Ehud Barak: At the U.N., Terrorism Pays

[question everything]

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

At the U.N., Terrorism Pays
It was my duty as defense minister to stop Hamas rockets.

By EHUD BARAK

This week the United Nation's Human Rights Council produced a 600-page report alleging that Israel carried out war crimes in Gaza. The Goldstone Report—named for its chief investigator Richard Goldstone—also asserts that Israel's motives for its operation against Hamas nine months ago were purely political. I am outraged by these accusations. Let me explain why. It is the duty of every nation to defend itself. This is a basic obligation that all responsible governments owe their citizens. Israel is no different. After enduring eight years of ongoing rocket fire—in which 12,000 missiles were launched against our cities, and after all diplomatic efforts to stop this barrage failed—it was my duty as defense minister to do something about it. It's as simple and self-evident as the right to self-defense.

While such logic eluded Mr. Goldstone and his team, it was crystal clear to the thousands of Israeli children living in southern Israel who had to study, play, eat and sleep while being preoccupied about the distance to the nearest bomb shelter. When I accompanied then-presidential candidate Barack Obama on his visit to the shelled city of Sderot, he said "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Too bad the Human Rights Council wasn't listening.

Whenever we are forced to defend our own lives, it is our obligation to do so in a way that ensures that the lives of innocent civilians on the other side are protected. This duty becomes extremely difficult when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. In Gaza, we reached out to the civilians via millions of leaflets, telephone calls and text messages urging them to leave areas before we acted. So when the Goldstone mission gathers testimony from local residents in Hamas-ruled Gaza, but forgets to ask them whether they happened to notice any armed Palestinians during the Israeli operation, or didn't realize that its impartially chosen witnesses happened to be known Hamas operatives according to Israeli intelligence, I begin to question the methodology of such a "fact-finding" effort.

Although I am incensed by the Goldstone Report, I must admit that I was not surprised. It is, more than anything else, a political statement—not a legal analysis. This shameful document was produced by the Human Rights Council, a body whose obsession with Israel has led it to produce more resolutions condemning Israel than all other countries combined. By its lights, the evils of Israel far outweigh those of countries like Burma, Sudan and North Korea.

(snip)



Mr. Barak is Israel's defense minister.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427314256608206.html

[Chulanowa]

1. Burma, Sudan, and North Korea are international pariahs

living under numerous sanctions and embargoes, and are having their fates decided by outside nations.

Ehud is pointing at them to excuse his own nation's excesses, and to top it off, pretending these three nations are getting away with it. They're not.

Not just that, these four nations are all fourth-world shitholes without even a vague resemblance of democracy, while Israel is a first-world Western democracy.

Israel's got a real winner here.

[shira]

2. dissing the Goldstone Report isn't a "look over there" kneejerk reaction - the report is comical

this 24-page response exposes it for the nonsense it is.

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

[LeftishBrit]

3. You are right to an extent; but one point is...

that some people do say "But Israel must be a worse country than anyone else! It has more UN resolutions against it."

So people can't both say that Israel *isn't* singled out and that it *is* and that must mean that it deserves it.


I am no fan of Ehud Barak; have had to deal with too many so-called Labourites collaborating with the right in my own country.

[oberliner]

7. Sudan is no pariah in the Middle East

Arab League backs Sudan on genocide charges

CAIRO (AP) — The Arab League on Saturday said that the genocide charges brought against Sudan's president by the prosecutor of the International Court are not acceptable and undermine that country's sovereignty.

Arab leaders back 'wanted' Bashir

The Arab League said it rejected the International Criminal Court's decision to issue a warrant for his arrest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7971624.stm

Arab summit backs Sudan's Bashir over warrant

"We reiterate our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the measure of the ... International Criminal Court against his Excellency (Bashir)," said a final statement read at the summit in Qatar's capital Doha.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LU461656.htm

[TomClash]

4. Another side argument

. . . that does not address the facts or conclusions in the report. :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I've noticed there's a lot of those floating round...

Fling some side arguments out there that don't address the facts or conclusions of the report and I guess it's hoped the white noise generated will drown out the report itself. It's a rather bizarre tactic that appears to bring more attention to it than anything. I know if I was one of the I Heart Israel brigade, I'd be doing my best to ignore the report instead of screeching rehearsed side arguments about it...

[oberliner]

9. Calling something "screeching rehearsed side arguments" is also a bizarre tactic

Drowning out any legitimate criticism of the report with that kind of white noise and name-calling ("I heart Israel" brigade??) is equally counterproductive.

There is nothing "screeching" or "rehearsed" about many of the issues that have been raised about this report.

In point of fact, Israel has offered a response that addresses the facts and conclusions of the report.

