Goldstone report: the rebuttal

The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.

The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.

The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.

The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds. The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.

The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.

The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.

While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.

The commission is out for affirmative action. Israel is guilty not only of restricting cargo supplies to Gaza, but also of “not provisioning” enough fuel and electricity (page 10).

The Goldstone report accuses Israel of depriving the Palestinians of agricultural land (page 10) by establishing a buffer zone along her border with Gaza, despite the fact that the desert there is unsuitable for open-air agriculture, that Palestinians engage in very little farming in other areas of Gaza, and that they destroyed the excellent greenhouses left to them after Israel’s withdrawal from Gush Katif. In the same paragraph the report describes Palestinian losses from the Israeli-imposed reduction of their fishing zone as “severe,” despite the easily verifiable fact that fishing provides Gaza with negligible economic input. The report ignores the one obvious reason for limiting the fishing zone: Iran passing arms to Hamas on the open seas.
The commission spouts accusations without even bothering to substantiate them. The blockade “weakened the capacities of… water and other public sectors to react to the emergency.” In fact, Israel was supplying the enemy population with water the whole time.

The Goldstone commission takes for an axiom a highly debatable point that “Israel continues to be duty-bound under the Fourth Geneva Convention… to ensure the supply of foodstuff, medical and hospital items and others to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification (page 10).” Despite certain unresolved technicalities, Israel ended her occupation of Gaza four years ago, and like any other sovereign state is under no obligation to open her borders for cargo transit to any other country. In several conflicts—such as Iraq and Afghanistan—waged by NATO members, the occupying power never supplied food and medicines “without qualification” or in unlimited quantities. Under such an axiom, Israel is already guilty of any number of crimes against humanity, no investigation needed.

The UN commission sets an odd standard of credibility: consistence. It accepted an NGO’s “percentage of civilians among those killed” over Israel’s official information because the NGO’s figures “are generally consistent (page 10).” Voicing “very serious concerns” over those figures, the commission did not mention that even the NGO’s figures are incredibly low by the real-life standards of military operations. The commission paid no attention to the fact that, unlike Israeli intelligence, the NGOs have no way of identifying particular victims as militants or civilians, and rely necessarily on Hamas’ figures. Naturally, Hamas counts many dead terrorists as civilians.

The Goldstone report names attacks against Gaza’s government buildings as Israeli war crimes (page 11). Without any arguments, the commission rejects the Israeli position that the government buildings were actually Hamas strongholds. To that end, the report changes the terms: while Israel says she was bombing “Hamas’ terrorist infrastructure,” the commission asserts that the buildings made no “effective contribution to military action.” By this standard no building should be harmed, because at the time of the Gaza operation Hamas mounted no effective military action at all.

The commission even finds criminal the Israeli attack on Gaza’s policemen, despite their status as active and armed Hamas members (page 12). In a twist of logic, the commission trumpets the fact that Gaza police were “a civilian law-enforcement agency.” Clearly, that does not preclude policemen from fighting on Hamas’ side during war. The commission adds that scores of the Hamas policemen killed in Israeli strikes on December 27 did not take part in the hostilities. No wonder, because they were killed in the opening minutes of the operation and had no time to join the fighting. Counting the 240 policemen killed as civilians rather than Hamas militants tilts the ratio of civilian casualties.

The Goldstone report almost lovingly refers to Hamas as “an armed group (page 12),” despite its official designation by most Western states as a terrorist organization. “It may be that the Palestinian combatants did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population,” says the report about Hamas terrorists in civilian clothes firing rockets from urban areas.

The Goldstone commission found no evidence that Hamas “forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.” But what about numerous videos of civilians crowded on rooftops of houses used by Hamas? Here comes the qualification “forced.” The commission does not know whether the civilians were forced to the vicinity or remained there of their own volition. Whatever the case, according to the idealistic law espoused by the commission, such targets should be spared. The shocking part is that Israel indeed spared the enemy holdouts protected by human shields.

The commission found no evidence that Hamas used mosques for military purposes (page 12). What about the numerous videos of explosions in mosques after IAF attacks which confirms that they were used for storing weapons? Israel did not cooperate with the commission, Youtube, where such videos are posted, is not one of the report’s sources of evidence, and their Palestinian interlocutors certainly did not provide the videos.

The commission found no evidence that Hamas used hospitals for military action. Here again is the qualifier, “military action.” The report does not dispute that Hamas virtually occupied Shifa Hospital for its command personnel. But lacking the depth of a typical police investigation, it cannot establish that the Hamas officials used hospitals for planning rather than hiding. The report ignores that even hiding constitutes a part of military operations.

