UN endorses the Goldstone Report

dlofnep

The UN endorsed the Goldstone report yesterday. Israel has defiantely rejected the report, on the premise of the UN being detatched from reality.

114 member nations voted in favour of the report, while only 18 voted against, with 44 abstaining.

Full report is available here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

It's quite a long read.

Ireland was one of the 114 member states that voted in favour of the report. The US, Canada, Israel and Germany were among those who voted against it.

sceptre

Handy wikipedia page with some background. Also worth a read on a whim, I don't have time to comment or do proper analysis in the next week or so.

israelsolcamp

It's a VERY long read (575 pages). Not surprising that it was endorsed by the Security Council, but Israel is (highly) unlikely to be prosecuted owing to the UN's influence/veto. Interesting non-binding resolution also passed by the US House of Representatives urging Obama to ignore the report. More info on our website (www.israelsolidaritycampaign.com).

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Interesting non-binding resolution also passed by the US House of Representatives urging Obama to ignore the report.

It should be noted that the US, didn't actually provide any kind of proof to back up there criticism as per usual. If the Goldstone report is so bad, then it really shouldn't be so hard for the US to actually provide evidence to refute the claims in the report.

**EDIT**
It also once again raises the issue of the US being a "honest" broker in the conflict, when they clearly only care about Israel. Basically, if someone were to say present Saudi Arabia or Iran, as a potential "honest" broker, they would rightly be laughed at, but apparently the situation with the US is somehow acceptable.

israelsolcamp

there's plenty of proof to back up what the US said about the Goldstone Report. even more proof was given by amb. dore gold in the recent goldstone-gold debate at brandeis university. Just some of the problems ths us rightly found with the report:

Foreordained conclusion (mandate blamed israel before fact finding mission even took place)

Suppoused to not reach judicial conclusions although it clearly does against Israel

Limited time frame to exclude vast majority of 1200 rockets over 8 years that prompted the Operation

2 pages out of 575 deal with rockets

Unquestioning support of Palsetinian sources; rejection of Israel ones

Focus on West Bank not part of remit

Professor Chinkin already expressed anger at Israel in signed letter to Sunday Times before the Operation - clearly not impartial and in Goldstone's own words should have been disqualified.

So there's no backing up to the Resolution then?!!!

Overheal

wes wrote: »

It should be noted that the US, didn't actually provide any kind of proof to back up there criticism as per usual. If the Goldstone report is so bad, then it really shouldn't be so hard for the US to actually provide evidence to refute the claims in the report.

**EDIT**
It also once again raises the issue of the US being a "honest" broker in the conflict, when they clearly only care about Israel. Basically, if someone were to say present Saudi Arabia or Iran, as a potential "honest" broker, they would rightly be laughed at, but apparently the situation with the US is somehow acceptable.

See, I see comments like these slipping under the Site's radar, and I wonder how impartial ye folks were about endorsing this sectarian lovefest.

Im not dismissing the report but I will highlight the fact that some of you seem unsure how to separate Judaism and Israel as Religious and Political Entities.

So before you go off blaming Big Bad America, Again, for the 78,459th time on this website, ask yourselves why you blame America and not Christianity when Christianity is arguably at the core of American Ideology. Particularly at the military level.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

there's plenty of proof to back up what the US said about the Goldstone Report. even more proof was given by amb. dore gold in the recent goldstone-gold debate at brandeis university. Just some of the problems ths us rightly found with the report:

You see I was looking for proof from the US government, not some random debate, that you don't provide a video of, or a link to any kind of transcript, or who was debating or the credentials of those debating.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Foreordained conclusion (mandate blamed israel before fact finding mission even took place)

Judge Goldstone had the mandate changed.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Suppoused to not reach judicial conclusions although it clearly does against Israel

Did it? Care to point out exactly where it does so in the text, and where it says they aren't suppose to come to such conclusions?

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Limited time frame to exclude vast majority of 1200 rockets over 8 years that prompted the Operation

Sure, it didn't include a mandate to investigate the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, or the Roman occupation either. The report had a limited mandate to investigate the conflict that occurred during the Winter or 2008/2009.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

2 pages out of 575 deal with rockets

Seems fair enough, considering who did most of the killing. 1300 Palestinians dead and 13 Israeli deaths. One would think that there would be a lot more space given over the investigate the 1300 dead.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Unquestioning support of Palsetinian sources; rejection of Israel ones

Israeli sources weren't rejected. Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation, which is completely different from the report rejecting Israeli sources, Israel decided to boycott the investigation. So, the only people doing any kind of rejecting was Israel, who rejected the report from the start.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Focus on West Bank not part of remit

Which right or wrong, doesn't disprove anything in the report.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Professor Chinkin already expressed anger at Israel in signed letter to Sunday Times before the Operation - clearly not impartial and in Goldstone's own words should have been disqualified.

Really? Here is what he said:

From the Jerusalem Post.com:
"I have known Professor Chinkin for some years and respect her intellect, knowledge and professional approach to her work. I have no doubt at all that she is able to keep an open mind on all of the issues we are considering, and that has indeed been demonstrated during our many deliberations over the past weeks."

Seems to me you are mis-representing what Judge Goldstone said on the matter, as he is most certainly defending Professor Chinkin.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

So there's no backing up to the Resolution then?!!!

There is the whole Goldstone report......

Overheal

Seems fair enough, considering who did most of the killing. 1300 Palestinians dead and 13 Israeli deaths. One would think that there would be a lot more space given over the investigate the 1300 dead.

Maybe they thought God would aim the rockets for them. That worked well...

israelsolcamp

es,

I appreciate your well thought-out reply. The fact is that there is so much news coming out about israel/goldstone report nowadays that it's impossible to keep track of. so here's a quick update.

goldstone debates dore gold (former israeli ambassador to the un and head of a very respected think-tank - you asked for credentials).

he goes back on what he said about chenkin (not for the first time). says that she should have been disqualified for that letter.