“Israel's Analysis and Comments on the Gaza Fact Finding Mission Report” can be found on the Israeli government website and, while you may dispute their arguments, you must admit that it does directly address the facts and conclusions of the report.

[TomClash]

11. Your unwarranted attack misses the point

Her point was that Israel's fervent and uapologetic supporters would be better served by ignoring the Report than by making these phony, circumstantial arguments, as Barak and Deshowitz have done. The Israeli Government Report notwithstanding, one wonders if these indirect arguments were articulated because even Barak and Deshowitz don't believe the official story.

You are right that the Israeli Government produced a report disputing the facts and findings. And you are right that I disagree mostly with their arguments. You will note that the Israeli argument is essentially that the report is biased and incomplete, but yet again no facts cited in the Report are disputed directly.

[shira]

13. no facts cited in the report are disputed directly? did you even read the 24pg MFA response?

there's this one also...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=18&x_article=1729

and this is just a sample, certainly not an exhaustive list.

the report is a joke and would be laughed out of any respectable, fair court.

in fact, if you really read the 24 page initial MFA response, I challenge you to try defending any part of Goldstone's ridiculous piece of crap mentioned therein.

[shaayecanaan]

52. I read it...

(the MFA response) - to be honest, I am having a bit of bother trying to find the references in the Goldstone report that are cited. For example, the claim on page 9 that Hamas police were instructed "to face the Zionist enemy". The citation is 414, but Ive looked at page 414 and paragraph 414 and I can't see it anywhere.

[shira]

53. it's not page 414, it's pages 126-127 in paragraph #414

within that paragraph, Goldstone says that as proof that the police did not participate in hostilities and that they were supposedly following orders not to 'engage the enemy', no policemen were killed. But if you look at PCHR's own data, over 30 police officers were killed after the initial IDF strike that killed several hundred of them on the first day. And out of them, about half were associated clearly with al-Qassam brigades, etc.

which goes to show how lame this report is (and Goldstone's credulity).

=====

btw, this Islam Shahwan who was interviewed by Goldstone in paragraph 414 is the same Islam Shahwan who famously accused Israel of distributing horny gum to Palestinian youth.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3746017,00.html

:)

Mr. "horny gum" really didn't mean what he said about "facing the enemy".

:eyes:

come on, you had a good laugh at that one - admit it - it's hilarious.

=====

you still thinking the Goldstone Report has any credibility whatsoever?

i'm still waiting for "The Onion" or "Fark" to claim Goldstone's Report as their own, how about you?

[bemildred]

54. Full text of paragraph #414:

On 1 January 2009, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, the police
spokesperson, Mr. Islam Shahwan, informed the media that the police commanders had managed
to hold three meetings at secret locations since the beginning of the armed operations. He added
that “an action plan has been put forward, and we have conducted an assessment of the situation
and a general alert has been declared by the police and among the security forces in case of any
emergency or a ground invasion. Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face
(... in Arabic) the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded. 278 Confirming to the
Mission that he had been correctly quoted, Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that
meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli
armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of
ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places,
and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a
single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the
instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen.

[shaayecanaan]

72. Must have been looking at the wrong document last night...

nevertheless, its a bit rich to say that "facing the Zionist enemy" = terrorism, unless you take the view that any armed action by Palestinians equates to terrorism.

[bemildred]

73. I prefer to let a text speak for itself, as opposed to having it interpreted for me.

So I pulled a PDF so I can refer to it as needed. That is an "Advanced Edited Version" dated September 15th, 2009, so I suppose there could be some minor variations, but it seemed good enough. I still have no plans to read the whole thing, but if anyone stoops to making particular assertions about it, I can check and put it in context.

I think the argument that they were combatants is fatuous since some hundreds were killed going about their jobs in the first attacks. If anyone cared a fig about whether they were resisting or not, that would not occur.

One of the noticeable things about the entire "war" was the relative lack of resistance. There was a good deal of commentary on it at the time.

[shaayecanaan]

81. The Lebanese Army were also ordered by the government...

to defend against the Israeli invasion in 2006. Of course they did not and could not do so and as far as I know did not fire a single shot in anger. On one occasion Israel captured a group of Lebanese soldiers and the UN had to go and cajole Israel into releasing them.

The problem with expanding the category of combatants into police members and voluntary members of militias is that it would also mean that Israeli reservists (pretty much most of their adult population of suitable age) would not be considered civilians either.

[bemildred]

83. And a stupid order it was too. I remember that.

A good commander does not waste his own forces.

