self-defence is a peace crime". Goldstone's report neither criminalized nor criticized the right to self-defense, it criticized behavior that is criminal in International law.

Jonas proceeds to overtly demonstrate his ignorance of the legal context with this line "Nor does it say what rock of international law the doctrine of “proportionality” was hiding under until it made a sudden appearance in relation to Israel."

Here's your answer, Mr Jonas:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11115/israel_and_the_doctrine_of_proportionality.html

The doctrine that George Jonas thinks Goldstone magicked into existence is over 100 years old.

The second humorous thing is that shira posts this drivel without any comprehension that rather than being a damning criticism of Goldstone's commission, it is a litany of the author's failures of knowledge, comprehension and basic logic.

[shira]

3. the Goldstone report is not based on Int'l law - it's based on twisting Int'l law

and the fact is every single thing Israel has attempted to do, since Hamas started firing rockets years ago, is labeled unlawful, illegal, disproportionate, etc., so therefore there is nothing Israel could have done the past 5 years that would have been "kosher" by supposed International Law and 100's of thousands of Israel's citizens should have just kept on 'taking it'.

(The fact is, Israel upholds Int'l Law better than any western nation - going by the standards in this report, every other nation including NATO nations is at least 5-10x worse than Israel in comparison).

"Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas' way of fighting.

By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare. "

-Richard Kemp (Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan 2003

FarrenH - humor us, what could Israel have done "legally" the past 5 years - and in fact, what "did" they do legally to stop rockets the past 5 years - anything?

[LeftishBrit]

2. There is no such thing as a 'peace criminal'

And before the inevitable argument gets brought up: no, the British and Europaean appeasers of Nazi Germany, and the America-Firsters in the USA, were NOT 'peace criminals' or pacifists at all. They were xenophobic-isolationists at best; blatantly pro-Nazi at worst; at middling, regarded Hitler as a potential ally against the Communists -- the enemy of my enemy and all that.

[shira]

4. when Int'l Law is twisted in such a way as to make it illegal to defend a country's....

...citizens from attacks by illegal militias fighting assymetrically, it is a disaster to the cause of peace and human rights.

Goldstone's report is a monstrous farce - of course knowing who put him in charge (the UNHRC with Libya, Saudi Arabia, Burma, etc..in charge) this shouldn't be surprising - they knew what they were getting by employing Goldstone (who was with HRW before this).

"Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas' way of fighting.

By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare. "

-Richard Kemp (Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan 2003

That's saying a lot - Kemp is saying quite explicitly that not only did Israel act better than the USA and UK in combat (even better than his own troops that he commanded), but better than any other military in the history of warfare.

[FarrenH]

5. LOL

Jonas plastered his ignorance all over the page, writing under the misapprehension that a 100 year old doctrine was a recent innovation spun out of whole cloth just for Israel. And then you went and plastered it all over a liberal message board. Par for the course for someone who routinely posts links to insanely right-wing propaganda sites and pretends they're "liberal". Thanks for the entertainment.

[shira]

6. what's hilarious is you think the Goldstone report would last more than 5 minutes in a courtroom

If that courtroom were fair and utilized military experts like Richard Kemp or any other military experts from Western nations, the case would be thrown out in less than 5 minutes.

Please buy a clue.

[Alamuti Lotus]

8. What is more hilarious (funny "what the fuck?", not necessarily funny "ha-ha"), is...

that you completely casually pass off this seriously warped perspective on the world as nothing out of the ordinary and just expect us to follow along like it's not dense doses of crazy. The vast chasm that exists between "basic standards of decency" and "any concept you put forth" is more interesting (and do remember the connotations I carry along with that term "interesting") than almost anything else in these parts.

[shira]

10. do yourself a favor and read Colonel Richard Kemp here....

it's an eye-opener, read it all...

post #12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x286996#287074

now compare what Kemp says to what Marc Garlasco of HRW said about US troops here...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230_page2.shtml

"I don’t think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they’re not killing civilians,” Garlasco points out.

“If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?” Pelley asks.

“Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn’t have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people’s homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

and from the same article...

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

That's Marc Garlasco of HRW just last year.

Where's the outrage?

More from the 60 Minutes interview...

