Jump to content

Israeli War Crimes - Part 2


Recommended Posts

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is odd in that the Arabs who both started and lost each stage of the conflict want do-overs...and get them for the international community.

However, the world is waking-up to the fact that Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO are just more of the same: Islamic terrorists.

I suspect the "international community" (whatever that is, see Who makes up International Community & World Opinion) dislikes Jews. It's the old-fashioned anit-Judaism of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nazi eugenics and other manifestations brought to the 21st Century. Old whining in new bottles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I suspect the "international community" (whatever that is, see Who makes up International Community & World Opinion) dislikes Jews. It's the old-fashioned anit-Judaism of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nazi eugenics and other manifestations brought to the 21st Century. Old whining in new bottles.

When the Islamic terror groups only targeted the Jews...yeah...nobody cared.

But now even Martin Luther would find an ally in Jews vs Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't.

Your links do not show anything about him 'withdrawing' the report.

You continue to spread lies and misinformation.

The very person who write it repudiated it. He's withdrawn from the very allegations he wrote. The fact you won't withdraw it in your imagination does not mean its not withdrawn. Also good luck arguing the report is still valid and reliable considering he person who wrote it repudiated it.

Lol. Speaking of misinformation, you think playing semantics denies he detached himself from the very report you quoted in

other posts to smeer Israel but did not rely on with this thread?

Go on explain why you never quoted Goldstone on this thread. Lol.

Dettached, withdrawn, repudiated, distanced himself from, rejected, admitted what he wrote was garbage, play

with the words Hudson Jones, its there for anyone to see-the very pith and substance you relied on in another

thread accusing Israel of war crimes you conveniently did not quote on this thread because you know damn well

the author admitted he was wrong..

This report the entire basis of accusing the IDF of war crimes was repudiated by the very person who wrote it and you

want to pretend its still valid playing semantics over what the word withdraw means.

Lol. Misrepresentation. The evidence is put right before you and you can't deny it.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple Google search (and my own memory) shows our CJPME supporter to be incorrect about the Report. Goldstone admitted talking to a few Israelis instead of just Hamas stooges might have made the report more believable.

But alas...Hamas was what he got. So yeah...Israel was 100% at fault according to the enemy.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Islamic terror groups only targeted the Jews...yeah...nobody cared.

But now even Martin Luther would find an ally in Jews vs Islam.

I agree with JBG that the EU could care less about Israel. Its record of bias against Israeli speaks loudly. ASs for the role of China, Russia,

and many other countries, probably their governments are no friends of Israel, but I would not tar the people, the communities their governments

represent. We have to make a distinction between people and their governments. If you don't, you unfairly smeer people the very same

way the anti Israelis and anti semites do on this thread and others about Jews, Israelis, Westerners, Americans.

As for Martin Luther, no, he was an out and out anti semite. You can't spin that. His doctrines and his words can not be retracted.

Back to this thread, it is true people who live in sheltered conflict free environments who take their freedom for granted and have never experienced

terrorism huff and puff and presume expertise in how Israel should handle terrorists. Of course.

Then if it hits home, they are the first to demand even stricter actions than what Israel does.

Classic example. Canada invoked a War Measures Act over the FLQ. Israel has faced far worse than the FLQ and did not have to

invoke the same laws. Even today, its security first laws allow more legal defences and rights than the War Measures Act did.

But so it is. Its absurd reading the pontificating drivel of people who have never faced terrorism preaching their expertise on it and

how to deal with it let alone presuming to lecture Israelis to sit on their collective asses and do nothing as they are shot at.

That's what today's internet creates-arm chair geniuses who base their reality on partisan web sites that tell them what they

want to hear.

Its why you do not see one citation of a military convention section that has been violated. The geniuses who claim to be experts

stop at simplistic partisan web sites. The act of actually reading a law, treaty, or convention would be too much of a strain for

those constantly bragging their attention fizzles after one sentence.

Kaboom. Pow. Its my brain exploding- I used more then one verb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what Hudson Jones semantics as to the Goldstone report can not erase.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/The_Goldstone_Report_Reconsidered.pdf

I am waiting for Hudson Jones to be able to do anything other call me names, i.e., accuse me of

misrepresenting.

