Goldstone Report Is a Barrier to Peace

[oberliner]

Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in order to punish the people of Gaza. First, its primary conclusions are entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact. Second, it defames one of the most moral military forces in the world, along with one of the most responsive legal systems and one of the freest nations in the world when it comes to dissent. Third, it destroys the credibility of "international human rights" and proves that this honorable concept has been hijacked for political purposes directed primarily against one nation -- Israel.

But fourth, and most important, it has set back prospects of peace by making it far more difficult for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. When Israel was considering its withdrawal from Gaza, some critics predicted that the transfer of Israeli troops out of this dangerous area would encourage terrorists to fire rockets at Israeli civilians who live in close proximity to the Gaza Strip. Those who favored the withdrawal argued that if Palestinian terrorists were to fire rockets from the unoccupied Gaza, Israel would have a perfect right to do whatever it took militarily to stop its civilians from being targeted by enemy rockets. They pointed out that every country has the right to self defense under the United Nations Charter and under the rules of international law. (I favored the withdrawal, as did many liberal supporters of Israel and believed that Israel had the military capacity to respond to any rocket attacks.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/goldstone-report-is-a-bar_b_294493.html

In case anyone is interested in Alan Dershowitz's take on the subject.

[damntexdem]

1. West Bank settlement is the barrier to peace.

A report uncovering war crimes should be the basis of indictments, not called a barrier to peace.

[LeftishBrit]

2. My argument wtith that..

is that Israel's moral right to defend itself against an independent Palestinian state would be *much greater* than its right to attack parts of its own country. (And yes, Brits *do* know what it is to have signficant terrorist threats emanating from part of their own country.) One of the key problems throughout has been that Israel has at the same time been treating the OTs as part of itself *and* as an enemy state.

The desirable option isn't to withdraw troops from the OTs while at the same time treating them as part of Israel - but to allow them to become a state in its own right. Hopefully the two states will live next to each other in mutual toleration. If there is a conflict, then it can be treated like any conflict between two separate states.

[shira]

5. your argument is that Gaza is still occupied, but it hasn't been for 4 years

if Gaza were occupied, Hamas wouldn't have the capability to launch 8000 rockets at Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It also isn't part of an independent state

Whether 'occupied' or not, it is under Israeli jurisdiction.

[shira]

11. Lebanon is an independent state but that didn't stop the demonization after 2006

sense a pattern yet?

Israel has another Goldstone commission to look forward to once the W.Bank is cleared of settlers and the rockets resume.

Count on it.

Jenin (Defensive Shield), Lebanon, OCL, .... next, the W.Bank.

[Alamuti Lotus]

31. Does Hamas control the borders? No, a foreign army does.

In fact, a foreign army maintains an economic blockade -- typically a strong casus belli for war, cited for such on at least one occasion by Israel itself.

[shira]

33. the Egyptian army?

[Alamuti Lotus]

36. no, coy is not the word.. give me a minute to reconsider

ah bugger it, my apathy is taking control for the night.

[shira]

3. that catch-22 is an excellent point by Dershowitz

It will now be far more difficult for Israelis who oppose a continued presence of Israeli troops on the West Bank to persuade a majority of Israelis that the army can protect them even if they leave the West Bank, without incurring the wrath of the international community.

Real peace activists will realize this - of course there are the faux-peace activists for whom peace and human rights aren't really the goals at all - their main motivation being the continued demonization and eventual destruction of Israel.

[shira]

10. and here's another reason such ludicrous reports are damaging to peace and human rights

regarding the Jenin massacre that never was....

Yet it remains true that while Israel used firepower in accordance to international law, the number of civilians killed and the collateral damage in Gaza was much greater than in Defensive Shield, although lower than the "normal" damage of urban warfare. Comparing the cases reveals an interesting phenomenon: in some cases, human rights organizations can cause more damage than good to their case, since wild claims and exaggerations after Defensive Shield contributed to Israel’s change of tactics in Gaza.