"To return just for a moment to the bombing at Kapisa,” Pelley addresses President Karzai. “A rocket was fired at a U.S. base there. It missed. No one was hurt. And yet, the response was to drop 4,000 pounds of explosives on that neighborhood.”

"That is wrong," the president says.

"They hit what they were aiming at," Pelley points out.

"That is a mistake," Karzai says. “I know that. It may be at times careless. A careless mistake, but not deliberate.”

For the USA, dropping 4,000 pounds of explosives in response to a rocket that hit nothing is called careless, a mistake, not deliberate. What does the Goldstone mission call this WRT Israel? Indiscriminate, deliberate, collective punishment, disproportionate, etc. :eyes: The point isn't that Israel is bad but the USA is worse - so sue the USA - the point is that if you read both articles, you'll find it's a hell of a lot more complex than HRW and the UNHRC make it out to be WRT Israel. That context is deliberately missing in reports against Israel. Context that the IDF explains here...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Operation_in_Gaza-Factual_and_Legal_Aspects.htm

That's a professional assessment of the war, not some stinking pile of shit screed from the UNHCR, and of course it was ignored by Goldstone in favor of Hamas propaganda.

Remember what Colonel Kemp states very clearly with respect to Israel:

"the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare."

And you think any objective court (not some ridiculous ICJ Kangaroo court) would waste more than 5 minutes of their time on Goldstone's "findings"?

[FarrenH]

9. Of course you're well-qualified

to comment on the findings of a white, Jewish, self-declared Zionist judge with a long and distinguished career conducting enquiries into humanitarian and international law and has every reason to soften his conclusions where Israel is concerned. As illustrated by your uncritical posting of numerous links to articles and blogs that don't even get the basics of IL right. LOL.

[shira]

11. please read post #10 first, with links, before responding to me again

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. Just wait until the right-honorable Conrad Black finds out about this

When he realizes that such obviously RW filth was smeared onto the walls of his fine upstanding newspaper, he'll be in fits..

[IndianaGreen]

12. and Jonas has to quote Alan Dershowitz, a hero to some of you

but a disgusting creature to the rest of us when he defended torture and the police state established by George W. Bush.

[shira]

13. you'd support some torture too if it would save your loved ones - most liberals would

[IndianaGreen]

14. Funny, that was Stalin's argument in favor of institutionalized torture

I am opposed to torture under any circumstances.

[shira]

15. yeah right

do you have loved ones you really care about?

[IndianaGreen]

16. I don't practice situational ethics like you obviously do

Care for Kool Aid?

[shira]

17. LOL, *nt*

[LeftishBrit]

19. That's why the laws should prevent it under all circumstances

It's too important to be left up to individuals.

If it's permitted to torture others to save my loved ones, then iy would also be permitted to torture my loved ones if someone thinks it would save someone else. And just typing that made me feel ill; it must NEVER be permissible to torture. It must be absolutely banned for everyone.

[shira]

20. that's a good point

[LeftishBrit]

18. By the way, do you know George Jonas' general viewpoints on the world?

Here is a taster:

http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=674


'Actually, a European Union-type of techno-corporate state seems a greater threat to a free society. The EU's kind of supra-national bureaucracy, less bloody and more sophisticated than a communist state, is nearly as coercive and more likely to succeed.

I think the force with the greatest capacity for becoming a threat to liberal democracy is liberalism itself -- meaning loony-liberalism, a kind of ideological ménage à trios between Timothy Leary, Karl Marx and Al Gore, at once passionate and arid, that in Western societies has all but captured the educational and judicial machinery of the state. In some, it's a virtual state religion, whose matriarchal, environmentalist, multicultural, anti-male, anti-family, anti-individual and public-hygiene shibboleths are enforced by Orwellian regulatory agencies, commissions and tribunals, better known as the smoke-, smut-, seat-belt-, thought-, language-and calorie-police.

Some of loony-liberalism's ideological strands, e. g., feminism and environmentalism, transcend borders and religions. Like all successful ideologies, they can absorb other kinds of self-identifications and loyalties. They can even absorb each other, as demonstrated by the 1990s movement of "eco-feminism." As millennial ideas, they hold out the promise of a new beginning, a fundamental change in human society. Both matriarchy and environmentalism combine mysticism with a quasi-scientific stance, much like fascism and communism did.

