Today in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council finally endorsed the Goldstone Report, after an earlier Keystone Cops deliberation failed to do so. The panel investigated war crimes during the Gaza war earlier this year. Oddly though, the Council refused to include in its endorsement any reference to possible crimes of the Palestinians during that conflict, singling out only Israel for fault. Such one-sidedness provided Israel with further ammunition to claim the Council (and by extension, the Report) is one-sided and prejudiced against it. That caused Richard Goldstone to criticize the Council.
The endorsement sets several processes in motion. First, it directs both Israel and Hamas pursue a serious investigation of the incidents portrayed in the investigation. If they do not, the Council has called for referrals to either the Security Council or International Criminal Court. Presumably, the U.S. would veto consideration of the Report by the Council. I presume though that it could not prevent the ICC from taking up the matter if the latter was referred to it and it chose to do so. Goldstone has also suggested that individual countries which are signatories of the ICC treaty could also pursue cases against individuals for their culpability for actions raised in the Report.
It is hard to imagine a hard-right Israeli government (or for Hamas for that matter) undertaking a competent investigation even under such pressure. But if the Obama administration and EU join in pressuring for this, who knows what could happen. What seems clear is that if Israel refuses to investigate, that some international body will do so. That is an outcome over which Israel will have little control. This further elevates the jeopardy for IDF senior officers who could be nabbed during international travel in any number of countries which might take up the case. This makes it lately that at some point, Israel may have its own Pinochet incident to deal with.
And once the ice is broken by one case, it will be that much easier to mount others and then the floodgates are likely to open. Israel has desperately tried to staunch the flow by placing fingers in the dam, with foreign ministry lawyers preparing briefs for this eventuality. But my judgment is that it is only a matter of time, unless a peace agreement comes first, before Israelis (and presumably Palestinians as well) will be sitting before the bar of justice. There should be no impunity, as there has been till now, for either side in this matter.
I continue to be amused, in a dark sort of way, by the Israeli claim that Goldstone is “one-sided.” There would have been one solution for that–Israel cooperating with the investigation. If Israel wanted the world to hear its perspective it should have cooperated. By not doing so, it has lost the right to the one-sided claim (unless it wishes to be laughed out of the box in making it).
Sorry, that was in reply to Mary, October 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM.
Some good and balanced article regarding Arab and Jewish population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine:
link to mideastweb.org
“…Therefore we cannot conclude that Jewish settlement displaced Arabs. On the contrary, Jewish settlement may have attracted Arabs, so that in the areas that that eventually became Israel in all probability there were more Arabs than there would have been without Jewish settlement. Another explanation is that the urban areas attracted Jewish settlers and Arabs because of better standard of living and employment opportunity. Health conditions were probably somewhat better in these areas as well. Note that Table 8 is not divided according to areas that did or did not become part of Israel. Therefore the data should not be misused to claim that a large number of Arabs present in Israel in 1948 had migrated from the non-Jewish areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Beersheba district, which became part of Israel, lost about 45,000 Arabs between 1931 and 1945, if we believe the survey.
The importance of the above is that it shows that rather than “dispossessing” or displacing the Arabs of Palestine, Zionist settlement apparently attracted them…”
I suggest that instead, you may want to read Ilan Pappe’s book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.”
In 1948, the West Bank belonged to Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt. There were no “non-Jewish areas” there; it was all non-Jewish until 1967.
To all:
How do you explain the fact, that there are ~1.5 million arabs living in Israel (including big cities such as Haifa, Lod, Ramle, Akko and Jaffa), and nobody expels them, nobody does genocide to them and nobody takes their lands?
Awamori, they don’t have any land to speak of, and most of them live in Arab-only neighborhoods and their kids go to Arab-only schools. To outright murder these people would bring international attention to Israel, and so they are tolerated. However, Avigdor Lieberman dreams of expelling them, and has come up with the idea of having them sign “loyalty oaths” to the state of Israel. Thus, if the State deems they have done something disloyal, they can be legally expelled. As it is, they do not have the same rights as Israeli Jews.
I’ve been arguing with Zionists for so long that these answers come almost by rote.
Which rights they don’t have?
BTW, what do you think would happen to the Jews, if they were losing that war back in 1948?
Avigdor Liberman is a radical. He doesn’t represent common approach. This low of “no loyality, no citizintship” will never pass.