By fighting in urban areas, Hamas committed no war crime but simply “unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger.” It was therefore Israel that committed war crimes by shelling those urban areas. But did Israel not, through phone calls and leaflets, warn the residents to flee? The commission discounts these efforts because they were “not specific and thus credible” to Gazans (page 13). It is left to the reader to wonder how much more specific an army can be than calling an enemy resident and telling him to flee the targeted area. But Israel further warned the civilians by dropping light charges on the roof (“roof-knocking”) before bombardment. Unable to ignore the credibility of such warning, the report turns it into a criminal attack on civilians. Never mind that an attack is normally understood as a potentially lethal endeavor, and the warning charges caused no injuries.

The Goldstone commission took the long-disproved accusations for granted (page 14). It notes the attack on an UNRWA compound—which never happened in the first place, as IDF fought in the compound’s vicinity—and matter-of-factly mentions the phosphorus shells. Left out of the report is the important fact that the shells were used for smokescreens, warning, and illumination, rather than to effect casualties. The report itself implies that there was fighting rather than an attack on an undefended compound when it states that the attack went on for hours.

The Goldstone report transforms highly moral Israeli operations into crimes (page 14). In case of Al Wafa Hospital, IDF warned residents by phone calls and leaflets, but the residents did not flee. Instead of blaming Hamas for hiding behind human shields, the commission asserts the ineffectiveness of the warnings. IDF then—necessarily—burned nearby buildings to smoke Hamas officials out of the hospital along with the patients. That mildest form of military operation caused no injuries, but was cited as a grave crime, an attack on a hospital. The commission’s choice of sources—mostly related to Hamas—and its lack of investigative capabilities, ensured that it “found no evidence of military action” from the hospital.
This underscores the Goldstone report’s inherent bias. Hamas is a terrorist organization which does not document its actions. The commission was unable to find evidence that Hamas conducted military operations in civilian buildings; thus, Hamas remains blameless. On other hand, Israeli actions against civilian buildings are documented, and can only be excused on the grounds that Hamas was operating from them. No such exculpatory evidence was made available to the commission. In other words, the fact that the commission lacked real investigative capabilities allowed Hamas to come out almost unscathed, but stripped Israel of all justification for her actions in urban areas.

The Goldstone report explicitly denies urban attacks the test of proportionality, which places its authors to the left of the most liberal military theorists. “The firing of at least four mortar shells to attempt to kill a small number of specified individuals in a setting where large numbers of civilians were going about their daily business… cannot meet the test of… an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought (page 15).” Since terrorists are always few and civilians are always nearby, the suggested guideline precludes anything but hand-to-hand combat, and delegitimizes any normal military actions, such as those of US Marines in Fallujah, Iraq.

The Goldstone report demonizes IDF. Not only did the Jews deliberately shoot Palestinian civilians, but we also assembled them in specific houses before shelling those houses; the soldiers shot Palestinian civilians waving white flags, and refused to allow ambulances in to evacuate them (page 16).
By concentrating on a few isolated incidents and ignoring overwhelming evidence that IDF went out of its way to save Palestinian civilians, the Goldstone report gives the impression of Jewish brutality. By this standard, every army, after every war, could be prosecuted for war crimes.

The Goldstone report deliberately lays the ground for civil lawsuits against Israel. While conceding the possibility of a mistake in bombing a house, the report proclaims the “state responsibility of Israel for an internationally (intentionally?) wrongful act” (page 16). It remains to be explained how a mistake made in the fog of war may be wrongful, much less intentional.

The Goldstone commission did not hesitate to make up the law. While accepting that white phosphorus and flechette bombs are legal, the report calls for banning them; unable to condemn Israel for their use, it pronounces Israel’s use of them reckless—presumably, criminally reckless (page 17). For evidence, the commission relied on doctors’ testimonies, without meeting the non-existent victims of the alleged phosphorus attacks. When there is no evidence whatsoever, the commission just lists allegations, such as the allegation that Israel used depleted uranium and DIME explosives (page 17). While not necessarily untrue, as both the IDF and the US Army need to test those weapons, unsubstantiated allegations have no place in official findings.