Although the Mandate was indeed changed at Goldstone's insistence under law it didn't actually effect any changes which is why people still complain about the mandate.

I don't have time to try and find where in the 575 pages it says that, but i do know that justice goldstone himself admitted that. just consider the name a FACT FINDING MISSION.
The job of the ICC (international criminal court) is to come to judicial conclusions. this report was just to find facts (hence its official name), not find either side guilty.
the report DID find israel (overwhelmingly guilty) and actually applied a criminal standard of proof which is clearly a legalistic mechanism and hence judicial which as i have
stated is not what the report was suppoused to be (there's a huge distinction between finding out facts and making conclusions.

there was no ethnic cleansing in 1948. a forced exodus, perhaps (i don't agree that there was, but i would accept it if you argued that). can you provide any historical information
to back up that ludicrous claim? (you might want to mention the ethnic cleansing of jews in arab countries around and before that time period while you're at it).

13 dead DURING THE WAR. many more in the 8 years of rocket fire and many many more maimed for live. many many many more psychologically traumatised for life and suffering from
PTSD in Southern Israel.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

See, I see comments like these slipping under the Site's radar, and I wonder how impartial ye folks were about endorsing this sectarian lovefest.

I fail to see the relevance of a post by a poster who has not posted here, and a post that was posted on another forum on this board. I also fail to see how any kind of valid conclusion about the entire community of posters here, can be drawn by a single post, and the few people who thanked it.

Also, if you had a problem with the post, you can use the report post feature on here, as opposed to try and use a irrelevant post by another user (who hasn't posted in this thread), as opposed to try and use it to accuse people here, who had nothing to with that post.

Overheal wrote: »

Im not dismissing the report but I will highlight the fact that some of you seem unsure how to separate Judaism and Israel as Religious and Political Entities.

The state of Israel has this problem as well btw.

Overheal wrote: »

So before you go off blaming Big Bad America, Again, for the 78,459th time on this website, ask yourselves why you blame America and not Christianity when Christianity is arguably at the core of American Ideology. Particularly at the military level.

What are you talking about? I never blamed the USA on everything, my criticism, was directed at the US being a honest broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict. So how about addressing the point I made, and not blame Christianity on the actions of a Secular state like the USA, which btw is ridiculous.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

See, I see comments like these slipping under the Site's radar, and I wonder how impartial ye folks were about endorsing this sectarian lovefest.

We don't endorse it.

Overheal wrote: »

Im not dismissing the report but I will highlight the fact that some of you seem unsure how to separate Judaism and Israel as Religious and Political Entities.

Demonstrate where, thank you.

Overheal wrote: »

So before you go off blaming Big Bad America, Again, for the 78,459th time on this website, ask yourselves why you blame America and not Christianity when Christianity is arguably at the core of American Ideology. Particularly at the military level.

American policy is made on a political level, not a religious one. America has the power to make things better, but they offer wholesale support for Israel, for better or for worse.

If Palestinians attack Israel, it's a 'terrorist attack'. But when Israel occupies Palestine and attacks it, it's 'self defense'. So where is the line drawn? It's quite categoric that US support of Israel is heavily weighted against their support for Palestine.

As for your Christianity argument - Ireland is as much a christian state, as America - But yet, we have no problem condemning Israel. It's not a religious issue. It's a geographical & political issue.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of a post by a poster who has not posted here, and a post that was posted on another forum on this board. I also fail to see how any kind of valid conclusion about the entire community of posters here, can be drawn by a single post, and the few people who thanked it.

Also, if you had a problem with the post, you can use the report post feature on here, as opposed to try and use a irrelevant post by another user (who hasn't posted in this thread), as opposed to try and use it to accuse people here, who had nothing to with that post.

Im sure its a coincidence the post was never infracted, the post was thanked numerous times and that la website has currently no Judaism board, and for that matter from reading numerous threads like these, has quite a healthy anti-semite community on it. Im not making that conclusion about all users, or even most users - that would be ludicrous. I also don't criticize Tom or the Dev's for this, these are just opinions of users on Board and if there was demand for a Judaism forum it would be created. I'm Just raising the question of whether Ireland's endorsement of the report was entirely impartial to the Facts as they may have been presented in it, given my Impression of the Irish people; as you have done based on your impression of the United States.

The state of Israel has this problem as well btw.

Indubitably.

What are you talking about? I never blamed the USA on everything, my criticism, was directed at the US being a honest broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

And I the same, of the Republic of Ireland and it's involvement on the Matter at Hand.

So how about addressing the point I made, and not blame Christianity on the actions of a Secular state like the USA, which btw is ridiculous.

The response is 20 minutes old, usually we dont start name calling and accusing others of dodging questions well into the 48 hour mark.

Of course, that would be ridiculous, and thats entirely my point. I apologize if you felt I was singling you out with the remark but rather it was directed at the Anti-Semite crowd out there more generally than specifically.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

goldstone debates dore gold (former israeli ambassador to the un and head of a very respected think-tank - you asked for credentials).

Fair enough.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

he goes back on what he said about chenkin (not for the first time). says that she should have been disqualified for that letter.

You have a link for this? As the only info, I have is of Goldstone saying the exact opposite of what you claiming.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Although the Mandate was indeed changed at Goldstone's insistence under law it didn't actually effect any changes which is why people still complain about the mandate.

Sorry, what you saying is ridiculous. The mandate was changed, as condition for Judge Goldstone to investigate. To keep on complaining about something that Judge Goldstone had changed is nonsensical. He had the mandate changed, as a condition for his investigation, which make the former mandate irrelevant.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

I don't have time to try and find where in the 575 pages it says that, but i do know that justice goldstone himself admitted that. just consider the name a FACT FINDING MISSION.