The more fundamental problem is who decides who is a combatant, and who is not? It seems to me that this is a question that ought not be left up to either of the belligerent parties, since they are neither one likely to take an objective and principled view of the question. As you point out, pretty much all of Israel is "combatants" by their own "standards", and they seem to think that all of Hamas, including women and children are similarly fair game if they happen to be in the way.

[shira]

74. at the very least, it shows Gaza Police were combatants and not civilians

of course, the USA and EU say Hamas is a terrorist organization - making all their members terrorists too.

so how do you like the fact that Goldstone meekly accepted Islam Shahwan's contradictory BS testimony - the same guy who accused Israel of distributing horny gum?

[bemildred]

55. Paragraph 415:

415. The Mission notes that there are no allegations that the police as an organized force took
part in combat during the armed operations. On the basis of the information provided by the
Gaza authorities and of the above-mentioned study of the Orient Research Group Ltd., it would
appear that 75 per cent of its members killed in the course of the military operations died as a
result of the air strikes carried out during the first minutes of the Israeli attack. These men had
not engaged in combat with the Israeli armed forces.279

[shira]

56. wow - this report could have been written by monkeys, check out the contradiction

75 percent of the police killed during OCL were those who died in the initial airstrikes.

how did the other 25% (or 60-70) die?

natural causes?

JEBUS!

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

82. I presume that means...

that they did not die in the initial airstrikes.

So they may have died in later air strikes, or during the ground invasion.

MOSES!

[shira]

86. why presume? why didn't Goldstone show that the other 25% did not die due to "facing the enemy"?

here's why....

this is a PCHR list in english which shows when a particular Gazan died (in chronological order starting from Dec.27, 2008) and their profession....
http://ptwatch.pt.funpic.de/documents/pchr-gaza-report.pdf

...check out the policemen, who according to PCHR, died after the initial attacks - and how they died.

Goldstone accepted contradictory and false testimony from Islam Shahwan (the guy who accused Israel of distributing horny gum) as "proof" without even attempting to verify it.

Here's a better list of only the policemen, when/where they died...
http://ptwatch.pt.funpic.de/indexcas.php

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. As does yours

The Israeli rebuttal was indeed more of a macro approach, but it clearly shows the structural flaws in the Goldstone report, which lacked significant detail and balance. The result was clearly from the get go based on its charter. In execution, Goldstone dodged the hard stuff and drew judicial style conclusions without having the necessary facts.

The question of whether to respond or not is an interesting one. The report has "no legs" in the US, especially since the Obama administration has come out against it. Not responding would make sense in that case. Some of the international participants here claim that is not true in their spheres. If true a response would be warranted. Then again one of those responders was from South Africa, where favorable treatment for Goldstone would be expected. Given the strength of the rebuttal in exposing the flaws, my take is that the report will join other in the flawed and forgotten pile.

[TomClash]

20. Well first

I did not attack Oberliner or anyone else. Second, I understand the argument made by Israel all too well.

Your criticism of Goldstone is conclusory. What necessary facts did he not have and why didn't he have them? What significant detail did he leave out? What hard stuff did he dodge?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Have you read the Israeli rebuttal? Its a good place to start and answer many of your questions

At a high level they made assumption of what assets were available for certain events. They also assumed intents that without the Call for Fire tasking is not knowable. Results alone are not enough to prima facie establish the war crimes as alleged in the report.

With the air task orders, targeteering data, call for fire records, and a number of other documents, the conclusions they reached are unsupportable.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. No it's not. It's saying what I think and it's not trying to drown out anything....

For a start, the screeching long-rehearsed arguments I've been seeing in this forum isn't legitimate criticism. If you feel they are, please explain why.


What the IDF put out didn't address the conclusions of the report....

Also, you've sat totally silent while one or two in this forum have gone into overdrive using hyperbole and white noise when it comes to the Goldstone report. Why is it that you stay silent when it comes to them?

[shira]

8. the facts & conclusions of Goldstone are addressed in my link from post #2 above (MFA report)

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

...but I warn you in advance, it's for the reality based community and not the faith-based one.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Seeing Barak's responsible for what happened in Gaza, it's no surprise to see this response from him

He's a self-serving wanker who should spare a moment to be incensed about the death and destruction he let loose on the people of Gaza instead of doing some long-rehearsed bitching and moaning about a report...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Have you read the rebuttal or not? That is your standard screed isn't it?

I have read both in their entirety. I am surprised the Israeli response was so mild. They took iton at a macro level, clearly leaving out numerous other points where they could have slammed the report further. It may be an example of holding some in reserve should Goldstone vainly try to defend the report.