The UN commission makes significant decisions on military matters (page 17). During the Gaza campaign, just as in her other wars, Israel bombed civilian infrastructure to turn the hostile population against Hamas. That tactic proved useful, as indeed the respective populations were dissatisfied with Hezbollah and Hamas. Business owners often finance terrorist organizations through protection taxes, and constitute a powerful domestic lobby which can usefully be turned against Hamas by the bombing of their businesses. The report, however, calls the bombing “wanton,” thus militarily unnecessary, and thus a war crime. The commission is not bothered by the sheer disproportionality of declaring the destruction of a flour mill a war crime.

The UN report relies extensively on anonymous and otherwise non-credible testimonies by Israeli soldiers, collected by ultra-left groups (page 18). IDF’s own investigations have proven those testimonies false, and the ultra-leftists did not press on. Those include reports of the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Ironically, while the commission found no evidence of Hamas’ widely reported use of human shields, it dwells on IDF’s fictitious use of the same.

The Goldstone commission finds fault with Israel for merely arresting Palestinian suspects because “the facts gathered indicate that none of the civilians were armed” (page 20). That is pure fantasy because the commission lacks any means to ascertain whether particular individuals were armed on a particular day nine months ago. Here again the commission confuses the issue at hand: being armed is a sufficient, but not necessary prerequisite to being arrested. IDF arrested Palestinian suspects for intelligence-gathering reasons rather than to intern them as enemy fighters.

The Goldstone report protests innocuous facts. Thus, Israelis are found guilty of placing detainees near artillery locations (page 20). The report is silent on exactly how near. Israelis are accused of strip-searching male detainees—by no means an unreasonable measure if the report insists that only armed Palestinians should be detained. Israel is accused of not providing detainees with shelter—an obviously impossible task for a fighting army. Addressed to a Western audience, the report stresses that they were left in the open air in January. In Gaza, however, the weather is comfortable at that time of year. The report further claims that Israel did not provide the detainees with water, which raises the question, how did they survive?

The Goldstone commission employs an extremely expansive interpretation of war crimes. Every violation of their highly moralistic principles, whether enshrined in the Geneva Conventions or implied in the minds of the commission members, is declared a war crime. Simple transgression exists no more. Thus, the report declares humiliating treatment of detainees a war crime (page 20). By such an impossibly high standard, any army in the world is a bunch of war criminals.

The Goldstone report decries the absence of due process specifically for those detainees who were freed after interrogation, and their arbitrary detention. In practice, arrests of suspicious civilians in wartime are unavoidable. Allowing them due process would actually prolong their detention. For example, a sufficient number of public defenders could not be found for hundreds of simultaneously arrested Palestinians. Instead, Israeli interrogators speedily sifted through them, releasing most of the detainees very quickly. Due process is not generally applicable in wartime, when the occupying power is entitled to establish military tribunals.

The Goldstone commission reports clear and verifiable lies. “Insufficient supply of fuel for electricity generation had a negative impact on the operation of hospitals, on water supply to households, and on sewage treatment (page 22).” Except for a short period, however, Gaza’s generation facilities were running at full capacity, and Israel supplied the hostile territory electricity through power grids with only nighttime reductions, and even those amounted only to a small percentage. At no time did the hospitals cease operating, in full or in part, because of fuel shortages. The report implicitly recognizes this when using the vague formulation, “negative impact.”
The report lays blame for the alleged shortages on Israel, but not on Egypt, which allowed no fuel supply whatsoever through its border with Gaza. Water supply was not significantly affected, if only because Israel supplies water at sufficient pressure to reach Gaza’s typical one to three-story buildings without pumping. Elsewhere, the report acknowledges the near-absence of sewage treatment facilities in Gaza, and the Hamas government could not have run so low on fuel as to be unable to run pumps on its two sewage-treatment plants.
The report apparently blames Israel because she is an occupying power in Gaza. The occupation hinges on Israel occupying the West Bank. But occupation of a part of enemy’s territory cannot be construed as occupation of its entire territory. It is universally recognized that during WWII Germany occupied part of France, but the Vichy territory remained independent. Similarly, despite the alleged occupation of the West Bank, Israel cannot be said to occupy Gaza.

The Goldstone report further blames Israel for rising unemployment in Gaza. But in fact unemployment remained stable during the ceasefire period which the commission undertook to investigate. Unemployment jumped mostly when Israel closed her import and labor markets to Gazans years ago—but then, Israel like any sovereign country is entitled to close her border to anyone. So it’s not that Israel caused unemployment in Gaza, but that she rescinded a benefit of employment she had extended to Gazans previously.