The job of the ICC (international criminal court) is to come to judicial conclusions. this report was just to find facts (hence its official name), not find either side guilty.

Yes, and a fact finding mission can make recommendations, hardly unusual.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

the report DID find israel (overwhelmingly guilty) and actually applied a criminal standard of proof which is clearly a legalistic mechanism and hence judicial which as i have stated is not what the report was suppoused to be (there's a huge distinction between finding out facts and making conclusions.

No, the report established facts, and recommended that both sides investigate the accusations in the report, and if they didn't, then it should be referred to the ICC. The report did exactly what it was suppose to do.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

there was no ethnic cleansing in 1948. a forced exodus, perhaps (i don't agree that there was, but i would accept it if you argued that). can you provide any historical information to back up that ludicrous claim? (you might want to mention the ethnic cleansing of jews in arab countries around and before that time period while you're at it).

So please tell me the difference between a forced exodus and ethnic cleansing, as the sound the same to me, and I think it ludicrous that you are trying to make out that the 2 term represent any kind of real difference, which is laughable. Regardless, the events of 1948 are irrelevant, just like the events before the Gaza conflict, in the context of the Goldstone report which is the point I was making, and is the point you clearly missed. The report wasn't there to cover the whole conflict basically.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

(you might want to mention the ethnic cleansing of jews in arab countries around and before that time period while you're at it).

The report didn't investigate that either, it also didn't investigate the Rwandan genocide either btw, or Human Rights abused in China as well.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

13 dead DURING THE WAR. many more in the 8 years of rocket fire and many many more maimed for live. many many many more psychologically traumatised for life and suffering from
PTSD in Southern Israel.

Yeah, and many more Palestinians killed, homes destroyed, imprisoned, maimed, denied basic human rights by Israel, and 1.5 million suffering under a inhuman shield. You see 2 can play at this game you know.

Regardless, what you said and what I said in the above paragraph, are irrelevant, as they have nothing to do with report.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Im sure its a coincidence the post was never infracted, the post was thanked numerous times
c

Yawn, the post has nothing to do with me or other people posting in this thread. If you have a issue with the post report it. If you have a problem with boards.ie, there is a feedback forum. That post is irrelevant to the current discussion of the Goldstone report, and basically you are trying smear posters here, despite the fact none of us here had anything to do with that post. Personally, I didn't even read that thread, so again I fail to see the relevance to this thread about the Goldstone report. How about provide some actual criticism.

Overheal wrote: »

and that la website has currently no Judaism board,

Um, so what? There is no Hinduism forum either, which is the 3rd largest Religion in the world btw. So, I fail to see the relevance one again.

Overheal wrote: »

and for that matter from reading numerous threads like these, has quite a healthy anti-semite community on it.

So I take you report those post then, right? You couldn't possible be trying to smear people with non-specific accusation, against non-specific people, which means you don't have to back anything up, as its all so non-specific.

However, once your posts has nothing to do with Goldstone report.

Overheal wrote: »

Im not making that conclusion about all users, or even most users - that would be ludicrous.

Could have fooled me. Seeing as what you saying is irrelevant to the Goldstone report, and instead you seem intent on making non-specific accusations of racism, against non-specific users. Perhaps, you should go to the feedback forum, as you comments have nothing to do with the Goldstone report.

Overheal wrote: »

I also don't criticize Tom or the Dev's for this, these are just opinions of users on Board and if there was demand for a Judaism forum it would be created.

So, um why bring it up then? Seeing as a Judaism forum on boards.ie has nothing to do with the Goldstone report.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm Just raising the question of whether Ireland's endorsement of the report was entirely impartial to the Facts as they may have been presented in it, given my Impression of the Irish people; as you have done based on your impression of the United States.

No, you decided to make accusation of anti-semtism against non-specific groups of people.

Also, my comments were directed against the US government of the US, which is pro-Israel, and I was pointing this fact out. I didn't judge 300 million people of the US, like you are judging the population of Ireland.

So quick question, do you deny that the US is pro-Israel? Now, for the sake of argument, do you think a biased party can be considered considered a honest broker in a conflict, where they clearly biased towards one side of the conflict?

Overheal wrote: »

Indubitably.
And I the same, of the Republic of Ireland and it's involvement on the Matter at Hand. The response is 20 minutes old, usually we dont start name calling and accusing others of dodging questions well into the 48 hour mark.

Your first post was a accusation btw.

Also, Ireland doesn't provide the Palestinians with billions in weaponry, like the US does Israel. I don't think there is a comparison between the 2.

Overheal wrote: »

Of course, that would be ridiculous, and thats entirely my point. I apologize if you felt I was singling you out with the remark but rather it was directed at the Anti-Semite crowd out there more generally than specifically.

Sorry, but what Anti-semite crowd? Those people from that post haven't posted here, so seems to me that you smearing people in this thread, either intentionally or unintentionally.

israelsolcamp

wes,

good point - let's stick to the report (it's easy to get sidetracked), so i won't reply to the ethnic cleansing bit, just what's relevant to the report.

this is the link i was following from the UN Watch:
http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=514

it says HAD the goldstone report been legal rather than fact finding that she should have been disqualified, but my point (and the point of many) is that this was legal not fact finding. Why? Because the report makes detailed legal reccomendations and applies a legal standard of proof to the fact of the case, then finds that israel was probably guilty of war crimes. if it was just fact finding words like 'guilty' shouldn't even come into it! it should just be israel did x, hamas did y, etc (with sources of course).

when the report begins to arrive at CONCLUSIONS (that's the key word) it's stopped becoming a fact finding mission and started becoming a legal document.

btw our own man col. desmond travers also has a long history of supporting the palestinian cause as well though for some reason less has been made of his impartiality or otherwise.

anyway, legal or not, it's just commonsense that someone going to investigate shouldn't have an affinity to either side. that's why referees are never from one of the two teams - same reasoning.