[TomClash]

12. Or maybe there is no argument about the facts nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. One issue out of many is the judicial style conclusions drawn without full facts

Goldstone and crew, heeding the political mandate they had, drew conclusions without knowledge of crucial facts as to why things were done. Israel refused to cooperate based on the assumptions in the tasking. The rebuttal is pretty damning and its clear that Israel is prepared to take on details should Goldstone attempt to defend his shoddy work.

[shira]

15. I'd say chances are slim Goldstone tries defending this report on its (de)merits

Admitting to any error at all would call the credibility of this entire pile of crap into question - and one error would turn into a dozen and then one-hundred soon after (and yes, there are at least 100 factual errors in this travesty).

I'm betting there will be ZERO retractions or corrections by Goldstone and his cronies. They're wedded to this one all the way.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Goldstone has been whining about how Israel had its chance so if his product is flawed its their

fault. His article in the JPost being a good example of that. Funny he did not take that approach with some of the actions done by Hamas. The double standard in evidence was also made clear.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. More hyperbole, I see. Pointing something out is not *whining*...

And he's very correct. Israel had its chance and didn't take it...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Read either the Goldstone Report or the Israeli rebuttal yet?

I thought not. Read Annex II for starters and then the Israeli rebuttal. It will save you time.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Why bother asking a question if yr going to answer it immediately afterwards....

btw, yr 50% wrong in yr answer...

[TomClash]

19. I'm sorry but . . .

contending that Israel has facts in its possession constituting a damning rebuttal reminds me of the "If you only knew what I know" arguments of the Bush Administration after 9/11 and on the eve of the Iraq War.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. You missed the key concept...Goldstone made conclusions based on assumptions, not facts

Israel withheld data which was required to reasonably form many of the conclusions in the report. They did so knowingly and Goldstone has been whining about it in the press ever since.

That a particular location was shelled is not prima facie a war crime. Why is critical. As the rebuttal points out, Goldstone is in no position to assume what weapons were available at what time, nor what the unit under fire saw. Without that kind of data, the conclusion of war crimes is unsupportable. Pages 13-14 of the rebuttal cover that well;.

[TomClash]

32. Yes, I understand that

However, many of the facts cited in the report are facts and not rebutted. Of course, Israel withheld data. Is the Israeli data reliable? If so, how do we know that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Some stuff is hard to fake, others less so. Context and consistency is the key.

If you have access to all of it, what is faked or missing becomes pretty clear. There was way too much recorded and filmed to fake all of it in time. Finally there is the consistency check. If the IDF say they were just picking flowers and the house is shot to pieces with M4 rounds and there is no flower garden its a good chance they were lying. If there is a flower garden and the walls are full of AK rounds, its could well of been Hamas, though both sides had weapons of each others caliber.

For example, a mosque was hit and there were major secondaries indicating weapons storage, a violation of the rules of war and effectively denies protected status for similar buildings. The evidence on the ground is consistent with the recon photos. Some technical investigation should show multiple kinds of explosives were set off there. It was a valid strike. Oh by the way, Goldstone decided not to investigate that one.

[shira]

16. i agree the MFA's response to Goldstone was mild

imagine the screeching reaction from the pro-Palestinian crowd if something as obscene as this monstrocity were written to demonize Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I've read it, though I doubt you've read all 600 pages of the Goldstone report...

Uh, you were already praising any IDF 'rebuttal' as being truth and fact even back when the Goldstone investigation was announced. Sorry, but it's hard to take anything you say about Gaza seriously at all, given that you'd absolved the IDF of any responsibility back when the investigation was announced...

[shira]

25. so what do you think about the 24 page initial response provided by the MFA?

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Why are you bothering asking when you invent what you want me to think?

Why bother wasting my time asking when you already cut out the middle man and create what I supposedly think?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. While that is not what Shira does, would turnabout not be fair play?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Here's a link to where she did it to me yesterday....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x287921#288370

What's that? Scotch mist?

[shira]

48. Violet, you can play games all you want - the fact is the MFA paper tears Goldstone to shreds

...and exposes him and his entire lot for the dishonest and pathetic human-rights abusers they are.

Your lame obfuscations, evasions, and refusal to accept and admit to reality cannot change that.

Why not just state there are big problems with Goldstone's Report and that you're disappointed with much of his work? It's obvious you cannot defend it.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Posting a link to where you invented me thinking something I don't think isn't game playing...

Not sure why yr replying to a post pointing out that you do indeed invent what you want other posters to think with another post demanding I state something I also don't think....

[shira]

61. and yet more evasion and obfuscation

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Huh? Yr the one that barged in with a reply to me that had zero to do with what I said n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. No, like I said yr the one who barged into this subthread with something unrelated to what I said...

