By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Judge Goldstone reconsiders his opinion of Israel's "war crimes"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

 

Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

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

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

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.

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

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

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

 

 

As an Israeli, I certainly am happy to see this, I think that it sheds some light on the real situation here in the middle east, and I hope that pepole will read this and be more objective the next time something terrible happens around here.

I also think that the Israeli's government decision to not cooperate with the Judge's investigations was a mistake, but... oh well...

(I really hope that this isn't some lame april fools joke X: )



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Around the Network

ya...i agree..if the israeli government was a little more cooperative in the first place he probably wouldnt have needed to change his mind.... but with how little the UN seems to give a shit about what really happens its understandable when they are suspicious of these things.

but i assure you that this will have no bearings on anyones opinion...to many on this site, the israelis will still be the "baby-killers" regardless of how much effort they truly make to avoid civilian deaths and how many times palestinians break into homes and stab three month old babies in the chest. 



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Good to see Israel coming across with this. To prove that they're being straightforward about reigning in their own conduct could put them into a more positive position morally vis-a-vis Hamas.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Sorry, why should I care what this guy has to say?

 

1) The UN is biased against Israel.

Israel is a foreign force occupying territory which it took through war. If the UN were biased against Israel, it would have sent in soldiers to kick Israel out. The fact is, the US is Israel's closest ally, and the US (incase you didn't notice) has the power of veto. To argue that the US is biased against Israel is to argue that the US is biased against Israel.

 

2)

Side a deliberately targets civilians, killing 5 of them

Side b picks a strategy which has the unintentional side effect that 5 civilians die.

 

Are you really going to argue that side b is morally superior to side a? Both sides picked an action which they knew would lead to 5 civilian deaths. That in one case the deaths are the main effect and in the other it is a side effect is mere semantics, which may be good enough for a court of law but it is far from good enough for a legitimate moral stance.

 

I don't understand how people can claim that the Israeli government and army is innocent, and just defending themselves, and then also argue that Hamas is immoral. Nor can I understand anyone who argues that the Israeli govt/army is immoral and that Hamas is fine. In my eyes one murderer is as bas as another.



scottie said:

Sorry, why should I care what this guy has to say?

Because he is the guy that the UN have nominated to investigate what happened during the "2008-2009" war, he is way more knowledgable than you in this case.

1) The UN is biased against Israel.

Israel is a foreign force occupying territory which it took through war.

What country in the world isn't?
You're an Australian you know, Austraila is also an "occupied country", just like the USA, and a lot of other countries worldwide, who were occupied at some point of time.

If the UN were biased against Israel, it would have sent in soldiers to kick Israel out.

...What?
What you said make no sense, the fact that the UN is biased against Israel should pretty much be obvious (did you know that Israel has 80% of the UN's commitee for human right's condemnations? Considering countries like North Korea exist, and that Iran government executes gay pepole... it's pretty wierd, don't you think?)
The fact is, the US is Israel's closest ally, and the US (incase you didn't notice) has the power of veto. To argue that the US is biased against Israel is to argue that the US is biased against Israel.

2)

Side a deliberately targets civilians, killing 5 of them

Side b picks a strategy which has the unintentional side effect that 5 civilians die.

 

Are you really going to argue that side b is morally superior to side a? Both sides picked an action which they knew would lead to 5 civilian deaths. That in one case the deaths are the main effect and in the other it is a side effect is mere semantics, which may be good enough for a court of law but it is far from good enough for a legitimate moral stance.
So do you argue that Side b should just... let more of their pepole die? Or use less effective measures?
This isn't a game you know, and it isn't Semantics.

 

I don't understand how people can claim that the Israeli government and army is innocent, and just defending themselves, and then also argue that Hamas is immoral. Nor can I understand anyone who argues that the Israeli govt/army is immoral and that Hamas is fine. In my eyes one murderer is as bas as another.
No one claims they were innocent, however, if you would've read the original post, you would've realized that Israel constantly checks itself, tries to reduce civilian casualties to the bare minimum, and put it's own war criminals under judgement, while the Hamas does nothing of that, because they want to kill as many Israeli civilians as they can, and have as many of their civilians killed by Israelies, since it furthers their agendas.





Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Around the Network
RageBot said:
scottie said:

Sorry, why should I care what this guy has to say?

Because he is the guy that the UN have nominated to investigate what happened during the "2008-2009" war, he is way more knowledgable than you in this case.

 

He was picked to decide if the actions were illegal. I do not care about legal/illegal, I care about moral/immoral. Hence I do not care about his opinion.


1) The UN is biased against Israel.

Israel is a foreign force occupying territory which it took through war.

What country in the world isn't?
You're an Australian you know, Austraila is also an "occupied country", just like the USA, and a lot of other countries worldwide, who were occupied at some point of time.

 

I am critical of the British colonisation of Australia. I am extremely critical of any British who killed Aboriginal non combatants, as am I of any Aboriginees who killed British civilians in order to protect their country.



If the UN were biased against Israel, it would have sent in soldiers to kick Israel out.

...What?
What you said make no sense, the fact that the UN is biased against Israel should pretty much be obvious (did you know that Israel has 80% of the UN's commitee for human right's condemnations? Considering countries like North Korea exist, and that Iran government executes gay pepole... it's pretty wierd, don't you think?)

Sorry, which countries have North Korea and Iran been occupying for the past 60 odd years? Fact is, killing your own civilians is judged to be morally acceptable under certain circumstances by a substantial amount of the UN, killing the civilians of another country is not. That is why the Arab-Israeli conflict receives so much UN attention.

 

The fact is, the US is Israel's closest ally, and the US (incase you didn't notice) has the power of veto. To argue that the US is biased against Israel is to argue that the US is biased against Israel.

 

2)

Side a deliberately targets civilians, killing 5 of them

Side b picks a strategy which has the unintentional side effect that 5 civilians die.

 

Are you really going to argue that side b is morally superior to side a? Both sides picked an action which they knew would lead to 5 civilian deaths. That in one case the deaths are the main effect and in the other it is a side effect is mere semantics, which may be good enough for a court of law but it is far from good enough for a legitimate moral stance.
So do you argue that Side b should just... let more of their pepole die? Or use less effective measures?
This isn't a game you know, and it isn't Semantics.

 

@ bolded. Of course it is not a game Are you attempting to portray my point of view as silly? And the debate over wether the deaths were intentional or accidental but predicatble is completely unimportant to me.

 

I don't understand how people can claim that the Israeli government and army is innocent, and just defending themselves, and then also argue that Hamas is immoral. Nor can I understand anyone who argues that the Israeli govt/army is immoral and that Hamas is fine. In my eyes one murderer is as bas as another.
No one claims they were innocent, however, if you would've read the original post, you would've realized that Israel constantly checks itself, tries to reduce civilian casualties to the bare minimum, and put it's own war criminals under judgement, while the Hamas does nothing of that, because they want to kill as many Israeli civilians as they can, and have as many of their civilians killed by Israelies, since it furthers their agendas.

 

There is nothing further to say to you then. You will not listen to any opinion that differs from your own even slightly







scottie said:
RageBot said:
scottie said:

He was picked to decide if the actions were illegal. I do not care about legal/illegal, I care about moral/immoral. Hence I do not care about his opinion.


1) The UN is biased against Israel.

What country in the world isn't?
You're an Australian you know, Austraila is also an "occupied country", just like the USA, and a lot of other countries worldwide, who were occupied at some point of time.

I am critical of the British colonisation of Australia. I am extremely critical of any British who killed Aboriginal non combatants, as am I of any Aboriginees who killed British civilians in order to protect their country.
So... cool, I guess?

