Israel 'unlikely' to cooperate in Gaza probe

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"An Israeli government official says Israel is "very unlikely" to cooperate with a U.N. probe into whether Israel and Hamas committed war crimes in the recent Gaza war.

The investigation is headed by Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Goldstone was appointed by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council this month.

The Israeli official said Wednesday that Israel sent its response a week ago. He spoke on condition of anonymity and said he could not elaborate because it's not clear if Goldstone has been briefed.

The New York-based group Human Rights Watch urged Israel and Hamas to cooperate. Rights groups say they suspect both sides violated rules of war in Gaza.

Hamas said Wednesday it would cooperate."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD97IS9L00

[Jefferson23]

1. Disappointing but not in the least surprising.

[azurnoir]

2. The title could be the understatement of the week n/t

[Scurrilous]

3. Human rights Watch urges Israel - Palestinians to comply with UN investigation

<snip>

"Human Rights Watch, a New York based organization, urged Israelis and Palestinians to comply with a UN investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity communited during the IOFs recent Gaza invasion that left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead.

The group states internal IOF investigations into wrongful death and arrests of Palestinian civilians were insufficeint and prone to bias

Jewish South African Judge Richard Goldstone was appointent by the UN Human rights council to head the investigation on Arpil 3rd. Goldstone is the former cheif prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal in Rwanda and Serbia.

He is a member of the Human Rights Watch Board. Human Rights Watch sent letters supporting Goldstone to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 27 European union Foreign Ministers asking them to endorse the investigation.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch said in a statement that Goldstone "has the experience and proven commitment to ensure that this inquiry will demonstrate the highest standards of impartiality."

http://www.paltelegraph.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=552:human-rights-watch-urges-israel-palestinians-to-comply-with-un-investigation&catid=58:gaza-strip&Itemid=182

[oberliner]

4. What is the IOF?

How long has The Palestine Telegraph been around? What kind of source is it?

[Vegasaurus]

5. People on this forum have used the term IOF

for Israeli Occupation Forces, as opposed to its real acronym, IDF.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I guess it's short for "Israeli Occupation Force", i.e. the IDF

The PT is an electronic newspaper at http://www.paltelegraph.com/ - I have no idea how reputable it is. It clearly has an agenda, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not reliable.

[oberliner]

8. It appears to have come into existence in February of this year

It was created by a few thoughtful Palestinian youths and run by volunteers according to this website:

http://gazatoday.blogspot.com/2009/02/first-electronic-newspaper-palestine.html

[azurnoir]

7. The link is there check it out

the paper also runs non-I/P related stories, and general world and US news, however would you say that JPost or Ha'aretz have an agenda

[oberliner]

10. This online "paper" appears to be only a few months old

As opposed to the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, both of which predate the existence of the state of Israel.

[azurnoir]

12. The age of the publication has little to do with an agenda n/t

[oberliner]

13. Could not agree more

Agenda can be determined by the objectivity of the reporting. Like for example using IOF instead of IDF or running the headline "Israel bombs fishing boat in Gaza" to describe the recent incident with the explosive-laden boat.

[azurnoir]

18. While I am sure there is a certain urgency to discredit

another Palestinian news source this one falls flat, some other headlines

US eases travel, money restraints on Cuba

U.S. soldier killed by armor-piercing projectile

Doctors Assist in CIA Torture

Pakistan falling into Taliban hands

Shoe Protest: Is this journalism

as to IDF being referred to as IOF if you are a Palestinian who lives in OPT IDF is not defending you they are indeed occupying you

ETA on the subject of the fishing boat perhaps the publishers read the same "mistranslation" as the English language versions of the story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x270960

[oberliner]

26. Having an agenda doesn't discredit the source

There are many sources that have agendas that are still very much credible such as Ma'an News or MEMRI. One just has to take their agenda into account when evaluating the information presented therein.

[Fozzledick]

9. A bit more detail on the Israeli response

Human Rights Watch noted that it has criticized the Human Rights Council in the past "for its exclusive focus on Israeli rights violations." However, Goldstone has the "experience and proven commitment to ensure that this inquiry will demonstrate the highest standards of impartiality," the group said.

The Israeli government official said Israel sent its response concerning cooperation to the UN agency a week ago. He spoke on condition and said he could not elaborate because it's not clear whether Goldstone has been briefed.

Israel's ambassador to UN organizations in Geneva said Tuesday Israel does not have faith in the UN Human Rights Council.