BTW, the US may be traditionally pro-Israel but it pledges hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid to the palestinians every year. what becomes of the money? corrupt enrichment and financing terror.

FlutterinBantam

The crusties are agitated..

No disrespect to the people on here but hey ,don't walk along with the kerb painters.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

wes,

good point - let's stick to the report (it's easy to get sidetracked), so i won't reply to the ethnic cleansing bit, just what's relevant to the report.

Fair enough.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

this is the link i was following from the UN Watch:
http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=514

it says HAD the goldstone report been legal rather than fact finding that she should have been disqualified, but my point (and the point of many) is that this was legal not fact finding. Why? Because the report makes detailed legal reccomendations and applies a legal standard of proof to the fact of the case, then finds that israel was probably guilty of war crimes. if it was just fact finding words like 'guilty' shouldn't even come into it! it should just be israel did x, hamas did y, etc (with sources of course).

So you think that Police investigation make no conclusions regarding criminality? The Goldstone report is similar to a Police investigation, that provide the evidence that is suppose to be taken up by the proper authorities, which is exactly what the report calls for.

Again, the criticism doesn't refute the facts in the report, but rather tries to argue that they over stepped there bounds, which the UN (the people who commissioned the report) don't agree with. Seeing as the UN commissioned the report, I think they know better than a random blog, what Goldstone was suppose to do.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

when the report begins to arrive at CONCLUSIONS (that's the key word) it's stopped becoming a fact finding mission and started becoming a legal document

How can you have facts without conclusions? They both kind of go together. How can you know something is a fact, with coming to a conclusion on it? You arguing semantics here, and not refuting the facts in the report.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

btw our own man col. desmond travers also has a long history of supporting the palestinian cause as well though for some reason less has been made of his impartiality or otherwise.

Well, seeing as criticism of Israel is being equate for siding with Palestinians here, I think you opinion of Col. Desmond Travers doesn't hold much weight.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

anyway, legal or not, it's just commonsense that someone going to investigate shouldn't have an affinity to either side. that's why referees are never from one of the two teams - same reasoning.

So the fact that Judge Goldstone is a committed Zionists who loves Israel, came to such conclusions, should lends a great deal of credibility to the report then.

Of course, no facts were actually refuted thus far.

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The crusties are agitated..

No disrespect to the people on here but hey ,don't walk along with the kerb painters.

So non-specific name calling, is what exactly, the height of intellectualism or something now?

Overheal

wes wrote: »

....

Lets get back on topic. Your objections are acknowledged and my intention was to Contribute to the thread not to Train Wreck it as you seem to have thought I was doing.

my comments were directed against the US government of the US, which is pro-Israel, and I was pointing this fact out. I didn't judge 300 million people of the US, like you are judging the population of Ireland.

If the elected Officials of Ireland (or the United States) are raised in bubbles contained independently from their Constituents, I will apologize for the Outburst

.

So quick question, do you deny that the US is pro-Israel? Now, for the sake of argument, do you think a biased party can be considered considered a honest broker in a conflict, where they clearly biased towards one side of the conflict?

I dont believe I ever denied the United States is (clearly!) in support of Israel. That doesnt prove anything either way, however.

Also, Ireland doesn't provide the Palestinians with billions in weaponry, like the US does Israel. I don't think there is a comparison between the 2.

Im not entirely sure I was ever trying to make direct comparisons. Rather illustrating I had my doubts about whether Ireland was objective in the matter, either.

Sorry, but what Anti-semite crowd? Those people from that post haven't posted here, so seems to me that you smearing people in this thread, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I have no animosity toward those users. They have their views. I have mine. It wasnt intended as a 'smear'. It was intended as an expansion to the Whole Picture. I think its perfectly legitimate to question how much a factor Antisemitism is with regard to the Goldstone Report. The highlighted instance was merely a springboard. Just like X news article is frequently a springboard for Hot Topic Y. Ireland is merely one of 192 countries in the UN and any number of them could easily have an Antisemitic cross-agenda. My question is "How Much"

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Lets get back on topic. Your objections are acknowledged and my intention was to Contribute to the thread not to Train Wreck it as you seem to have thought I was doing.

I am all for getting back on topic and not discussing posters, who aren't posting in this thread.

Overheal wrote: »

If the elected Officials of Ireland (or the United States) are raised in bubbles contained independently from their Constituents, I will apologize for the Outburst

A government can engage in actions that the people don't agree with. Separating a people and its government, is just me trying not to paint the entire 300 million population of the USA with the same brush as there government.

Overheal wrote: »

I dont believe I ever denied the United States is (clearly!) in support of Israel. That doesnt prove anything either way, however.

You right it doesn't, and that wasn't my point. My point was, that should a country that is biased towards one side, be considered a "honest" broker, especially in the light of the US's rejection of the Goldstone report. Personally, I don't see how having the "honest" broker in the conflict be so biased to one side helps peace. Also, I was also trying to point out that the US didn't present anything to refute the Goldstone report.

Overheal wrote: »

Im not entirely sure I was ever trying to make direct comparisons. Rather illustrating I had my doubts about whether Ireland was objective in the matter, either.

The basis of which seems to be a small collection of posters on boards.ie. I think billions in weaponry is a different world of support personally.

Overheal wrote: »

I have no animosity toward those users. They have their views. I have mine. It wasnt intended as a 'smear'. It was intended as an expansion to the Whole Picture.

What relevance could a small group of boards.ie poster possibly have? The small group you present is statistically insignificant, and as such no meaningful conclusion could possible be drawn from there comments, and the manner in which you presented them, made it seem that you were complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Overheal wrote: »

I think its perfectly legitimate to question how much a factor Antisemitism is with regard to the Goldstone Report. The highlighted instance was merely a springboard. Just like X news article is frequently a springboard for Hot Topic Y.

