Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Goldstone and diplomacy

Richard Goldstone was interviewed in Tikkun magazine last week:

Q: What are the specific steps that Israel could have taken to stop the shelling of southern Israel before commencing an attack on Gaza?
RG: Well, it could have used greater pressure by diplomatic means. They could have used the security council for that purpose. Israel could have put the security council on notice and said "if you don't stop this, if you don't do something to stop it, we will have to resort as a last resort to military means." But in our report we didn't question the right of Israel to use military force.

Q: Do you think Israel could have succeeded in stopping the bombing of Sderot had it gone to the Security Council?

RG: Well, I don't know. If it didn't work, then I have got no doubt that Israel was entitled to take a strong action to put a stop to the firing of rockets and mortars and has a duty to its own population to protect them.

Military force should be the very last resort. I think it is arguable here that other diplomatic means could have worked. If they didn't work then the last resort is to use force, and whether it is military or policing action force, Israel was entitled to take active steps.

In a previous interview Goldstone also said that he felt that Israel should have gone to the Security Council to stop the rockets.

As Yaacov Lazowick points out, Israel did do exactly that.

Since September of 2000 Israel has written dozens upon dozens of official letters to the UN complaining about incessant terror attacks including rocket attacks. The earliest mention I see of specific Qassam attacks is from 2003, although I'm sure there are earlier ones; in the context of the suicide bombing campaigns (that the UN did nothing to stop) the Qassam references are a bit harder to find. But from 2005 and on, Israel has brought Qassam attacks to the attention of the Security Council and these letters are available in the UN archives. For example, from 2006:

Identical letters dated 3 October 2006 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council

I write to inform you of the continued firing of Qassam rockets into Israel by Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip over the weekend.
On the eve of 30 September 2006, three civilians were moderately injured after a Qassam rocket was fired by Palestinian terrorists at the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Another 10 civilians were treated for shock in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. Reports of this attack were conveyed orally to the Department of Political Affairs, as well as to the presidency of the Security Council, on Sunday, 1 October 2006.

Nonetheless, the firing of Qassam rockets continued into the holiday of Yom Kippur, which was observed in Israel yesterday. Synagogue services in the Sderot area were rudely interrupted by the blare of sirens, as Qassam rockets launched from inside Gaza pierced Israel’s southern skies. Fortunately, no one was hurt during the attacks.

The unceasing terrorist attacks, and in particular the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in the Jewish calendar, are an affront to the sovereignty of the State of Israel. Furthermore, the continuation of Palestinian terror and violence deteriorates the prospects for peace in the region. If such terrorist attacks continue, Israel will be forced to exercise its right of self-defence.

I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of this letter circulated as a document of the General Assembly under agenda items 13 and 14, and of the Security Council.

(Signed) Dan Gillerman
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

I count over 20 such letters since 2005. This doesn't count the many other mentions that Israel made of rocket attacks in various UN sessions, nor the official letters written about other terror attacks that also mentioned rockets and mortars.

In short, Israel has used every diplomatic means at its disposal to stop Qassam rocket attacks...for years. Goldstone's ignorance of that fact is, unfortunately, typical.

Today, the Arabic press is reporting that Hamas is actively trying to stop Qassam rockets from being fired from Gaza.

From Ma'an:

The Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip has actively prevented armed groups from launching shells from into Israel over the past few days, according the London-based newspaper Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday.

Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat’s Arabic website quoted sources in the resistance groups in Gaza saying, “Hamas security services have detained two militants while they were preparing to fire homemade projectiles towards Israel. They were questioned and released after a couple of hours.”

Hamas security confiscated the projectiles and warned the militants of carrying out new attempts, the sources added. Hamas has also prevented major factions like the Islamic Jihad from launching attacks, according to the sources.

“Hamas wants a de facto ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, and fears that the ceasefire will collapse if militant groups resume attacks against Israeli towns,” the sources added.

Hamas government official Ahmad Yousef confirmed in a recent interview with Ma’an that authorities are actively maintaining a ceasefire.