"(It's) not about Justice Goldstone. It has nothing to do with him," the Israeli envoy, Aharon Leshno Yaar, said. "It's clear to everybody who follows this council and the way that it treats Israel that justice cannot be the outcome of this mission."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078502.html

[shira]

11. Analysis: Goldstone mission just another unfair UN fact-finding farce, I'm afraid

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1239488119600

"...Further to the questionable basis of the mission's mandate, some thought might be given to the mission's composition. Without impinging on the good intentions and bona fides of Goldstone, it might be noted that Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, together with other British academics, addressed a letter to The Guardian on January 5 that was extremely critical of Israel's action in the Gaza Strip.

The letter called upon the UK to revoke support for new agreements with Israel, and upon the EU to refuse extending existing agreements and to prevent upgrades of EU benefits to Israel.

Could Israel really expect a fair hearing from a mission member who has openly gone on record criticizing and advocating sanctions against Israel?"

[Idealism]

14. Slobodan Milosevic would agree with JPost on this issue, and many others. n/t

[shira]

16. your tax dollars pay for the UNHRC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Accusations_of_anti_Israeli_bias

Swell job they do, hmm?

[Idealism]

17. My tax dollars also help pay for armaments to Israel.

Swell job they do, hmm? :eyes:

[shira]

19. the topic is the UNHRC

What do you think of the wiki article on the UNHRC and its disproportionate focus on Israel?

[Idealism]

20. The criticism of the UNHRC in the past focusing on Israel is amusing.

"Others do equally bad things!" No one should get a free pass, but it is interesting that Israel uses the same defense as the former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori when he was recently standing trial for crimes against humanity.

[shira]

21. you read that part of the WIKI article on the UNHRC and that's all you have to write?

[Idealism]

22. So your solution is what? Ignore Israel's offenses of human rights?

How will that advance rights anywhere, which by the way is the councils goal?

[shira]

23. assuming all those UNHRC accusations are legit (and they're not)

how does focusing so much time and energy demonizing Israel help advance human rights worldwide?

It doesn't.

And that's a crime.

States hostile to human rights continue to manipulate the UNHRC to suit their nefarious purposes and therefore undermine human rights causes elsewhere around the globe. The upcoming Durban II conference (and its ugly predecessor Durban I) is a prime example of states who are hostile to human rights hypocritically using human rights as a weapon that suits their own purposes.

I don't know what's worse. The fact they do this or the fact you and many others could apparently care less - so long as Israel continues to be demonized. Don't you realize there are grave human rights violations worldwide which do not receive even a small fraction of the attention I/P gets? What about those hundreds of millions of people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x269215#269789

You wrote the above not too long ago. Unless you've changed, the UNHRC should absolutely make your blood boil.

My solution is simple. Human Rights causes in order of magnitude from greatest to least should be dealt with proportionally by an unbiased, impartial body.

[azurnoir]

24. Wouldn't you as one being concerned about

human rights abuses think that UNHRC should be taking a close look at the US concerning Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

[shira]

28. to answer your question, look at the very last line in the post right before yours.

[azurnoir]

30. would that be yes or no?

should the US be investigated for war crimes?

[shira]

34. from greatest to least in magnitude, all alleged war crimes in all countries should be investigated

by an impartial body, so YES, that would include the USA. Incidentally, do you agree or disagree?

[azurnoir]

36. Of course I think the US should be investigated for war crimes

as should Israel as should Hamas albeit Hamas has already agreed to such an investigation

[shira]

37. sorry - do you agree that from greatest to least in magnitude, all alleged war crimes and human

rights violations worldwide - from all countries - should be examined by an impartial investigating body? That means no giving shortshrift to greater violations worldwide in favor of singling out, etc.

[azurnoir]

38. depends on magnitude of course for some

or you any country will do as long as Israel is last on the list right I mean a mere what was 1400 just a drop in the bucket, but then again who is to decide an impartial body?

[shira]

39. yeah, it's really tough distinguishing between the magnitude of Darfur and Zimbabwe vs. Israel

Gee, I'm not sure we can trust anyone to find intelligent, unbiased representative people around the world who could ever comprise an impartial body devoted to properly investigating and ruling on such abuses - from order of greatest to least magnitude.

:eyes:

Some people here, unfortunately, seem to believe Israel deserves 10x more focus than Darfur and Zimbabwe combined.

[azurnoir]

62. Yes I guess the

most moral (occupying) army in the world not to mention the only democracy in the middle east (who is supplied with state of the art weapons) can not possibly as deserving or could possibly commit war crimes on the magnitude of a country like Sudan or Zimbabwe, who's civil wars have produced a greater death toll.

eta so using your magnitude meter here do you feel the US is more deserving of a war crimes investigation than Israel or will you merely mumble something else about magnitude to get out of honestly answering the question?