The above analysis provides an explanation of what he got wrong and admitted to getting wrong.

Just so we can clearly understand and ask Hudson Jones to deny it:

On April 1 2011, in the Washington Post stated:

"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."

I am interested to see Hudson Jones spin the above to mean something else. I am interested to know how quoting the above

misrepresents that Goldstone in so stating the above, did not repudiate the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a bit of a joke...doh!

But the fact remains: Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO...the entire Palestinian Cause = Islamic Terrorism.

I know, but zippity doo dah over the heads of others who might actually believe you. On this thread do not assume any level

of decency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldstone never withdrew his report.

Of course, you can continue to repeat a false claim, that Goldstone "withdrew" his report until you're blue in the face. It's your choice to try to drown out the facts and the truth.

The fact is that Goldstone and his family had been hounded by the Zionist swarm and he went into damage control. He gave his opinion in the Washington Post (he originally tried to get NYT to publish it but they didn't) on one of several conclusion in the commission and the subsequent report. That's it. There was no withdrawing of the report by him or the UN. The report still stands.

But of course, the Zionist propaganda machine and its mouth pieces, as they usually do, tries to drown out the facts and the truth with a lot of yelling and screaming. They try to whitewash and mold information into something that does not resemble the truth.

I don't even think you, Rue, know what is in the report and the final conclusions.

Here is some information:

The South African Jewish judge headed the UN Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission on the events of Operation Cast Lead - which issued a report accusing Israel of war crimes. He is now basing his mea culpa on the final report of an independent United Nations panel of experts.
The findings of the committee headed by New York Judge Mary McGowan Davis, which tracked the implementation of the recommendations in the Goldstone report, were published last month. According to Goldstone, the McGowan Davis report findings indicate that Israel did not have an explicit policy of causing intentional harm to civilians. This is the "retraction" everyone is rejoicing over.
However, reading the final UN report reveals that the committee didn't come anywhere near that conclusion. On the contrary. The committee states repeatedly that according to the information presented to it, "Israel does not appear to have conducted a general review of doctrine regarding military targets" (i.e. Israel did not discuss at all on which targets it is legitimate to open fire and on which it is not ).
Goldstone's op-ed seems to imply that the committee of experts, as opposed to his commission, was afforded the cooperation of the Israeli authorities. It turns out this is untrue. The American judge was not treated any differently by Israel and she even complains of this in the report. She notes that because of this she had to rely solely on public government reports, which relied on human rights organizations.
She also stresses that the committee did not succeed in ascertaining whether Israel has indeed investigated all 36 of the incidents discussed in the Goldstone report. This, she says, exemplifies the vagueness of the information put at her disposal. And as if this were not enough, the report also points to flaws in a series of investigations concerning civilian deaths, among them women and children.
In the best case, those who are rejoicing over Goldstone's op-ed have not bothered to read the UN reports. In the worst case, they have read the reports and have chosen to keep them out of the public eye. Both UN reports state that despite 36 Israel Defense Forces investigations of the grave incidents mentioned in the Goldstone report, only one indictment has been filed. Moreover, both reports reach the conclusion that "given the seriousness of the allegations, the military investigations thus far appear to have produced very little."
Thus, for example, the UN team of experts expresses special concern with regard to an incident of using Palestinian children for purposes of checking suspicious objects. Overall, states the committee with regret, the investigations have gone on very slowly and without transparency for two years, which "could seriously impair their effectiveness and, therefore, the prospects of ultimately achieving accountability and justice." No mention of this in Goldstone's op-ed.
The committee of experts also notes it has no information indicating Israel has undertaken any investigations in the wake of the Goldstone conclusions concerning serious incidents in the West Bank (which is also discussed in the initial report ). Therefore, Israel has not fulfilled its obligation under the UN Convention Against Torture to investigate those complaints.
In the report from this March, which Goldstone has chosen to rely on for some reason, the committee declares the investigations of the policy makers must be carried out by an independent investigation commission and not by Military Advocate General Avichai Mendelblit.
The report states that according to Mendelblit's testimony, his dual role as both chief prosecutor and legal advisor to the army makes it impossible for him to investigate those who shaped, planned, commanded and supervised Operation Cast Lead.
The committee notes that even now, over two years after the operation in Gaza - it is not in possession of new information enabling it to change its opinion that Israel has not examined its doctrine concerning the question of what constitutes a military target.
Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is exactly what Goldstone said that repudiateed his findings that Israel committed military crimes and he most certainly by making these comments withdrew earlier ones and to pretend he did not s laughable-go on Marcus tell me how he has not withdrawn his earlier allegations. Finish it. Explain how after what he has now said, he has not withdrawn his allegations. Explain how what you quoted even addresses his comments repudiating the report he created.

