Weiss says it's okay for Palestinians to murder Jews

Noted domestic extremist, Philip Weiss, intimates that killing Jews is okay with him:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/if-1-5-million-jews-were-locked-up-in-gaza-where-would-commentary-be-on-violent-resistance.html

Steve Walt at Foreign Policy, "Get ready for more stupid Mideast violence." Some great points, beginning with the idea that when leaders kick the can down the road on a difficult problem, it becomes intractable/terrifying. Think, American slavery, 1830-1861... Or, a Palestinian state, promised in 1947, undelivered for 8 decades, amidst ethnic cleansing... Walt:

If memory serves, one of the lessons of Roger Fisher's little book International Conflict for Beginners was "settle conflicts early and often." This isn't always possible, of course, but his basic insight was that unresolved conflicts are dangerous precisely because they provide opportunities that extremists can exploit, they harden perceptions and images on both sides, and most importantly, they can always get worse. ..

However one sees this situation, a key point to keep in mind is that this sort of thing isn't going to stop as long as the occupation and the siege of Gaza persists, and as long as one people has a state of their own and the other does not. If the situation were magically reversed and a million-plus Israelis were being kept in the same condition as the Gazans, I'd be astonished if some of them didn't try to take up arms against whomever was oppressing them. And I'll bet Commentary magazine would think that such actions would be perfectly okay. That thought-experiment doesn't justify the murder of innocents, mind you, but it may help us understand where such deplorable actions come from.

Domestic extremist Philip Weiss allows and encourages these kind antisemitic and hate-filled comments:

Exiled At Home August 19, 2011 at 9:37 pm

Don’t invoke 9/11, rabbi. You guys have all the claims to victimhood necessary to carry out your racist visions of Eretz Israel without trying to hijack that, too.

Cliff August 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm

Phil has reported on Syria you putz.

And you don’t give a damn about the Syrians. Just as your fellow cultists don’t care about Darfur or the Sudan or Tibet or whichever conflict Zionists use to divert attention away from the one in their own goddamn backyard.

It’s absolutely disgusting that you have the nerve to display such indignation. You of all people – a pathetic liar, who’s so deluded as to think MLK Jr. was a Zionist?

And let’s review some of your colorful comment history:

The Freedom Theatre raided. What did you say?

Chaos4700 August 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm

When you’re not straw-manning the Congo, you’re straw-manning Tibet, and when that gets tired, you straw-man Hamas, and now you’re straw-manning Syria — and if you REALLY CARED about Syria, you’d speak to the decades-long occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Golan Heights.

Israel is the one who is starting a war with Egypt. Unequivocally. You can try to blame everyone and their grandma if you want but Israel is the one staging military attacks on Egypt, not vice versa.

I will say that there is absolutely nothing righteous about you, biorabbi. Too bad, that might have been your sole redeeming quality.

Could it be that neither Philip Weiss nor Adam Horowitz are Jewish.

Speculation abounds that the domestic extremist partners, Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, might not be Jewish.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=233141

Why do non-Jews bashing Israel claim to be Jewish?

By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
08/10/2011 00:57

Analysis: American student Gabriel Matthew Schivone allegedly falsified identity to participate in latest flotilla to Gaza.

Talkbacks (97)

Defending his participation in the latest flotilla operation in an attempt to break Israel’s naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, Gabriel Matthew Schivone, an American university student, stressed in a late June Ha’aretz opinion piece that he is one of a growing number of young American Jews seeking to disassociate himself from Israel.

There is, however, a rather large factual wrinkle with Schivone’s account – he appears to have falsified his Jewish identity.

RELATED:
Opinion: What do ‘Flotilla Folk’ do and why?
Law students take public diplomacy into the legal arena

Writing in an August letter to the editor in Ha’aretz,Valerie Saturen, a pro-Palestinian activist and acquaintance of Schivone, noted, “In his editorial about joining the flotilla to Gaza, Gabriel Schivone represented himself as a Jewish college student. I feel I must point out that this is not his true identity, but one he has created in order to generate insider credibility, shield himself from accusations of anti-Semitism, and resonate with a target audience.

“Gabriel is not Jewish, whether in terms of ethnic ancestry, religious belief or cultural identity. He has never identified as a Jew until it became useful in advancing his political agenda. When asked why he did this, he explained that he has a distant Jewish relative and that ‘you use what you have.’” Schivone’s reported hoax was first analyzed on the website of CAMERA, a US-based media watchdog organization that tracks anti-Israel bias in the press. In his CAMERA article, Yishai Goldflam wrote, “Schivone emphasizes his Jewish identity no less than eight times, and repeatedly emphasizes the influence of his identity on his anti-Israel activity.

“As Saturen suggests in her letter, international anti-Israel activists place a premium on the participation of Jews in their activities. In this case, the flotilla organizers seemingly scored big – a Jewish participant, and writing in an Israeli media outlet, to boot. Claims of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism are thus defused.”

Responding to Saturen’s letter, Schivone wrote to The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, “Not only is it sorely inaccurate and frankly abusive in its attempts to deny someone their identity and humanity, it is a distraction from the main purpose of the public discussion initiated in the first place, namely to highlight – in order to resist – the brutalization of Palestinians and the ongoing destruction of Palestinian life under occupation by Israel, fully enabled by the United States.”

Schivone defines himself as a “Chicano Jew.” When asked specifically if he converted to Judaism or if his parents or grandparents are Jewish, Schivone told the Post “I mean that I foremost am a person of color -- a ‘Chicano’ simply means someone of Mexican heritage and ancestry, with cultural ties to Mexico and to the preceding indigenous lands, and with national ties to the United States... I am a first generation immigrant youth in the US.

“At the same time I also retain Jewish heritage and ancestry, from parts of my family who are from Mexico.

My Jewishness is publicly relevant only on narrow issues [such as Israel’s claim that it is his state, which he regards as both a false and racist doctrine]; far more importantly my Jewishness is irrelevant on broader issues, such as when it comes to US support and participation in Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.”

Schivone is listed as a member of the Arizona branch of “Jewish Voice for Peace” on the campus of University of Arizona in Tucson.

Schivone’s alleged use of a fake Jewish identity recalls the German case of Edith Lutz last year. Lutz, a former school teacher, claimed to have converted to Judaism, and proceeded to use her invented Jewish credentials to garner enormous attention in the German media to publicize her voyage to violate Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Lutz was a passenger aboard the Irene catamaran in 2010 during last year’s flotilla.

Many German newspapers, including the widely viewed television program ARD-Magazin Monitor, which featured a broadcast in which Lutz was named as a representative of “Jews from Germany,” devoted extensive coverage to Lutz. The dogged reporting of German Journalist Henryk M. Broder exposed Lutz as a fraud, prompting Broder to comment, “Edith Lutz is definitely a Jew, like a smoked pork chop is kosher.”

The ARD declined to concede at the time that its method of journalistic verification was flawed, and the message of German Jews against Israel spread across television sets in Germany.

Prof. Alvin H. Rosenfeld, Director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary anti-Semitism at Indiana University, told the Post on Tuesday that “Israel’s defamers and delegitimizers include large numbers of misguided Jews, manipulative Jews, malevolent Jews, and other Jews of assorted bad faith. With Schivone, we now see phony Jews added to this notoriously disreputable bunch.”