The Goldstone report accuses Israel of nothing less than poisoning the Palestinians, “80 percent of the water supplied in Gaza did not meet the WHO’s standards for drinking water (page 22).” Only a careful reader would note that the water in question is not supposed to be drinkable. Israel supplies Gaza with the highest quality water from Kineret while Jews consume desalinated water. But Gazans, just like most other people in the world, are expected to boil their tap water before drinking it.

The Goldstone report’s choice of words comes close to blood libel. In a passionate voice, the commission writes, “Hospitals and ambulances were targeted by Israeli attacks (page 23).” The unmistakable impression is that bloodthirsty Israelis went after sick Palestinians, mercilessly bombing ambulances marked with red crosses. These attacks were in fact very few, and always on the basis of reliable intelligence. The report fails to mention that Hamas openly bragged of extensively using the Red Cross/ Red Crescent ambulances and UNRWA vehicles to transport militants and weapons.

The Goldstone commission does not hesitate to invent issues. It notes with “concern” the “long-term health impact” of white phosphorus, which has no such impact whatsoever (page 23).

The Goldstone report claims that Israel destroyed 280 schools and kindergartens in Gaza. One page earlier, the total number of destroyed houses is put as 3,354. It is rather unusual for schools and kindergartens to number 9% of all buildings in any urban area. The number of 280 is uncritically adopted from Hamas sources, which conjured it by claiming that mini-kindergartens operated in private homes. The number of 3,354 houses destroyed contradicts the fact that in February Hamas had already paid compensation to all owners of destroyed houses, which amounted to merely $12 million.

Without blaming Israel directly, the report stresses that female employment opportunities in Gaza remain inferior to men’s (page 24). In context, the impression given is that the Jews are responsible for that, too.

The report admits that Israel allowed increased entry of humanitarian cargo into Gaza during the war, but claims the amount remained insufficient (page 24). But then how did the Gazans live on lower amounts of aid for years? The report plays with the meaning of “sufficient.” It notes the occupier’s obligation to allow the relief schemes, as Israel has indeed done. Relief means mitigating life-threatening hardship rather than providing for a comfortable life. Judging by the fact that Gazans are not dying from malnutrition or a lack of basic medicines, the relief schemes allowed by Israel were fully adequate.

The Goldstone report reaches a higher pitch when accusing Israel of crimes against humanity, crimes on par with those of the Germans or Sudanese (page 24). The crimes consist of a “series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to a court of law and an effective remedy.” It defies common sense to declare such trivial and short-term offenses a crime against humanity. Nor are the accusations factually correct. For sixty years, Gazans have received their sustenance from UNRWA rather than any productive efforts; such humanitarian supplies were not disrupted. Only a small percentage of the Gazan population worked at the bombed factories and was thus affected by Israeli actions. Israel, the alleged criminal, supplies Gaza with all of its water needs—free. Gazans can and do migrate through the Egyptian border; Israel, like any sovereign country, is not obligated to issue transit visas to any foreigners. Enemy detainees are universally denied access to national courts, especially when their detention is rather brief.

The commission pointedly equates IDF with Hamas, describing them as “armed forces” and an “armed group,” respectively (page 25). While ostensibly coming out in favor of better treatment for Gilad Shalit, the report actually benefits Hamas: Shalit is described as a POW rather than a kidnapped person. Hamas, therefore, is legitimized as an official army entitled to taking and keeping prisoners.

Speaking of Hamas, the Goldstone report avoids the term “war crimes” (page 26). The report calls the wholesale murder of Fatah loyalists by Hamas a “serious violation of human rights.” Mentioning Hamas’s murder of criminals who escaped from bombed jails, the report is quick to provide a mitigating detail: some of the murdered criminals were drug-dealers.

Despite the mandate to investigate the Gaza conflict, the commission dealt extensively with the West Bank. The report voices an outright lie about massive killings of Palestinian protestors in the West Bank by IDF during the Gaza operation (page 27). In fact, the West Bank was remarkably quiet, both due to the West Bankers’ distaste for Gazans and Fatah’s police efforts. Nearing blood libel, the report alleges that IDF opened sniper fire on rioting crowds. While the report claims that the Israeli government fails to investigate killings of Palestinians by “settlers and security forces,” the opposite is true; exacting investigations are opened after every shooting, even those that result in no casualties.