So, what was more effective in protecting Israeli citizens from incessant and constant Qassam rocket attacks...diplomacy or military action? Even as Goldstone claims that Israel would have been entitled to take military action had it done what he wasn't aware it had done, he has no clue on how it could have been done effectively:

Q: So once deciding to attack, the question gets raised: Is there any way to fight a war against terrorists that would not result in deaths and casualties of civilians, assuming that urban terrorists have located themselves in the midst of the population?
RG: You know, commando actions could have been taken.

This is what happens when you send someone to investigate military actions who knows nothing about the military. Commando actions? Against Qassam rockets?

In the minds of some wishful thinkers, it is possible to have a surgically clean war, where infinite intelligence and infinite technology can pick out the bad guys (only the bad guys who are actually in the process of shooting at you, of course) and not damage any property that belongs to civilians.

Israel, the one nation that spends a higher percentage of its military budget (and solders' time) on protecting enemy civilians than any other nation in history, gets slammed for not doing it better. The fact that no one can come up with any way to actually do it better is apparently not relevant.

Daily Goldstone 10/5

CAMERA finds many problems with the Goldstone Report.

REPORT:	There is no evidence of Palestinian fighters using civilian clothes.
FACT:	Journalists and eyewitnesses repeatedly noted the use of civilian clothes by Hamas fighters.

REPORT:	There is no evidence of armed groups directing civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forcing them to remain in the vicinity of attacks.
FACT:	Palestinian witnesses and video evidence reveal that fighters did direct civilians to areas where attacks were being launched.

REPORT:	There is no evidence that hospitals or ambulances were used for military activities.
FACT:	Eyewitnesses describe Palestinian firing from hospitals and use of ambulances.

REPORT:	The mission could not determine whether mosques were used for military purposes.
FACT:	There is video evidence of weaponry stored in a mosque, and of secondary explosions of mosques consistent with the storage of explosives.

REPORT:	The amount of aid allowed into Gaza by Israel decreased after the end of the fighting.
FACT:	If not false, the assertion is at best disingenuous. The average weekly number of humanitarian shipments increased in the months after the war ended.

TESTIMONY:	The Zeitoun area is pacifist and had no militant groups or rocket fire.
REPORT:	This witness is credible and reliable, and there is no reason to doubt his testimony.
FACT:	There are many documented cases of Palestinian militants being killed in armed clashes in the neighborhood.

TESTIMONY:	The al Fakhoura area was not used to fire at Israel, and no combatants were killed in the Fakhoura incident.
REPORT:	The Report was based in part on three interviews with the Hamas official who made the above claim, and did not cast doubt on his testimony.
FACT:	Palestinian eyewitnesses and Israel note that the area was used to fire at Israel, and that combatants were killed in the Israeli strike.

Lots more, check it out.

It was an "honor" crime

I mentioned last week that an Arab woman had strangled her sleeping 16-year old daughter in Hebron, but I wasn't sure if it was an "honor killing."

It turns out that, the Palestinian Independent Commission of Human Rights has determined that mom did indeed kill her daughter for reasons of "family honor."

The monthly report also mentions that on September 18, a homemade rocket exploded in Rafah, injuring two people.

Other human rights violations include Hamas still refusing to issue proper travel documents to Gazans who would otherwise be able to travel to the West Bank.

Those peaceful Muslim worshippers were planning to riot today in the third holiest site in Islam, as JPost explains:

Jerusalem police explained their decision to allow only worshipers over the age of 50 into the Temple Mount on Monday, revealing that wheelbarrows filled with rocks had been discovered throughout the Aqsa Mosque compound on Sunday.

Palestinians filled the wheelbarrows with stones in preparation for riots in the Old City, police assessed. The wheelbarrows, in addition to intelligence information and the call on Palestinian to "come and defend" Al-Aqsa, led the police to restrict entrance to the Temple Mount.