[shira]

68. lol.....you think Sudan and Zimbabwe are of the same scale as Israel/Gaza

It's not as if Israeli civilians were being barraged by rockets or anything, and from a militia firing rockets and hiding intentionally among its civilians. Yeah, big time warcrimes prolly committed by the "IOF" in their "pretend" self-defense.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

70. I said nothing of the kind

I said the death in those civil wars was higher than in Gaza, BTW what is the Israeli death toll from those rocket barrages as compared to Darfur and Zimbabwe or Gaza for that matter?

btw you did not answer my question but that could be taken as an answer

[shira]

72. but it appears you don't really have a problem with Zimbabwe and Sudan taking a backseat to Israel

And who cares what the Israeli death toll is due to rocket barrages? What an absurd question. Should they wait until Hamas gets lucky or increases their rocket range so that it hits more populated cities? Maybe wait another 6-12 months until the death toll passes 100 or 500? Maybe 1000. Is that enough to warrant a response? Just wait until it happens? Or is this waiting for the worst just an Israel rule not applicable to any other nation under similar threat?

And the answer to your last question that I didn't answer before is YES.

[azurnoir]

73. Thanks for the answer and being honest about the fact that you

approve of Israels government more than you that of my country I guess you must be Israeli which is fine. As to my having a problem with Zimbabwe and Darfur of course I do however this is the Israel Palestine forum and neither of those countries are involved in the I/P conflict which is why they seem not to be discussed by many here.

[shira]

75. what? um, okay....have a nice day.

[Idealism]

31. To you an organization is no longer credible if in its history it has made mistakes?

[shira]

35. mistakes are one thing.....you think the UNHRC has just made a few mistakes?

What does the UNHRC have to do to be considered wholly illegitimate?

[Idealism]

42. It is not an unchanging body, the membership rotates, Shira

Do you have a problem with Goldstone, because it seems no one does outside of you

[shira]

43. and yet their hostility and impartiality remains - something you cant come to grips with

It's not Goldstone I have a problem with. He appears to be a great man.

You do understand others on the panel besides Goldstone have already weighed in and declared Israel guilty before carrying out their investigation?

[Idealism]

44. What evidence do you provide that "the hostility and impartiality remains?"

What have they done since the newest seating to offend you? And no, they didn't "declare Israel guilty." One of the members on the panel signed a letter asking to halt EU upgraded ties to Israel until an investigation into OCL can be found, why is that unacceptable to you? Do you not wish to know the truth?

[shira]

45. three pieces of evidence

1. The UNHRC has never opened an investigation, nor is it likely to do so, on Hamas human shields, you know - the type Hezbollah used that AI documented according to your own citations but which you now deny in order to defend HRW for who knows what reason. It's pretty difficult trying to investigate Israel's actions without going into the details about Hamas human shields. Realize they're war crimes that put the blame on Hamas for civilian casualties. As we know, going into any great investigation into human shields would kinda take the sting out of the inquisition against Israel, now wouldn't it?

2. If a member on the panel has openly admitted her impartiality towards Israel - that person should recuse herself from duty, just as any judge or jury member with a preconceived bias would, or would be forced to do so. Same reasoning. You cannot expect a fair hearing from such a person.

3. Richard Falk. Enough said.

[Idealism]

46. Impartiality is not implied due to signing a petition asking for an investigation

If you truly wished human rights to be upheld as sacrosanct, you would too sign a petition wanting to find the truth of the matter.

The UNHRC's investigations come at the behest of member nations, not at the council.

Richard Falk is one of the best journalists of our time. He is a bit grandiose, but that is just his style and does not take away from his 30 year history of reporting what he sees. He has nothing to do with commissions, he is just a raporteur

[shira]

47. too silly to reply to....have a nice day

And lemme know when you're ready to resume our conversation on Hizbullah human shields that Amnesty Int'l reported on (thanks for citing that by the way) and which you later denied (in order to defend HRW's claims that there was no evidence of shields).

[Idealism]

48. Later denied? AI reported that it wasn't systemic in any way, which you claim to be incorrect

as if you were in Lebanon at the time to dispute AI and HRW. You claimed Hizbullah guilty because, of all things, their military buildings are located in the same towns as homes! That is fucking hilarious.

