tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post3442042373129741580..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: When the Liberal Israeli Meets the Judge – Moshe Halbertal On the Goldstone Report: Part TwoJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-36003098949861210092009-11-18T01:10:43.752-08:002009-11-18T01:10:43.752-08:00OK Jerry.
The difference is I'm very sensiti...OK Jerry. <br /><br />The difference is I'm very sensitive about imputing malice, to Israel as a whole, when the truth was something less (even if still bad, even if a little less). I don't know about trigger-happiness, how close that is to intent, but it's far below what Goldstone imputed with such certainty. If the Report had only said, eg., "the evidence suggests Israel fired with wanton disregard for the likely consequences to civilians in Gaza," I'd be satisfied. <br /><br />Anything more feels like a leap to me. That includes, by the way, the inference from the blockade to intentionally bombing civilians. I would not conclude from the US trade embargo on Cuba, even if -- as was originally intended - every allied country folowed suit, that the US military was more likely to target Cuban civilians. These are different kinds of practices, in different contexts... We'd need to talk about Egypt's role...Apples and oranges. I'm no fan of the Israeli "seige," as you call it, but it's a huge distance from bombing civilians on purpose.<br /><br />I am a fan of Shovrim Shtikah, though, so I won't prejudge what they said, except to point out that, from what I know, they don't endorse the sweeping conclusions Goldstone reached from their testimony. Doesn't that count against the Report's condemnations, or at least some of them?Navi Mutazillinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-45751579808110282032009-11-17T16:55:03.912-08:002009-11-17T16:55:03.912-08:00Navi,
1) Which of the incidents cited by Goldston...Navi,<br /><br />1) Which of the incidents cited by Goldstone seem to you to provide the strongest case for concluding that there was deliberate harm and destruction done to civilians. <br /><br />2) What about deliberate destruction of civilian installations in order to punish? Which incidents here seem to be the strongest.<br /><br />3) You will agree, I assume, that Israel's siege is deliberate, and that it impacts the health and well-being of the Gazans. What is the distance between that and deliberately targeting, for example, the chicken farms? <br /><br />4) Why does it seem unlikely to you -- if it does -- that Israel would not have a quick finger on the trigger with respect to Gazan civilians, given the testimonies of the Breaking the Silence grouop. <br /><br />If at the end of the day, the difference between you and Goldstone, is that you feel that the report should have said, "The actions of Israel are most probably explained as willful and deliberate" rather than "Undoubtedly the actions of Israel were deliberate", then there is not that much difference. Remember, Goldstone himself called for independent investigations by Israel. He clearly thought that such an investigation would supercede his fact-finding missionJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-43919948358822821072009-11-17T15:25:11.386-08:002009-11-17T15:25:11.386-08:00Jerry,
You’re right. I focused mainly on what the...Jerry,<br /><br />You’re right. I focused mainly on what the report didn’t prove, rather than on all the considerations it did use, and the points it did establish – which, I admit, deserve attention.<br /><br />For example, the Report did show (devastatingly, in some cases): that Israel wrought untold civilian death and suffering on Gaza; that certain prior Israeli military campaigns were viewed by some participants as aimed at punishing or over-deterring a “host” population (eg. Lebanon); Israel’s nonmilitary – eg trade -- policies in Gaza and elsewhere had the effect, and possibly the aim, of punishing its people for supporting Hamas; various Israeli government officials have expressed, to the press, anger and animus towards Gaza and blustering talk about “going crazy” or teaching them a lesson; and finally, that particular Israeli soldiers on various occasions did fire on innocent civilians.<br /><br />All this is terrible, inexcusable. And I agree, it’s consistent with the possibility that Israel, as a matter of policy, sought to kill and harm civilians, beyond attacking Hamas. <br /><br />But – and here’s the rub – it’s all equally consistent with what I believe really happened, or very likely could have happened: that Israel didn’t have a standing policy to target or <br />“punish” civilians. Instead, the IDF targeted what it believed were bases of Hamas activity or weapons or sources of its rocket launching. Now that doesn’t totally let Israel off the hook for civilian death. And the amount of it is horrifying. Nor can I discount that the hostility or anger that some Israelis felt towards Gazans worked against their ability to avoid collateral damage. I’m not sure, and not comfortable about this, either. But all the facts – and everything else Goldstone gathered, such as Israel’s efforts to get civilians to leave targeted homes – are consistent with Israel believing it was attacking Hamas, and viewing civilian casualties as an unwanted cost, rather than a bonus or intended result.