The Goldstone report also plays with the term “detention” when claiming that over the years Israel has detained 700,000 Palestinians (page 27). The figure, wildly inflated in any case, seems to include questioning sessions at the border. The commission calls the terrorists in Israeli jails, “political prisoners,” an evident jab at Israel’s designation of them as “security prisoners.”

The Goldstone report decries Israeli arrests of Hamas officials (page 28), though terrorist affiliation is a standard crime in any Western country. The commission found that the arrests discriminated against Hamas members “based on political beliefs” rather than terrorist activities.

Further on in the Goldstone report, Israel develops into the root of all evils. Israel restricts Palestinian freedom of movement with the separation wall, which actually separates Israel from Palestine (page 29) as any nation is entitled to separate itself from its neighbors. But Israel is also declared guilty of providing IDs to Palestinians so that they can enter the Jewish state. The report additionally finds fault with Israel for issuing work permits to Palestinians; presumably, the hostile aliens should enjoy free labor movement. Among other “restrictive policies,” the report names family reunion laws which do not allow Israeli Arabs to bring an unlimited number of relatives from countries at war with Israel. The report espouses demands harsher than the Saudi peace initiative when it lambastes Israel for refusing the right of return to Palestinian refugees—an issue entirely unrelated to the report’s purpose. Some charges must have been taken verbatim from Palestinian propaganda: “Palestinians are denied access to areas expropriated for the building of the Wall and its infrastructure, for use by settlements, buffer zones, military bases, and military training zones.” Naturally, people cannot live on the wall, but the Arabs often live just meters from it. The areas are not expropriated, but besides a few disputed parcels belong to Israel. As for the buffer zones, Jews are denied access to them, too, which is the nature of border buffer zones across the world. The commission did not even bother to verify the obvious inaccuracies; there are no large military bases or training zones behind the Green Line. The report implies that all settlements are set on expropriated land and must be removed, though in fact almost all the settlements sit on empty, untitled land.

The Goldstone report does not shrink from verifiable lies. “During and following the operations in Gaza, Israel deepened its hold on the West Bank through an increased level of expropriation, an increased number of house demolitions, demolition orders and of permits granted for homes built in settlements, and increased exploitation of the natural resources in the West Bank (page 29).” In truth, no piece of land in the West Bank was expropriated during that period, next to no demolitions took place, no permits were granted for construction in the settlements, and there are no natural resources in the West Bank worthy of exploitation.

The report transcribes the wildest Palestinian fantasies, such as Israeli plans to build 73,000 homes in the West Bank (page 30). The commission is undeterred by the simple calculation that building so many homes would double the existing built-up area, clearly an absurd proposition at a time when housing in the settlements grows by mere 0.2% a year. The report claims that “building of 15,000 of these homes has already been approved,” a transparent and verifiable lie.

The Goldstone report denigrates Israeli suffering and justifies the rocket attacks from Gaza (page 31). Israelis “reportedly” suffered more than 1,000 wounded, though a higher official figure is readily available. The qualification, “…918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza” can only be intended to justify terrorism.

The Goldstone commission manages to turn to Arab advantage even the fact of Israeli suffering under thousands of rockets fired from Gaza (page 33). In this case, the Jews are guilty of not providing rocket shelters in the illegal Bedouin camps which dot the state land in the Negev. Never mind that the Bedouins live in a sector of the Negev different from the coastal axis taken by rocket squads firing at Sderot, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. In practice, only a handful of the 8,000 rockets fell in the areas squatted by Bedouins.

The commission does not shrink from statistical tricks, as may be seen on page 34. It notes Israeli racism in that “Of protesters brought before the Israeli courts, it was the Palestinian Israelis who were disproportionately held in detention pending trial.” But just a couple of paragraphs before, the report acknowledges that Gaza protests in Israel were manned predominantly by Israeli Arabs. Naturally, the Arabs constituted also a wide majority of those detained at the protests. By insisting on the right to peaceful assembly, the commission glosses over the fact that many of the protests were anything but peaceful, but were rather all-out riots.

Concerned that the Israeli government can avoid ICC’s prosecution by conducting its own investigation, the Goldstone report launches a preemptive assault on the Israeli investigation system on page 36. This system “does not comply with internationally recognized principles of impartiality and promptness in investigations.” The commission offers no solution to the problem of every state’s inherent partiality to its soldiers. As for the promptness, just a paragraph earlier the report decries IDF’s investigation, which was completed within two weeks, as too short. Asserting that “the Israeli system overall presents inherently discriminatory features that make the pursuit of justice for Palestinian victims very difficult,” the commission does not relate that Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism have little chance of suing Hamas in Gaza courts.