[shira]

49. yes, denied.......HRW found no evidence of Hizbullah human shields, remember?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html#2.3.5.1.3.5%20Precautions%20in%20defence%20and%20%E2%80%9Chuman%20shields%E2%80%9D|outline

Warring parties have obligations to take precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks by the adversary. Additional Protocol I requires each party to avoid, to the maximum extent feasible, locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas (Article 58(b)).

International humanitarian law also expressly prohibits the use of tactics such as using “human shields” to prevent an attack on military targets. According to Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Intentionally shielding a military objective using civilians is a war crime.

Palestinian families caught up in the current fighting in the Gaza Strip report that in some cases Palestinian gunmen have agreed to vacate areas near civilian homes without firing at Israeli forces when local residents have objected to their presence. In other cases, however, they have refused the residents’ requests and only left after firing. In still other cases, residents say they were too scared to ask the gunmen to leave.

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have unlawfully endangered civilians in Gaza by firing rockets into Israel from densely populated residential areas.

=================================================

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/070/2006/en/3b4f8a10-d40b-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde150702006en.html

Furthermore, Article 50(3) of Protocol I states that: “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.”

Hizbullah reportedly have been launching rockets and missiles from residential areas, thereby endangering civilians in the vicinity. Their fighters are also said to be sheltering among civilians in villages and cities, and Israeli officials claim that Hizbullah are storing weapons in civilian homes. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is a war crime. (ICC Statute, Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)).

[Idealism]

50. "Reportedly", "Claims", "Said to be"... opening arguments at best, not the verdict.

[shira]

51. okay, so why aren't you as lenient when it comes to claims and reports against the IDF?

"Reports, claims, said to be" are good enough for you when it comes to allegations against Israel. Why not against Hamas or Hizbullah?


Listen, I'm all for opening investigations based on such claims and reports - provided they're fair and impartial. There's simply no way to honestly disassociate civilians killed by the IDF from Hizbullah or Hamas's deliberate exploitation of human shields. I'm certain you realize this. It's completely disingenuous to file reports and come to verdicts against Israel when Hamas or Hizbullah human shield exploitation is ignored. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

[Idealism]

52. I am not a judge in some case

I did not convict the IDF of crimes, although they are probably guilty of them just like Hamas is. I would love to see everyone tried and convicted for crimes they commit.

Something you forget too is urban warfare is extremely difficult under the Geneva Accords to carry out without breaking some form of law. Because of Lebanon and Gazas being fought defensively, this is naturally where the battle will go. If Israel was being invaded, the situations would be reversed (as they have been in the past).

[shira]

53. look at post #41 for now

notice anything odd about it?

And BTW, I'm trying to keep on topic. Think of how it applies to our discussion. Lemme know what you think.

[shira]

58. it's good you're not a judge

1. You say you'd love to see everyone tried and convicted for crimes they commit, but for some odd reason, when presented with overwhelming evidence of deliberate and cynical human shield exploitation (which BTW is more evidence than you or anyone else possesses against the IDF for any and all claims of warcrimes) you go into denial mode. It doesn't seem at all as though you want to see everyone tried and convicted for crimes they commit. It appears you want Israel tried for warcrimes while evidence of Hamas or Hezbollah shields is suppressed - making Israel out to be more villainous.

2. Israel fought defensively against Hamas and Hizbullah. Israel's citizens were under attack in both wars. No one denies that both Hamas and Hizbullah didn't provoke and start each recent war.


Here's a little more from a couple of reporters extremely hostile towards Israel:

Robert Fisk

"But they may be correct. The Hezbollah are firing missiles from villages in southern Lebanon, just as, for example, when the Israelis entered southern Lebanon and go into places like Bent Jabail, they're using civilian houses as cover for their tanks, so the Hezbollah use houses as cover for their missile launching."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14294.htm

How can a villager prevent the Hizbollah from firing rockets from his street? The Hizbollah do take cover beside civilian houses just as Israeli troops entering Bint Jbeil last week also used civilian homes for cover. But can this be the excuse for slaughter on such a scale?

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07312006.html


Pity the Nation, 2001, pp. 670-673
“Lebanese would drift from the truth, claiming that there was no Hezbollah men firing from the village,”
“It was not the first time the guerillas had fired their missiles at the Israelis from near a U.N. position,”

=========================================================


Hala Jaber

“The continued presence of civilians in the area is vital for the movement and protection of Hezbollah fighters: the success of the Islamic Resistance depends upon the cooperation and hospitality of the villagers for their support,”

“Hezbollah therefore demands that civilians remain in their homes and villages in the face of Israeli threats and reprisals. In return, it guarantees them assistance and ensures that they are provided with all the requirements necessary for their-day-to-day survival.”