If you not only act in accordance with international law but go above and beyond the legal requirements to minimize collateral damage, while paying the price in soldiers' lives, yet are still blamed for "massacres," and, as a result, are treated worse than countries that have committed massacres, the incentives to make this extra effort are inconsequential. Organizations that blame Israel for "lack of proportionality" should first examine themselves and their claims – since their own lack of proportionality also affects human lives.

http://www.adelsoninstitute.org.il/PointOfView.aspx?id=58

[Poll_Blind]

4. If Dershowitz singlhandedly destroys the concept of Tikkun olam in his lifetime, I suppose...

...he will feel he has accomplished something. He represents the worst-case scenario concerning Diasporic Jews: Intelligent, formall-educated and thoughtful- up until the point where it is required to make a distinction between holding Israel accountable to traditionally Jewish ideals or bending (or breaking) with Jewish ideals to justify political and military abuse merely because those abuses were carried out by Jews.

PB

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Alan Dershowitz, wow. That's credibility for you.

Certainly he's got to be more credible than a guy like Goldstone. :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What's yr opinion of the report, Oberliner?

When it comes to Dershowitz, his is predictable and apart from the laugh I got out of calling the IDF 'one of the most moral military forces in the world', nothing particularly interesting was said...

[oberliner]

9. I have not read it - have you?

I've only seen the bits and pieces that have been cited in various articles. It is close to 600 pages.

Very broadly, once the conflict began, I think that Israel should have taken significantly more care not to harm Palestinian civilians and I think that Hamas should not have launched rockets at Israel.

Stepping back even further, I don't think Israel should have conducted the operation in the first place.

What they should have done to address the rocket attacks, I do not know.

People on both sides who are serious about peace have to start being a bit more creative about finding solutions otherwise this will go on forever.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I've read the first 50 pages...

I haven't gotten any further as I had to read two much much shorter reports for work...

I totally agree with what you said, btw...

[LeftishBrit]

14. Agreed on all points

[pelsar]

60. that doesn't work....

What they should have done to address the rocket attacks, I do not know.

My impression when that answer comes up, is whats left unsaid...that until some magical potion appears to actually convince hamas, without force as in the gaza invasion, to stop shooting....... the israels should basically just accept the terror.....that was part of their everyday and night lives.

its not as if the invasion just happend...there is a long history of limited attempts to stop the kassams...the lack of results was rather obvious.

I understand that the argument is of course, no we don't accept the immoral kassams, the war crimes, by hamas etc....but because we dont have a way to stop them that also isn't immoral, war crimes etc....the better option is to let hamas terrorize at will...and the israelis, will simply have to get used to running to shelters within their 15 seconds day and night until hamas decides either to shoot larger rockets and eventually kill hundreds (and israel gets what we call "death points"...you get enough points and then you can morally strike back)...or they decide to do something else

"I dont know"....also has consequences...immoral consequences....

[oberliner]

63. Are you confident that invading Gaza was the only way to stop the Qassam attacks?

Do you think there may have been other actions that Israel could have taken to achieve the same result or do you believe that Operation Cast Lead was the only means Israel had at its disposal to address the situation?

Are you confident now that the operation is over that Hamas will be unable to threaten Israel with Qassam attacks now and in the near future?

[pelsar]

64. unfortunately yes...

in all the years of the kassams, the limited strikes to stop them, be it sonic booms, artillery warning shots, helicopter missiles assassinations, ambushes, the closing and opening of the borders for food, supplies, humanitarian visits.....nothing changed hamas attitude with the shooting of kassams

how many years was it going on for, how many variations of the carrot/stick political/military attempts were tried?.......what was left to try? what magical potion would have changed hamas attitude?

as far as i can tell, nothing but brute force actually changed their minds. They could have stopped the kassams and mortars anytime they felt like it (this should be obvious by now), and the pressures put on them until the invasion simply weren't enough, that should be obvious as well. As hamas admitted after the war, they didn't expect such a response, and i think they actually understood that to stay in power and avoid an uprising they have to take some of the needs of the population into consideration....

the problem with the "i don't know" answer, is that it believes there is some magic formula that will change hamas ideology (and until that is discovered, they can keep on firing kassams). After so many years of not finding that formula, the Israeli govt owed it citizens of S. Israel and definitive answer to stop the terrorism.
____

Of course hamas still has new kassams, they also have a deal with smugglers in the sinai....they can import commercial goods, but retain ammo depots for emergency imports if the time is needed. Egypt is keeping one eye closed as long as they don't bother the tourist industry in the Sinai....