Discussing reparations, the Goldstone report only mentions those due from Israel. Thousands of Jewish victims of Palestinian terror are less deserving.
Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

* Winograd report about nothing
* Stop watering Gaza
* Our liberty against the Arabs’
* Independence means obligations
* End Gaza



31 Responses to "Goldstone report: the rebuttal"


1 Erick S (Israel) 2009 September 19

I’m rather speechless at this shameless behavior. Since bringing false accusations against individuals and companies makes one susceptible to libel prosecutions, shouldn’t it be possible for a country to sue those who spread such blatant lies about it?
I don’t believe humanity can possibly get more idiotic than it is today, but I guess that’s because I’m such an irreparable optimist.
Reply to this comment

2 J (Israel) 2009 September 19

Israel is solely to blame. As long as we are a member of the UN, we accept the lie that our right to exist emanates from a UN resolution, and have no choice but to subject ourselves to their perverse and hypocritical system of “international law”. In actuality, the UN had two choices in 1948: 1- Refuse to recognise something that already existed, and in doing so, enforce Jewish isolationism (the environment most conducive to Israel’s growth into a superpower); 2- Recognise Israel under the false pretenses of concern for the Jewish plight and goodwill, with the intention of maintaining the influence of “international law” and guiding Israel to its own destruction. The Goldstone report is just one in a plethora of examples of this. Quite simply, we need to stop playing their game.
Reply to this comment

3 chaim 2009 September 19

A nice example of what a jew can be. This time,this shmendrick has to justify his salary,so the UN used the old trick of putting a jew in the front in order not to be blamed as jew-hater. Again,and again,and again,and again. I just question myself:
Why the term “zealot” is a bad term? wasn’t the zealots doing his good job back then?
Reply to this comment
Erick S (Israel) 2009 September 19

I think the zealots would’ve killed him for treachery, which is just what he deserves for spreading lies about his people. Lies that justify killing them in the eyes of the world.
Reply to this comment


4 Laura (USA) 2009 September 20

Excellent job.
Reply to this comment

5 PE (New Orleans) 2009 September 20Subscribed to comments via email

Great job of responding to the kangaroo court in the UN. But was there any doubt from the onset that the UN was going to make Israel the demon?
Shame on Goldstone.
Reply to this comment

6 Rob (Dublin, Ireland) 2009 September 20

An excellent article. In the seventh-last paragraph, some might reply by saying Barak has given the go ahead for some settlement building recently in the West Bank but that would is perhaps a partial misunderstanding of the shorter timeframe indicated by the Report’s sentence “During and following the operations in Gaza…”/.

One of the more troubling things of this whole issue is seeing so many Jews being wheeled out in front of the media to attack Israel. This even includes victims of the Holocaust. While some Jews (particularly those of the left) attack Israel on their own steam, there does seem to also be a ploy of promoting Jewish critics in the pro-Palestinian camp (not just at the UN). Many people in the West used to understand why Israel had to exist - the Jewish homeland where these people would not be exposed to the genocidal hatred of others. Therefore, it seems likely that this sort of activity isn’t just done to deflect accusations of anti-Semitism but to essentially undermine understanding of why Israel (as a Jewish state) ought to exist.

One final point: this report obviously represents a further incitement to terrorism by rewarding the inhuman activities of Hamas towards Israeli’s and the people they supposidly represent. Surely Goldstone and his cohorts should be brought to book by the Israeli legal system for inciting further terrorism against the state?
Reply to this comment

7 Lucy (England, London) 2009 September 20

The report critisied Hamas, as well as Israel, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If the report was so flawed, is Hamas now in the clear on these charges also are you just ignoring the bits that criticise Israel?
Reply to this comment
Sandy 2009 September 21

The report is flawed because it criticises Israel too much, and Hamas not enough.
Is that clear Lucy?
Reply to this comment


8 Yisrael Medad (Shiloh, Israel) 2009 September 21

Superb addition to the Goldstone takedown.
Reply to this comment

9 Morey Altman (Israel) 2009 September 21

Excellent response. The real problem, as I see it is still the double standard, not the specific charges.