...What?
What you said make no sense, the fact that the UN is biased against Israel should pretty much be obvious (did you know that Israel has 80% of the UN's commitee for human right's condemnations? Considering countries like North Korea exist, and that Iran government executes gay pepole... it's pretty wierd, don't you think?)

Sorry, which countries have North Korea and Iran been occupying for the past 60 odd years?
Zero, I guess, the same number of "countries" that Israel is occupying, or have ever occupied, there never was another country in the territory now called "the state of Israel", and if there was, I dare you to find it's name, flag, currency, language etc etc, Palestine was just the name of the land, it was never an autonomus state.
Fact is, killing your own civilians is judged to be morally acceptable under certain circumstances by a substantial amount of the UN, killing the civilians of another country is not. That is why the Arab-Israeli conflict receives so much UN attention.
...Again, there's no "another country" (yet, there probably will be in the next two years or so...), and what you said can also apply to the Palestinians, suicide bombers, rocket barrages, the fact that they are not as effective as the IDF's weaponry, does not make them more "moraly right".
And the fact that ca "substanial amount of the UN" find such things morally just/unjust, just shows the bias against Israel.

Tell me if I got you right:
An innocent guy in Iran is gay, the government find that, he is hanged.
That should not be condemned by the UN.
A Palestinian is arming Hamas, creates rockets, mortar shells etc etc that are later fired at Israel, he hides within innocent population, because he knows that he's safer, and that if he dies, other innocents will die with him, and it will further help Hamas' agenda (portraying Israel as a demonic state).
Israeli forces track him, find him, and kill him, other innocents die in the process.
Israel should be condemned for defending it's population in the most humane way that does not pointlessly risk it's own men.

The fact is, the US is Israel's closest ally, and the US (incase you didn't notice) has the power of veto. To argue that the US is biased against Israel is to argue that the US is biased against Israel.

 

2)
So do you argue that Side b should just... let more of their pepole die? Or use less effective measures?
This isn't a game you know, and it isn't Semantics.

 

@ bolded. Of course it is not a game Are you attempting to portray my point of view as silly? And the debate over wether the deaths were intentional or accidental but predicatble is completely unimportant to me.
But... the fact that something is unimportant to you, does not make it unimportant at all.
I didn't try to portray you viewpoint as silly, just as not complete.
Please tell me then, what do you think Israel should do? How will we defend out citizens? Considering that one of Hamas' main objective is the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

I don't understand how people can claim that the Israeli government and army is innocent, and just defending themselves, and then also argue that Hamas is immoral. Nor can I understand anyone who argues that the Israeli govt/army is immoral and that Hamas is fine. In my eyes one murderer is as bas as another.
No one claims they were innocent, however, if you would've read the original post, you would've realized that Israel constantly checks itself, tries to reduce civilian casualties to the bare minimum, and put it's own war criminals under judgement, while the Hamas does nothing of that, because they want to kill as many Israeli civilians as they can, and have as many of their civilians killed by Israelies, since it furthers their agendas.

 

There is nothing further to say to you then. You will not listen to any opinion that differs from your own even slightly
...I do listen to opinions who differ "even slightly", did you not just read that i've just agreed with you, about the fact that Israel isn't "completely innocent"?









Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Scottie... that's because your viewpoint IS silly.

He didn't try and portray it that way... it just comes off that way because it's silly.

It's like the case of that giant dude who was being bullied who powerbombed the kid.

 

The kid was hitting him, and being a little runt sure it hurt less then the punishment the big kid would reply with...

but the big kid has the right to respond.


It's a simple matter of "Why the fuck are you provoking the big kid."

 

Heck, Israel shows amazing restraint for gods sake.  I mean as far as I can tell rockets fire on a weekly basis and they only respond when they are higher in number and/or kill someone.

 

I mean, how would you respond if Indonesia started firing rockets at you on a weekly basis?  Then when you struck back people harassed you for striking back.

 

(Indoneisa is the country Australians illogically think is going to invade them right?)



Kasz216 said:

Scottie... that's because your viewpoint IS silly.