<br /><br />What’s mising at least some evidence of a decision, or a directive, or even a wink or a hint (“give them what they deserve”) --something! -- from someone who ordered, led or designed this operation, prescribing that civilians be targeted regardless of Hamas’s activities or presence among them. Did anyone report being directed to bomb and hit beyond any ostensible military target? Second-hand? Third-hand, at least? Or else we need evidence of destruction for which such a directive is the only plausible explanation. Or at least, something more than what Goldstone gathered, which is still equally consistent with either hypothesis.<br /><br />At any rate, there is nothing in the Report that, as it claims, “leave[s] little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.” In this and other paragraphs (1883-4), the Report does not merely raise a suspicion that Israel’s policy was to target civilians, placing the burden on Israel to prove otherwise. Rather, it concludes this outright. And it had no right to do so. And yes, the claim is slanderous. Also, I’m pretty sure, false.Navi Mutazillinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-74165343991011284112009-11-17T09:19:56.716-08:002009-11-17T09:19:56.716-08:00The Goldstone Report was rather lenient to the Sta...The Goldstone Report was rather lenient to the State of Israel in that it did not apply Nuremberg Tribunal Law (NTL) in any way.<br /><br />I live in Boston and have been asking local international legal experts what the basis is for excluding NTL from consideration.<br /><br />I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.<br /><br />Anyway here are my two blog posts on the subject:<br /><br />(1) <a href="http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/10/whither-after-goldstone.html" rel="nofollow">Whither After Goldstone?</a><br /><br />(2) <a href="http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/10/zionism-in-goldstone-report.html" rel="nofollow">Zionism in Goldstone Report</a>Joachim Martillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-25495477303080025422009-11-17T09:11:11.055-08:002009-11-17T09:11:11.055-08:00You also seem to confuse findings of the Mission&#...You also seem to confuse findings of the Mission's members with "decisive and unambiguous concusions", words they do not use. They provide their evidence why they prefer their version to that of the IDF spokesperson. You and Halbertal do not say why they were wrong to do so, especially given the IDF's poor record of reliability in this regard.<br /><br />As I wrote in the post, whether lax rules of engagement quick fingers on triggers, or inexcusable negligence constitutes deliberate targeting is debatable. But given the statements of military and political spokepeople about the need to establish deterrence and to teach the Gazans a lesson, given the fact that to this day Israel collectively targets and punishes the Gazan citizens through a crippling siege, is it any wonder that the inference of intent is made? Must you wait for a clear and unambiguous written military directive to be declassified until you are satisfied? What sort of evidence would you accept of intent, and don't say "tens of thousands of Gazans dead." <br /><br />And finally, you obviously did not read my response to Halbertal's assertion that had the Goldstone report published testimonies, people in Israel would have called for an investigation. People in Israel don't f-cking care what happened in Gaza, and don't want to know about what happened in Gaza. The Goldstone report didn't tell them anything they hadn't heard from a multitude of human rights reports beforehand, not to mention what was reported in the press in real time.<br /><br />What really makes me want to laugh are those Israelis who criticize the report and - only now -- call for an investigation, like Halbertal, Maybe I am doing Moish an injustice -- perhaps he called for an investigation earlier. But what wait until now?Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-3016680923307602772009-11-17T09:11:04.504-08:002009-11-17T09:11:04.504-08:00Navi,
You write:
"A fairer reading of Halb...Navi,<br /><br />You write: <br /><br />"A fairer reading of Halbertal might focus on his best point. That would be his simple claim that the Report used insufficient evidence to conclude, decisively and unambiguously, that Israel intentionally targeted civilians."<br /><br />Where does he make this "simple claim" I haven't seen it anywhere in his article certainly not in section III, where he talks about the report's conclusion.<br /><br />So let's assume that it's your point, not his, ok?<br /><br />What you have to do, then, is to review the specific cases that Goldstone reports, and the specific reason for the judgments he makes -- and the specifc language he uses for the judgments. Your general argument is not sufficent.<br /><br />By the way, your point about the pilots is incorrect. It is not at all necessary to inquire into the pilots' intention, but in the intention of those who send them. One makes inferences about those intentions based on various factors. <br /><br />You portray the report's conclusion of intent as reached merely by a process of elimination: no evidence of military necessity, disproportionate, not an accident, ergo, intent. This is false on a grand scale. You omit (delberately?) the other corroborating evidence that is brought in the report, and that is summed up in this paragraph:<br /><br />"1680. The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. <br /><br /><b>The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations.</b> <br /><br />Because it is easy for the report's detractors to focus on the reliability of Palestinian territory (cowering in fear of the Hamas terrorists,presumably), they utterly ignore the other testimony allude to above.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-66249575554013420692009-11-17T01:37:12.844-08:002009-11-17T01:37:12.844-08:00Jerry,