I have yet to see a single Muslim leader ask Palestinian Arabs to respect the sanctity of Al Aqsa by not rioting or throwing rocks at Jews who visit. On the contrary, I have only seen praise for those "defending" the mosque from being defiled by Jews.

UNRWA now says it will teach Holocaust to Gazans

Last month, rumors that UNRWA was planning to teach about the Holocaust in its schools in Gaza was met with strenuous denials by UNRWA chief John Ging. He was quoted in a Palestinian Arab newspaper as saying that "it is not acceptable that Palestinians student are taught the about the Holocaust at a time when Israel is writing off everything related to Palestine in the school curriculum for Palestinian students in Israel" and that "there is no intention to integrate materials and topics that are inconsistent with the desire of Palestinian society."

Today, John Ging is saying something quite different:

The United Nations' refugee agency is planning to include the Holocaust in a new human-rights curriculum for pupils in its Gaza secondary schools despite strident opposition to the idea from within Hamas.

John Ging, the UN Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) director of operations in Gaza, told The Independent that he was "confident and determined" that the Holocaust would feature for the first time in a wide-ranging curriculum that is being drafted.
Mr Ging, a passionate advocate for Palestinian civilians in Gaza who has recently faced increasingly personal criticism and even threats by elements in the Islamic faction, added: "No human-rights curriculum is complete without the inclusion of the facts of the Holocaust, and its lessons."

The draft, to be completed within weeks and then put out for consultation with parents and the public, is built on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was agreed by the UN General Assembly in 1948 in the shadow of what it called the "barbarous acts" committed by the Nazis during the Second World War.

What could explain this turnabout? Perhaps it is this:

[Ging] pointed out that the UN General Assembly in 2005 unanimously urged "all countries to teach the lessons of the Holocaust to children so that we learn from history, so that we don't repeat history".

I guess that it would look pretty bad if the UNRWA would blatantly speak out against something the UN supports.

The question is...has anyone seen Ging's comments to Palestine Today? Clearly the reporters at the Independent didn't...

UPDATE: UNRWA's Chris Gunness emailed me that the Palestine Today quote is "totally wrong."

Looks like Ahmadinejew story is not true

From Karmel Melamed at the (LA) Jewish Journal blog:

This reporter and blog were bombarded with e-mails and questions since last night from readers of this blog asking me whether the story published in Britain’s Daily Telegraph’s that Ahmadinejad was born a Jew had any validity. After reading the Telegraph’s original story published yesterday and consulting with a number of local Iranian Jewish scholars with regards to the story’s claims of Ahmadinejad’s supposed Jewish identity, as an Iranian Jewish journalist I cannot verify a single shred of evidence that would suggest this story is accurate in any way. The article lacks any real or credible sources cited that can unequivocally prove that Ahmadinejad had any Jewish roots and it seems as if the story was just leaked to the Telegraph by “reformist” leaders in Iran as a part of a larger smear campaign against the newly “re-elected” hardliner president of Iran.

The article’s authors, Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat claim that “Iranian experts” they consulted with have seen the supposed “Jewish name of Sabourjian –meaning cloth weaver” in a photo of Ahmadinejad’s identity papers from March of 2009. My main problem with this claim about the “Sabourjian” name is that the Iranian Jewish experts, scholars and religious leaders in L.A. I have interviewed today, have never heard of any Jewish family in Iran with such a name. Likewise the handful of English to Farsi dictionaries authored by Solomon Haim (a 20th century Iranian Jewish scholar of Persian language) found at UCLA’s library I have research through today do not identify the word “sabour” as “the name for the Jewish tallit shawl” as both McElroy and Vahdat claim in their article! For that matter, none of the English to Farsi dictionaries I came across even had the word “sabour” nor a definition listed for it! Where these journalists came up with this nonsense about the word “sabour” having a Jewish meaning is beyond me! As an Iranian Jewish journalist fluent in the Persian language for the last 31 years, I have never heard of the word “sabour” uttered by members of my community and the Iranian Jewish community has never used this word as a reference to the Jewish prayer shawl. We Iranian Jews refer to the Jewish prayer shawl by it’s Hebrew name of “seat-seat” (the Hebrew word for the fringes of the prayer shawl) or we use the Hebrew word of “tallit” just like the millions of other Jews living on this planet.