Domestic Extremists - Weiss and Horowitz

From the Left-wing Extremists on MondoWeiss

We need — in common speech — to start seeding our identification of them in any article with the preface “domestic extremist” or “domestic terrorist” as in “domestic extremist Philip Weiss” or “domestic terrorist Adam Horowitz” or “left-wing extremist Weiss/Horowitz.” Why?

Think: search engine. The algorithms will bring up their names every
time someone searches for domestic terrorists, domestic extremists, or
left-wing extremists or terrorists.

An antisemite put this list up recently on the MondoWeiss extremist blog. It’s the definition of an extremist by Laird Wilcox who has been tracking extremist groups, domestic and otherwise, for over 40 years. His collection is now housed at the University of Kansas and is named after him. He created this list after studying several hundred extremist groups, large and small. Here are his 21 characteristics, which he explains in greater detail on his minimal site.

1. Character assassination.

2. Name-calling and labeling.

3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations.

4. Inadequate proof for assertions.

5. Advocacy of double standards.

6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil.

7. Manichaean worldview.

8. Advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics.

9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them.

10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation.

11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches.

12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others.

13. Doomsday thinking.

14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a “good” cause.

15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis.

16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance.

17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions.

18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty.

19. Inclination toward “groupthink.”

20. Tendency to personalize hostility.

21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win.

This describes the groups led and associated with the domestic extremists Richard Silverstein, Philip Weiss, and Adam horowitz. Additionally, these terms describe so many of the antisemites who comment on their blogs.

Rae Abileah, MondoWeiss fellow traveler, indicates that she is ignorant of democracy.

Rae Abileah is truly ignorant about democracy.
But hating Israel is her forte.

Here, Rae Abileah talks about why she considered it okay to act as a Nazi and attempt to hijack the floor of Congress:

"What kind of a democracy do we live in when free speech is met with brutality and arrest? In a real democracy, our representatives would be looking out for our best interests, not the interests of a foreign government, ie, Israel. I want my government to take an even-handed approach that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. But in our so-called democracy, special interest lobby groups like AIPAC have enormous power because of their ability to direct campaign contributions." http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/why-did-i-disrupt.html

But Rae, the vast majority of Americans support Israel and consider the Palestinian leadership to be comprised of cut-throats and scum. Based on the actions of Hamas and Fatah, who living in a democracy could think any differently? Nazis, antisemites, Islamists? I grant you that constiuency. And you are free to scream out your hatred on any street corner. However, you have to be invited to speak to Congress. And as the American people regard you as an insane hate-monger, democratically, they will not give you the time of day.

As for Congress looking out for our (not yours) best interest, it does. It also bends to the will of the people in matters of morality. And supporting Israel is a moral matter that speaks to our souls, not our pocketbooks.

Can Horowitz sleep at night?

Sometimes, the sleaze ball tag-team idiots, Horowitz and Weiss, post a lie so heinous that it boggles the mind.

Of course, the antisemitic posters at Mondoweiss eat that shit right up.

Here is their latest shit:

"As these days mark the 63rd memory of the Nakba, our people all around the world, revolt, and object to the injustice and hatred we are met with on a day to day basis, just because we're Palestinians and just because we exist." http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/63-years-of-the-nakba.html

Just because you exist? Pardon my mirth. Have you forgotten the number of suicide bombing where you deliberately targeted Grandmothers with their grandchildren, mothers with their children, and teenagers eating pizza?

Did you forget the time you murdered a pregnant mother and her four young daughters by putting a bullet, point blank, into each of their brains? How about a month ago when you slit the throat of a 3 month old? Just because you exist.

Of course, you won't read anything about that in MondoWeiss. The chickenshit authers are to scared to run truthful comments.

When will Philip Weiss stop lying?

World famous accidental Jew, Philip Weiss, can not let a lie pass if it will damage Jews and Israel.

French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father
by Philip Weiss on May 1, 2011


://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/french-court-says-israelis-shot-mohamed-al-dorras-father.html#more-42000
A French court has ruled in favour of Jamal Al-Dorra, whose son Mohamed's death by the Israeli army in 2000 was captured by photographers as he died in his father's arms.
The ruling rejects Israeli claims that Jamal was wounded prior to the incident on 20 September 2000

Remember that James Fallows, a distinguished journalist, showed in the Atlantic that Palestinians staged the boy's death to tarnish Israel's pristine image, as Idrees Ahmad reminds me.

Shahaf's investigation for the IDF showed that the Israeli soldiers at the outpost did not shoot the boy. But he now believes that everything that happened at Netzarim on September 30 was a ruse. The boy on the film may or may not have been the son of the man who held him. The boy and the man may or may not actually have been shot. If shot, the boy may or may not actually have died. If he died, his killer may or may not have been a member of the Palestinian force, shooting at him directly. The entire goal of the exercise, Shahaf says, was to manufacture a child martyr, in correct anticipation of the damage this would do to Israel in the eyes of the world—especially the Islamic world.


GuiltyFeat May 1, 2011 at 11:12 am
Philip your headline and the Ahram piece that you quote from is deliberately untruthful. I don’t mind a bit of spin from time to time, but this is explicitly false.
The French court did not say Israel shot Jamal Al-Dorra [I have matched your spelling throughout my response although the name is spelled differently in almost every article that has ever been written!].
The case that has just concluded dealt with al-Dorra’s claim of slander against an Israeli doctor, Yehuda David. David claimed that he treated Al-Dorra in 1994 for an injury sustained in 1992. Al-Dorra sued David for breaching patient-doctor confidentiality and for slander. Al-Dorra’s suit was upheld.


At no point was the French court called on to comment when al-Dorra’s injury was sustained, only when it was not. Similarly, the French court has nothing at all to say about who may have shot the bullets that caused Al-Dorra’s injury.
It’s perfectly fine for you to speculate and to read between the lines, but to boldly state that a “French court says Israelis shot Mohamed Al-Dorra’s father” is simply false.
The story is reported with greater accuracy here: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=383329 where the headline is: Paris court convicts Israeli doctor of slander

I am aware that both sides in this conflict are guilty of spin and propaganda, but you do neither side any favors by buying into the half-truths and twisted words of the partisan press.

Christians are being murdered all over the Middle East

You heard it! Christians are being murdered all over the Middle East!





But what really bothers Philip Weiss is that some Palestinian Christians can't get into Jerusalem.






On Easter, spare a moment to think about the Christians in Jesus’s birthplace
by Dr. Ghassan Khatib on April 23, 2011




http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/on-easter-spare-a-moment-to-think-about-the-christians-in-jesuss-birthplace.html

As worshipers and tourists from all over the world come to Jerusalem this Easter, spare a few moments to think about those Christians who will not be allowed to make the short journey from Bethlehem.This year’s Easter celebrations will highlight, as they do every year, the effect Israel’s occupation regime has on Palestinian religious freedoms. A Christian tourist from the United States, Russia or Japan will have a better chance of spending Easter in Jerusalem than a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus.