The fact that no other investigation is underway against any other state, despite recent conflicts in which thousands of civilians have been killed, is yet another example of the double standard Israelis find so infuriating. For example, for years the government of Sri Lanka fought Tamil rebels in the north of the country. The Tamils are claiming independence for this area where they constitute a majority of the population. Over the course of this period it is estimated some 70,000-80,000 civilians have been killed (as compared to the 500-700 Gaza civilians killed in the recent fighting). Has the UN Human Rights Council equally condemned Sri Lanka and singled it out as it has Israel? In fact, they dismissed it as “an internal matter.” http://moreyaltman.blogspot.com/2009/09/massacre-mania-part-1.html
Reply to this comment

10 RevBadel (usa, melvis) 2009 September 21

My father OBM used to say, “their is no biger Jew hater than another Jew.
Question. What shule does he go to? Or is he like Wienberg the who sunk Pollard!
Reply to this comment

11 NormanF 2009 September 21

The Goldstone Report reflected a philosophy that rejected Israel’s democratic values and commitment to the rule of law. Thus, it came as no surprise that Israel fared worse in the UN’s eyes than the region’s dictatorships including Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It should be noted in passing that while Israel is given very rough treatment in Goldstone, the Hamas rulers of Gaza are treated very respectfully. Leaving all the tendentious evidence and verifiable lies aside, Goldstone’s chief achievement was to turn transparency, fairness, due process and justice on its head. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Reply to this comment

12 izwick (nyc) 2009 September 21

it seems that you put a lot of work into this but I don’t think that the goldstone report deserves your efforts, it deserves to be ignored, it is w/o merit and doesn’t deserve your efforts to refute it.
Reply to this comment

13 Barry (USA) 2009 September 21

Lucy from ENGLAND..that explains it all
Reply to this comment

14 Lucy (England, London) 2009 September 21

Very clear Sandy. The problem is obviously that they criticised Israel at all and didn’t heap all the blame on Hamas.
Reply to this comment

15 Inna (USA) 2009 September 22

Excellent report. Long Live, Israel!
Reply to this comment

16 Mailman (London) 2009 September 22Subscribed to comments via email

No Lucy, the problem is the commission already knew the outcome of its report even before they began their so called investigation.

Mailman
Reply to this comment

17 PE (New Orleans) 2009 September 22Subscribed to comments via email

The problem is that Goldstone took hearsay accounts of isolated incidents and treated them as Israeli policy, thus contributing to the newly legitimized instances of ancient blood libel. Then he treats Palestinian policy of attacking Israeli civilians as though it were incidental to Operation Cast Lead.
THe principle of proportionality can hardly apply to terrorism. Or should the U.S. have hijacked airliners and slammed them into Mecca?
The purpose of a defensive military action is largely deterrent, to apply enough force to get the aggressor to stop the aggression (in the case of specific deterrence). It was Hamas that set a high price of their own civilian casualties.
But I wonder how Palestinian civilian deaths “caused” by Israel stack up with Iraqi or Afghan deaths caused by Coalition and Nato forces? Or deaths of civilians in Chechnya caused by Russian forces?
I am eagerly waiting for the UN to investigate.
Reply to this comment

18 Joe (Israel T.A.) 2009 September 22

Brilliant and clear rebuttal. I’m asking why should Israel continue to be a member of the UN. In my view the Goldstone report, is the golden opportunity to stone the UN.
Reply to this comment

19 JGrundleger (New York, NY) 2009 September 22

Well done. You do a fine job of rebutting the report. Although I have to agree with izwick- I think that this report should slide into oblivion. The question is will anyone who likes/supports the report hear anything said here. I think the likes of Goldstone are too caught up in their biases to think otherwise.

See my discussion here:
http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/09/blame-israelis-goldstone-report.html
Reply to this comment

20 Andrea (UK, Manchester) 2009 September 22

What do you think of Goldstone “sleeping” while being presented with evidence of rocket attacks? ~He makes his prejudices perfectly clear, he is an Israel hater and not interested in the truth.
Reply to this comment

21 Kristian (Oslo) 2009 September 22

If one was to believe the Norwegian paper-press, jews would already have settled over the entire Middle East and there would be noplace left for anyone else to live.

Great job, enjoyed reading it.
Thanks.