...Democracy, far from being eco-fascism's enemy, seems to be its friend. Its enemy is liberty. That's why I think liberty has as much to fear from democracy as from autocracy.

So, is it going to be Sino-Russian autocracy versus Western-style democracy, as Kagan suggests? I wouldn't rule it out. Nor would I rule out democracy allying itself with a kind of pseudo-scientific health-worshipping eco-maniacal post-family feminism, culminating in a whopping tyranny to make autocracy, or even oriental despotism, look like a Boy Scout jamboree.'


Just as I do not think that the likes of Ron Paul should be cited to justify pro-Palestinian views, I do not think that the likes of George Jonas (in some ways, a more intellectual version of Ron Paul) should be used to justify pro-Israeli views.

[shira]

21. never heard of him before

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. like the rest of us here, I read that as "read him often, but annoyed at being found out"

[FarrenH]

22. Loony liberalism...

like environmentalism and feminism.

Charming.

Not the first time shira's linked to a batshit insane right wing ideologue to support her position, and I doubt it will be the last

[shira]

23. that delusional hate screed about apartheid masquerading as scholarship that you....

...had the audacity to flaunt here as a liberal study didn't even remotely resemble honest, reliable, and rational liberal analysis. And neither does the Goldstone report (again see post #10 above with links and compare to Goldstone's nonsense and hopefully you'll see what I mean).

It's not that I don't think you're a liberal - you may very well be one - it's that it seems you're only amenable to indoctrination and propaganda when it comes to Israel (a trait you share with RW'ers who are just as easily brainwashed). In addition, your views resemble those of American RW'ers like Pat Buchanon, Bob Novak, and David Duke moreso than mainstream American liberals.

Now to address your snipe at me - I don't look at I/P as something that is LW/RW, so sue me. I look for accuracy, honesty, and sharp analysis and reject all else - no matter the political persuasion.

[LeftishBrit]

26. I do not think that I/P is *in itself* left-wing/right-wing...

in the sense that people can come to either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian perspectives from a left-wing perspective, a right-wing perspective, or neither.

However, for me it is more important whether someone is right-wing or non-right-wing (not necessarily left-wing) than precisely where they stand on the I/P continuum.

Firstly, I consider ALL right-wing philosophy to be evil and a menace to the world, to be fought wherever it occurs. Note, as my point here is sometimes misunderstood: this does NOT mean that I consider that all individuals who vote for or support right-wing parties are evil or a menace or even stupid. I don't think this by any means. I simply think that right-wing ideas and philosophies are wrong in their essence and have absolutely nothing to offer progressives and that it would be a danger to try to incorporate any right-wing ideas into our own philosophies.

Secondly, right-wingers are likely to come to their position on I/P - whatever it is - for the wrong reasons: basically, some form of xenophobia.

Thus the right-wing pro-Israel position basically means: Fuck the Arabs/Muslims.

The right-wing pro-Palestinian position basically means: Fuck the Jews.

The right-wing isolationist position basically means: Fuck all foreigners.

The right-wing 'neocon' or 'realist' position basically means 'Fuck all foreigners who are not specifically useful to us' - with 'neocons' and 'realists' differing as to who are the 'useful' foreigners.

Etc.


Fortunately, people can and often do have pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, middle-of-the-road, or non-interventionist positions for reasons that have nothing to do with the right-wing - and their positions are more likely to be based on valid ideas, whether you agree with them in a particular case or not.

I had not heard of Jonas before, but my antennae were instantly out for a right-wing hawkish worldview by his use of the term 'peace criminal'. If someone says that a report on Israel is biased, or hypocritical, or just plain wrong on the facts - then this is at least worth considering, whether one ends up agreeing or not. But if they use a term like 'peace criminal', then they are probably starting from a generally hawkish viewpoint that is not IMO even worth considering.

[shira]

27. I think you're generally correct - there are always exceptions

Having no clue as to who Jonas is or where he comes from, I don't know his motivations - but "peace criminal" appears to be an apt description for those who would distort Int'l Law in such a way as to make it impossible for Israel to defend its citizens from an organization like Hamas.