You presented a statistically insignificant number of people, which make any conclusion drawn from such a tiny number completely irrelevant, as no representative opinion can possibly be drawn from it.

Again, you presented a serious of vague non-specific accusations, against a non-specific group, and we are suppose to conclude from this that the Irish governments acceptance of the Goldstone report was based on Anti-semitism, and this was a counter to me saying the US was bias towards Israel, due to them offering no counters to the facts presented in the report and there longstanding support for Israel, in both word and deed. I think we are talking about 2 different worlds of reasoning here.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

....

Hi Im Overheal. Oh look a Thread,

dlofnep wrote: »

The UN endorsed the Goldstone report yesterday. Israel has defiantely rejected the report, on the premise of the UN being detatched from reality.

114 member nations voted in favour of the report, while only 18 voted against, with 44 abstaining.

Full report is available here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

It's quite a long read.

Ireland was one of the 114 member states that voted in favour of the report. The US, Canada, Israel and Germany were among those who voted against it.

Interesting. I have to wonder how much Antisemitism factors in though. The US's No Vote is unsurprising (as is Israel's).

I have a question though, what happens if/when Israel "is found guilty" I guess for lack of a better term? What happens next?

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting. I have to wonder how much Antisemitism factors in though. The US's No Vote is unsurprising (as is Israel's).

I have a question though, what happens if/when Israel "is found guilty" I guess for lack of a better term? What happens next?

Couldn't someone also ask how much Anti-Semitism (Palestinians being Semites as well btw) motivates those who voted against the Goldstone report? Lets not forget the US (for example) did invade a country populated largely by Semites (Iraq) under extremely suspicious circumstances. Perhaps, there is a pattern there or something.

Of course, my argument above is pretty rubbish (intentionally so), as anyone can basically "wonder" out loud about non-specific racist motivations, and provide little or no proof as to there veracity, as ultimately people are just "wondering".

The Saint

israelsolcamp wrote: »

Interesting non-binding resolution also passed by the US House of Representatives urging Obama to ignore the report. More info on our website (www.israelsolidaritycampaign.com).

A similar resolution was also passed condemning the 2004 International Court of Justice opinion on the legality of the Wall Israel is building on Palestinian land. This means nothing. Every EU member state endorsed the opinion in a subsequent UN General Assembly resolution. The US was the only major state to vote against it. A House resolution in the US doen't really mean anything regarding the validity of the report.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

when the report begins to arrive at CONCLUSIONS (that's the key word) it's stopped becoming a fact finding mission and started becoming a legal document.

I can only assume from this comment that you are not a regular reader of UN reports as UN reports routinely make conclusions and accusations on violations of international laws. This is what they are for. While they can be used as evidence of violations of international law, they have no legal basis. I don't know why you think that the do if they come to conclusions. I can only assume that you have little understanding on how international law is formulated.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting. I have to wonder how much Antisemitism factors in though. The US's No Vote is unsurprising (as is Israel's).

And how much antisemitism do you think played a role? Do you think that the Irish Government, or the other 113 member states made their decision based on unfounded hatred of Jewish people - or do you think they made their decision based on the damning findings of the report, and the mass civilian loss at the hands of Israel during the war/offensive/whatever you wish to call it.

Overheal wrote: »

I have a question though, what happens if/when Israel "is found guilty" I guess for lack of a better term? What happens next?

I would hope to see sanctions. I doubt the US would let that go ahead however. If anything, for Israel to know the the entire world bar 18 states find their actions morally disgusting.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

And how much antisemitism do you think played a role? Do you think that the Irish Government, or the other 113 member states made their decision based on unfounded hatred of Jewish people - or do you think they made their decision based on the damning findings of the report, and the mass civilian loss at the hands of Israel during the war/offensive/whatever you wish to call it.

...a bit? My whole point being while the report claims to be Fact Finding, I doubt everyone involved here is impartial. That includes the US and other Israel Sympathizers as well as Palestine Sympathizers.

I would hope to see sanctions. I doubt the US would let that go ahead however. If anything, for Israel to know the the entire world bar 18 states find their actions morally disgusting.

Thats what I dont get. What stops the UN from imposing those sanctions? What stops the UN from sanctioning the US for that matter? Theres enough (arguably validated) reasons to want to do that.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Thats what I dont get. What stops the UN from imposing those sanctions? What stops the UN from sanctioning the US for that matter? Theres enough (arguably validated) reasons to want to do that.

The same reason the UN can't sanction China or Russia, they have security council veto's and any sanctions against them or there allies, would be vetoed by them.

The Saint

israelsolcamp wrote: »

More info on our website (www.israelsolidaritycampaign.com).

Oh yeah, after having a quick look at your website I think it might be a good idea for your "Factsheets" to actually be factual. Just a suggestion. Otherwise it might make your intention to "disseminate truthful information about the Arab-Israeli conflict" quite hollow. :rolleyes:


Edit: Actually, after reading more of the articles on your website it would appear that rather than seeking to "disseminate truthful information about the Arab-Israeli conflict" you have indulged in a exercise of intellectual laziness and ineptness (who the hell cites Wikipedia as a source for Christ sake) and fatual distortions and outright nonsense. It also shows a complete lack of understaning of international institutions and how they operate. There is very little truthful in much of the information on your site and stating that there is would appear to be dishonest at best or the dissemination of outright lies at worst. From reading your poorly researched literature it seems that you are not a person to be taken in any way seriously.