source: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/Behind-The-Headlines-The-Goldstone-Report-Refuted%E2%80%93By-Goldstone-Himself-3-Apr-2011.aspx

"On April 1, 2011, Justice Goldstone published an article of great consequence in the Washington Post ("Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes") which describes how events since the report was issued have led him to change his analysis of crucial portions of the original report.

The most important sentence in Goldstone's article is the statement that, in hindsight, his report to the UN should not have reached the conclusions it did as far as Israel is concerned. Goldstone wrote, "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Key among these conclusions, based on reliable Israeli investigations, is that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy, thereby refuting one of the most heinous allegations contained in the original report. Goldstone continues, stating that, had they had this evidence then, "it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes" on the part of Israel.

Another crucial finding regards the number of Gazan civilians killed during the operation versus the number of combatants. The Goldstone report, relying on inflated and biased numbers from Palestinian and hostile NGO sources, had reported that most of those killed were civilians. However, Goldstone has now concluded that "Israeli military's numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas," i.e. the majority of casualties were indeed combatants.

Furthermore, the article reinforces Israel's casus belli for the operation, the implementation of its right of self-defense, noting that "Israel, like any sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within."

Justice Goldstone goes on to praise Israel's conduct since the operation, noting that Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza and that Israel has implemented numerous policy changes to limit civilian casualties, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare.

The article strongly contrasts the conduct of Israel with that of Hamas. Most significantly, Justice Goldstone finds that Hamas committed, and continues to commit "serious war crimes" against Israel in its rocket and mortar attacks on civilian targets in southern Israel. "That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying - its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets."

Even a terrorist organization such as Hamas must be held accountable for its war crimes. As Goldstone wrote, "the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies." The article castigates Hamas, which, unlike Israel, has not conducted any investigations into its own actions, specifically the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel. It notes that asking Hamas to investigate itself may have been "a mistaken enterprise".

While Goldstone laments a lack of Israeli cooperation in preparing the report, he does lend support to one of Israel's reasons for its actions, the UN's Human Rights Council's lack of evenhandedness, noting that the HRC's "history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

Goldstone admitted to the limited scope of the fact-finding mission, noting that it was not a judicial proceeding. He stated that "our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding."

Unfortunately, the Goldstone Report has been treated as a judicial document and it has been exploited as a legal weapon with which to attack Israel. The time has come for this vicious report to be cancelled by the UN and thrown into the dustbin of history."

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Marcus, name calling like Zionist propaganda machine and Hasbrawhenever something

is not to your partisan liking doesn't make what you won't debate go away::

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/17931

http://www.maurice-ostroff.org/trevor-norwitz-analyzes-the-flaws-in-the-goldstone-report/

Here's a summary of what made the Goldstone flawed and caused its author to distance himself from it:

1. Goldstone has admitted he passed judgment based on one-sided (and tainted) evidence. He now admits he took Israel’s refusal to cooperate as the basis for why he only considered one sided evidence. He admits that after Israel refused to cooperate, he made no effort to independently investigate and simply took one sided subjective evidence he new was unproven and bias.

If one looks at the original report the formula Goldstone used was to take subjective evidence that was not substantiated by objective independent third party evidence and simply accept it verbatum stating since no evidence to the contrary had been provided, he could just accept the untested bias evidence.