Philip Weiss lies again

How many times can Weiss get away with reporting lie as fact?
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/report-israel-used-white-phosphorus-in-latest-gaza-attacks.html

Report: Israel used white phosphorus in latest Gaza attacks
by Philip Weiss on April 19, 2011

Like 11 Retweet 36
From Ahram. Speechless-making. A doctor in the Gaza justice department's medical office says that injuries to bodies in Gaza, charred, torn, indicate that white phosphorus was used by Israel in latest attacks. Where is international law?

Philip Weiss' UN EXPOSEd

Mondoweiss reports that Hina Jilani, a member of the UN Fact Finding mission on the Gaza conflict, affirmed nothing (not even the truth) will change the substance of the original report submitted to the UN. It is obvious that Philip Weiss has no idea of what he has reported. The UN Human Rights rep has implied that the truth is not enough to change the substance of a report. How sad. Goldstone Report commissioner Jilani says nothing can ‘invalidate the UN Report’ by Philip Weiss on April 4, 2011 Hina Jilani grants an exclusive interview to Middle East Monitor (thanks, Ed Moloney): In what has been the first statement after the op-ed article by Judge Richard Goldstone by a member of the UN Fact Finding mission on the Gaza conflict, Hina Jilani, affirmed nothing will change the substance of the original report submitted to the UN. In an exclusive interview given to the Middle East Monitor (MEMO), the internationally recognized human rights lawyer dismissed claims that the op-ed article by Judge Richard Goldstone in the Washington Post (1 April 2011) would make any difference to the report. She said, "Ultimately, the UN Report would not have been any different to what it was". Jilani, it would be recalled, served as the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders from 2000 to 2008. She was also appointed to the UN International Fact-Finding Commission on Darfur, Sudan in 2006. Ms Jilani denies Goldstone's op-ed article expresses any actual regret. "Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move". Looking ahead, she insisted the Report "is and remains an important report." She added that the UN Security Council now needs to investigate further to see how both parties - Israel and Hamas - have violated international law: "The UN cannot allow impunity to remain," she stressed, "and will have to act if it wants to remain a credible international governing body."

Phillip Weiss and Adam Horowitz throw Goldstone under the bus.