Realize that Western powers will not and cannot get behind the Goldstone Report (see my post #10 above, citing Richard Kemp and Marc Garlasco) and not only because doing so would make them the next target of the UNHRC and victim of the Hague. David Landau summed up why most of Israel's left (aside from the extremists like Uri Avnery and Gideon Levy) aren't behind the commission's report here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x287828

It's simply ludicrous.

What the Goldstone Commission did is vulgar and wrong - it's a devastating blow to human rights and the peace process - as it will only encourage non-state actors like Hamas to continue fighting as they do (with the blessings of human rights organizations and the media) using civilians as their pawns against civilized nations trying to fight by the rules (or some twisted interpretation of the rules).

Whether it's a RW description or not - "peace criminal" seems right on target.

=========

The ICRC ruled that voluntary human shields are protected by law - meaning civilized nations cannot defend against militias who deploy among voluntary shields. Under this insane ruling (which incidentally went against every legal expert the ICRC sought advice from) if Hamas decides to fire away at Israel from some location where citizens volunteer to shield, Israel's citizens would just have to 'take it' and the IDF would have no right to defend.

That ruling is criminal.

In addition, children count as voluntary shields - children who cannot and should not be expected to make such a decision like that for themselves (who are either brainwashed or encouraged by adults to become shields).

It's not as if we should be surprised by such disgusting rulings (realize who runs the UNHRC - Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba...), but we shouldn't pretend these rulings are being proposed or adjucated by fellow progressives.

=========

And if the ICRC ruling is adopted in such a way in which militants from Hamas, IJ, Al-Qaeda, etc... are counted as civilians in the Gaza Police force (and therefore illegitimate targets of the IDF) how else should we label such lunacy - other than the demented work of 'peace criminals'?

[LeftishBrit]

28. I think the fundamental difference between us is that I think there are NO exceptions.

Right-wing views are wrong even if they come from people who support my country or ethnic group or organization.

And I do not think that those with pacifist or dovish views on defense SHOULD ever be called criminals for it. If one thinks that they are wrong in a particular case, one can call them wrong or naive or unrealistic or even say that their views are dangerous, but criminalizing peace movements is invariably wrong. JMO. Also the deliberate imitation of the phrase 'war criminal' trivializes both war and war crimes.

In any case, I consider that Jonas' general view of the world is so truly monstrous, that even if I agreed with him on a particular issue (which I don't), I would still suspect that he came to it for the wrong reasons. Just as even if Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan or the BNP agree with me on a specific issue - such as opposing the Iraq War - I would never cite them in justification, as they come to what happens to be the right view in this specific case for entirely the wrong reasons.

[shira]

29. on the first issue....

Jonas's views may be RW only economically or in a neo-con way, maybe he's a social liberal - who knows - IMO, it's silly to assume he has the worst of intentions regarding Palestinians or Arabs in general. Unless we know for sure, like Dan Pipes, I don't think it's safe to assume most RW'ers necessarily have nasty ulterior motives when it comes to I/P (we can suspect that the vast majority do, but come on). For example, Dershowitz (reviled by many progressives - not liberals - but perhaps one of the greatest civil libertarians of our time) is now cited on more RW blogs and websites than progressive ones - and I think it's safe to assume many RW'ers honestly share his opinion on I/P and are not anti-Arab or anti-Muslim (of course many are, but that's true for LW'ers as well - albeit less so). Generally, I think you're right - but there are exceptions.

as to the 2nd issue....

You know my stance on human shielding and the manner in which human rights organizations encourage Hamas to keep doing it. I think it's fair to say these organizations are defacto accomplices to what Hamas is doing to Palestinians and are therefore, in some manner, responsible for a lot of Palestinian bloodshed. I don't see any reason to write it off as stupidity, naivety, misguided pacifism, or unrealistic viewpoints. They know full well what's going on and they only make matters worse by trying to pass off responsibility in order to demonize Israel - which then contributes to antisemitic acts worldwide, etc. Not that it's a big surprise considering who really runs the UN and unfortunately sets the agenda.

Do you believe the Goldstone Report's analysis is consistant with progressive values?

[bemildred]

24. George Jonas: "Propaganda tool". nt