Shin Bet

if you want to attack a website outside of boards please dont drag the thread off topic,
now back to the sham that is the Goldstone report,
so can anyone try to justify why they had so little about the lead up to operation cast lead??
Or do the UN simply not care that hamas starts trouble and uses the so called UN schools to fire lethal Iranian supplied rockets on innocent school children.

israelsolcamp

in response to the comment about the website, and i agree with shin bet that it was totally off topic and inappropriate:

firstly, it is not impartial; it is pro-Israeli. the ipsc (ipsc.ie) is also not impartial; it is pro Palestinian. That will taint anyone's perception of the veracity of fact sheets. Just as I wouldn't consider the IPSC's fact sheet section to be what I consider fact, I wouldn't expect a Palestinian sympathizer to consider our fact sheets fact.

The 'ad hominem' attack (I can't take you seriously) shows the usual level of ignorance and antagonism on these forums. The literature is not poor. Wikipedia is only occasionaly used as a source. More often than not than not the material is based on the work of major periodicals, journals, books, etc.

But attacks on our website notwithstanding, I can accept that the distinction between fact and conclusion is narrow, but that still doesn't get over the point that the Goldstone Report found Israel guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of war crimes and RECCOMENDED its prosecution in the ICC as such. This is definitely beyond its ambit.

Manic Moran

Shin Bet wrote: »

Or do the UN simply not care that hamas starts trouble and uses the so called UN schools to fire lethal Iranian supplied rockets on innocent school children.

In fairness, the leadup to the war does not excuse conduct of the war. Jus ad bello, jus in bellum, if you'll forgive my possibly poor Latin grammar. Israeli actions should be able to stand or not on their own merit. Now, you can make the arguments that there was excessive focus on Israeli actions, or that the report cannot be treated as totally conclusive due to the fact that the Israelis failed to co-operate with it (in which case, the Israelis can rightfully expect a PR backlash), but you can't justify failing to analyse acts of the conflict on the basis that the causes of the conflict weren't addressed.

Do you think that the Irish Government, or the other 113 member states made their decision based on unfounded hatred of Jewish people - or do you think they made their decision based on the damning findings of the report, and the mass civilian loss at the hands of Israel during the war/offensive/whatever you wish to call it.

I'd be more inclined to think hopeless idealism. Ireland was one of the member states that condemned the sinking of ARA General Belgrano in the UN, which as near as I can tell was a decision based off of no facts at all except for the fact that they thought it was mean of the British. (Or maybe they just wanted to get a dig in at the British for being British and saw an opportunity). No reason to think that such idealism is still not prevalent today, especially given the extreme expectations that some people hold which state that we can have a war without civilians getting killed in it.

NTM

israelsolcamp

i agree with manic moron that anti-Semitism wasn't to blame.

it does no good to the israeli 'side' (if you will) to level that charge at everyone who criticizes Israel. Many times it's deserved, more often though it's not.

A blind idealism leads many to sympathize with the palestinians who are incorrectly perceived as the underdogs of the conflict and irish people, given our own history vis-a-vis the british, have a natural affinity towards underdogs (israel's actually the only jewish state; there are over 20 muslim ones; there are 15 million jews in the world and over one billion muslims).

Ping Chow Chi

israelsolcamp wrote: »

i agree with manic moron that anti-Semitism wasn't to blame.

it does no good to the israeli 'side' (if you will) to level that charge at everyone who criticizes Israel. Many times it's deserved, more often though it's not.

A blind idealism leads many to sympathize with the palestinians who are incorrectly perceived as the underdogs of the conflict and irish people, given our own history vis-a-vis the british, have a natural affinity towards underdogs (israel's actually the only jewish state; there are over 20 muslim ones; there are 15 million jews in the world and over one billion muslims).

But there are palestinians who are not muslim and israelis who are not jewish. It's not a relgion issue for most people, its an issue of one state brutalising another set of people.

israelsolcamp

that's true. actually i heard about a recent talk by robert fisk where he complaimed that only 13 israelis were killed during cast lead. he then added that 3 of them were israeli arabs. to me, this shows how bigoted fisk is. it doesn't matter whether they're israeli arabs/jews - they're israeli! a lot of people tend to get religion and politics mixed up in the whole middle east conflict.

i think it's fair to say that there's mutual brutality. the palestinians have been attacking israelis since the first jews started landing in israel c.1948 and continue to terrorize them until the present.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

that's true. actually i heard about a recent talk by robert fisk where he complaimed that only 13 israelis were killed during cast lead. he then added that 3 of them were israeli arabs. to me, this shows how bigoted fisk is. it doesn't matter whether they're israeli arabs/jews - they're israeli! a lot of people tend to get religion and politics mixed up in the whole middle east conflict.

i think it's fair to say that there's mutual brutality. the palestinians have been attacking israelis since the first jews started landing in israel c.1948 and continue to terrorize them until the present.

Doesn't a group of people going to another country with the express intention of setting up there own called an invasion? Also, historically have not these invasions resulted in the the people being invaded engaging in violence to expel the invaders?

I think you are mis-representing the intentions of the Zionists invaders here, as some how being victims of Palestinains aggression, they were there to set up there own country and turf out the indigenous population, which is hardly a peaceful endevour.

Manic Moran

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

israelsolcamp

a common misperception is to call the palestinians the indigenous people. israeli jews, who can trace their lineage and connection to israel longer back than palestinians (palestine only arose as a term during the Roman conquest).

for example, hypothetically (say, after the plantations) had the british actually driven out the irish (and by the way this isn't what happened in israel - 20% of israelis are arab you probably know), had the irish then re-conquered ireland, you wouldn't call it driving out the indigenous (english).

just an analogy - know doubt one that you'll disagree with, but just trying to demonstrate a point.

the palestinians also have a claim to israel, but the point is that BOTH belligerents have valid calims to the land, not just one. unfortunately, that's why a two state solution is necessary (it would be nice if they could live in peace in a unified state but let's be realistic)

israelsolcamp

i also agree with manic moran's point. israel's refusal to cooperate with the goldstone report was sheer stupidity. obviously if israel did't give its side of the story the report would come out uneven. just amazing the obstinence of whoever made that policy call.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

How could the pressure Israel to do anything? Israel has constantly ignored UN resolutions for example.