Pair of infamous Hamas propogandists disavow Goldstone as soon as possible. Mondoweiss website aflame with antisemites and Palestinian terrorist sympathizers climbing all over each other trying to spin damage control over Goldstone's retraction of Gaza War report. petersz April 3, 2011 at 1:36 am Colonel Gadaffi and his regime are going to be investigated by the International Criminal Court apparently. Well why not Israel? What difference is Gaddafi’s shelling and bombing of the people of Libya who are uprising against him any different than Israel’s constant onslaught on the Palestinians over decades including Cast Lead? MRW April 3, 2011 at 1:46 am “Goldstone’s “reconsideration” in the Post today doesn’t change the documented history.” No, it doesn’t. But his “reconsideration” is an obvious example of how pernicious dual loyalty can be. Morally. Ethically. And apparently, now, judicially. Chaos4700 April 3, 2011 at 1:52 am None of the other authors of the report are contradicting it. And there were other authors. It was a mistake to name this report after Goldstone. As if he were single-handedly responsible. I guess any Zionist is susceptible to being blackmailed. Or bought off. We’ll have to remember that for future reference. Absolute corruption. petersz April 3, 2011 at 4:56 am The official name is “The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” its just become popularly known as the Goldstone Report which is incorrect as its the work of other people not just Goldstone. Thomson Rutherford April 3, 2011 at 1:59 am Concerning Israel and Gaza, this statement appeared in today’s ‘NYT’: “Israel fought a three-week offensive against Hamas in Gaza in 2008-9 as a response to years of rocket fire.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html?_r=1&hp This is why I would never pay money to help perpetuate the Times or The Washington Post. Thomson Rutherford April 3, 2011 at 2:16 am Also, today’s Times has a review by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kirchner (the deadly Israeli duo) of Goldstone’s op-ed in WaPo. I think you know what to expect. More hasbara. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03goldstone.html?hp Potsherd2 April 3, 2011 at 9:46 am At least they called it an “offensive.” I’m sure they would have called it a “defensive” if they could. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 2:00 am Yet another Mondopiece that fails to mention Hamas war crimes. Alex, here’s a straightforward question. In the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict how many of the two sides have committed war crimes? Why do you and so many other commentators choose to blame only one of the two sides? Tom Pessah April 3, 2011 at 3:27 am GuiltyFeat – the debate is around Israel’s war crimes since that is what is being denied. Hamas’ war crimes are completely obvious and have been pointed out again and again by the Goldstone Report, Human Rights Watch, Btselem and anyone else who investigated the war. There is no point in just repeating what everyone agrees on.The debate is between those who think both sides committed war crimes, and those who exonerate the Israeli army. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 4:40 am Tom, I don’t agree at all that that’s what the debate here is about. I’m an Israeli, I believe my country has committed war crimes. I am not trying to exonerate the Israeli army, and yet I am constantly being argued with by people who expressly DO NOT believe that Hamas committed war crimes. I don’t think chaos4700 or seafoid or taxi any number of commenters here believes that “both sides committed war crimes”. Just ask them and they will refuse to answer and blame Israel for the crimes of both sides. I’m willing to hold my own government accountable for their crimes. No one here is calling for accountability from Hamas. That’s the key point in Goldstone’s op-ed. Israel, however cackhandedly, is investigating the claims against it. Hamas isn’t and no one is saying a word. eljay April 3, 2011 at 8:32 am >> I’m willing to hold my own government accountable for their crimes. No one here is calling for accountability from Hamas. Not no one. I have called – and I continue to call – for accountability from all guilty parties on both sides.(http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/citing-national-security-coalition-of-realists-and-liberals-freeman-zogby-beinart-call-on-obama-to-condemn-settlements.html#comment-269927) The first step, however, is for Israel to halt all ON-GOING aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. It can do so unilaterally, immediately and completely. There’s no reason for it not to…unless it simply doesn’t want to. David Samel April 3, 2011 at 8:38 am Guilty, with all due respect, this isn’t about you. Tom made a valid point, that Israel is the only party denying that it deliberately targeted civilians. Whether an anonymous blogger called GuiltyFeat believes that it did is entirely without significance. Israel has vigorously challenged your acceptance of responsibility on behalf of your country. Goldstone has now stated his misgivings about the report’s accusations against Israel, and when Alex Kane defends the report’s original conclusions, you attribute the reasonable focus of this article as the usual bias of a “mondopiece.” There may be some on this website who refuse to condemn Hamas rockets. I do not, by the way, which by your logic renders your complaint flawed. However, I and many others recognize that when you compare Hamas rockets with Israeli firepower directed at Gaza and other places, or even the madness and brutality of the Occupation on a good day when no one is killed, Israeli crimes are much much worse. See Avi’s comparison below. While you don’t explicitly say it, you certainly imply that there is some sort of rough equivalence between both sides’ “war crimes.” For someone who claims to hold his country responsible for its crimes, do you really think they are comparable to rockets from Hamas and every other Palestinian group, or did you not intend to make that comparison? GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 10:07 am Sadly (for me as an Israeli), I do indeed make that comparison. The difference, as Goldstone clearly states, is intentionality. Israel commits war crimes by failing through negligence to prevent the tragic deaths of civilians and civilian children. Israel did not do enough to stop these deaths from occurring. No Israeli soldier has ever woken up in the morning and declared today will be a good day if I kill Palestinian children. On the other side, the militant wing of Hamas commits war crimes by using all means within its (admittedly feeble) arsenal to kill as many civilians as possible. These men are under direct orders to murder as many children as possible. That they are consistently unable to fulfill their murderous desires should not exonerate them in any way. The net result of these war crimes is that Israel has killed more children and civilians. There is no honor in this. Israelis take no pride in this grisly and brutal truth. Intentionality does not bring back the children that we have killed, but I believe, and I think Goldstone believes it also, that it is a key differentiator between the leadership of the two sides. If Hamas were to acquire more powerful weapons tomorrow, do you believe they would not use them against Israeli civilians? Avi April 3, 2011 at 10:21 am GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 10:07 am Sadly (for me as an Israeli) You keep repeating the same line over and over. It’s as though you are trying to convince yourself that you are an Israeli. Avi April 3, 2011 at 4:42 am GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 2:00 am Yet another Mondopiece that fails to mention Hamas war crimes. What Hamas did, they certainly did not: 1. Impose an ongoing five-year siege on 1.5 million civilians.2. Did not drop 1000 pound bombs on Israeli towns.3. Did not militarily occupy Israel for 44 years.4. Did not burn Israeli children with White Phosphorus.5. Did not use limb severing, meat grinding munitions against Israelis.6. Did not destroy 20,000 Israeli homes in less than three weeks.7. Did not kill 6,500 Israelis over the course of 8 years.8. Did not injure 5000 more Israelis in less than 3 weeks. By contrast, Israel did all that to the Palestinians. Hamas Qassam rockets vs. Israel’s 1 ton bombs Hamas’ rockets have resulted in the death of less than 30 Israelis since the year 2000. There is no comparison. Moreover, Tom did not mention that Israel attacked Gaza despite Hamas abiding by a 6 months ceasefire. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 7:48 am Goldstone talks very clearly about intentionality, something to which you utterly refuse to relate. How many Palestinians do you believe the IDF would have liked to have killed to achieve operational success? 1,000? 5,000? 25,000? 2,500,000? Why did they not achieve their goal? How many Israelis do you believe Hamas would have like to have killed to achieve operational success? Why did they not achieve their goal? I am willing to ask and answer hard questions about my government and my army. Who here is doing that for Hamas? Avi April 3, 2011 at 10:08 am This report from 2002 documents the use of Dart bombs, Flechettes, against Palestinians. After the bomb explodes in the air, 5,000 flechettes are dispersed over an area of 985 ft x 310 ft. That is roughly the area of 6 FOOTBALL FIELDS. One can hardly call that “targeted”. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 7:48 am Goldstone talks very clearly about intentionality, something to which you utterly refuse to relate. How many Palestinians do you believe the IDF would have liked to have killed to achieve operational success? How many human beings would have been killed had asteroid EM7 hit the Earth? A billion? Two billion? Five billion? If a pelican lands on the back of bison, will the bison run? If not, why not? Shingo April 3, 2011 at 5:29 am Yet another Mondopiece that fails to mention Hamas war crimes. You’re liek an obsessive compulsive with a tic. How many lives his Hamas’ war cimes clain vs the lives claimed by Israel’s war crimes? Are you seiosuly that tone deaf, or just desperate to topic away from discussing Israel? GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 6:07 am Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes. I can say it. Can you? Avi April 3, 2011 at 6:40 am GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 6:07 am Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes. I can say it. Can you? And after you demand people denounce Hamas, you will demand they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Later, you’ll demand they renounce their right to speak out against Israel’s crimes. And finally, you will accuse them of being anti-Semites. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It’s like an annoying poodle humping one’s leg during courtroom proceedings. seafoid April 3, 2011 at 8:37 am Say “Israel ignores international law and the Geneva conventions”, Guilty Feat.Say” Zionism is apartheid”. Hostage April 3, 2011 at 8:11 am GuiltyFeat, the Article 12(3) Declaration made on behalf of the Palestinian government simply accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002. The declaration doesn’t limit the jurisdiction of the Court to the crimes committed by the IDF. Only Israel and its supporters have objected to the ICC Prosecutor investigating both sides. Despite the fact that the ICC is a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples, Article 31 of the Rome Statute, “Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility” does NOT include tu quoque arguments. So, the fact that an enemy is committing similar crimes or that everyone else is doing it would not be a valid defense. Here are some references that help explain that principle: The accused cannot rely on the fact that allegedly there were also atrocities committed by the opposing force. In international law there is no justification for attacks on civilians carried out either by virtue of the tu quoque principle (i.e. the argument whereby the fact that the adversary is committing similar crimes offers a valid defence to a belligerent’s crimes) or on the strength of the principle of reprisals. *Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al., (January 2000), para. 765; As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case. *Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (February 2001), para. 580; As noted by the Trial Chamber, when establishing whether there was an attack upon a particular civilian population, it is not relevant that the other side also committed atrocities against its opponent’s civilian population. The existence of an attack from one side against the other side’s civilian population would neither justify the attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent nor displace the conclusion that the other side’s forces were in fact targeting a civilian population as such. Each attack against the other’s civilian population would be equally illegitimate and crimes committed as part of this attack could, all other conditions being met, amount to crimes against humanity. *Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (January 2002), para. 87; Before turning to consider the KLA’s conduct, the Chamber would emphasise at the outset that the existence of an attack from one side involved in an armed conflict against the other side’s civilian population does not justify an attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent. The tu quoque principle has no application. Nevertheless, the Chamber is conscious of the operations of the Serbian forces in Kosovo, which deployed tactics that included the razing of villages and the expulsion of civilians from villages, and which caused considerable and widespread civilian suffering. *Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Limaj et al., (November 2005), para. 193. For an exhaustive overview of the subject of tu quoque arguments in the proceedings of international criminal tribunals See:*Sienho Yee, “The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defence to International Crimes, Prosecution or Punishment”, Chinese Journal of International Law (2004) 3(1): 87-134; I hope that explains why Israeli lawyers do so much of their arguing in the Op-Eds. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 10:23 am Like many others you are putting words into my mouth. I have no desire to defend Israel by claiming that Hamas is also committing war crimes. I wish the leaders of both sides to be tried and held accountable for their criminal acts. In contrast, there are many here who believe that Israel alone has violated the Geneva Convention while the actions of Hamas are “understandable” and negligible given the poverty of their weapons. My sole goal is to expose that hypocrisy. If Israelis are to be condemned for their war crimes then what could be more just that having them tried contemporaneously with the leaders of Hamas for their war crimes? Don’t you agree? Potsherd2 April 3, 2011 at 8:44 am What’s the point in obsessing over this, Guilty? What’s the point of Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas in post after post after post? I don’t know anyone who will claim Hamas is a body of angelic beings. Even Amira Hass, who has spent so much time in Gaza, will critize Hamas. But what good does it do to demand a ritual denunciation? seafoid April 3, 2011 at 4:06 am What prompted Goldstone to write this op-ed? Is it linked to Israel’s diplomatic efforts to stop the Palestinians getting that vote at the UN in September? It all has strong echoes of Israel’s desperate hasbara attempts to deny that Mohamed Ad durra had been shot and killed by an Israeli soldier. Israel might energise its base with this u-turn but the Gaza damage has already been done. Avi April 3, 2011 at 4:25 am It’s typical muddying the waters tactic. By the time the case is settled in the court of public opinion, no clear answer can be found and contradictory information is abundant. The public is left confused and eventually the case drops from the headlines. seafoid April 3, 2011 at 5:48 am I don’t think Israel is going to make it work, Avi. It took Israel almost 2.5 years to get a positive spin. That is a massive PR failure. It is more like a pyrrhic victory. The strategy of having someone Jewish investigate Israel obviously is a dud. So it’s not going to run next time. Jim Haygood April 3, 2011 at 7:48 am Seafoid’s speculation that Goldstone is doing Israel a favor now, before it faces a potential debacle in the UN come September, sounds plausible enough. Ethan ‘My son serves in the IDF’ Bronner, normally a chest-thumping Israeli chauvinist, today is reduced to ending his latest NYT piece by forlornly quoting Ari Shavit of Haaretz: [Shavit] wrote that “2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973,” because a Palestinian state will be recognized internationally. “Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent U.N. member state.” He added, “A diplomatic siege from without and a civil uprising from within will grip Israel in a stranglehold.” Declaration of a Palestinian state is fraught with risk, since the current Palestinian territories are non-viable with Israel exerting a stranglehold over their trade with the outside world, not to mention their economy, utilities and travel. This is a formula for popular disappointment (and that’s a euphemism for rage), if Palestinians get their state but life goes on as badly and oppressively as before. But as Bronner spells out, UN recognition could be a rather brilliant end run around the decades-long Israeli strategy of negotiating from ‘facts on the ground’ as the starting point, rather than the countless list of UN and ICJ decisions pronouncing the settlements and the Wall as absolutely illegal. Thus, they shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips, any more than a jewel thief would be permitted to pawn his purloined loot to meet bail and hire a star defense attorney. As usual, Peace Laureate Obama sucks his thumb and dithers, as his Chicago benefactors the Pritzskers and Crowns lean on his frail backbone to continue America’s ‘Israel First’ foreign policy. Bronner: While the Obama administration has referred in the past to the 1967 lines as a basis for talks, it has not decided whether to back the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — the other members of the so-called quartet — in declaring them the starting point, diplomats said. The quartet meets on April 15 in Berlin. What’s fervently to be hoped is that not only Israel, but also its mindless defender the U.S., gets diplomatically isolated in the UN this fall. As Israel’s tendentious lawyer, the US has nothing constructive to contribute to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Time for capable hands to take over the diplomatic wreckage of a failed administration and a failed policy, as the Times and WaPo’s dedicated stenographers for Israel moan and rend their garments. Why do bad things happen to good people? Search your shrunken soul, Ethan B.! seafoid April 3, 2011 at 4:29 am Goldstone didn’t write the op-ed. Compare the language to that used in the report. The following extracts from the op-ed were written for him and have the look of AIPAC and would do justice to eee. “the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel”. ” Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within.” Gaza doesn’t of course “illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas”. Because Gaza isn’t a state. “the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.” This is really scraping the barrel “Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel” Classic hasbara “That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality” Stunning “no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity” Turn everything upside down. It’s no longer terror. It’s crimes against humanity. And forget about the white phosphorous. That was just a mistake. “Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.” This a joke . Like a few rockets are more important than 44 years of systemic human rights abuses . If Israel is genuine about reform it agrees to independent investigation by a non Jewish third party or else it’s STFU. GuiltyFeat April 3, 2011 at 4:45 am This is the worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense, picking apart individual phrases to suit your own version of events. Seafoid, dude, you must realize you sound completely cuckoo. Israel committed war crimes. Hamas committed war crimes. Why is it you only believe one of those statements? seafoid April 3, 2011 at 8:17 am GF I have been listening to hasbara for the last 11 years and have been insulted too many times to mention. I am honoured to be insulted by another shill. Israel deliberately targets civilians in the West Bank incl Jerusalem, in Lebanon and in Gaza and despicable Zionist pressure on Goldstone to retract the conclision of the report doesn’t change that. “Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.” This is Zionist nonsense. Israel has