Jurist: Ties to Israel obligated war crimes probe

JERUSALEM — The internationally renowned jurist who oversaw a U.N. report accusing Israel of committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip said Monday that he carried out the investigation because of his deep attachment to the Jewish state.

South African jurist Richard Goldstone also faulted Israel for not cooperating with the investigation in an op-ed piece published in the Jerusalem Post, an English-language Israeli daily. It was the first time he has reached out to the Israeli public since his report was published last month.

Goldstone's report on the three-week winter war has set off an uproar in Israel. Leaders say the document was biased and commissioned by a U.N. body known for its hostility against Israel. The report's harsh findings against Hamas militants in Gaza have done little to temper the criticism, much of which has been personal. Some critics have gone so far as to accuse Goldstone of being a pawn of anti-Israel forces.

Goldstone, who is Jewish and has strong connections to Israel, said he has been hurt by the attacks. He noted his years of work battling human rights abuses in places as diverse as South Africa, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, China, Russia and Iran.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5Gu4OHrnPvRv0FRr6bLkFBuCcMgD9BE6IUG3

with the same tired old character assassination tactics.

The mature response would have been a mature response. If there is evidence to the contrary other than "uproar", then make it known.

Goldstone’s behaviour will not surprise those who have followed his career. As a student in South Africa he took the anti-apartheid side and many expected him to do the same as a lawyer, for a small cadre of liberal lawyers were crucial to the defence of the regime’s political opponents. Instead, Goldstone kept his head down and avoided annoying the apartheid government, devoting himself to commercial cases. Then, as the political situation changed, so did Goldstone. Entrusted by President de Klerk with a commission to investigate the causes of violence, Goldstone turned up damning evidence against the apartheid regime but refused to investigate the ANC’s armed wing.

When the ANC won its first election Goldstone was given a seat in the Constitutional Court. Heedless of the fact that the doctrine of collective guilt has been the basis of anti-Semitic campaigns down the ages, Goldstone urged all whites to apologise for their collective guilt. The court showed itself extremely deferential to the new ANC government so that when millions of voters (mainly from minorities supporting the opposition) were excluded from the franchise by a technical change in ID documents, the court took the government’s side.

Goldstone’s fame as an icon of political correctness led to his appointment as prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Goldstone was a man in a hurry. “They told me at the UN in New York: if we did not have an indictment out by November 1994 we wouldn’t get money that year for 1995,” Goldstone admitted. “There was only one person against whom we had evidence. He wasn’t an appropriate first person to indict ... but if we didn’t do it we would not have got the budget.”

Indeed, it was so inappropriate that the judges in the Hague passed a motion severely censuring Goldstone. When Goldstone left the tribunal only one confession had been recorded and one trial completed.

...

Throughout his career, Goldstone has been accused of cutting corners because of ambition, and critics say his Gaza commission has set a new low. That a Jewish judge, barred from entering Israel for accepting a commission biased against the state, should write a report based largely on interviews with Hamas which panders to anti-Zionist (even anti-Semitic) opinion seems unbeatable.

Perhaps the best way to understand the Israeli (and Jewish) rage against Goldstone is to put the situation in comparative perspective. Imagine that in 1936 a judge from the British Commonwealth had accepted a commission from the Anglo-German Friendship Society to examine possible human rights violations suffered by the Sudeten Germans. On the face of it this would be unobjectionable. What, after all, could be wrong with Anglo-German Friendship? Like the UN human rights council, it sounds fair. And of course there were some human rights violations to talk about. But the fact is that the friendship society was full of Nazi sympathisers and anyone who accepted its commission would know in advance that they were providing propaganda material for Hitler to help him justify his ultimate invasion of Czechoslovakia — on which he was already decided.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6879387.ece

I'm just wondering, and wondering if there are any examples anywhere in all of modern western history where the author was not roundly "defamed" and dragged through he mud in an ad hominem dismissal of those arguments?

It seems that in all of these "articles" attempting to set the record straight, we hear a bunch of invective and odd characterization without once addressing the substance of any argument.

It really should make you wonder.

you'll find plenty of criticism of israeli policies, that doesn't depend upon hamas as as resource, that sticks to the facts and then spend their energy interpreting them for good and bad....just look..assuming your interested.