Hezbollah; Born with a Vengeance, p. 156
http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0231108346

[EFerrari]

25. What sane person or body hasn't criticized the Israeli government yet?

[varelse]

15. That is a shame

I hope that Israeli leaders will change their minds about this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I'm sure most criminals wouldn't cooperate with the police if given the choice...

What would Israel have to gain by cooperating?

If - as Israel claims - the mission is biased, it will report that Israel has committed war crimes.

If - as is almost certainly the case - it isn't, it will report that Israel has committed war crimes, because it has.

So either way, if it goes ahead, Israel is going to be condemned. By refusing to cooperate and condemning the result before it's even begun, they can a) probably hush up some of what they've done better b) claim that the results are flawed, because they didn't have access to Israel's side of the story, and c) rubbish the mission for being biased more effectively.

Expecting criminals to cooperate with the police investigating them is just naive.

[shira]

29. you can't be serious

"If - as is almost certainly the case - it isn't (BIASED), it will report that Israel has committed war crimes, because it has."

Of course it's biased.

1. This commission was chosen by the UNHRC. The UNHRC has never been known to be impartial and unbiased WRT Israel. They've never even tried to cover up the fact that they are hostile towards Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Accusations_of_anti_Israeli_bias

2. Members of this "fact-finding" mission have already made up their mind before ever beginning their investigation.

Further to the questionable basis of the mission's mandate, some thought might be given to the mission's composition. Without impinging on the good intentions and bona fides of Goldstone, it might be noted that Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, together with other British academics, addressed a letter to The Guardian on January 5 that was extremely critical of Israel's action in the Gaza Strip.

The letter called upon the UK to revoke support for new agreements with Israel, and upon the EU to refuse extending existing agreements and to prevent upgrades of EU benefits to Israel.

Could Israel really expect a fair hearing from a mission member who has openly gone on record criticizing and advocating sanctions against Israel?

[Sezu]

33. Why the surprise? He's obviously a "Israel commits war crimes,"

type of guy and if the probe went ahead and Israel was found innocent he still would be pissed. Some armchair lawyers like to hear their own voices no matter what the actual LAW says about war crimes.

[bemildred]

32. So there's still a chance they might? nt

[shira]

40. Essay: Let's seek a true legal investigation of the Gaza war

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1239710707765

The UN Human Rights Council's appointment of Richard Goldstone to serve as the head of a mission investigating Gaza-related war crimes and human rights violations triggered my memories of our time together as visiting professors at Fordham Law School in New York.

At the time, Judge Goldstone and I were asked to debate the merits of a recent International Court of Justice decision concerning Israel's security barrier in the West Bank. It turned out not to be much of a debate. I argued that the decision was a travesty: legally insupportable and inexcusably biased against Israel. Goldstone agreed in substance but asked that we believe in the judges' good faith.

If Goldstone is to live up to the standards of intellectual honesty and impartiality he has set for himself, he has no choice but to take immediate steps to root out the bias at the core of his investigation.

<snip>

[shira]

41. Who was the subject of this HRW warcrime report?

"Human Rights Watch has conducted a thorough investigation of civilian deaths... On the basis of this investigation, Human Rights Watch has found that there were ninety separate incidents involving civilian deaths ... Some 500 ... civilians are known to have died in these incidents. ... nine incidents were a result of attacks on non-military targets that Human Rights Watch believes were illegitimate. ... Thirty-three incidents occurred as a result of attacks on targets in densely populated urban areas ... the use of cluster bombs was a decisive factor in civilian deaths in at least three incidents. ... In its investigation Human Rights Watch has found no evidence of war crimes."

Anyone think Israel was the subject of this investigation?

Any guesses?

[Idealism]

54. Yugoslavia

[shira]

55. well, right - it was in Yugoslavia but NATO was the one killing civilians

Now based on just the little bit you read, what do you think about HRW finding no evidence of war crimes by NATO?

[Idealism]

56. War Crimes are not the same thing as breaking International Law

Did you know that?

[shira]

57. I'm not making that distinction for now

You realize how HRW found no evidence of NATO warcrimes despite their findings. In a battle that NATO was not fighting defensively.

Israel fights a defensive battle (its own civilians being targeted and killed) against rocket attacks fired from dense civilian populations but is accused of warcrimes by HRW.

And this isn't a big deal?

[Idealism]

59. Here is the report, dear

"In its investigation Human Rights Watch has found no evidence of war crimes. The investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law."