stated on numerous occasions that international law is meaningless. http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/palestine-papers-reveal-a-palestinian-tragicomedy-driven-by-israeli-and-american-intransigence.html Another choice comment from Livni, this one from a Nov. 13, 2007 meeting, where she and Abu Ala (Qurei) were discussing what should be included in the “terms of reference” for the upcoming Annapolis meeting (the eighth meeting on this question):AA: International law?Livni : NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier. One Wash post article isn’t going to stop the global juggernaut against the occupation. It won’t stop israel selfdestructing. Leigh April 3, 2011 at 7:23 am Seafoid, I don’t have an issue with Goldstone having written this kind of stuff. I think most of it is more or less true, especially if one takes the definitions that international law gives ‘civilian’, ‘war crime’, etc. What bothers me is that the whole Op-Ed was aimed at telling us what criminals Hamas people are while downplaying Israel’s crimes. And that is irritating and misleading, firstly, because he misrepresents the McGowan-Davis report in order to downplay Israel’s crimes and, secondly because given the number of dead and injured people and destroyed properties, together with his inability to produce any evidence to show that his original conclusions were wrong, Hamas’ crimes just are not as numerous as Israel’s. If I were him, I simply would have written an Op-Ed saying this: 1. why do supporters of Israel always misrepresent my report as not having criticised Hamas? I did, and my criticism was compounded by the fact that they predictably refused to investigate their actions after Operation Cast Lead. 2. The fact that Hamas has not conducted investigations does not entitle Israel to conduct what the McGowan-Davis report states are non-credible investigations. After all, Hamas is already being punished as outlaws by having been labeled a terrorist group, while Israel receives financial and military aid from various countries and enjoys trade relations everywhere. But writing an Op-Ed to try to save Israel’s image without being able to cite any evidence and in addition misrepresenting the McGowan-Davis report is sad, if possibly a bit understandable given the incredible abuse he’s been subjected to. If anything, it again shows us the main strategy that our Western societies use to prevent freedom of speech and inquiry: savage emotion-driven attacks, vicious character assassination and career destruction, even to the point of throwing people out of their communities. Please let this community not join in. We can easily stick to facts and leave the poor man alone. radii April 3, 2011 at 5:44 am Goldstone capitulated to the sustained pressure – he is human, after all … who knows what blackmail or threats were made against him … but the facts speak for themselves – white phosphorus for example … further, why was this savage attack “Cast Lead” ever launched in the first place? That is the true question and the answer is self-evident: for create destruction and terror in a captive population Hostage April 3, 2011 at 5:49 am The article highlights the kafkaesque absurdity of the situation when a published report available from an open source, like Yedioth Ahronoth, contains sufficient information to trigger a criminal investigation anywhere else in the world, yet the international community quibbles over the details of drafting a mandate to deploy a “fact-finding” mission to go to Israel and read it. Inevitably, the Israel government vilifies the messengers when they return home and present us with a copy of the evidence for the circular file. For example, in 2002 Yedioth Ahronoth published an interview with a D9 Caterpillar Operator who admitted he spent three days “erasing and erasing” the middle of the Jenin refugee camp in a state of whiskey-fueled drunken rage: “Do you know how I held out for 75 hours? I didn’t get off the bulldozer. I had no problem of fatigue, because I drank whiskey all the time. I had a bottle in the bulldozer at all times. I had put them in my bag in advance. Everybody else took clothes, but I knew what was waiting for me there, so I took whiskey and something to munch on.… “I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, just so that our soldiers won’t expose themselves to danger. That’s what I told them. I was afraid for our soldiers. You could see them sleeping together, 40 soldiers in a house, all crowded. My heart went out for them. This is why I didn’t give a damn about demolishing all the houses I’ve demolished – and I have demolished plenty. By the end, I built the ‘Teddy’ football stadium there.”… “I didn’t see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn’t see houses falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn’t care at all. I am sure people died inside these houses, but it was difficult to see, there was lots of dust everywhere, and we worked a lot at night. I found joy with every house that came down, because I knew they didn’t mind dying, but they cared for their homes. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people for generations. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down.” See “I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp” While that headline was being trumpeted in the Israeli press for all the world to see, the Security Council canceled plans for its own fact finding mission and held an open debate instead. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights decided to send Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu on its own fact finding mission, but he was threatened and branded an anti-Semite before he ever arrived in the Middle East. He was subsequently vilified for questioning Israel’s “purity of arms”. We really didn’t need to send in Tutu or Goldstone. We already had a more than sufficient number of reports in our possession that would have triggered a criminal investigation and perhaps the establishment of an ad hoc criminal tribunal if they had occurred anywhere else. For example, during the 2nd Intifada in 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights fact finders reported “widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.” See E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1 19 October 2000 The pattern was depressingly familiar. During the first Intifada, the occupation was already twenty-four years old. My shelves were full of UN fact finding reports by then that cataloged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli settlers and their armed forces. The reports explained that the acts committed were “prohibited at all times” and “give rise to individual criminal responsibility under international law regardless of the motive involved or any local statutory limitations”. But nothing has ever come of them (yet). It has been necessary for the State Department to ignore all of those reliable reports and to submit perjured ones to lawmakers which claim that the government of Israel does not commit political killings, commit abductions, hold hostages as bargaining chips, torture prisoners, and etc. See for example the yearly Joint Committee on Foreign Relations “Country Reports” on Israel submitted in accordance with Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended. Even the Government of Israel has published reports which admit that serious criminal cases involving violence against Palestinians are routinely closed without investigations. See “The Karp Report : An Israeli Government Inquiry into Settler Violence Against Palestinians on the West Bank”, reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, ISBN 0-88728-141-9, 1984 There was also a steady stream of scholarly works and journal articles on the first Intifada, but some of the experts took time off from serving on the International Law Commission or on the faculties of various universities to compile a criminal dossier and database that cataloged some of the evidence, e.g. M. Cherif Bassiouni & Louise Cainkar eds., “The Palestinian Intifada December 9, 1987-December 8, 1988: A Record Of Israeli Repression”, the Database Project On Palestinian Human Rights, 1989 It makes for pretty grim reading when there are pages and pages of tables listing Palestinian children, many as young as 3-5 years of age, who in too many instances had been shot multiple times; “father shot 4X while pursuing children kidnapped by settlers”; and reports of people being stoned, imprisoned, burned, electrocuted, hit or run over by vehicles, and otherwise maimed, tortured, and killed. It is perfectly clear that the Israeli persecution of Palestinians documented in thousands of other sources can’t be washed-away by a single editorial in the Washington Post. Avi April 3, 2011 at 6:48 am The Jenin refugee camp — before and after the massacre Israel committed there in 2002. Jenin Refugee Camp Jenin Refugee Camp seafoid April 3, 2011 at 8:34 am I would also add that this time the thuggery is way out in the open. It wasn’t enough for Israel to have a Jew in charge of the investigation. It wasn’t enough for Israel to refuse to take part in the investigation. It wasn’t enough for Israel to complete its own sham investigation involving David Trimble. Goldstone had to be humiliated. Because Zionism is too brittle and is under severe pressure from the outside world. seafoid April 3, 2011 at 5:56 am From haaretz\If You Read The McGowan Report, It Says Just The Opposite of What Goldstone Claims It Said * Binyamin in Orangeburg* 03.04.11* 04:55 The McGowan Report actually trashes Israel for failing to promptly bring charges against the IDF leaders who were responsible for the 36 war crimes the Goldstone report identified. McGowan also questions whether Israel is simply stalling until no prosecutions can be brought. It is one thing to “investigate”, it’s another to convict. A few quotes from McGowan: “The Committee is able to report that, to the best of its knowledge, nineteen investigations into the serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law reported by [the Goldstone Report] have been completed by the Israeli authorities with findings that no violations were committed. Two inquiries were discontinued for different reasons. Three investigations led to disciplinary action. Six investigations reportedly remain open, including one in which criminal charges have been brought against an Israeli soldier. The status of possible investigations into six additional incidents remains unclear. “The Committee has strong reservations respecting the promptness of some investigations