Goldstone admitted he did the above, and in so doing rendered the report flawed and had he obtained further evidence his findings would not

be the same.

So the question is, whose fault is it he did not go out and obtain further information? He claims since Israel would not cooperate with him he was allowed to be bias and just accept anything Hamas told him. How does that absolve him of his legal responsibility to follow the fundamental rules of natural justice and obtain evidence by engaging in objective corroboration using his own investigators?

It wasn't just his failure to send out invetsigators to independently corroborate allegations t hat rendered his report a farse it was his out and out bias he now admits.

A classic example of his bias is when Gaza citizens reported that Hamas high command stationed themselves in the Al-Shifa Hospital, constituting a war crime. He was told of this and refused to investigate it, (not withstanding this war crime the IDF did not attack the hospital)

In fact at page 466 of the Goldstone report he stated:

“The Mission did not investigate the case of the Al-Shifa Hospital and is not in a position to make any finding with regard to these allegations.”

Then not a sentence later after admitting he DID NOT investigate the above he then stated he did not find any evidence to support the allegations. He also said the allegations were made by the IDF. They were in fact made by civilians and corroborated by Amnesty Internatonal and Human Rights Watch .

Marcus claims I did not read the conclusions of the report. Lol.

How about this. Have Marcus explain on 642 why Goldstone stated:

“On 5 February 2003, for instance, Israeli snipers shot and killed two staff nurses who were on duty inside the hospital.”

Have him explain how Goldstone made this allegation with zero evidence?

See unlike Marcus I did read the report and as a lawyer I know that according to the fundamental rules of natural justice for evidence to be admissab;e it must be reliable and credible and that means accepting heresay evidence which could not be tested which is what Goldstone did, accept untested evidence which Goldstone did, and simply made allegations without evidence, are blatant violations of the fundamental rules of natural justice rendering his report a farse and this coming no less from a Judge who deliberately ignored basic procedural rules of fairness who should no better.

How outrageous was this Judge? Well anyone with legal training especially a Judge would know to prove someone committed a crime one must prove

what is called mens rea and actus reus. Actus reus is the act itself. However mens rea is the state of the mind of the perpetrator. To prove he committed a crime one must prove they intended to commit a crime, or their mental intent (mens rea).

Goldstone never once spoke with an Israeli soldier or their commanding officers. Notwithstanding that fact and with no evidence as to their intent he subjectively concluded Anything they did in response to Hamas was willfully and intentionally intended to attacked civilians.

He stated on page 808 with zero evidence as to their mental intent and I quote, “In reviewing the above incidents the Mission found in every case that the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians.”

His psychic abilities did not end there because he also made the sweeping pronouncement without any evidence on page 48o that Hamas and other , it stated terror cells did not launch rockets from urban areas to use the civilians in those urban areas as shields.

Hey never mind Palestinians told Goldstone how urban areas were being used deliberately. Why look at such evidence.

Wait it gets better. On page 481, Goldstone stated: "..hile reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack.”(481)12

Was any evidence provided to explain how he arrived at the conclusion there was no intention to use civilians as shields? Is there any comment that

dressing as civilians made it impossible to know the difference during counter attack between civilian and terrorist? Of course not.

If anyone did read the report it went on to make conclusion after conclusion with ZERO evidence that Hamas did not engage in crimes against humanity and now Goldstone admits after the fact, evidence has come in, evidence he could have obtained but did not, which he now admits render his conclusions incorrect and Marcus et al want to spin that as not withdrawing his accusations?

Hell read the report verbatum without the repudiation from its author, its a joke. It lists hundreds of findings with zero evidence to base them.

Then again that is precisely what this thread is about, making allegations with zero evidence, just partisan subjective bias, and when its brought to

the accusers attention they have no evidence, they trot out subjective allegations as if they are fact. Hey why not. Goldstone did it, why not Marcys, Hidson Jones, et al.