So they might attack again, and it will be as stupid as the first time. Its the kind of political decision that one can never know as its based on internal Palestinian politics.

two examples:
Jenin is now quiet, what used to be a Jihad haven and an attack by the IDF, is now empty of jihadnikim. The members voluntarily disbanded after getting assurances from the IDF that they wont be chased down. They're leader Zakariya Zubeid was reported to be studying theater (i don't have any real details....)

Lebanon didn't work out to well, with a second attack coming after the first lebanon war

so Gaza, and hamas with support from Iran and Hizballa, might start again.....or maybe not. Of course if they do start with the kassams, the consequences shouldn't be a surprise......so they will at least know what to expect which means they will have done their own internal calculations before they start up again. And i really hope they decide to go the club med route.....but religion is a very powerful force, way beyond reason, and that is the real problem over there.....

of course maybe the gazans are getting used to living in peace.....and will put some pressure on hamas to not shoot, that is actually the "magic potion" that is needed and its not in israeli hands.

[oberliner]

65. Thanks for your response

None of us is all knowing, so I'm not sure how I could give an answer other than "I don't know" with respect to how to address the Qassam situation.

Some may argue that during the time of the truce, several months passed without any rocket attacks. Perhaps Israel could have taken steps that would have led to Hamas renewing the truce for an additional period of time.

That approach may have had a similar effect in terms of stopping the rocket attacks as the invasion did.

Of course, if one really wants to step outside the box, Israel could have lifted the blockade, withdrawn all settlements from the West Bank, released all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, and this may have led to an end to Hamas rocket attacks.

Alternatively, those steps could have led to more rocket attacks and an increasingly militant Hamas. Who can say?

The recent invasion which has for the time being resulted in almost no rocket attacks, may have unintended consequences that put Israel in an even more precarious position at some point in the near future.

No one really can know these things, which is why I expressed the opinion that I did.

Is Israel truly better off now than they were before the invasion? I guess only time will tell.

[pelsar]

66. and we don't know.....

Is Israel truly better off now than they were before the invasion? I guess only time will tell.

the 67 war lead to the poison of the territories.....
the october war lead to peace with egypt (because of two strong leaders....)

the long term consequences of the actions are simply not known.........
_____

leaving the westbank...as in leaving gaza is not an sure answer for peace, Gaza was easy in that they are relativly far from the population centers but a repeat of gaza in the westbank would be a disaster for the Palestinians (and israel-the settlers would get incredible political power).....and nobody knows what would happen with a withdrawal.....the dynamics of such a move would cause a massive political upheaval in the PA and who knows who would end of up on top. They don't have a stable, strong govt....its more of a tribal/mafia styled organization. (see gaza and iran for possible scenarios)

the answer, as far as a i see it, is the PA first and foremost has to establish itself as a strong, democratic oriented society that can infact withstand upheavals and not end up having a coup. I've been told its none of our business how they govern themselves...and in fact i dont really care if the revert to voodoism, the trouble is that i believe the better chances for avoiding a gaza type scenario is that the PA establishes itself as democratic society first where the people have a lot of input...since i don't think they like the gaza version of self govt.

____

as far as the truce with gaza....they had a truce, they had supplies come in via israel (and the tunnels without being bothered).....the hamas leadership are not mentally retarded, they are very intelligent people who can make decisions, they decided to call off the truce, it was a "big boy decision" based on their own political needs. They could have tried to expand the truce if they weren't totally satisfied with it......they chose not to, israel had nothing to do with their decision. Hamas simply chose war....

[oberliner]

67. Regarding the truce

I agree with your comments regarding Hamas and the truce; however, I do feel that Israel had it within her power to present Hamas with a situation which would have made it more likely that they would have chosen an extension of the truce rather than a termination. For instance, Israel continued to reserve the right to take action against what they saw as potential terror threats in the making in Gaza and did take such action on more than one occasion in spite of the existence of the truce. This gave Hamas the pretense it needed to argue that Israel itself broken the truce in the first place, rather than Hamas.

The extension of the truce, it seemed, was something that neither Hamas nor the Israeli leadership was particularly keen on pursuing.

[pelsar]

68. thats a major disagreement i have with many here...

Hamas and the PA are not powerless, they can pressure israel and they get pressured. Hamas didn't need a pretense to stop the truce, for reasons of their own they chose not to.-they are adults.

i'm sure the IDF was glad they chose not to..as they had trained and prepared for just that moment....its a shame hamas chose to give it to them...
but once again the post invasion is very revealing: Hamas has not only controlled the kassams but their own borders as well-seems that during the truce they could have done the same - they chose not to.