K
Reply to this comment

22 moishe (canada) 2009 September 23

The feeling is like talking to someone who is death and blind who pretends knows it all and seen it all.The false accusations are so flagrantly one sided that any reader , other than the antisemites in the world ( if there are any left who are not) should feel it. Today, with the help of the media, any educated person who watches and reads the news knows very well that Hamas was the agressor. Every fairminded individual could see that Hamas at it coming to them after so many warnings by Israel and also the amount of restraint exercised to minimize civilians casualties. We all saw on tv the rockets launced from schools and from mosques there was no need of a report. The purpose of the report was just to add fuel to the virulent demonizing antijewish forces in the world. The world never gets enough of israel bashing. Did any enquiry condemn the US for the IRO SHIMA atomic bomb? did any one condemn the allies for rasing entire cities in Germany and killing millions? self defence you say? really!No reports on any other country that clearly commits massacres, but Israel is the usual suspect and deserves the criticism. Let us all ignore the jew haters and go on with our lives G-d is with us and He is the only one that counts. Our enemies know that and historically have tried to defeat us but to no avail. We shall overcome.
Reply to this comment

23 raffi (venice) 2009 September 23Subscribed to comments via email

The counter report up here is very detailed and well done, it should be enough before any court, even UN
The future effort should be to enforce the dialectic and search for truth. UN staff has prejudice against Israel and jews. I know that from direct encounter with members of Un both in Geneva and New York. Let them talk freely and you will see how antisemite UN workers are!
regards
Reply to this comment

24 raffi (venice) 2009 September 23

Moshe says :

“Today, with the help of the media, any educated person who watches and reads the news knows very well that Hamas was the agressor.”

The media system is built to obtain consensus and develops darwinistically to obtain always the majority consensus. If you are educated, the media manipulators will step up in a more sophisticated language to convince you. Only a minority will perceive it, but democracy was built on a majority consensus. Media concentrate on the majority and not on you or those who are higly educated.
Reply to this comment

25 Peter Vizel (Romania, Ujfalu, ) 2009 September 23

WoW…Goldstone, Madoff, Wienberg or the many Kapos at Auschwitz who also did Jews away. No difference, as some used a pen, others their mouth or a weapon, they all kill, maim or destroy…..all for Ego and Profit. When will we stop and start living in perfect harmony? IMAGINE by John Lennon
Reply to this comment

26 Baruch the bellboy (Israel) 2009 September 23

Samson,

How about some subtitles in this lengthy essay. It will just make it a little easier on the eye, and the brain.

Thanks,
Bellboy
Reply to this comment

27 Nathan (Michigan, USA) 2009 September 23

I’m tired of these terrorists and those who elected them. I’m tired of Israel giving away her land and trying to please the rest of the world at the expense of jewish lives. I’ll NEVER forget or forgive the Pals dancing in the streets after 9/11. Next time just do what the US did in WWII: carpet bombing or nuke. Any survivors will oust Hamas double-quick, and wish for the old “kinder, gentler” IDF…
Reply to this comment

28 shmuel Hanaavi (usa NY) 2009 September 23Subscribed to comments via email

Yemach Shemom- The Russians didn’t make pre calls or letters like the zIsraelis did. The US bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II (civilian cities!) with no warning like the Israelis. Did they supply them with water the whole time (radiated!) like the Israelis??
No- because 70% of the society voted in murderous Hamas. They permitted the shooting of 4000 missles into Israel from civillian populations. Kak zey allae oon! Throw out Hamas-then u can talk!!!!!!
Otherwise eat what u have sown. If the majority of Gaza occupants want Israel dead, the Israelis should feed them and their children poison!!!
Reply to this comment

29 Michael Rudolph (Johannesburg SA) 2009 September 23

A number of years ago Goldstone was the Chancellor at our University.I was very proud to be at an institution with such a man at its helm and whom I felt epitomised integrity, decency and honesty.
What a let down!!!! but then John Dugard also a very senior legal academic at the same university has turned out to be a vitriolic anti semite.Wow is this the kind of people Wits is producing.You should be ashamed of youself Richard
//////////////////
IDF Videos Disprove Goldstone Report
by IsraelINN Staff IDF Videos Disprove Goldstone

The IDF has uploaded two videos on YouTube, apparently as part of the government effort to refute the recent United Nations report by Richard Goldstone that accused the Jewish State of alleged war crimes. The commission led by Goldstone investigated the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign in Gaza from late December 2008 until mid-January of this year.

The following video shows a Hamas terrorist repeatedly attempting to use innocent bystanders, including children, as human shields. The terrorist approaches a group of three children who run away from him, and then the terrorist lies on the ground feigning an injury. Afterward the terrorist walks into a civilian compound and approaches a man who pushes him away, he then enters a civilian building.

The video below shows a Hamas terrorist firing a rocket from the roof of a house and then calling to a group of children accompanied by an adult to come to the entrance of the house to escort him out.