Also please remember, restating a subjective unsubstantiated allegation is fact, pointing out its an unsubstantiated subjective allegation with zero proof that's a misrepresentation.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with JBG that the EU could care less about Israel. Its record of bias against Israeli speaks loudly. ASs for the role of China, Russia, and many other countries, probably their governments are no friends of Israel, but I would not tar the people, the communities their governments represent. We have to make a distinction between people and their governments. If you don't, you unfairly smeer people the very same way the anti Israelis and anti semites do on this thread and others about Jews, Israelis, Westerners, Americans.

THe problem with Europe is that historically the governments have been far more protective of the Jews than the people. The royalty brought Jews in because of their need for revenues. Since most of those revenues were ultimately coming from the people (from where else could they come?) the Jews were often very unpopular with the people. Even where the government was philo-Semitic for periods of time that it served their interests. Despite some true heroes most of the Europeans during WWII were active in helping the Nazis with the slaughter.

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but zippity doo dah over the heads of others who might actually believe you. On this thread do not assume any level

of decency.

I always assume there's an audience beyond the folks I'm engaged with...or ignored by. I like to keep history straight as opposed to twisted.

So I'll bring-up the Mufti again...and again...and again...no matter if it bothers GH.

:)

Typing long-winded posts and continuously sharing Hasbara links will not change the fact that neither Goldstone or the UN withdrew (as you falsely claim) the report or any consequent reports.

It's not helpful for you to keep posting misinformation.

Wiki is clear as to what Mr Goldberg did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their no-loss record stands re: Arab Invasions. A bit of a wrench in the works for a Final Solution, I realize.

If it were not for the American taxpayers spending(blowing)billions of their tax dollars every year on Israel that country would not exist today. The Arabs would have wiped Israel off the map decades ago. The Jews are lucky that they own America as Shimon Peres said in the Knesset many years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assume there's an audience beyond the folks I'm engaged with...or ignored by. I like to keep history straight as opposed to twisted.

So I'll bring-up the Mufti again...and again...and again...no matter if it bothers GH.

:)

Wiki is clear as to what Mr Goldberg did.

Wiki is not always considered to be a reliable source for most information. They do like to spread a little bull around now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiki is not always considered to be a reliable source for most information. They do like to spread a little bull around now and then.

You're free to deny the facts...or Holocaust...or whatever. Me care not. But you are my opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're free to deny the facts...or Holocaust...or whatever. Me care not. But you are my opposite.

It should be the right of anyone to deny anything they want too, even the Holocaust. If there are people out there who wish to deny something, then someone or some website must have given them a good explanation and reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be the right of anyone to deny anything they want too, even the Holocaust. If there are people out there who wish to deny something, then someone or some website must have given them a good explanation and reason to do so.

Denying the holocaust as you do is not the subject of this thread. Stop using this thread as a pretext to deny the holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typing long-winded posts and continuously sharing Hasbara links will not change the fact that neither Goldstone or the UN withdrew (as you falsely claim) the report or any consequent reports.

It's not helpful for you to keep posting misinformation.

Calling links Hasbra links, providing citations that don't answer the allegation or even comment on the allegation you made won't change that Goldstone repudiated his own findings. Calling my responses long winded simply are what you do when you can't challenge what I say. Its what you and the others do. Call names when you have no idea how to debate. I have posted no misinformation. Calling things you want to ignore misinformation does not

make them so. I repeated word for word what he wrote and why it was flawed. You can't debate it so you name call.

End of story. By the way the Marcus-Hudson Jones common syntax, it speaks loudly. Use as many names as you "two" want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be the right of anyone to deny anything they want too, even the Holocaust. If there are people out there who wish to deny something, then someone or some website must have given them a good explanation and reason to do so.

Using your logic it is then my right to deny anything I want which means I should be able to deny you denying the holocaust.

Yah I know, logic is not your fortitude.

Edited by Michael Hardner
spacing error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were not for the American taxpayers spending(blowing)billions of their tax dollars every year on Israel that country would not exist today. The Arabs would have wiped Israel off the map decades ago. The Jews are lucky that they own America as Shimon Peres said in the Knesset many years ago.

The u.S. did nothing with arms or financially to help Israel in 1948 or 1967..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...