_____

if hamas and the PA can't be responsible for their own decisions now, what makes them responsible in the future?

Hamas has shown time and time again that they do infact control gaza and the actions within....i think respecting their power and decisions is a better way then believing that israel can influence them (Israel has a poor record of influencing arab leaders and the arab street.....) and then blame israel for a decision made by the hamas leadership.

...the hamas leadership to their credit, takes responsibility for their actions, i think one should respect them.

[oberliner]

69. I agree with you

My only point is that Israel could have taken action if it wanted to. Certainly Hamas and the PA could have take different actions as well, but if we want to focus on whether or not Israel had any choice about invading Gaza to stop the Qassams, I would argue that they did have some other options they could have considered (and perhaps did consider).

Hamas certainly made their own choices and I completely believe that their choices did not by any stretch of the imagination have the best interests of the Palestinian people at heart. That is one of the many reasons I find them to be a deplorable organization who I hope will find themselves driven out of power in the not so distant future.

The Israeli leadership, however, is far from infallible, and I believe that they made some choices that could end up having serious negative consequences for Israelis in the future, to say nothing of the impact on the people of Gaza (which does not excuse Hamas by any means).

The question I am asking, and I make no claims to by anything other than an outside observer, is could Israel have taken other steps that would have addressed the Qassam problem without engaging in OCL?

I believe they could have and am brainstorming some possibilities.

[pelsar]

72. I honestly simply dont know what other possibilities....

Hamas had a very real choice of telling israel...hey we want to renegotiate this little truce of ours....we want to improve it...but they didnt. That translates that they simply were not interested in it, they preferred to shoot their kassams. I have a hard time trying to figure out what israel was supposed to do to convince them that shooting kassams was not a worthwhile proposition, when they already knew israel would close down the borders and strike back with violence as they had already done......and hamas certainly wasnt interested in their citizens safety....they made a choice.

i understand the base-israel is more powerful, has more responsibility etc etc etc....that is based on the assumption that israel in fact can control/influence the hamas/pa govts ...history has shown this to be not true at all.....israel cant control jackshit when it comes to convincing/influencing the arab world via political and economic means.

All the brainstorming possibilities, that you write about, require somehow hamas to participate......hamas made it clear that they were not interested. There comes a time, where you have to simply respect your enemy for what they believe in and deal with it on a realistic basis.

--------------------
the israeli leadership is not just far from infallible, they are mistake prone...,lebanon 2 being a prime example, but gaza was the rare occurrence where i believe the process, from the withdrawl, to the opening and closing the borders, limited strikes in reaction to the kassams, to the truce and finally to the invasion was in fact the proper process, where each step was based on the previous one

[ConsAreLiars]

13. He supports torturing Muslims. No surprise he is praising the IDF.

If torturing them is moral because they are unbelievers then killing them is even better, and thus Israeli and the IDF are almost as moral as the Cheney-Chimpy butchers.

[Ken Burch]

15. Oberliner, you're more or less a dove...why would you EVER quote Dershowitz?

He's one of the leading "any criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism" types.

Also, basically, Dersho doesn't WANT peace. He just gets his jollies being an armchair general(you'll noticed that The Dersh never volunteered to serve in the IDF, which he easily could have done when he was of military age).

The guy's article is a car wreck-move along folks, nothing to see here.

[oberliner]

16. The Huffington Post is a left-leaning website

They ran his piece - I thought it might be of interest here as well.

Dershowitz does claim to be a left-leaning Democrat himself, incidentally, incongruous as that may seem.

[Ken Burch]

17. So do the most bloodthirsty posters in this forum.

So, it's not as incongruous as it might seem.

Still, I think you'd have to agree that, after Operation Cast Lead, Dershowitz is probably the ONLY person who could keep a straight face when he described the IDF as "one of the most moral military forces in the world". This is the military force that has often let elderly Palestinians who are obviously suffering heart attacks die at the checkpoints for the sole purpose of looking "tough" and reminding Palestinian civilians of just who runs the show.

I would list those who've joined Breaking the Silence and those who've taken the heroic step of refusing to serve in the Territories as being EXTRORDINARILY moral, though. They are truly walking in the footsteps of the Prophets. (BTW, those who wish to support their heroism may do so at this website: http://www.refusersolidarity.net/).