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

A War Crime= grave breach of International Law

The terms are not synanyms, rather degrees. You should make that distinction because it is important in understanding International Law. You can break international law without it committing war crimes. War Crimes are things like genocide, chem/biological warfare that careful precautions were not taken to avoid civilian areas and quarantine zones, some acts of aggression, etc.

I don't know who told you it "wasn't a big deal," but they are misinformed. All breaches of law are big deals but it seems some people like to say "Look over here at what happened, you can't be mad at us for doing similar until you try them." That defense needs to be put to an end.

[shira]

60. you don't get it

HRW found no evidence of war crimes against NATO, but with apparently the same evidence against Israel (even though Israel is defending its own civilians / NATO did not, and don't forget human shields) is labeled by HRW as war crimes. In fact HRW is still calling for war crimes investigations against Israel.

It's rather distressing that you remain unfazed by all this obvious bias and hostility against Israel.

[Idealism]

61. Every country thinks human rights groups are biased against them

HRW has labeled White Phosphorous use in civilian areas a war crime- because it is.

What else have they claimed to be a war crime? Evidence? Investigations into the possibility of war crimes is not a) proclaiming there to have been war crimes committed b) a sign of guilt.

It is rather distressing that you truly don't care about human rights.

[shira]

63. you're still trying to score points - - here's a different line of questioning

I'm going out on a limb now speaking for all Jews that I personally know (and it's a lot actually, I'm Jewish and live in a very Jewish suburb in the Boston area). Now this is from personal experience, mind you.

When we (that's me and my fellow Jews) speak of Israel, we're all in basic agreement about the obvious bias and hostility towards Israel. We're not speaking tinfoil hat time either. We're merely preaching to the choir and there just isn't that much to argue b/c we're all in basic agreement, whether the Jews are RW or LW, it doesn't matter. Israeli Jews are the same way. I also have many friends there.

Sure, some of the RW'ers - not all though - are pro-settlements, it's because of God, Arabs are bad, etc. We have arguments over that. We argue about the occupation. We argue over whether the IDF is doing the best it can. Whether Likud sucks or not. Women's issues in Israel. Arab equal rights in Israel. We joke about jewish conspiracies and lobbies - we argue over AIPAC vs. J-Street. It goes on and on. But never over the issues that you and I are discussing now. And why not? It's just a given. As plain as the nose on your face. Everyone knows there's bias and hostility against Israel. Nothing to argue there.

Now I'm not speaking for the Norm Finkelsteins, Chomskys, Gideon Levys, etc. AFAIK they represent maybe 1-3%, if that, of Jews. I have yet to meet such a Jewish person and I've been jewish all my life, hanging out with lots of other jews. I can only imagine that if I personally knew of such a Jew and spoke to him/her, I'd find that this person probably has some mental issues. I'm not joking.

Although there are a few here and there (RW'ers) who seemingly don't give a rip about human rights when applied to Palestinians, and yes they do exist, I'd say the vast majority (including RW Jews and very observant "frum" Jews) do care very much about human rights, whether in Israel or WRT Palestinians, or anywhere else worldwide. Call it a jewish "thing". It's in the DNA, okay? I've yet to talk to any very religious Jews who don't care about Palestinian human rights. They see the tragedy there too. The ones I've talked to care very deeply about all people, including Palestinians (go figure, huh?).

But here we all are, seeing what you are not seeing.

You may not agree with me, but I believe I'm an honest and straightforward person. And this is what I know. And it's what all other Jews who I speak to WRT Israel also know. Call us crazy. As if we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

But what are your thoughts on this?

I ask because it's not just me or 1-2 like me who people like yourself are dealing with. You'll find that it's this kind of stuff, almost more than anything else unfortunately, that unites all Jews of all political persuasions in the biggest way. Like I've written, it's so obvious to us and frustrating that people like yourself don't see it. And what do we see? We see the same things our ancestors saw the last few thousand years. And it's not just distressing. It's frightening. After 70 years ago, we (secular Jews) thought that crap was pretty much over and done with and that the world wouldn't allow that to happen again. But...

Do you think we're all generally heartless? Stupid? Paranoid? Ignorant? Remember, 90% of Israeli Jews were for OCL. Meretz is one of Israel's most LW parties and they were for it. About the same percentage of American Jews were for it. That doesn't mean the other 10% against OCL are all Gideon Levys and Norman Finkelsteins, however.

I'm not asking to get into a fight. I'm serious. I want to know.

What are you really thinking?

Thanks.

[Idealism]

64. Shira, you have a hand in this fight and it is readily apparent of your bias

Bias doesn't have to be a bad thing, however. You can be biased towards Republicans and will find yourself in good company.