Whatever happened in 1948 is moot. I really don’t care what would have happened to the Jews in 1948 if they hadn’t “won that war” (exterminated and expelled 700,000 Palestinians). Most of the Jews settled in Europe and the US after World War II. The big move to “Israel” did not happen until much later, and when Israel offered free land and citizenship to any Jews who wanted them.
Avigdor Lieberman is a right wing Likud Kahanist who also happens to be one of the most popular and influential politicians in Israel. At one time, he did not represent “common approach,” but his popularity is increasing.
—This is good news. I agree it’s disappointing that the UN Human Rights Council didn’t mention the Qassam attacks, but by endorsing the Goldstone Report they are implicitly endorsing all that’s contained in it.
Also, the magnitude and horror of the IDF’s crimes against the Palestinians of Gaza dwarfs the Palestinians’ blind, fumbling missile attacks emanating out of Gaza toward Sderot and other Israeli targets. A false moral equivalency between Israeli and Palestinian crimes should be avoided. Israel is the occupier and the primary aggressor here.
And given the savage daily brutality so many Palestinians live under, I’d be incredibly surprised if they all turned out self-sacrificing, peace-venerating Gandhis. There’s a great article by Andrea D’Cruz in the latest Nation magazine about the regular practice of psychological—and also physical torture—practiced against Palestinian children taken by force into Israeli custody (usually for the purpose of forcing confessions). Israelis need to do some serious soul-searching concerning such sick and repulsive practices. It’s behavior like this that accounts for Israel’s current pariah status in so much of the world (particularly in exemplary countries like Norway).—
Goldstone is upset that the resolution that just passed at the UNHRC uses his report to attack Israel. Just how naive is he? Did he really think this was about being fair?
“Richard Goldstone did not hide his irritation: “This proposed resolution saddens me because it indicated that allegations against Israel. There are no words to condemn Hamas as we do in the report. I hope the Council can still edit this text. “The judge, however, defends its conclusions:” The Americans talk about errors in our report, but they do not advance a single fact to demonstrate tangible. “Despite the politicization of his report – including Hamas – it can only regret, he remains confident that it will make its way and will support peace in the region. As for the virulence of Israeli attacks, he expected, “but not to such venom. It is a sad experience. “
Second Great Zionist Fraud
The Arab States’ Intervention was a legitimate response to ethnic cleansing that the Zionist had been carrying out for months.
The United Nations Organization (UNO) should have supported the Arab intervention with the consequence that the Zionist forces would have been defeated.
A Jerusalem Tribunal could have been established to try, to convict, and to execute the Zionist leadership of Palestine, the USA, and the UK.
Such an outcome would have shown that Nuremberg Law was not simply victor’s law by applying the same standards to targets (albeit earlier collaborators) of German Nazis as was applied to the German Nazis themselves.
Because the Gaza Rampage was simply a continuation of the 1947-8 ethnic cleansing, dismantling the Zionist state and bringing the international Zionist leadership before a Jerusalem Tribunal for trial, conviction, and execution should be the goal of those committed to International Law.
Let me understand, you do support UN resolutions, when it condemn Israel, right? But somehow, you are ignoring the resolution 181…
BTW, could you please provide any RELIABLE link, which would back up yours “ethnic cleansing that the Zionist had been carrying out for months.”?
No, I am merely pointing out that the Nuremberg Tribunal in findings of fact exonerated the anti-German resistance of wrongdoing in attacks on Germans in the Sudetenland, which was annexed to Germany under International Agreement.
The clear implication tells us that until the Zionist state repatriates the native population, reconveys stolen properties to their rightful owners, and negotiates as settlement with the native population, the native population has every right under International Law to kill any Zionist colonizer anywhere in Stolen or Occupied Palestine.
In addition, if the Zionist State undertakes to defend itself from legitimate attacks by the resistance, it is essentially compounding its crimes, and the leadership of the Zionist state should be indictable for additional crimes against humanity under Rome Statute Article 15.
Zionists have been carrying out ethnic cleansing for decades, but most recent discussions of ongoing Zionist ethnic cleansing have focused on E. Jerusalem and Silwan.
Let’s don’t forget, which side has rejected a United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) and started a war in 1948.