Likewise I also have a problem with McElroy and Vahdat’s supposed expert sources they used in their article who are not even Iranian Jews nor credible scholars with any real familiarity with the subject of Iranian Jewry! The authors of the article list “Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies” in London and some Iranian internet blogger “Mehdi Khazali” as their experts who back the unproven claim that Ahmadinejad was supposedly born a Jew. Both Nourizadeh and Khazali are clearly NOT Jewish and my question as a reader of the article (and not as an Iranian Jewish journalist) is a simple one; why would anyone cite non-Jewish experts unfamiliar with Iranian Jewry as supposed accurate sources on a story about the Jewish origins of a country’s leader? You’d think these journalists would go through some effort to find some sort of a Jewish scholar or expert familiar with Iran to substantiate their claims—but no, McElroy and Vahdat instead rely on Iranian Muslims with no real knowledge of Iranian Jewry to prove their allegations of Ahmadinejad supposed Jewish roots. Therefore the articles authors’ use of these non-Jewish experts who lack any real credibility or knowledge of this topic clearly places the entire accuracy of their overall story on Ahmadinejad into question for me. Iranian Jewish experts I consulted with also said they were unable to read the unclear photo of the Ahmadinejad’s identity papers to properly verify the Telegraph’s story.

Another serious question I have with the accuracy of McElroy and Vahdat’s story is their claim that Ahmadinejad’s alleged Jewish name “is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran’s Ministry of the Interior”. Again I am perplexed at why these seasoned journalists would place any kind of credibility on an official Iranian government document when most experts familiar with the current Iranian regime know very well that any time lists of names are “complied by the Iranian government” they are used by different forces in the regime for nothing more than to attack another official, party or faction in the country. The most classic and detrimental way Iranian government officials have attacked one another is to claim that the “such and such official was born a Jew, or was once a Jew who converted to Islam, or his family was Jewish a generation ago and then converted”. The “Jewish identity label” is your classic textbook example of anti-Semitism at its prime that is thrown around as a type of public insult or verbal assault officials in Iran and in most Islamic nations used against one another in smear campaigns. The Iranian Jewish experts I interviewed this morning in L.A. informed me that for one Iranian government official to call or accuse another government official of being Jewish is the equivalent to individuals or groups in the U.S. to accuse an elected official in America of being a child molester or pedophiliac! This is the sad and unfortunately reality that being a Jew in Iran has a very derogatory meaning.

The negative connotation of claiming that someone Muslim in Iran is Jewish or has Jewish roots brings me to my final analysis of the true origins of this entire Ahmadinejad-Jewish story. Iran experts here in L.A. I recently interviewed said that even before Ahmadinejad, various “reformist” leaders during the “open era” of the past Iranian President Mohammad Khatami during the 1990s and early 2000s were using “Jewishness” as a verbal assault against other rival officials they hated or against other Iranian officials who presumably had Jewish blood. Frank Nikbakht, an L.A.-based Iranian Jewish activist and director of the Committee for Minority Rights in Iran, said the accusations Iranian officials make of each other being Jewish is nothing new for Iran’s current regime. “I remember in early 2000 when members of Khatami’s reformist party in Iran accused one of their hardliner rivals, a man named Habibollah Ashkaroladi Mosalman, of having Jewish roots,” said Nikbakht in a telephone interview today. “What we are seeing today with this story of Ahmadinejad being supposedly Jewish is the same smear tactics the reformists have used in the past against their hardliner opponents”. It seems as if even the supposed “reformists” in Iran, who Obama administration officials and other Western leaders have long hail as being supposedly “open-minded”, are also now showing their true anti-Semitic tendencies by vilifying Ahmadinejad with disgusting anti-Semitic rhetoric! Why else would Ahmadinejad be such an evil and horrible dictator trying to take over the world and kill people? He must no doubt be a Jew. Sounds like garbage you might read in the classic anti-Semitic book the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”! (By the way, the Persian language copies of the Protocols have long been best sellers in Iran with more than 400 pages added to the original Russian version published in the 1880s).