A fairer reading of Halbertal might focus ...Jerry,<br /><br />A fairer reading of Halbertal might focus on his best point. That would be his simple claim that the Report used insufficient evidence to conclude, decisively and unambiguously, that Israel intentionally targeted civilians.<br /><br />As someone who’s read every word of the Goldstone Report, some parts multiple times, I found his critique dead-on. Here’s why.<br />In a nutshell, to prove Israeli intent (as opposed to mere culpability or moral responsibility) in the civilian deaths of Operation Cast Lead, you’d need to establish that Israeli pilots and bombers really didn’t believe their targets were being used by Hamas for military purposes. Or at least, that they were ordered to fire on them regardless of their possible military use.<br /><br />But the Goldstone crew didn’t have any proof to that effect. We know this because the Report tellingly concedes several points:<br /><br />(a) Hamas fighters hid among civilians and launched rockets from their property.<br />(b) The extent of this practice during the operation is not known.<br />(c) Witnesses were reluctant to talk about whether and when this happened.<br /><br />In other words, Goldstone’s Mission couldn’t conclusively determine which of the targets it examined may have been used by Hamas, months before the UN Mission got there. And that’s to say nothing of whether particular Israelis – whom he neither interviewed nor observed, and about whom he collected no direct evidence – didn’t even *think* those targets were military when attacking them. <br /><br />Maybe such proof of intent was impossible under the circumstances, and therefore unfair to expect. Goldstone could have admitted as much, and still come down pretty hard on Israel for causing so much collateral damage. Instead, the Report took a bolder line: impute the most monstrous intention – definitively -- based on the destruction itself, and the testimony of certain Israelis who didn’t call, or fire, any of the shots in this operation. <br /><br />If you doubt the Mission’s accusatory greed, as I’m describing it, consider this inference: the Report notes that only some explosions were officially described by Israel as errors or misfires. Therefore, the Report reasons, *every* single civilian death that resulted from *every* other attack was entirely intentional. It says “we can only conclude” this. I'm not making this up!<br /><br />Goldstone, in other words, behaved – regrettably -- like the Israeli bombers he describes: hit hard, hit fast, hit far and wide, and let them go prove they didn’t deserve it. It’s a shame, too, because a more cautious and fair report would have had enough credibility to Israelis about about the destruction they wrongfully visited upon Gaza, deliberately or otherwise.Navi Mutazillinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-51154748173086349762009-11-13T15:50:11.940-08:002009-11-13T15:50:11.940-08:00Jerry, that was a brilliantly written piece. may I...Jerry, that was a brilliantly written piece. may I cite a few lines and reference this blog on another forum I frequent?:) Thanks!japan rail passhttp://www.railpassdeals.com/japan_rail_pass.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-17060865127238881212009-11-10T12:33:10.452-08:002009-11-10T12:33:10.452-08:00You write: ... And suppose that the historical con...You write: <i>... And suppose that the historical context had included all the things that Israel doesn't like about Hamas, e.g., its anti-Semitic charter, its history of suicide bombings (briefly mentioned), its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist? Of what significance would that be to be to Israel's conduct of the war and considerations of jus in bello? ...</i> <br /><br />Here, you nail for me the pushing back by two dear friends (among countless officials and governments). And I ask you, how to address this pushing back? To my friends, an Israeli and an Austrian, I simply called "tayku" after a few rounds of discussions that seemed pointless. And they sighed in agreement.Tamar Orvellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14549414768121825308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-18632486313057824262009-11-10T09:02:34.313-08:002009-11-10T09:02:34.313-08:00Outright lies about the Goldstone Report seems to ...Outright lies about the Goldstone Report seems to be the only way its 'critics' can find to deal with it.<br />As pointed out <a href="http://gazareport.blogspot.com/2009/11/canada-embarrasses-itself.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>,<br />Canada's speaker at the UN General Assembly<br /><a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10883.doc.htm" rel="nofollow">debate</a><br />even claimed that the Goldstone Report "had not called on an investigation by both sides. It had assumed that Israel was wholly culpable."Michaelnoreply@blogger.com