And I didn't really mean to lash out at you oberliner. You're one of the most honorable and thoughtful people that posts in the I/P thread.

[shira]

18. get informed - read #10 above and the link - then add your 2 cents

[shaayecanaan]

21. Most Croatian Americans are Democrats...

including former Ustashe officers that ran a Nazi puppet state and death camps that snuffed out 250 000 Serbs and 25 000 Jews.

Just about any minority will vote for the Democrats, that doesnt mean they're left wing. A Yisrael Beteinu supporter would probably still vote for the Democrats if you transplanted him in America.

[IndianaGreen]

19. They all love the Dersh man

and there is no such thing as a dove, "more or less."

[oberliner]

20. No idea what that means

Several of your posts have been from Communist/Marxist site.

That certainly doesn't mean you love the Communists!

[LeftishBrit]

52. Who are 'they all'?

[bemildred]

22. There is a amazing quantity of empty drivel being written about Goldstone and his report.

The report is a "barrier to peace".
It also "blocks the truth behind the Gaza War".
It is "unfair to Israel".
It raises the question whether the rules of the game have changed.
Goldstone himself is a "peace criminal".
The report may cause Israeli leaders to wake up at last, or drag them all to the Hague.
It is also a "wasted opportunity".
Israel rejects it's suggestion that it's ought to be investigated "independently", or dependently either for that matter.
Israel and Jewish groups seek to discredit it.
It's a "gambit" by Mr Goldstone.
It creates a "new standard" which President Obama must be held to too.

And I expect we have only just begun.

[shira]

23. then stop reading only the headlines and attention grabbing catch-phrases & read the analyses

Here, I'll start you off with a doozy...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=18&x_article=1729

When asked why Goldstone didn't include Colonel Richard Kemp in his report...
http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id233.html

...he came back with a non-response.

Let's not pretend most of the criticism against Goldstone consists of baseless accusations, ad hominems, and empty rhetoric.

[bemildred]

24. I rest my case. nt

[shira]

25. you had a case?

[bemildred]

26. Well, I was considering how to respond to your "attack",

and then I realized it fits in perfectly with my original post about empty drivel, so it just sort of emphasized what I was saying, and I thought that was sufficient.

[shira]

27. and i thought you were looking for substantive criticism and not personal attacks vs. Goldstone

[bemildred]

29. I was not looking for anything.

I was pointing out that a lot of stupid things are being said about the report. My conclusion is that it is seen as a big threat.

[shira]

32. it's a pretty stupid report - most Israelis see it as one big, sick and twisted joke

But maybe you think most Israelis who say that really don't mean it? That they know deep down the IDF is really evil and that they're just BOTS for Israel, right or wrong? Or maybe most are truly ignorant, stupid, drinking the Kool-Aid...?

I don't see what's stupid about rational, substantive criticism that exposes the report for the sick fiction that it is. A lot of things have been said about RW "reports" on the threats of Islam, Iran, etc....do you think most criticisms against RW hate filth are "stupid"? Maybe those RW "reports" are seen as a big threat - using your argument. The point being, Goldstone's latest is as stupid and fictional as the "scholarly" trash presented daily at RW dumps like JihadWatch or FrontPageRag.

The threat, BTW, is that this report is pure hate - and we know from history the repurcussions of such hate against Jews.

[bemildred]

37. I'm not the one with opinions about what "most Israelis" think,

My observation is that Israelis are a very diverse group, and that generalizations about what most of them think are generally inaccurate.

[bemildred]

28. Comment on your two links:

1.) The CAMERA piece appears to be hair-splitting of a high order based on a misreading or what the report says: "The Mission is nonetheless struck by the lack of any suggestion in Israel’s report of July 2009 that there were members of armed groups present in the hospital at the time." Meaning of course the time at which the shelling occurred. The issue is not whether fighters were present at some time or another, the issues is whether they were present when the place was shelled.

2.) In the other one Mr Goldstone is perfectly clear about why Mr Kemp was "excluded", and it appears to me his judgement was sound, his job was not to conduct a debate on extenuating circumstances. Such a discussion is a reasonable thing to do, but it not something you do in a fact finding investigation.