If one of the parties refuses to cooperate in a criminial investigation, the investigation still goes ahead. If we were to not carry out investigations due to one side refusing to take part, then all any would have to do to halt any investigation would be to refuse to take part. Israel has only itself to blame for not taking part, and the UN were right to go ahead with the investigation, as if they didn't they could be held hostage by any regime, as any regime could refuse to cooperate with a investigation.

Shin Bet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, you can make the arguments that there was excessive focus on Israeli actions, or that the report cannot be treated as totally conclusive due to the fact that the Israelis failed to co-operate with it (in which case, the Israelis can rightfully expect a PR backlash), but you can't justify failing to analyse acts of the conflict on the basis that the causes of the conflict weren't addressed.

Thats equivalent to condeming the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki without taking into account the second world war,
Lets not forget this is the same UN who after getting evidence that Hezzbollah have stockpiled weapons in southern Lebannon chooses to issue a statemnt saying they havent.
hezzbollah had an arms dump explode on them,
South Lebanese locals have come out against them on Lebanese tv saying they are stockpiling,
and last week a huge amount of weaponary was Intercepted by Israeli forces bound for Hezzbollah and Hamas and also Yemen has announced it has intercepted a ship carring Iranian arms bound for terrorists.

Yet what has the Un said about this ? Who condems the terrorists well its not Ireland and its not the Un.
Rockets have started from Lebanon again if they continue and build to a level akin to 2006 the Israel defence forces will have no choice but to act to defend its people from terror. yet the Un will sit and do nothing but as soon as Israel starts a defensive procedure they will come out of the hole they have dug for themselves and blame everything on Israel.

Rockets and mortars are still being fired from Gaza to southern Israel
where is the Un condeming these attacks on Innocent people ?

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

a common misperception is to call the palestinians the indigenous people. israeli jews, who can trace their lineage and connection to israel longer back than palestinians (palestine only arose as a term during the Roman conquest).

The common mis-conception is that the name of a people somehow denotes there ancestory. Names change over time you know. The Palestinians are the indigenous people, they are descended from the various peoples who lives in Israel/Palestine e.g. Jews, Greeks, Arabs, and Romans etc.

So to deny that they are indigenous on the basis of the current name there called, is ridiculous.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

for example, hypothetically (say, after the plantations) had the british actually driven out the irish (and by the way this isn't what happened in israel - 20% of israelis are arab you probably know), had the irish then re-conquered ireland, you wouldn't call it driving out the indigenous (english).

Israel did drive out Palestinians, just not all of them.

As for the rest, see my reply above. The Palestinians are descended from all the groups who have lived in the area. People inter marry and every one becomes mixed, so it sort of hard to say who descended from a invader or whatever.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

just an analogy - know doubt one that you'll disagree with, but just trying to demonstrate a point.

I disagree with it, as genetic evidence has shown the Palestinians to be the indigenous population , so your anaology is pretty meaningless.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

the palestinians also have a claim to israel, but the point is that BOTH belligerents have valid calims to the land, not just one. unfortunately, that's why a two state solution is necessary (it would be nice if they could live in peace in a unified state but let's be realistic)

Israeli's have a valid claim now, as they live there now.

However, when Zionists first came to Palestine, there claim was based on some stuff in the Bible for the Religous and a 2000 year old land claim for the secular, both fo which are ridiculous.

MrMicra

I am a member of the Irish Friends of Israel and in my opinion anyone claiming that opposition to any specific Israeli Policy is antisemitic should be ignored.

The claim that one can't be critical of a country whose right to exist and to defend one affirms itself is absurd. By the way Richard Goldstone is himself religiously and ethnically Jewish and a Zionist in the normal sense of the word (I am a Zionist in the ordinary sense of the word but not Jewish).

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I think the UN went about this whole report the wrong way. I wouldn't endorse it either.

The report is flawed. It has to be, it only took account the evidence provided by one side of the two parties. Instead of carrying on with trying to write up the report, the UN should instead have pressued Israel to co-operate with the report's creation. That could have been justified and without controversy. Yet, instead, the UN went and made a decision on a report made on the basis of 'best information available, albeit from one side only'.

I could draw an analogy with another controversial event.

NTM

Yes, because the UN has such a wonderful record of pressuring Israel into co-operating on anything...infact what pressure do you think they could have put on them? If Israel decided not to co-operate it was either no report or a report from one side, its not the UN's fault.

It really is one of the strangest things I have heard you say MM.

MrMicra

wes wrote: »

However, when Zionists first came to Palestine, there claim was based on some stuff in the Bible for the Religous and a 2000 year old land claim for the secular, both fo which are ridiculous.

It was a different era. It was the age of colonialism and the construction of nationalism in Europe some of which explicitly Jews from the national communities that the nationalist intellectuals sought to create.

Political Zionism was a reaction to political factors.

That said the memory of Israel had in fact sustained the Jews in Europe for a very very long time and until recently to be Jewish and to accept the commandments were the same thing.

It is true that zionists did not think about the Arab population of that part of the Ottoman empire that they wanted to live in; in the same way the the Irish in Australia did not consider the Aboriginal population when they emigrated to Australia European Jews did not consider the Arab population.

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

It was a different era. It was the age of colonialism and the construction of nationalism in Europe some of which explicitly Jews from the national communities that the nationalist intellectuals sought to create.

It being a different era is a poor excuse, when Israel was founded, Colonialism was starting to end. Still, my point stands, Zionists were invaders and this caused violence against them.