I know you have major control issues and feel the urge to control and dictate everything in the forum. I however don't feel the need to waste time on someone who has blatantly invented what they want to think my views are, and I find yr non-stop hyperbole and manic behaviour to be rather silly....

So, in short. Stop making up things and claiming that's what I believe, and leave me alone. You've been given more than one chance to behave like most other posters in this forum behave and blew it...

[shira]

80. okay, feel free to correct me on anything Goldstone related

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Go back and reread what I'd just said to you. Clearly you didn't understand it n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. I have indeed read both. Specifically the Adv Edited Ver, dtd 15 Sept.

I also have not absolved anyone of anything. Its a safe bet that in an absolute view, both sides violated the rules of war in places. Its impossible not to in house to house fighting. However the standard to be used if that of what the bubbas on the ground thought and saw, not some REMF in a suit, sitting safe in an office months afterward. To accurately asses the scale and intent of those violations require both sides to needed to come clean. Neither did. The correspondence in Annex II, which was unavailable until the report was published was enlightening.

I did predict what would happen and I was pretty much correct. Israel stonewalled, Goldstone followed his mandate, report was inherent flawed from lack of data. I was surprised to see the lack of a disciplined approach and the double standards. I really did expect better, despite that lack of critical data. No one in the US is taking it seriously. The Obama administration has already dismissed it. Goldstone's whining in the media is only making it look worse.

When I took the time to educate you on how modern urban warfare is done, you dismissed it as made up. We all know that bureaucrats do not like inconvenient facts. BTDT, got the hell out. If you understood it, you would know why Goldstone's conclusions are not factually supported since he did not have the key facts. Just like in criminal law, intent matters, and in many cases is key to determining truth and culpability.

One of the reasons the Nuremberg Tribunals were as effective as they were was that all the Nazi and Japanese documents were available. It cleared some and condemned others. Without access to the documents from either side, Goldstone was doomed from the start. Add to it his flawed methodology and assumptions, it only got worse.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Umbrage is free, take all you want. Your disbelief does not change the facts

[Violet_Crumble]

34. The thing is just because you say something's a fact, it doesn't make it so...

Otherwise back when you declared that I was a Hamas supporter (something you never admitted you were wrong about), that would have been a fact.


Also, could you give some examples of what you believe were violations of the rules of war by the IDF? I've never seen you mention any, that's all...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. If I did that, I would be no better than Goldstone.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. If you did what? Apologise for calling me a Hamas supporter?

I don't recall Goldstone ever floating round on a discussion forum accusing others of being things they're not....

Or are you going uncharacteristically coy and now going to make out you just can't give any examples of where you think the IDF violated the rules of war? That's just so lame. Anyway, I've just reread what you said in yr earlier post and notice that you didn't say that you believe both sides have violated the rules of war, which leaves it as I originally thought - that yr someone who has a totally one-sided view of what happened in Gaza and believe that only one side committed any human rights violations. That's a very simplistic view to hold...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I notice you don't have the same coyness about saying what war crimes you think Hamas committed...

And yr reply isn't the correct one. This isn't some exam where there's a right or wrong answer, and yr reply was merely a rather silly one that does show a clear double-standard at play. I don't know or care what a REMF is, and I'm a bit taken aback at yr abusive tone because I don't believe you have the level of expertise you like to make out you have. Also, I wasn't aware that people were required to have expertise in urban combat to be able to voice their opinion on what violations they think the IDF committed, so that's not what's holding you back...

As for name-calling, I have NEVER accused you of being a supporter of a terrorist group, and as far as I'm aware have never done any name-calling towards you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Hamas main crime were the rockets. Not a lot of doubt about their illegality

There are some videos that show more, but there is not any context.

Opinions are like navels, everyone has one. Whether it any where near correct is a different matter. I see so many false claims being made, its hard to know where to start.

REMF and Pogue are in Google. Note that using them sequentially is considered a squaring function.

Your thoughts upon my expertise and experience are not relevant nor correct. If you don't believe what I say, then quit responding. It won't bother me one way or the other.

As for name calling, your memory fails you. Look at your statements in this thread alone.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. There's also not a lot of doubt as to the illegality of the use of WP in Gaza...

So why when it comes to the IDF would you become coy, yet when it comes to Hamas have no such hesitations?

Where I think we're striking disagreement is that you appear to view yr own personal opinions as being as good as fact, and if other opinions don't agree with yrs, then they're 'false claims'...

Please don't tell me not to reply to you. Having been in this forum for a long time, I'm very wary of folk who arrive and try to make out they're experts in fields that are just cooincedentally related to whatever they're arguing about. My experience has been that people who do happen to be experts in particular fields don't tend to champion themselves as some sort of expert, throw acronyms around in an attempt to impress, or talk down to others...