[shira]

35. thanks for debating the substance

1. Why would the mission assume that Israel's shelling was not a direct response to Hamas firing from the hospital? What would the IDF have to gain from indiscriminately firing at the hospital? What a ridiculous charge. And worse - the mission denies Hamas deliberately forced Palestinians to be shields. The 2 newspaper articles refute Goldstone.

2. You say it's a fact-finding mission and not the proper place to conduct a debate on extenuating circumstances. But Goldstone goes much further than reporting facts - in the example above, his mission assumes with zero evidence the IDF fired at the hospital for no apparent reason and that Hamas militants being there "that day" was purely coincidental....therefore the IDF was deliberately aiming at civilians and civilian structures. The mission assigns the worst motives to the IDF while assuming only the best for Hamas (denying they ever forced Palestinians to be shields). Kemp's input is crucial for this type of assymetrical warfare and would have easily demonstrated how silly and baseless the mission's assumptions were about the IDF.

[bemildred]

39. I am not debating the substance.

I was pointing out that there is no substance.

[shira]

40. LOL

[Alamuti Lotus]

30. Was anybody actually interested in Dershowitz's take on the subject?

[bemildred]

34. "First, its primary conclusions are entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact."

Not "inaccurate", or "somewhat false", or "questionable", but: "First, its primary conclusions are entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact." Now the least that ought to be done then is to list the "primary conclusions" and the method of demonstration of their entire falsity. When it was clear that that was not going to be forthcoming, I assumed, correctly I think, that it was entirely a bunch of hot air.

[shira]

38. the primary conclusion is that the IDF was intentionally evil and deliberately targeted civilians

such an accusation is demonstrably false given expert testimony like this...

“I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.

-Colonel Richard Kemp - Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan 2003

...and as I showed you above, there's evidence the Goldstone mission had every intention of letting Hamas off the hook for war crimes (shielding) while at the same time putting all the blame - and assigning the worst of intentions - on Israel.

Thus, the mission's primary charges against the IDF are demonstrably false.

[bemildred]

41. Is that a direct quote from the report? nt

[shira]

42. it's close enough

[Violet_Crumble]

43. It wasn't a quote from the report n/t

[shira]

44. it's clearly what the report implies

the report clearly implies (and states using different words, phrases, expresssions) that Hamas did not commit double warcrimes from deliberately firing from within dense civilian populations at peaceful Israeli citizens....and that the IDF, for no other reason than to be mean and nasty shits, intentionally and senselessly targeted peaceful civilians who were not among any combatants at the time.

the report is a perverted and delusional hoax from start to finish. The authors of this travesty deserve to be vilified and humiliated every bit as much as RW clowns who construct pathetic, libelous reports and articles against Muslims or Arabs.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. To who? Someone with the comprehension skills of a garden slug?

It does not conclude that the IDF were deliberately evil. It doesn't even imply that...

[shira]

73. Goldstone accuses Israel and its IDF of deliberately targetting and punishing the people of Gaza

...and that includes the deliberate targetting of children - and not out of self-defense, but for shits and giggles. It's not that Israel has its rotten apples who need to be reigned in by the govt. No, it's the govt itself, including the IDF.

OCL was a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population" (¶ 1690(2)1)

It's not surprising you blindly back conclusions you're not even aware of.

=======

Now go run along, Violet, I'm very busy doing my utmost to defend these actions against the most innocent citizens of Gaza....and I'm glad you don't perceive any of this, either by Israel or me, as evil.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

76. And all of that is true, as we saw in news reports during the Gaza attack

We even saw photos published by BBC of phosphorus artillery shells exploding over a town's square as civilians ran for cover. The stupid I/P forum rules forbid the posting of photos, but links to the articles were posted.

You have blinded yourself to the horrors of the Occupation and become nothing more than another mouthpiece for Israeli rightwing propaganda.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. The conclusion of the report wasn't that the IDF was intentionally evil...

That's what you claimed, and as usual what you said was untrue. The report doesn't talk in silly hyperbolic language like you do...

I don't really care what the hell it is you think yr very busy doing in this forum. All I know is it's incredibly manic and incoherent. And I'm not really interested in discussing what you invent my perception of anything as being. So that pretty much kills off the conversation, hey? I wish I could say it's a shame...

[shira]

78. the conclusion of the report is ludicrous - and any objective and informed person would realize that

what's interesting is that HRW fully endorses it...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253820683185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

how surprising.