On the other hand I do strongly recommend the same in the obverse.

as a "respected," guy. This is some dissenting opinion. I believe that is permissable in a free society. Or do espouse groupthink?

that will make your point :eyes:.

Why can't anyone on this topic refrain from what they think is some kind of underhanded subtle zing? It's habitual, and I'm starting to think cultural.

is there ANY criticism of Israel's public policy that is acceptable, ever?

for someone to write that.....we have only a few options:

ignorance of the wide variety of publications that criticize israeli policy

lack of interest in finding such publications

not interested in finding such publications
____

i think that covers it...or better yet, perhaps you can explain why you even wrote such words....do you believe them?

The royal "we" is who I presume you are referring to and not some clique on DU that I might be unaware of. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Since you've generalized, let me get specific.

1. the only people who give a shit about either side at this point are either side.
2. publications by either side are equally suspect.
3. there is an academic view of bad public policy that oddly doesn't need to refer to Israel, Hamas, Palestine or even "tradition" or "conflict" and just addresses the precepts of stupid public policy, and oppressing one group of people, regardless of how holy or chosen the fuck YOUR people are (they all are, oddly) is BAD public policy.

Anyway, talking down is downhill both ways. I don't require consensus from the royal we to have an opinion.

I think that covers it, and yes, I most certainly do believe them as far as DU is concerned. As it happens I'm merely half jewish, so of course I wouldn't understand, or I must have an ulterior motive in pointing that out, yadda yadda snore, or I'm one of those, how do you put it, self loathing jews, good grief.

I've been here long enough to see the dynamic and to call it out, with impunity, the royal we be damned.

lets start with the *academic view*....to many times those in academia seem to be so enthralled with their *superior intellect*, that actually have little real knowledge of the workings on ground...meaning their views, their papers are best used in the bathroom.......

and of course there are those emotion laden words like *oppressing* as per your use above, which does little to describe the I/P conflict, but is great emotional cheerleader for getting the masses are riled up. I noticed that when one uses those words their position usually lacks real knowledge nor the sequence of events the describe the reality of the situation....or they prefer an emotional response as opposed to a logical one.

perhaps as per my suggestion in the beginning, you should read more, the stuff you couldnt find.

and i have no idea why you mentioned your lineage......i wear a size 8.5 shoe......42 for those in the metric world

so to recap the points you made that illustrate my statement:

1. I am an academician whose views are best used for toilet paper
2. I use emotion laden words and am an emotional cheerleader, ergo:
3. I lack real knowledge and am just another ignorant idiot you feel compelled to be superior towards
4. I have no idea why you mentioned your shoe size, but apparently your mouth is big enough to accommodate both of them, even in the metric world.

You've made my point for me, and brilliantly.

So to recap:
1. Anything that isn't pro-Israeli is academic or lacks real knowledge of the sequence of events, ON THE GROUND. :eyes: tell me all about it oh divine and enlightened armchair sabra

2. You're belittling me and even putting words in my mouth rather than address the substance of my statement. That's another modus.

3. The royal you does this to everybody, AS PER YOUR SUGGESTION you should read more of the stuff that disagrees with you. It's a big big world toots, and you are not the arbiter of all things I/P, and if you don't like contrarian, or at the very least neutral opinion, then feel free to move the fuck along instead of making enemies here. My entire point is that PEOPLE LIKE YOU are unreasonable smug pricks who have no problem defaming and belittling EVERYONE who disagrees with you; there is no middle ground. It's disgusting and WE, the Royal We, are unanimous in that opinion.

4. you look pretty good with both dainty size 8.5's inserted that far, but it's not the new black even in the metric world.

You school no one.

so now there is fault finding for Goldstones stance on apartheid (hardly a surprise) and Yugoslavia what next Rwanda or did I miss that one?

some people have no shame at least when it comes to "defending Israel" but this one takes the cake

I had the privilege of meeting him in Johannesburg in 1986, and he was already pissing off the government deciding cases against the State of Emergency. I've met him a few times since.