For the letter of the law, NATO did not commit war crimes in Yugoslavia- although they killed many civilians.

In Iraq- the US committed war crimes at Fallujah, that much is for certain, and disregarded the Conventions Against Torture.

In Afghanistan (as far as I am aware of)- the US did not commit war crimes, although they broke humanitarian law.

I am sure the Pro-Peace Israeli's (Jews, Arabs, Christians, etc) will disagree that they have "mental issues" and that their numbers are so small as that you brush them away with a "1%" of the people bullshit.

[shira]

65. thanks for.....nothing

I'm trying to impress upon you the fact that most Jews worldwide and in Israel - the vast, vast majority, well over 90% - see most accusations as those hurled here daily against Israel as nothing more than ridiculous tinfoilhat, nutjob allegations. I don't believe you realize just how absurd the accusations by the UN and other agencies are to most Jews and Israelis who know a thing or two.

The fact is most Jews and Israelis KNOW instinctively and by firsthand experience that Israelis, as a collective, simply don't have the stomach to do the outlandish things they are constantly accused of doing.

You need to take a step back and realize just how differently we view this from you.

Sure, Israel is not perfect - the occupation is bad, settlements are wrong, war is terrible, some people do bad things. Granted. But beyond that, try to understand that ALL but a very few Israelis, meaning all their cousins, brothers, sisters, moms, grandchildren, friends, etc... ALL serve in the IDF, the people's military. It is unthinkable to believe that either all Israelis are duped and ignorant of what the IDF does, or all KNOW what's going on - and worse - deny, suppress and let the IDF get away with all that it's accused of.

The IDF is not like the US, UK, or NATO militaries. Please get that through your head.

ALL Israelis are intimately connected to the IDF. It is tinfoilhat nutjobland to believe that the IDF is as ridiculously bad as advertised and that Israelis are either all ignorant of what goes on (like most Americans, Brits, etc. of their militaries) or worse, DO know what's going on but...

It's no wonder we can't agree on anything. It's as if we're speaking 2 different languages.

It's pointless to discuss anything further with you. No hard feelings.


ps
I realize you may feel as if I'm the tinfoilhat wearing, nutjob.....and so are the vast majority of others (Jews and Israelis) like myself. Oh well.

[Idealism]

66. I don't think you are a tinfoilhat wearing nutjob

nor do I think Jews, Israeli's, etc. are. I do understand your naturally predisposed to not believe the crimes that the Israeli government has committed, just as there as millions of Americans who refuse to believe that Bush committed any crimes. It doesn't change that crimes probably have been committed.

"The fact is most Jews and Israelis KNOW instinctively and by firsthand experience that Israelis, as a collective, simply don't have the stomach to do the outlandish things they are constantly accused of doing."

What outlandish things have I accused Israel of? The occupation? White Phosphorous use? Disproportionality? Because all these things happened...

Militaries are militaries, shira, which is something you don't understand. There are plenty of crazies among the sane in them that are blood-thirsty vagrants who have no regard for civilian life if they aren't fighting on their side.

Your assertion that Jews and Israeli's don't have "the stomach" to do bad things is hysterical. People do bad things, no matter who they are and where they come from. Israeli's, Jews, etc. are no different, nor are they any more moral of a people than, say, Buddhists from India.

[shira]

67. well thanks....but you must think my bias blinds me and that I'm definitely not alone

either that or I'm in full denial, or knowing better I'm trying to cover for Israel, etc...

What other choices are there? I apologize for being so blunt, but it's hard for me to hold back now. I'm just stunned.

The point is even if YOU don't believe the IDF or state of Israel collectively are bad, and you think it's just a few bad apples....that's NOT how the media portrays things, or the UN, HRW, etc.

In order for the IDF or state of Israel to be as bad as advertised, the Israeli population must either be ignorant/stupid or wholly complicit. They ALL serve. Realize please it's NOT like the USA or UK where most people don't know what the heck is going on in their own military, can therefore give Bush and company the benefit of the doubt and claim ignorance. You still disagree?

[Idealism]

69. Confirmation bias is a very hard thing to see around my dear

In psychological terms, CB is when you only read things that say what you want to here, come to the conclusions you already reach, and generally read only what confirms your beliefs. To some extent, everyone is guilty of this.

Thank you for stating that I don't believe the IDF or state of Israel is collectively bad, I honestly try hard to get people on both sides of the spectrum to try to see the humanity on the other side of the wall.