:eyes:

despite the fact that the report is so bad, it would be laughed out of any objective courtroom within 2 minutes...
http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf

Thanks for the tip that I'm being manic and incoherent. :)

I would think that anyone truly interested in human rights and peace would be appalled by Goldstone's sick joke of a report.

Guess not.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Well, the conclusion that you invented is ludicrous, that's for sure...

btw, that wasn't a tip.....

[shira]

82. at least it's interesting you don't think the intentional murder of children is evil

even more interesting are certain people of the "peace camp" who say they are committed to human rights for all, but in reality are working against the causes of human rights and peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. Great. Now yr inventing what I supposedly do and don't think. n/t

[shira]

84. okay, so is the deliberate and intentional murder of children NOT evil?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. You've already invented what you want me to think. Don't bother asking me questions anymore...

Especially ones that have zero to do with what I was saying, and ones that anyone with a basic reading knowledge wouldn't need to ask...

[bemildred]

45. Yeah, I know that Vi.

It seems most unlikely that a zionist like Mr Goldstone would call the IDF or Israel "evil". It seems more like Mr Derfner in the other piece, that Mr Goldstone sees a problem, and he has hopes of waking people up before it is too late. For this he will be vilified.

[shira]

46. tell me if I'm wrong, but when I read the report's conclusions, it's that Israel didn't go into...

...Gaza to defend against rockets, but rather to settle a score and take out some frustrations against the civilian population of Gaza - and this included frequently and intentionally targetting civilians with no Hamas fighters in the vicinity - and these actions constitute war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Israel basically sank to the level of Hamas.

Is that not the impression I'm supposed to get from the report?

Help me out here.

[bemildred]

54. Well, I applaud your decision to read it.

I suppose I will have to do that too, 600 pages, that's going to take a while.

I can't really help as far as what impression you ought to take away though, it's better to let this sort of report speak for itself, in my view.

[shira]

55. let me know when you become aware of the report's primary conclusions - okay?

[bemildred]

56. I really don't think you should rely on me for that.

Better you should read them yourself. I really can't take any responsibility for keeping you informed.

[shira]

57. um, okay

so once again you have an opinion on something but when asked to explain further, you can't?

:shrug:

[bemildred]

58. Yeah, I don't really see why you bother with me.

You ought not confuse "can't" with "wont", they are not the same thing at all.

But, I think You should put me on ignore, we'd both be happier.

[azurnoir]

61. About that quote from Richard Kemp

It was indeed taken from a January 9 2009 BBC interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssrKJ3Iqcw

He says"I think – "I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation"

so in other words his assessment was based on a prior military "old boys" network and watching the news from a comfortable armchair somewhere in the UK, not first hand knowledge of what was going on in Gaza

albeit I found Col. Kemp's experience as a Commander while policing N.Ireland quite interesting

[shira]

62. you're probably right, Kemp's knowledge of the situation in Gaza is no better than...

...any basement blogger who has zero experience with assymetrical warfare. For all we know, Kemp gets all his info. on the IDF from from the Jerusalem Post and pro-Israel blogs, like any other pro-Israel robots.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

70. I did not say that Col Kemp got his info about IDF from JPost

however I doubt he was privy to information that concerned a conflict being currently engaged in by a foreign military no matter how chummy he and that military are, unless of course you are claiming IDF was giving a retired British Colonel inside info about an on going conflict the interview was apparently January 9 the conflict did not draw to a close until some 10 days later and it did not make the blogs sphere until January 18 as seen here

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/01/bbc-former-british-army-colonel-richard/

this is the same blogger that posted the youtube vid

[shira]

80. Kemp is an expert on assymetrical warfare, is aware of what Israel did to minimize civilian deaths..

...and he knows that when compared to what his own British troops did, Israel's efforts were more humane.

This goes a long way to refuting Goldstone's conclusion that Israel acted with malice and cruel intent (not self-defense) towards the Gaza population.

[stranger81]

47. I am exactly as interested in Alan Dershowitz's view as I am in what my neighbor's dog thinks

of the situation.

This man is a waste of space and a waste of time.

[oberliner]

48. Thank you for taking the time to post that

Part of the reason why I made sure to include the name of the author was so that people who do not care what Dershowitz writes or says can ignore the article.