of individual incidents referred to by the [Goldstone Report]. More than one-third of the 36 incidents in Gaza are still unresolved or unclear. The status of investigations into incidents in Israel and the West Bank is also unclear. Presumably this serious issue respecting the ability of the military justice system promptly to investigate allegations of wrongdoing during military operations is under careful review by the Turkel Commission. “Finally, the Committee is concerned about the fact that the duration of the ongoing investigations into the allegations contained in the [Goldstone] report — over two years since the end of the Gaza operation – could seriously impair their effectiveness and, therefore, the prospects of ultimately achieving accountability and justice.” http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.24_AUV.pdf Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 6:24 am More Rohrscach. Did Israel commit war crimes? (Per Judge Goldstone, possibly, but a much lower scale and significance than originally documented as potentially.) Did Israel undertake a foreign policy relative to Gaza that could have been much more humane? Yes. But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy. LeaNder April 3, 2011 at 7:13 am Rohrscach i told you this before. “Rohrschach”. “sch” is rather frequent in German. May I offer you a bridge? – school. Already a Greek loan word in Latin. I don’t think it’s a good usage by the way, since you are mainly projecting. You read reality data exactly the same way you blame other’s do. You filter out what doesn’t fit your preconceptions. As nobody here is surprised that evidence proving a more general strategy –doesn’t fit your light unto the nations scenario–feels like simple guessing, arbitrary association, or dot connecting to you. Do you filter out negative data, when you analyze businesses, too? Doesn’t feel like a good strategy to me. Frances April 3, 2011 at 7:16 am ‘Rorschach’, sweet one, ‘Rorschach’. Don’t bother using the word if you can’t be bothered to even look up the spelling. eljay April 3, 2011 at 8:43 am >> But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy. You want the “easy out” of policy, likely because you approve of Israel’s more recent war crimes as “necessary” in much the same way you approve of Israel’s past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary”. (By continuing to rationalize Israeli terror, you invest in it.) You continue to be an immoral Zio-supremacist and an apologist for the past and ON-GOING criminal activities of Israel. Donald April 3, 2011 at 9:03 am “Per Judge Goldstone, possibly, but a much lower scale and significance than originally documented as potentially.)” There is no evidence for your claim. The dead are still dead, the scale of destruction is still the same as it was, and we’ve now got several posts at this website outlining why Goldstone’s retraction is at odds with the facts and you don’t deal with any of that. Until or unless you do, it’s obvious that the Gaza War is for you little more than a PR problem, one that has now gone away because Goldstone issued his despicable retraction. And you know what? In this country you’ve got the propaganda arm of the politicians and the press almost totally on your side. The NYT just gave this retraction very prominent coverage–it’s not on the front page, but they have a reference to it on the front page. The human rights investigations done by other organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch may as well never have happened–the details of the Goldstone Report might as well never have happened. It’s very much like Holocaust denial in intent and that’s the side you’re on Richard. “Did Israel undertake a foreign policy relative to Gaza that could have been much more humane? Yes. But, the left wants the easy out of “war crimes”. They don’t want to persuade about policy.” Hey, that’s big of you. Let’s extend that sort of unblinking condemnation towards suicide bombing. Could suicide bombers undertake actions towards Israel that could have been much more humane? Yes. But please, let’s not take the easy way out and call it terrorism. In other words, for Richard, nothing that Palestinians feel or suffer matters very much. They can be subjected to a massive attack on their population and if Israel does a few token investigations that’s good enough for him. They don’t have to acknowledge their terror, but the Palestinian Authority has to denounce that committed by Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israelis can kill and destroy in a brutal assault and we shouldn’t hurt their delicate sensibilities–we should “persuade”. Richard’s position is one of naked power worship and racism. Unfortunately it is also the position of the American press and the politicians. Donald April 3, 2011 at 9:23 am I should say that the NYT piece isn’t all bad–they do indicate that the destruction and deaths in Gaza all happened and the reporter (Bronner) says that McGowan’s report was more critical of Israel than Goldstone’s. The worst part in Goldstone’s op ed was this statement– “That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets. The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.” There’s nothing in Goldstone’s op ed to justify that last claim and if it’s obvious that Hamas intended to kill civilians, then it’s equally obvious for Israel. The NYT didn’t explicitly point this out, but Bronner does cite McGowan’s claim that Israel did not investigate its overall planning and conduct of the war. That’s what we’ve got to focus on–the fact that Goldstone’s main assertion, that it was just a few bad apples and not policy, has no support. It’ll be an uphill battle getting the newspapers to point this out. As for Goldstone, this was a sad and pathetic end to his career in human rights. Maybe if Hamas did a few token investigations they could get his seal of approval and he’d put out a statement saying that the Hamas leadership never intended to kill civilians. Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 9:27 am “Richard’s position is one of naked power worship and racism. Unfortunately it is also the position of the American press and the politicians.” “Until or unless you do, it’s obvious that the Gaza War is for you little more than a PR problem, one that has now gone away because Goldstone issued his despicable retraction.” Escalating, false and insulting rhetoric Donald. Its unnecessary. It does NOT serve any just cause. I think that Goldstone is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect for that. Donald April 3, 2011 at 9:51 am “Escalating, false and insulting rhetoric Donald. Its unnecessary. It does NOT serve any just cause. I think that Goldstone is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect for that.” I doubt it is his honest impression–if it is then he’s incapable of reasoning. People have outlined why in several posts now and you pay absolutely no attention to anything that has been said. This gets back to what first made me realize you’re a fraud–you always do this. People can write long detailed posts outlining why a position you take is wrong, as the front page posters have done with Goldstone’s op ed, and none of it makes any difference to you. You simply ignore it. You reduce everything to “Someone who said something I agree with is declaring his honest impression and deserves respect.” No they don’t and no you don’t. You don’t deserve respect for ignoring evidence and neither does Goldstone. He might deserve pity. James North April 3, 2011 at 10:02 am Donald: Richard is not a “fraud” — in the sense that he consciously tries to trick us. He’s really a disturbed soul; within him a genuine humanism is struggling — so far unsuccessfully — with Israeli nationalism. This explains why he hides from contrary evidence. Of course you are right to point out that, “People can write long detailed posts outlining why a position you [Richard Witty] take is wrong, as the front page posters have done with Goldstone’s op ed, and none of it makes any difference to you. You simply ignore it.” Proof of this is the speed with which Richard comments; he can’t possibly be reading and digesting what others say. He types away furiously so that still small voice of his own conscience will stop bothering him. Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 10:14 am Donald,Evidence is to prove a point. So, what is your point? Is it “Israel DID commit war crimes?” What war crimes? At what organizational scale? Have you read the responses in the press to the Goldstone op-ed? Some that I’ve linked to? Noam Sheizaf at 972 (somehow the link didn’t make it here). http://972mag.com/goldstone-apology-wont-make-us-stop-talking-of-occupations-crimes/ The Carlo Strenger link in Haaretz. The NY times link, I saw that you read. Jerry Haberhttp://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2011/04/judge-goldstone-washington-post-op-ed.html Impressions of the actual significance of the op-ed vary. To comply with the dictates of political correctness, is not a driving motivation for me. On accusations that I only endorse opinions that are favorable to Israel, I don’t see it. You’ve read my blog. It is NOT “Israel right or wrong” in the slightest. The accusation of “war crimes” is a serious one. Its serious whether interpreted as “crimes occurring during war”, or as “intentional targeting of civilian population by policy”. And, the accusation requires proof of intent and/or of negligence. The presence of suffering or of destruction is NOT proof of war crimes. Suspicion is not sufficient. It doesn’t matter whether Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or other organizations conclude similarly with similarly incomplete evidence. Goldstone seems to be implying now that there is not sufficient evidence to support prosecution. Its just an opinion on his part. Maybe he’s wrong. Maybe you are right. I certainly do not know. seafoid April 3, 2011 at 9:27 am This is not about left and right. This is about basic human rights and international law. So the Zionists can harrass Goldstone until he gives in. Super. So what are you going to do about apartheid? Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 6:46 am http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/goldstone-retreat-proves-how-different-israel-and-hamas-really-are-1.353801 Richard Goldstone’s Washington Post op-ed retracting some of the central conclusions of his earlier report is something of an earthquake: his 2009 report has marked one of the deepest rifts between Israel and the international community. Its bottom line was simple and resounding: Israel had committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity in Operation Cast Lead by intentionally targeting civilian population. But there is a world of a difference in having to choose between terrible options and the Goldstone Report’s original accusation that Israel intentionally targeted civilians. Goldstone’s retraction is therefore immensely important. While it is legitimate to criticize Israeli policies, Hamas’ systematic targeting of Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to neutralize Hamas’ military infrastructure simply belong to different moral universes: Israel tries to defend itself within the framework of international law – Hamas cynically exploits suffering for its own purposes. We do not know exactly what has made Goldstone change his mind. One of the reasons certainly is that he sees that Israel indeed investigated its actions in Operation Cast Lead seriously, whereas Hamas continues to behave like a terror organization that has no interest in the truth, and only in political gain. seafoid April 3, 2011 at 9:31 am “his 2009 report has marked one of the deepest rifts between Israel and the international community.” This is where Israel,quite frankly, is wrong. The parting of the roads isn’t about what Goldstone wrote. It’s about people waking up to the fact that Israel has no interest in peace. Figuring out the peace process for the sham it is. So Israel can trash Goldstone. But we remember the 1400 dead. And all the civilians who were targeted so Hamas would learn its lesson. Israel can’t do anything about the Palestine papers. Or Rachel Corrie. Or the Mavi Marmara.And Jews who use white phosphorous are not tolerated. Donald April 3, 2011 at 9:36 am That makes you happy, doesn’t it Richard? Israel can inflict 100 times as much harm as Hamas and liberal Zionists like yourself can all get together and deny responsibility. No Palestinian should trust someone with your views. The inability to take responsibility makes you inherently untrustworthy. Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 9:46 am “Happy” Back to insulting guessing? You have a difference with Carlo’s interpretation, write to him. Donald April 3, 2011 at 10:01 am So, Richard, you find it insulting to have your views confused with that of the author you cite? That’s good–it must mean you are so horrified by the position taken that you don’t want me linking you to it. I’d like to believe that, but the article supports Goldstone’s despicable retraction and so do you. Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 10:20 am “despicable retraction”. Donald,I posted links to Noam Sheizaf, Jeremy Haber, Washington Post original article, others. They are links of voices that I consider within the range of people that I am willing to listen to closely. I don’t necessarily agree. I’ve made the mistake of assuming that every article that is presented here is endorsed by Phil. I really don’t know much of what he thinks personally on that basis, except on published interviews. In contrast, I do have a blog that is a description of what I think only. It is entirely editorial. James North April 3, 2011 at 9:48 am Richard: I see you’ve provided us with a link to Haaretz. Can we assume you’ve been over there, “making the better argument?” You’ve been telling Israelis that although they can celebrate Goldstone’s article, they are not perfect, and they should move toward peace?You will be happy to provide us with links to your comments there? Or, in fact, have you really only been celebrating over here, hiding from your own conscience?Which is it, Richard? Richard Witty April 3, 2011 at 9:50 am What did you think of the article, North? Sin Nombre April 3, 2011 at 7:46 am Ironically it seems to me that for all of Judge Goldstone’s attempt to ameliorate the harm his commission did to Israel originally, what he’s done now not only won’t help it much—if at all—but it will in addition seriously harm jews generally. That is, in this Post piece clearly he’s not speaking on behalf of his commission, and I believe that fact is going to just become more and more stark as things play out. For instance, there’s no way, I suspect, the commission is going to retract its report wholesale, nor I believe is it ever going to apologize for it. And we may well see such things as other commission members speaking out against Goldstone, or etc. and so forth. So what will be the effect of all this then? Especially of what seems to me is the most fundamental message of Goldstone’s Post comment which is, essentially, that so long as Israel investigates itself that’s good enough? (Which message, I think, will also become ever clearer, especially as it will further be observed that this was not any condition of his commission’s remit which was to do its own investigation and to seek Israel’s cooperation if Israel decided to help by doing its own, or not.) While ugly then, and while perhaps mainly expressed in a subterranean fashion, overwhelmingly I think, even in the West, the effect of all this is just going to persuade people that no matter their nationality, and no matter the gravity of their duties otherwise, the first and foremost loyalty of jews will always be towards Israel and other jews, period. That, in general … they can always be reliably trusted to betray their duties elsewhere because they will always subordinate them to the interests of Israel and other jews. And while I said this was “ugly,” just reinforcing all the above is the fact that even this idea can seem to have lost all its potency. It’s ever harder, that is, not only seeing such things as the comments of Rahm Emmanuel’s father remarking that of course his boy was going to work for Israel but then even moreso the plethora of jewish comment saying that Goldstone should have been ashamed of himself originally, to know just how to regard this kind of thing anymore. On the one hand it seems offensive as hell given its resonance with classic anti-semitic tropes. And yet on the other what is one to make of such things as Alan Dershowitz’s original comments about Goldstone essentially being a traitor, or the positive glorification of of Jonathan Pollard in Israel? So aside from still *feeling* that this sort of thing is ugly, it’s ever more difficult to actually argue it. Regardless, whether openly voiced or not, what Goldstone has now done, for a time at least and perhaps for a good long time, has put a big name and face to the idea that jews, especially prominent or powerful jews, and even if resistant at first, will in the end use even their official positions to help Israel or other jews, no matter how much this conflicts with their other putative loyalties. So while some jews might be thanking Mr. Goldstone now…. LeaNder April 3, 2011 at 8:08 am Forget it, I am wrong. The seem to have renamed the “columns” section into PostOpinions. Darkness in Qassam-Land This war is wrong. It is wrong because it cannot achieve its manifest goals — long-term “normal” life for the residents of the Negev region. The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian and Israeli civilians whose only “crime” is that they live in Negev or Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another. It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because, even before the last smoke rises from the rubble and the last ambulance carries the dead and wounded to hospitals, our leaders will find themselves signing a new agreement for a cease-fire. David Samel April 3, 2011 at 9:21 am Alex makes an excellent point which he supports with evidence over the past few years of Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians. However, Israel’s history of deliberately killing civilians goes back many decades, even well before its founding. None other than Jerry Slater provided a brief summary of a number of these events in the second half of this: http://www.jeromeslater.com/2010/01/goldstone-commission-report-part-2-did.html. A more complete catalog of such crimes would fill books, like Hirst’s The Gun and the Olive Branch. The absurdity of Israel’s denial is plain for anyone who wishes to see. Israel has not become more moral over the years, but has increasingly recognized the PR necessity of denial and become more sophisticated in its presentation. The current mantra regarding human shields has been extremely effective, not only absolving Israel but also blaming Hamas/Hezbollah for civilian deaths in Gaza and Lebanon. hophmi April 3, 2011 at 10:11 am I am not surprised by this at all. The Goldstone Report – all of these reports – are nothing more than allegations. Fact-finding is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even proof by a preponderance. And there is, in fact, no documented record that Israel systematically targets civilians. There are only allegations based on anecdotal evidence, and the allegations are voluminous only because of an undue obsession with Israel, an obsession which Goldstone has acknowledged and criticized. Alex Kane quotes an ACRI report that suggests, again, a ridiculous standard that has nothing to do with international law. International law does not require Israel to confine itself to “attacking rocket launchers.” AN army attacking an army base is not going to limit itself to the weapons on the base. The US Army certainly doesn’t operate this way. So, predictably, all of you will probably jump down Goldstone’s throat with the same venom that right-wing Zionists did, or otherwise simply deny whatever he says that contradicts your worldview. Here is a recent extended interview with Goldstone where he goes on in some detail. The part about the report is towards the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JZS170ppXQ Avi April 3, 2011 at 10:26 am hophmi April 3, 2011 at 10:11 am Alex Kane quotes an ACRI report that suggests, again, a ridiculous standard that has nothing to do with international law. International law does not require Israel to confine itself to “attacking rocket launchers.” AN army attacking an army base is not going to limit itself to the weapons on the base. The US Army certainly doesn’t operate this way. Try as you might to make things up as you go along, such arbitrary made-up nonsense does not pass for “International Law”. braciole April 3, 2011 at 10:13 am Goldstone – yet another hasbara shill! In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds. Guilt by association? As far as I can see no one has been charged or “fitted up” with the Itamar killings of a settler family, yet here is Goldstome implying that Hamas are responsible.