As an journalist I am shocked at the lack of accurate reporting and very poor journalism in McElroy and Vahdat’s story regarding Ahmadinejad in this instance. Shame on the Daily Telegraph’s editors for publishing such inaccurate claims with no real experts familiar with Iranian Jewry cited. The reporters and editors at this paper are either completely brainless or stooges and mouth-pieces for “reformists” officials in Iran who have begun this smear campaign against Ahmadinejad. It’s poor journalism like this story that fan the fires of anti-Semitism and hate around the world. Readers and bloggers worldwide should condemn this story published by the Telegraph, call for McElroy and Vahdat’s resignation and write letters to the newspaper about their poor journalism in this instance.

Lastly, even if this story is true (which I highly doubt) it is well known in Iran that those who have converted to Islam over the years have done so because of different family disputes including inheritance rights. According to Iran’s radical Shiite Islamic laws, new converts to Islam who came from a non-Muslim family, can automatically inherit all of their dead non-Muslim relative’s assets without the need to go to probate court and their non-Muslim family members are entitled to none of the inheritances. These new Muslim converts from Judaism (also known as “jadid-ol-eslam” or new to Islam) today and in the past have typically been the most anti-Semitic of Muslims living in Iran.

Were journalists always this lazy?

(h/t ahoova)

Latest Haveil Havalim

Even though I never remember to nominate myself to be included in the weekly Jewish/Israeli blog carnival Haveil Havalim, somehow I sometimes find myself included anyway.

Here's the Sukkot edition; illustrated with the coolest Sukkah around. Enjoy!

Happy PalArab bigamist with Jewish wife?

From Al-Arabiya:

Marriage is complicated enough with just one wife so add to the mix a second and things get even more complicated; but what if one wife is Jewish and the other an Arab, for one Palestinian man this rare marital arrangement is nothing but bliss.

Forty-year-old, Sami Abou-Sebaa says despite the obvious political and religious differences he and his two wives and their children all live in the same house with no problems.
Abou-Sebaa, who sells used clothes and electrical appliances, says everyone likes his Jewish wife, Lenor, who is also his business partner.

The couple own two cars, one with a Palestinian license plate and the other with an Israeli license plate.

“We use the Israeli one to go to Israel and bring the goods we need for our trade,” Lenor told Al Arabiya.

Although Lenor lives peacefully with her husband's Arab wife, she still faces problems with the Palestinian community around her.

“Many are afraid of talking to me although and I am the type that prefers dealing informally with people,” she said.

But in all seriousness both Abou-Sebaa and Leonor insist they will never allow their children to join the Israeli army.

“In the future, my children will throw stones at the Israeli occupation forces. Blood ties and the bond with the land are stronger than anything else,” Abou-Sebaa said.

This story might be true - there are unfortunately some Israeli Jewish women with incredibly low self-esteem who would go for such an arrangement.

It is curious, though, that the news story doesn't mention her maiden name, where she is from, or what town they live in. Similarly, why didn't the reporter ask Lenor/Leonor if she agrees with her husband as to the future aspirations of their kids?

Besides the obvious, something here ain't quite kosher.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.[Photo from Al Arabiya - EoZ]

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.

"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.

However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.

So now idiots will start saying that Ahmadinejad cannot possibly be an anti-semite....

It will be fun to see how this plays out in Iran. So far, not surprisingly, I cannot find a mention of this news in any official Iranian media.

Now, why didn't we leak this news before the election? I have to bring that up to the other Elders at our next meeting.

UPDATE: Story seems to be untrue.