MrMicra wrote: »

Political Zionism was a reaction to political factors.

Yes, I am well aware of that, but it still doesn't change that Zionists were invaders, which was the point I was making. They were hardly innocent victims of the Palestinians.

MrMicra wrote: »

That said the memory of Israel had in fact sustained the Jews in Europe for a very very long time and until recently to be Jewish and to accept the commandments were the same thing.

Which is pretty nuts imho. I can claim to have a "memory" of Africa (or Iran, Afghanistan or India), and it would not give me a right to go there and steal there land, and if I tried to take land from the people living there, they would of course fight me.

MrMicra wrote: »

It is true that zionists did not think about the Arab population of that part of the Ottoman empire that they wanted to live in; in the same way the the Irish in Australia did not consider the Aboriginal population when they emigrated to Australia European Jews did not consider the Arab population.

Someone else doing it, is not a defence of any sort, but once again, you fail to address my point, which is that invading a country, will result in violence against the invader. Whatever excuses a invader may come up with to justify it is a meaningless response to my point.

israelsolcamp

actually wes most of the land was sold to jew by absentee palestinian landlords. the israelis did not drive the arabs out. on the contrary the arabs DID drive jews out of the many lands that they had lived in for centuries before the establishment of israel. actually, as we speak the jews of yemen are being attacked and are being airlifted by the us to either the us or israel.

i agree that calling anti-israel comments anti-semitic is generally counterprodutive. not always though. unfortunately some comments cross the line and deserve to be called antisemitic. for instance while wes's arguments seem well-reasoned, and i wouldn't call him anti-semitic (just virulently anti-israel), there are many posters on this board whose blind hatred of israel really makes you wonder.

Manic Moran

Thats equivalent to condeming the United States for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki without taking into account the second world war,

Actually, I have no problem with that either. Except for the fact that under the rules that WWII was being conducted, neither event was unlawful, so I would argue such condemnation on the basis of the facts of the act itself. How the US ended up in World War II is just as irrelevant to its conduct in the war as the concept of how Israel ended up launching its Gaza offensive is to its conduct in the war. For the record, even the US Army's manuals make the distinction.

Yes, because the UN has such a wonderful record of pressuring Israel into co-operating on anything...infact what pressure do you think they could have put on them? If Israel decided not to co-operate it was either no report or a report from one side, its not the UN's fault.

It really is one of the strangest things I have heard you say MM.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

NTM

MrMicra

I agree that invading a country will result in violence against the invader. However the modern state of Israel is not the result of an invasion. I don't think that you are making the claim that Jewish displaced persons who entered British Mandate Palestine illegally after the second world war constituted an invading force.

The Jews did not take anybody's land insofar as the 1947 borders are concerned. I believe that Israel does not have a right to the west bank and the Gaza strip but I would suggest that Israel did not gain control of those territories through invasion.

My point is simply that political zionism was a movement of its time, being a victim does not give one a right to victimise others.

wes

israelsolcamp wrote: »

actually wes most of the land was sold to jew by absentee palestinian landlords. the israelis did not drive the arabs out.
on the contrary the arabs DID drive jews out of the many lands that they had lived in for centuries before the establishment of israel. actually, as we speak the jews of yemen are being attacked and are being airlifted by the us to either the us or israel.

Ok, most of the land was not bought, firstly. Only a tiny precentage of Palestine was actually bought, there are plenty of maps and information online that proves this, and it has long ago be established that the claim your making is false.

Also, Zionists did kick out many Palestinians, as evidence by all those refugee's, calling it a "enforced exiile", is pretty damn ridiculous attemp of denialism.

Also, other Arab states kicking out Jews (which occured after 1948 btw), does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and neither can they be held responsible for the actions of other states.

israelsolcamp wrote: »

i agree that calling anti-israel comments anti-semitic is generally counterprodutive. not always though. unfortunately some comments cross the line and deserve to be called antisemitic. for instance while wes's arguments seem well-reasoned, and i wouldn't call him anti-semitic (just virulently anti-israel), there are many posters on this board whose blind hatred of israel really makes you wonder.

If you feel a poster is Anti-semetic, than use the report button and let the mods deal with it then. Making non-specific accusations of Anti-semetism against non specific groups of people, isn't going to help your cause, and will look like a general attemp at smearing the other side of the argument.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the Goldstone report, its ratification, and the support for it amongst various posters. Why, then, did the UN go to all the trouble of creating the thing if it didn't intend to do anything with it afterwards?

The report was done due to requests from member states if I remember correctly.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

The report was done due to requests from member states if I remember correctly.

Because they had nothing to read that night?

You don't go spending money and effort creating reports unless there's an intended purpose.

NTM

wes

MrMicra wrote: »

I agree that invading a country will result in violence against the invader. However the modern state of Israel is not the result of an invasion. I don't think that you are making the claim that Jewish displaced persons who entered British Mandate Palestine illegally after the second world war constituted an invading force.

Zionists were showing up long before World War 2 and as such were a invading force, as they intended to set up there own country.

MrMicra wrote: »

The Jews did not take anybody's land insofar as the 1947 borders are concerned. I believe that Israel does not have a right to the west bank and the Gaza strip but I would suggest that Israel did not gain control of those
territories through invasion.

It is a well established fact that thousands of Palestinians had there land taken from them during the 1948 conflict. There is really no point in saying otherwise, as this is a well established fact at this point.

As for the West Bank and Gaza, those were occupied during the 1967 conflict, so I have no clue what you are trying to say, as that is also a well established fact.

MrMicra wrote: »

My point is simply that political zionism was a movement of its time, being a victim does not give one a right to victimise others.

Yeah, I can agree with your there, but that is the argument that Zionsts made to defend the creation of Israel, and they still make that argument to justify actions today.