I understand that all Israeli's serve, and I am still telling you military service is an institution no matter what country it is in. It is a mindfuck of massive proportions, pardon the expression. Obedience is what they demand and condition you for. This is the same for all armies.

News coverage is in no way "biased" against Israel, especially not in the United States. There was one story that I have seen about Israel that painted them in an unfavorable light, and that caused a firestorm of complaints being lodged against 60 Minutes-- when all they reported on was the West Bank! OCL wasn't even mentioned, but the comments left on their website were disgusting. Accusations of anti-Semitism because they took a camera to Ramallah, just absurd things like that. Other than this one story, I have yet to see anything on the nightly news or papers that I read that is more critical of Israel than Palestinians. Democracy Now routinely shows the abuses of both sides, but they aren't mainstream by any measure. Other than that, I don't know of any US sources that talk about the ills of OCL. Even my favorite radio personality refuses to talk about the I/P issue (probably out of lack of knowledge/interest on the topic).

[shira]

71. then if the IDF or state of Israel collectively aren't "bad", then why the singling

out and disproportionate coverage against Israel? Because Israel isn't doing a good enough job with the bad apples? Come on! And it doesn't matter what you believe about Israel or the IDF. The general impression made by the media, UN, HRW, AI, Finkelstein, Chomsky, etc... is that the state of Israel from the start was bad....it's IDF immoral, etc. We see this here at DU daily. They don't believe it's just a few bad apples.

It seems you disagree then with the bad press Israel and its IDF gets because unlike what you say you believe, it's the STATE and its IDF being accused most of the time, not just a few bad apples. This is the impression your fellow DU comrades get at least.

The IDF demands obedience? Well, okay but so what? Do you realize how openly critical Israel is as a society? I challenge you to find a society more openly critical of itself - and DURING times of conflict as Israel has been since its inception. You think the populace is only critical to a point and won't criticize corruption or immorality in the STATE dept or IDF? Do you really believe that? If you do, you must have a VERY LOW opinion of Israelis (many in the IDF are Arabs) or Jews in general. Either that or you don't keep up with Haaretz and other Israeli publications.

[Idealism]

76. They aren't collectively bad, but do they not do bad things?

The occupation, allowing settlement expansion to run rampant, not quelling settler violence, etc. are all things they need to do some soul-searching on. If I can put any bit of pressure onto the right-wingers in charge of Israel to become more centrist (at least centrist, I know they won't slide much to the left), then I have made a little bit of difference.

The IDF is only called immoral because they, and every other army in the world, is not "moral"-- which is something the IDF claimed. Has the US Army proclaimed itself to be "the most moral army in the world?" I hope not, because thats bullshit too. As a whole, the IDF is not bad, but the few ruin it for the many when you consider the violations of human rights in their history-- very similar to how the few extremists in Palestinian society have ruined it for Gazan's.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I think it's a case of Myside bias at work...

This is from Wiki, but it's the best description I've seen:

'The term "myside bias" was coined by the geneticist, David Perkins, myside referring to "my" side of the issue under consideration. An important consequence of the myside bias is that many incorrect beliefs are slow to change and often become stronger even when evidence is presented which should weaken the belief. Generally, such irrational belief persistence results from according too much weight to evidence that accords with one's belief, and too little weight to evidence that does not. It can also result from the failure to search impartially for information.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Myside_bias

And when it comes to claims that the US media is biased against Israel, here's another cognitive bias that deals with that:

'The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions. Proponents of the hostile media effect argue that this finding cannot be attributed to the presence of bias in the news reports, since partisans from opposing sides of an issue rate the same coverage as biased against their side and biased in favor of the opposing side.<1> The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper <2>.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

I've encountered people with these biases before, mainly on an abortion debate forum I used to post on and I wondered for a long time how best to reason with them. I've pretty much come to the conclusion there's no point at all in discussing much of anything with someone like that...

[oberliner]

77. Looks like this may go forward

UN human rights investigators leaving for Gaza next week

Geneva - UN investigators will travel to the Gaza Strip and Israel next week to investigate possible human rights abuses in Israel's recent offensive, a spokesman for the council said Friday. The former chief prosecutor of the international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Richard Goldstone, will head the mission.

Late last year, Israeli authorities refused the entry of Richard Falk, the UN`s expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories.

UN officials hope the new mission, which has a mandate to look into abuses against Israelis as well, will be better received.

The Goldstone team has received positive signals from Israeli and Palestinian authorities, UN spokesman Rolando Gomez said.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/266921,un-human-rights-investigators-leaving-for-gaza-next-week.html