Sunday, 3 April 2011

Goldstone's Mea Culpa

April 2, 2011

Uh, nevermind, so sayeth Goldstone.

I guess the Jewish traitor who spread a blood libel against his own people got a pang of guilt over the resulting bloodshed on his hands. Perhaps Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, Adam Shapiro, Medea Benjamin and the rest of the jihad-loving Jewicidals can ingest large quantities of whatever Goldstone is drinking. But methinks the morally bankrupt and those void of humanity will stay that way, choking on their own poison.


By Richard Goldstone, Washinton Post (hat tip Van)

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case.

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.

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

Read the whole thing.

Goldstone starts to find his conscience

April 2, 2011

In an article published in Saturday's Washington Post - about a year and a half too late - South African Judge Richard Goldstone starts to walk back some of the horrific lies he told about the Israel Defense Forces in the infamous report that bears his name (more comments from Memeorandum here). He still criticizes Israel for not cooperating with him - as if it would have helped. But the findings of a UN Commission that Israel is conducting real investigations into incidents that took place during Operation Cast Lead have forced Goldstone to backtrack.

Israel Radio report that in response, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated that the Goldstone Report should be tossed into the trashbin of history, citing the absurdity that the United Nations 'Human Rights Commission,' in which Libya was an honored member, having commissioned the Goldstone Report.

Here's part of Goldstone's article with my comments appended. In a word, it's too little, too late.
The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
Funny, I don't recall any acknowledgment in the Goldstone Report like that. Maybe it was there, but it sure wasn't emphasized.
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.
'Intent' is not a default state in criminal law. 'Intent' requires mens rea (bad intentions). It must always be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and can never be assumed. Sometimes, people do something that is so reckless (like shoot a missile in an unprovoked manner into a civilian area) that it leaves no doubt about intent. But those instances are rare. The bottom line is that Israel does not, as a matter of policy, target innocent civilians. Even Goldstone has now been forced to admit that.
For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly.
Real investigations in which the accused have a chance to defend themselves take time. Goldstone didn't conduct an investigation. He conducted a smear job.
Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.
Goldstone was offered that evidence by unofficial bodies. It was not offered by the Israeli government because the Israeli government was not going to cooperate in an 'investigation' in which all three 'investigators' had condemned Israel before they were ever appointed to the panel. But the information was offered to him by unofficial sources (like Noam Bedein of the Sderot Media Center - whose testimony Goldstone slept through). In fact, had Israel cooperated with Goldstone, it is highly unlikely that the McGowan Davis Commission would ever have been appointed. After all, why would it have been necessary? And that was the best of reason of all for Israel not to cooperate with Goldstone.

As to the question of what might have influenced Goldstone and his commission, if the man had one ounce of integrity, he would have reconvened his commission and repudiated its findings seventeen months ago, after Dore Gold mopped the floor at Brandeis with him. But Goldstone continued to defend his 'findings' since that debate, refused to debate others, and even attempted to defend his 'findings' on Capitol Hill with the help of J Street.
Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).
So Goldstone took Hamas' numbers instead. No, not the ones to which he now refers. The earlier numbers which claimed Israel killed mostly civilians. In November 2010, Hamas admitted (in effect) that Israel's numbers were accurate. In the five months since then, Goldstone has not previously spoken out.
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel.
And for the umpteenth time, he did not change the mandate and could not have done so on his own. The mandate was never legally changed.
Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding.
Then why did his report have a section called "findings of fact and conclusions of law?" Only judicial processes purport to make "findings of fact and conclusions of law."
Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations.
Yeah, right. Go here to see how well thought out that was. Watch the video and see him criticize Israel for not doing enough and then watch what he says when they ask if he really expects Hamas to investigate. He's so disingenuous it reeks.

Read the whole thing if you can stand it. Like the Page 1 headline that is corrected on Page 18 a week later, it's too little, too late to undo the damage. We will not forgive and we will not forget Richard Goldstone.
Goldstone recants…. sort of.

April 2, 2011

Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

By Richard Goldstone, WaPo

By Ted Belman

I am happy he set the record straight even if it took him a few years to do so. But his report cannot be excused. The fact that his report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by Israel is not a basis for condemning Israel or demanding she investigate 400 cases of alleged “operational misconduct”. Such things are an internal matter. And to make allegations of “intentionality” in situations where our fact-finding mission had “no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion”, is inexcusable. No conclusions should ever be drawn where a defense has not been heard.

Goldstone writes “the purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions”. Since when has the UN ever held hearings to ensure accountability. What about Syria, Iran, Bharain, Egypt, Russia, China and Libya. Will the UN be investigating both sides to ensure accountability.

He faults Israel for its “lack of cooperation” and ignores the fact that Israel has no obligation to cooperate. While he supports Israel’s right and duty to defend its citizens, he has never put flesh on these bones and suggested just how that self-defense may be exercized.

He says “We made our recommendations based on the record before us,” There is no justification for such recommendations. Rather he should have declined to make recommendations due to the absense of a full record. He attempts to show his good intentions by writing of his high hopes fo Hamas. Stupid him. He does not escape criticism because he meant well.

According to him, “ensuring that non-state actors respect laws of armed conflict,… is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. It will never happen. How about ensuring that state actors, other than Israel, respect such laws. This too will never happen.

So why did he participate in this investigation? He says its because he believes in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. He was on a fool’s errand. He has no right to believe that that can be done especially considering the bias of the UN which he acknowledges.

By doing so he has facillitated a lynching.

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. 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.

For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.

While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).

As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. [Wishful thinking has no place in a Report] Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

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.

I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. [Bullshit] Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

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

The writer, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, chaired the U.N. fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict.

Posted by Britannia Radio at 15:40