Yep, looked back through the thread. I haven't done any name-calling at all. Even if I had done so in this thread, how does that justify you accusing me of being a Hamas supporter the way you did that time?

[shira]

49. as to WP, if you read the MFA report you would find on pages 20-21...

23
Following the end of the Gaza Operation in January 2009, the Israel Defense Forces conducted five
major "command investigations" in response to complaints and allegations raised regarding with five broad
areas: allegations of attacks on UN facilities, allegations of attacks on medical facilities and staff, incidents
with a large number of civilian casualties, use of munitions containing white phosphorus, and allegations
regarding the destruction of private property for military needs. The findings of these investigations are
currently being examined by the Military Advocate General in order to determine whether their findings
give cause for the opening of criminal investigations by the Military Police. The conclusions and decisions
of the Military Advocate General in this regard are subject to the review of Israel's Attorney General and
the ultimate review of Israel's Supreme Court.

Israel has its checks and balances - the IDF cannot simply whitewash itself without being subject to higher authority (which is well-respected around the globe). If you read Goldstone, you should have quite a laugh at him equating Israel's supposed "lack" of transparency and accountability with Hamas (as if Hamas would ever seriously consider investigating their own warcrimes). It's delusional for Goldstone to even hint that Hamas would ever investigate themselves or as an organization be at all comparable to Israel's justice system. What a complete joke.

and then there's this from 'Factual and Legal Aspects'...

(281) There appear to have been no documented deaths in Gaza resulting from exposure to white phosphorous itself. There have been reports of civilians receiving non-lethal burns from white phosphorous, although the number of such cases and the manner in which such burns were received is unclear. For instance, while statements by Gaza hospital officials express suspicions of white phosphorous burns in patients, they do not specify the number of cases, and acknowledge that physicians did not have the means necessary to distinguish white phosphorus burns from other types of burns. See Sebastian Van As et al., Final Report: Independent Fact-Finding Mission Into Violations of Human Rights in the Gaza Strip During the Period 27.12.2008 – 18.01.2009, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, April 2009, at 32.

Now compare these findings to Goldstone's hallucinatory and hyperbolic allegations that Israel and its IDF intentionally and deliberately set out to harm the Gazan population (in this case with WP). As destructive as the IDF is capable of being, it's a wonder that with so much criminal intent to harm Palestinians, the WP damage incurred wasn't much more significant and far-reaching than what Physicians-for-Human-Rights concluded in their own investigations.

Simply put - Goldstone's lousy report cannot be defended.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Well, if the IDF said so it must be true!

Who is anyone to question for even a nanosecond what the IDF says?

[shira]

60. more obfuscation - how lame

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Well, how about you post what I think? That's yr normal routine...

Not sure why yr so obsessed with posting at me when yr not the slightest bit interested in anything I have to say....

[shira]

76. how about instead of obfuscating, you address the main points in post #49?

it's hard defending Goldstone's stinky report, isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. No, don't think I'm going to do that...

It would involve too much effort in going and finding whatever post that is, most probably to find that it's just another post from you that's totally unrelated to whatever it is yr replying to, and it would feed into yr need to control every aspect of what you think is 'discussion' in this forum. Plus it'd probably give birth to another 20 or so posts with the brand spanking new 'obsfusciate' word in them, and I can't be involved in inflicting that sort of pain on other participants in this forum.

So please don't bother asking me anymore questions when you aren't the slightest bit interested in any answers I give and have a bad habit of just making up what you want me to think about things...

[shira]

79. okay, well feel free correcting me on anything Goldstone related

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Maybe if I get really bored and feel like getting into more one-sided 'conversations'...

But I'd have to be awfully bored to get to that spot...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. There are legitimate uses of WP in combat, and without the IDF saying why the used it

it can not be determined to be illegal or not. In the rebuttal WP is addressed obliquely as smoke screens (page 14, 1st full paragraph near the bottom), a legitimate use of WP and a classic case of Goldstone using hindsight not the bubba on the ground perspective. Its not a prima facie thing like rocketing civilians in Sederot.

Not all opinions are equal in validity. There are some people out there who still believe all the extra terrestrial pictures be they from satellites, landers or people are fake. When it comes to space technology, should their opinions be considered with equal weight with others who perhaps were there or participated in getting them there? I think not.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. But seeing the IDF lied originally and denied ever using it, why would anyone believe them now?

That original bit of dishonesty does mar everything else the IDF has to say about its use of WP...

Yr very correct that not all opinions are equal in validity. I find yrs to be far less equal in validity than those of people like Richard Goldstone who does have a balanced approach to the conflict....