As head of the commission on political violence, he exposed the fact that elements of the security police were behind the violence that had been described in the press as ANC vs. Zulu nationalists -- that there was a "third force" trying to derail the transition. For that, he was given death threats by South Africa's most accomplished assassins and had to go into hiding.

I've read all the South African Goldstone Commission reports and of course he placed equal blame on the ANC where warranted, and that's where he acquired his reputation for scrupulous objectivity.

The character assassination against this hero is beyond disgusting.

Smearing the Constitutional Court for being pro government is not just disgusting, but utterly idiotic and counter-factual. The Constitutional Court routinely stymied the ANC government and forced them to enforce human rights enshrined in the new constitution.

It is fascinating.

oy vey.

This one is always precursor to "but he's not a real jew" or "he ain't jewish enough", or "he just say's he's jewish but he's not even circumcised" (okay I did that last one :P)

It is odd, nonetheless. Character assassination is the new black.

Are these people ever even mentioned in conjunction with the report?

but the mention in case more likely relates to Goldstone's ethnicity rather than religion and very likely occurs because Israel is the self proclaimed Jewish State and many of Goldstone's critics insinuate if not outright accuse him of antisemitism

I certainly don't think so.

It's a shield to hide behind and no better a defense than those who say Goldstone is a self-hating, traitorous Jew.

Criticism of his report should be substantive (and there's plenty of it to show the report is crap) and not countered by simply using the jew-card.

Here's Goldstone's latest apologia in the JPost today...

My mission - and motivation
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255694838474&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Most of the pro-Israel blogs are ripping this dishonest POS article to threads.

however would you consider Goldstone antisemitic, I would certainly not think that?

a very lame logical fallacy that most articles on Goldstone emphasize

do you consider Goldstone antisemitic?

the UNHRC is dominated with antisemitic representatives and they found themselves a useful idiot (and who better than a jew) who likely thinks the ends justify the means...the entire process was rigged from start to finish as the UNHRC would never let impartial observers do their dirty work for them.

do you think he'll recover? nice but transparent dodge though

here's his latest tripe from yesterday...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x290602#290622

in that article, he lied in the very first sentence.

just as he lied throughout his report.

a "fact finding" report that Goldstone now claims proves nothing against Israel, as it only acts now as propaganda, evidence of nothing....
http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/

and you respect that?

you promote

In his latest article at JPost "My Mission - My Motivation", I wrote about 2 occasions in which he lied.

see posts #8 and #18...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x290602

Am I wrong?

You don't believe he lied?

Try sticking to the substance of the argument, okay?

no I most certainly do not believe Justice Goldstone lied, your post #8 merely stated a talkback from the OP article and #18 well here is part of it

MFA to check it self it's opening statement is IMO filled with misdirection and half truths I will post it here from your link anyone is free to read it for themselves

1. The Report of the Fact-Finding Mission established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-9/1 was instigated as part of a political campaign, and itself represents a political assault directed against Israel and against every State forced to confront terrorist threats.

2. In the eyes of the authors of the Report, Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with the 12,000 rockets and mortars fired by Hamas over eight years on towns and villages inside Israel, nor with the fact that close to one million Israeli citizens had to live their lives within seconds of bomb-shelters because they were in range of Hamas attacks. Nor, in their view, did it have anything to do with the smuggling of weapons and ammunition to terrorist groups through hundreds of tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border. Indeed, neither the right to self defense nor the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip are even mentioned in the Report.

3. Rather, the Report advances a narrative which ignores the threats to Israeli civilians, as well as Israel's extensive diplomatic and political efforts to avoid the outbreak of hostilities. In this narrative self defense finds no place – Israel's defensive operation was nothing other than a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population" (¶ 1690(2)1).

4. In support of this vicious and unfounded assertion, the Report has no qualms about bending both facts and law. In the spirit of the one-sided mandate it was given by the HRC resolution, and the clearly stated political prejudices of some of its Members, of the Mission carefully selected its witnesses and the incidents it chose to investigate for clearly political ends. Yet even within this self-selected body of evidence, the Report engages in creative editing, misrepresentations of facts and law, and repeatedly adopts evidentiary double standards, attributing credibility to every anti-Israel allegation, and invariably dismissing evidence that indicates any wrongdoing by Hamas.