Arab aggression coasted them in terms of lands losses and refugee camps all over ME.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine began BEFORE the outbreak of war. The fighting began BEFORE the outbreak of war. The war was mostly fought inside the Palestinian portion of the Partition.
The Partition was unfair to the Palestinian Arabs. NO ONE would have accepted such an unfair deal.
Ok, figured out how to blockquote.
A refresher on 1948.
These are foot-notes from Noam Chomsky’s book Understanding Power. In them, he cites many different sources that explain the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist forces.
Chomsky: On the extent of the Zionist-controlled territory and the number of Palestinian refugees through May 1948, see for example, David Hirst, ‘The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East’, London: Faber and Faber, 1977, pp. 123-143. An excerpt (pp. 136, 138-139, 142):
Part 2:
Chomsky: Benny Morris in, ‘The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948’, Middle Eastern Studies (London), January 1986, pp. 5-19. An excerpt (pp. 5, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 18 ):
Part Three:
The article [written by Morris] also explains how this Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch report “thoroughly undermines the traditional official Israeli ‘explanation’ [hasbara] of a mass flight ordered or ‘invited’ by the Arab leadership for political-strategic reasons”(p. 17). See also, Benny Morris, ‘The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949’, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Benny Morris, ‘1948 And After: Israel and the Palestinians’, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Since Morris’s early publications, he has noted that later declassified documents have strengthened his conclusions. See Benny Morris, ‘Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948’, in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim, eds., ‘The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948’, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 37-59. An excerpt (pp. 49, 38 ):
LD says: “There wasn’t terrorism before the Zionist movement. ”
The Jews murdered during the “ethnic cleansing” of Hebron in 1923, a town that Jews had occupied continuously for over 2,000 years, would be surprised (if they were alive) that the massacre there wasn’t terrorism. Jews do occupy the West Bank and Gaza, but the Palestinian leadership won’t give them any option, except dissolution of the State of Israel.
Duly noted, Mr. Settlements. No doubt you live in Hebron or pledge allegiance to those who do. Do you dance at Goldstein’s grave on Purim too?
Jews can get out of the West Bank, if they are sincere about wanting peace. Instead, they build more settlements. It does not take a genius to understand that the intention is to continue to steal land. Netanyahu is a dirty player par excellence; he knows that no one will stop him, not even the US. Obviously, he has great faith in his own ability to intimidate Obama (and so far, it has paid off handsomely for him) and knows the “sacrosanct” relationship Israel enjoys with the US will protect Israel from ever suffering any consequences for what it does. His public whining about the Goldstone Report is lip service to the Israeli people, but he couldn’t care less about the Goldstone Report.
Settlements were removed from Gaza and we have seen
that such a removal just allowed to Hamas to include more
Israeli cities in the range of its rockets. So why to continue removing settlements? Do you think we want “grads”
in Tel Aviv?
You are just spewing Zionist propaganda.
Everyone from Goldstone to the Boston Globe concede that Hamas honored the tahdiya, but Israel refused to lift the blockade.
In any case, until Israel repatriates the ethnically cleansed Palestinian population, reconveys stolen properties to its rightful owners, and negotiates a settlement with the native population, everyone committed to International Law should support any effort of Hamas or Islamic Jihad to include more cities in the range of rocket attacks.
Zionist colonizers have no rights under International Law to security or to self-defense.
“Settlements were removed from Gaza” because Israel did not really want Gaza. It was a brilliant move on Sharon’s part to split the Palestinian leadership and build up Hamas’ popularity so as to prevent any Palestinian unity government from ever emerging. At the same time, the settlers from Gaza relocated to the West Bank, along with new settlers, and the separation wall began to be built, so as to slice more land into chunks to be doled out to the Israelis. The West Bank is prime real estate; Israel never wanted Gaza because it is so heavily populated with Arabs. On the other hand, ethnic cleansing is a quite feasible option in the West Bank.
Why do you think the Israeli government allowed Hamas to shoot rockets into southern Israel for eight years? Do you seriously think they could not stop those rockets when they have the technology to pinpoint an old blind man in a wheelchair and annihilate him?
“Do you seriously think they could not stop those rockets when they have the technology to pinpoint an old blind man in a wheelchair and annihilate him?”
The old blind man in a wheelchair was outside in the open. The rockets were launched from inside private houses under children’s bedrooms. And still are. Two today – that I was aware of.