Again, wtf's a 'bubba on the ground'? You talk about these things like they're something you adore...

on edit: I just googled it, and it's an American term of endearment. I'm sure someone somewhere is very impressed with that level of adoration of the IDF, but it leaves me feeling a bit ewwwwww.....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. It pretty hard to fudge all the records and keep the content and context right

and the IDF has so many records that would be hard to make them all say the same things. That they lied to the press is pretty much SOP for any government or pol.

Read post #70 where I explained bubba, nothing endearing about it in context.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. If you read #27 you will see that I said both sides...

[Violet_Crumble]

46. What's the 'in an absolute view' thing mean then?

What do you mean by this? 'Its a safe bet that in an absolute view, both sides violated the rules of war in places.'

That's not saying that you believe both sides violated the rules of war...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. I am really beginning to doubt you have read either Goldstone or the rebuttal

In the Israeli rebuttal, there is a clear piece of information that you need to understand. To determine is an action is justified, you have to take it from the perspective of the bubba under fire, not from a position of perfect hindsight. The absolutist approach is one that says, given what we know today. THe required viewpoint is what the bubba under fire knew then. (Pages 13-14 starting at 22). It is the long standing precedent, going back to Nuremberg. Goldstone failed to do that. Since he did not have the required data from the IDF he took the absolutist approach and failed to acknowledge it. Instead he made unsupportable assumptions in an attempt to justify his taking of the clearly wrong approach. It all starts with diplomatic letters found in Goldstone Annex II(Pages 558-574). Have you bothered to read it yet?

There are those who back Goldstone saying that the IDF is at fault for not cooperating and that Israel looks bad for not cooperating. That got debunked pretty thoroughly here mid summer. Only bureaucrats think that the people have to answer to them, rather than the other way around. Goldstone took a position against historical precedent and then whined when called on it. A better approach would have been for Goldstone to create an index of all purported violations on all sides and address only those he had adequate situational data, though it would have been few. Then the report would have been supportable and believable. Instead he ignored precedent and chose to fulfill the original mandate, knowing it would be flawed. Goldstone clearly chose poorly.

When I say that in all likelihood from an absolutist view both sides broke the rules, it is because in the absence of perfect knowledge, bubbas on both sides made real times decisions based on what they knew at the time. If they had perfect knowledge, it would be violations. Without it, they may not have been violations. It depends what the bubbas knew at the time. That is why the IDF data is critical to a fair inquiry, and without it, one can not be done. If I say either side did during the ground phase of OCL, I would be no better than Goldstone.
============================================
Additional Thoughts:
Lets take a blue on blue scenario...AKA Fraticide
An armor thrust has gotten much further than anyone expected. However in the action, a tank's IFF mechanism is destroyed/removed. A friendly aircraft spots the tank stopped at night, and since there is no IFF, proceeds to attack it. Normally fratricide gets a pilot grounded and facing serious charges. In retrospect its obvious they were friendlies, but in real time was that clear? Given that it was night, the location was unexpected and the lack of the IFF, the pilot would be cleared. Real time vs hindsight, and its critical.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. But why are you saying yr just beginning when you told me yesterday I hadn't read them?

Just to remind you of what you said yesterday: 'Read either the Goldstone Report or the Israeli rebuttal yet? I thought not.' Not too sure what that had to do with the question I asked you anyway.

Bubba? Is there a need to talk baby-talk at me? Anyway, I see that the absolute view you mentioned was in fact one where you manage to work it so the IDF is absolved of responsibility for violations of human rights and war crimes...

Sorry, but you didn't debunk anything mid summer. If you think you did, could you please give me a link to it? Also, I'm not sure what yr going on about bureacrats for when the IDF is actually a bureacracy.

Again, just because you personally don't approve of what Goldstone says, that doesn't make what he says *whining*. There's absolutely no need for you to engage in hyperbole in that way, and it just weakens any argument you may have...

Until you actually get specific on what this 'critical data' is that the Mission weren't given, it's safe to guess that you don't actually know what it is...

And yes, I have read Annexe II. Did you read the bit where the Israeli ambassador made that false claim about Goldstone visiting Gaza? I'm glad Goldstone corrected him on that, as there's folk who blindly believe anything anyone from the Israeli govt says...

btw, I think you need to throw more references to 'bubbas' and lots more acronyms in there if yr trying to impress anyone! ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Because I am continually giving you the benefit of the doubt

The term "bubba" is not baby talk, its American idiom. In this context it means your typical solider on the ground. Its gender neutral and inclusive of both sexes, though occasionally one will hear "bubbettes" as in female bubbas. Its a more PC and generalized version of the term "Grunt". There are many other synonyms, but bubba seems to be about as neutral as they come.