5. The Report repeatedly downplays or ignores the reality of terrorist threats, and the complexity of the military challenges in urban warfare. It also goes far beyond its mandate as a fact-finding mission, making legal and judicial determinations of criminal wrongdoing, even in the absence of crucial information.

6. The Report dismisses the Israeli legal system and its extensive investigation process of allegations of misconduct by Israeli armed forces. In so doing, the Report effectively calls into question the internal investigation procedures of the armed forces of most democratic states since Israel's system is similar to, and in many cases more stringent than, those of many other countries.

7. The Report's recommendations are fully in line with its one-sided agenda and seek to harness the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in its political campaign against Israel.

8. Israel is committed to studying every report, from whatever body, on the conduct of its forces, and to fully examining every allegation of wrongdoing.2 However, the agenda and tone of this Report clearly undermines the role it might have played in any genuine dialogue about the complex challenges faced in the Gaza operation.

9. The initial comments set out in this paper are not a comprehensive account of the errors and distortions in the Report. Rather these comments identify some of the most troubling tendencies and implications of the Report and the process that produced it, both for Israel and for any nation involved in armed conflict with terrorist organizations, under the following headings:

ther are you happy now I have stated my case and am done

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the "Goldstone, who is Jewish" refrain.

Not necessarily "telling" facts, but relevant facts. Now, if we were discussing Indonesia, I might feel differently.

Would you view the report any differently if the judge in charge of the mission was a Muslim or an Arab?

It is particularly important to know the background of those people that exercised authority in that context.

If Goldstone was not Jewish do you think that would be noted as often as his being Jewish currently is?

If he was not Jewish I would expect that they would not tell us that he was Jewish, they would tell us whatever else he happened to be instead. Since being Jewish IS relevant in the context of Israel and it's affairs (which I expect you to admit), one hears of it more than if he were something else. There are certain anti-Goldstone pieces around here that go into his history in considerable detail, am I to supposed to think that that information is also "not relevant"?

But thank you for your response anyway.

It is absolutely NOT relevant that Goldstone is Jewish and I am shocked that someone as apparently intelligent as you could possibly think otherwise.

I guess your sarcasm meter isn't working either.

I am still trying to get my head wrapped around the idea that being Jewish is not relevant when discussing Israeli affairs.

Do you think a Jewish person would have a more difficult time being unbiased with respect to Israel than a non-Jewish person would?

I would ask the same question regarding Muslims.

But to the degree that it is possible to be something like "open minded", or open to varying and conflicting points of view, then I don't think that that is a matter of whether one is a Jew or a Muslim or whatever other cultural bin one might be thrown into. It is a personal characteristic, not a property of some culture or another.

That is why they were glad to get him for the job, eh? And that alone makes his background "relevant".

I thought it was because he was considered a fair and impartial judge.

Nor have I pointed anything out of that nature.

Wherein you mention how frequently it is mentioned.

I am hopeful that you can discern the significant difference.

Here is an illustrative example to assist your understanding:

Tom Cruise, who is a Scientologist, is in the film Magnolia.

Tom Cruise was chosen to appear in Magnolia because he is a Scientologist.

Hope that helps!

My point is that one may infer that his Jewishness is important BECAUSE it is so frequently mentioned. It is true that one is also free to infer that his Jewishness is mentioned out of some subtle bigotry, but I am pointing out that there are other interpretations, which appear to me to make perfect sense in this context. It is true that to infer is not to prove, but then you offer no proof for anything either.

Let some gay big-wig speaks, then suddenly it is the be all to end all and anyone who doesn't agree is obviously just trying to minimize the voice of gays by falsly invoking "homophobia" because gays can't be homophobix, or are less likely to be so, and therefore, if a gay says it, it must be so!

Here's one posted only a few hours ago that you must have missed that doesn't mention he's Jewish...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x290529

I'm sure there's many more, though I am at a loss as to why yr 'fascinated' when in this OP at least the mention is completely in context and the reason why is self-explanatory....

I am sorry you are at such a loss.

maybe you should label yr questions in future? also I'm at a loss as to why yr sorry.

Because what you 'asked' was completely incorrect....