He didn't try and portray it that way... it just comes off that way because it's silly.

It's like the case of that giant dude who was being bullied who powerbombed the kid.

 

The kid was hitting him, and being a little runt sure it hurt less then the punishment the big kid would reply with...

but the big kid has the right to respond.


It's a simple matter of "Why the fuck are you provoking the big kid."

 

Heck, Israel shows amazing restraint for gods sake.  I mean as far as I can tell rockets fire on a weekly basis and they only respond when they are higher in number and/or kill someone.

 

I mean, how would you respond if Indonesia started firing rockets at you on a weekly basis?  Then when you struck back people harassed you for striking back.

 

(Indoneisa is the country Australians illogically think is going to invade them right?)

Despite the vast disparity of technological capability, Indonesia has more people on the one island than Australia has on the whole continent, and then when you start to do the math... (though Indonesia's fairly secular and peaceful nowadays, or as much so as a country of its status can be)

But why provoke the big kid? That's war. Hamas doesn't use terrorist tactics For The Evulz, it's just asymmetric warfare. Which isn't to say i condone what they're doing at all, but Hamas is of the opinion that Israel's existence is non-negotiable (and given Israel's refusal to really bargain with Fatah no matter how many times Fatah doubles down, Hamas may be right in their own twisted way), and obviously they can't fight the military force that could tear Syria and Egypt to shreds conventionally, so you fight asymmetrically: terrorism

And if they didn't fight, what would they get? Probably the same thing as the West Bankers get "You little bitches better shut up and let the settlers walk all over you, or you'll be sorry."



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

Scottie... that's because your viewpoint IS silly.

He didn't try and portray it that way... it just comes off that way because it's silly.

It's like the case of that giant dude who was being bullied who powerbombed the kid.

 

The kid was hitting him, and being a little runt sure it hurt less then the punishment the big kid would reply with...

but the big kid has the right to respond.


It's a simple matter of "Why the fuck are you provoking the big kid."

 

Heck, Israel shows amazing restraint for gods sake.  I mean as far as I can tell rockets fire on a weekly basis and they only respond when they are higher in number and/or kill someone.

 

I mean, how would you respond if Indonesia started firing rockets at you on a weekly basis?  Then when you struck back people harassed you for striking back.

 

(Indoneisa is the country Australians illogically think is going to invade them right?)

Despite the vast disparity of technological capability, Indonesia has more people on the one island than Australia has on the whole continent, and then when you start to do the math... (though Indonesia's fairly secular and peaceful nowadays, or as much so as a country of its status can be)

But why provoke the big kid? That's war. Hamas doesn't use terrorist tactics For The Evulz, it's just asymmetric warfare. Which isn't to say i condone what they're doing at all, but Hamas is of the opinion that Israel's existence is non-negotiable (and given Israel's refusal to really bargain with Fatah no matter how many times Fatah doubles down, Hamas may be right in their own twisted way), and obviously they can't fight the military force that could tear Syria and Egypt to shreds conventionally, so you fight asymmetrically: terrorism

And if they didn't fight, what would they get? Probably the same thing as the West Bankers get "You little bitches better shut up and let the settlers walk all over you, or you'll be sorry."

No, Hamas uses terrorism in an attempt to win over the Palestinian government and set itself in charge.

What would they get if they didn't fight?   A nation.

Hamas is the number 1 issue preventing a peaceful solution, and as everyday passes things only get stronger in Israels court.

There will never be as good of a deal as existed in the camp David Accords... and things are only getting worse. (WAY worse if you believe the leaked peace talk documents.)

 

Hamas is provoking the big kid, because he knows if the big kid beats up him and his buddies, his buddies will rely on him more. (The buddies being the other palestinians.)

It's a pure calculated political move.  If you offered Hamas the ability to negotiate, sell out the West bank and set up their own nation so long as they put off attack Israel, i bet they'd do so in a heart beat.