In living in different countries for a number of years I have found that English is spoken just about everywhere, but American is not, despite the penetration of American TV. It leads to occasional hilarity. Bubbas is a case in point. We had a local guide one day after hearing it used within a group we were with turned to my wife and asked "Who is Bubba, they are not on my list". Once we stopped laughing and explained it her, it was great and she used it for the rest of her time with us. At times I think there is more American Idiom than there is standard English.

What I said was that in the absolutist view, violations would be found on both sides, but in the ground fighting during OCL it would be a harder to make that call from the perspective that matters, that of the bubbas on either side. That neither absolves nor accuses anyone.

I am far from the only one pointing out that Goldstone's tone appears as much a whine as anything else. He is really is not being taken seriously in the US, and not much more Internationally from what I and my colleagues have seen. Honduras is getting the most column inches.

I have given numerous examples, and Goldstone's own words are prima facie evidence themselves that he did not have access to required data.

I have limited acronym use since it seems to confuse some, though it would be quite easier and clearer in many cases.

Bubba is not an acronym. REMF and Pogue are.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Not sure why my post was deleted, so here's one with another question...

Yes, you did absolve the IDF of any wrong doing right from the start. I can go grab the links to where you did that repeatedly if you like. I'm getting the impression that you view yrself as a 'bubba on the ground' and as you clearly weren't in Gaza, find that to be a bit strange...

You keep on talking about a lack of critical data, but when I've asked you in the past (long before the report was even finished), you never say what critical data is missing or go into any specifics. So, how about getting into specifics now? What is this critical data, and how do you know what it is if it's missing?

For someone to educate me on something, I do need to feel like they have some knowledge of it and more importantly in this sort of environment to have *asked* for the education. Uh, Goldstone's not a bureacrat, and what you call 'inconvenient facts' could well be unsubstantiated stories put out there by others. From what I've read Goldstone's conclusions are factually supported....

Also, that's incorrect to claim that all Nazi documents were available. They weren't, as the Nazis destroyed a lot of their records, especially the most damning ones...

[shira]

51. what's missing, Violet, are the circumstances, like the "fog of war" Richard Kemp speaks about...

http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza-2.htm

it's a long article, but it explains a lot to those who know little to nothing about military operations, assymetrical warfare, etc.

and based on Goldstone's final report, I don't blame Israel or its IDF one bit for not cooperating and sharing some of their sensitive military information - which I wouldn't trust Goldstone's commission not to share with Gaza's "authorities", Hamas, which Goldstone used for credible 'testimony' throughout his 600 pages of garbage.

======

it's not as simple-minded and clear-cut as Goldstone and his cronies would like for their ignorant or stupid followers to believe.

======

in fact, Kemp's speech and the MFA 24-page response are enough to demonstrate to any rational and honest person why Goldstone's Report wouldn't survive more than 5 minutes in any fair-minded, legitimate courtroom. A fair courtroom would actually consider a lot more than just Kemp's testimony and the MFA report....they would actually take into consideration evidence that Goldstone intentionally ignored and minimized to a great extent.

it's my belief that Goldstone's Report is only intended for those with a political axe to grind against Israel (as well as those who are ignorant and too stupid to know better). It's pure demonization, and certainly not intended to sway anyone with any amount of knowledge about the complexities of the situation. It's nothing more than a hate-screed intended to rile up the ignorant, stupid, or hateful masses - just like the many blood libels against Jews throughout history - the intent and effects are the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Not sure why you replied to my post when it didn't address what I was saying to PP...

Nor why you think I'm the slightest bit interested in anything you have to say anymore....

[Alamuti Lotus]

43. this old terrorist bitching and moaning in a Journal of Record for economic terror

Quite a treat, indeed. Why can't people just be bigger fans of aerial bombing assaults on densely populated areas? They're totally cool, and puppies like them. You should too.

[shira]

50. you'd find Barak is correct if you read the MFA's report (see link in post #2 above)

In recommending the 24 page MFA report, I'm assuming you're more interested in reality than fantasy.

Wouldn't want to shatter your faith, you know.

[azurnoir]

65. Palestinians seek Barak's arrest

A group of Palestinian families is attempting to have Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, prosecuted in Britain for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip, lawyers have told Al Jazeera.

A lawyer working for the families will present their case at a magistrates court in London on Tuesday before British officials decide if it has the jurisdiction to decide the case.

Barak is due in Britain on Tuesday to address a meeting of the Labour Friends of Israel on the sidelines of the ruling party's annual conference. The families hope that an arrest warrant will be issued during his visit.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=98251

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Guess Barak's going to be rethinking that trip n/t