Apparently, some Democrats and people on the left have some interest in his take on things as he is a regular featured contributor to the Huffington Post.

[HamdenRice]

49. "In case anyone is interested in Alan Dershowitz's take on the subject."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, right. Like any thinking person is interested in Alan Dershowitz's take on the situation.

[oberliner]

50. Why is he regularly featured on The Huffington Post?

Obviously many Democrats and liberals are interested in his opinions or they would not run his articles there so often.

[HamdenRice]

51. Almost any moron can get run in the HuffPo

and Dershbag proves it.

[oberliner]

53. Dershbag?

That seems a little childish.

If you don't care to read his opinions, why not just ignore the post?

[Ken Burch]

59. What real value is there in Dershowitz' opinions?

What he did in the piece is what he's always done: issue unrelenting attacks on even the mildest criticism of Israeli policy, in order to suppress all discussion on the issues involved and stall for time while more settlements are built, more land is stolen, and the conditions for de facto annexation of the entire West Bank(or at the least, enough to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to be established)and while demanding that everyone unquestioningly support the Israeli government's actions on this just to prove we don't "hate Jews"(even though The Dersh knows that there's no reason to think that any of us do).

[TomClash]

74. Bad lawyering

When you don't have an argument make on up.

Note he doesn't make concrete arguments about the Report's contents and conclusions, but steers the reader to a mythical side effect - it will set back peace efforts. :eyes:

But why should we be surprised? This same man wanted to detain Arab-Americans en masse after 9/11.

I would urge people to read the Report and draw your own conclusions. It can be found here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

[shira]

75. if you're really interested in seeing the Report refuted, there's this...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf

this is only for those interested in reality and not fantasy.

[shira]

79. more Dershowitz: Goldstone Report is an ad-hominem attack

<snip>

The problem is not what Goldstone saw and heard. It's what he willfully and deliberately refused to see and hear. He refused to watch videotapes, easily accessible on the Internet, that show conclusively that Hamas terrorists routinely fired rockets from behind human shields. He refused to credit eyewitness reports published by reputable newspapers, and even admissions by Hamas leaders. He willfully refused to listen to the testimony of one of the world's leading experts on how democratic militaries fight asymmetrical wars against terrorists who hide behind civilians. Here is what Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, told the media, but couldn't tell the Goldstone Commission - because they didn't want to listen to him:

I think Israel has very little choice other than to carry on with its military operations until it reaches the conclusion it needs, which is to stop Hamas from firing rockets at its people in its territory. It has set out on this operation to do that and the civilian and military deaths on all sides of course are absolutely tragic. But Israel doesn't have any choice apart from defending its own people.

...From my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza. However, Hamas, the enemy they have been fighting, has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah, to fight among the people, to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield.

Hamas factor in the uses of the population as a major part of their defensive plan. So even though as I say, Israel, the IDF, has taken enormous steps - and I can tell you about some of those if you're interested - to reduce civilian casualties, it is impossible, it is impossible to stop that happening when the enemy has been using civilians as a human shield."

When asked why Kemp was not allowed to testify, this is what Goldstone shamefully said:

...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.'"

But all the IDF's actions took place during the course of a difficult military operation designed to stop rockets fired from civilian areas from targeting a million Israeli children, women and other civilians. The basic flaw of the Goldstone report is that, without a scintilla of evidence, the commissioners concluded that the Israeli military action in Gaza was motivated not so much by the defense of its citizens but rather by desire to punish Palestinian civilians. Based on that unproven, untrue and biased conclusion, the commission was then able to ignore massive evidence, much of it self-proving and easily available on the Internet, that the Israeli army did everything it could to reduce civilians casualties, while engaged in a military action designed to prevent the murder of its own civilians.

Only a fool or a knave could ignore this massive evidence of Israeli efforts to comply with international humanitarian law. Only a fool or a knave would fail to see that Israel has done more to reduce civilian casualties that virtually any other country fighting a comparable war. Only a fool or a knave would allow his name to be attached to such a deeply flawed report.

Richard Goldstone is not a fool.

The Goldstone report should be rejected on its demerits. The added fact that it was authored by a self-aggrandizing Jew - selected precisely because he is a Jew with aspirations to be honored by the international community - should diminish, rather than increase, its credibility.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_report_is_an_ad