Daily Goldstone

A press conference by Israel's Foreign Affairs ministry a few days ago did a nice job encapsulating the problems with the Goldstone report. The entire thing is worth reading, but here is the core part by Deputy Legal Adviser Daniel Taub:

There are at least a dozen reports that I'm aware of that have been prepared about events in Gaza at the beginning of this year, and yet, of all the reports, it's this report, the Goldstone Report, that has generated the strongest response amongst the Israeli public, amongst the Israeli leadership and amongst supporters of Israel. And I think if we ask ourselves why that is, there are three main reasons.

The first one is the narrative that lies at the heart of this report. This is a report which says that Israel's operation in Gaza had nothing to do with 12,000 Hamas missiles on Sderot, it had nothing to do with self-defense, it had nothing to do with the smuggling of weaponry under the Egypt-Gaza border into Gaza. In fact, in the 500-plus pages of the report, there is not a single mention of the right of self-defense or the smuggling of weapons. It is a report that says that Israel's operation in Gaza was a deliberate disproportionate massive attack directed against civilians. And that is something that no one who knows Israel can really countenance.

This morning I read an article by the head of Betzelem who was saying that this is a conclusion which is simply not supported by the evidence in the Goldstone Report. And it's true; in order to come to this conclusion the report really does have to play fast and loose with the evidence. First, there's a tremendous amount of selectivity in choosing the incidents that it actually investigates. So, for example, the report admits that there have been allegations that Hamas placed its headquarters or one of its headquarters in the bases of the Shifa Hospital, but we can't address these because that wasn't one of the incidents that we chose to investigate. Or we can't confirm or deny allegations that Hamas used mosques for terrorist activity, because they only investigated one case that had to do with a mosque and found no evidence in that particular case. In fact, in parentheses I say "in that particular case, according to Palestinian websites," five of the people that were killed were actually terrorist activists, members of the Al-Qassam Brigades.

They play fast and loose with their sources, relying on almost every conceivable source that supports evidence against Israel and rejecting almost any evidence that is supportive of Israel or is detrimental to Hamas. And sometimes actually the same source is regarded as being reliable as far as its accusations against Israel is concerned but regarded as being unreliable when it points to, for example, Israel's humanitarian efforts or Hamas abuse of civilians, and so on.

And we have prepared an initial response to the report, some 20 pages, which highlights some of the most obvious legal and factual errors: There's reliance on Israeli laws that have been off the books for years; there's misquotations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and so on.

The reason that this narrative is so troubling is that it really leaves no room for genuine debate about how to engage in a conflict of this nature. You know, we generally don't think and the military doesn't think that we have all the right answers. But we are, by and large, asking the right questions. And asking ourselves whether an attack or an operation could have been more humane, more effective, is a genuine debate that we need to engage in with the international community as well. But with a body that says that your fundamental goal was to cause massive punishment on the civilian population, there is no room for any debate of that nature.

So that's the first reason. The second reason why I think this report has generated such a strong response is that it represents a full frontal attack on the Israeli legal system. And this is something that should worry not just Israel but also most Western and democratic countries that have very, very similar systems for actually investigating and checking their conduct in the course of military operations.

Israel, as I'm sure you know, has a multi-layered system for investigating allegations of wrongdoing; that consists of field investigations, criminal investigations, supervision by the Military Advocate General, upon that, supervision of our Supreme Court, and so on. In this particular case, in additional to all of those systems, following the operation, five large-scale command investigations were opened into general questions of principle arising in the conflict, things like incidents in which there was injury caused to medical facilities, caused to UN facilities when there are large numbers of civilians casualties, and so on.

In the course of those five command investigations, there were 30 specific incidents that came under investigation, and they're currently on the desk of the Military Advocate General who has to decide whether to open criminal investigations. And because of the sensitivity, the Attorney General has said that he will also review the decision of the Military Advocate General.

In addition to those command investigations and the specific investigations that came out of them, there are an additional 70 to 80 specific investigations that were opened up as a result of complaints received by human rights organizations, like Betzelem and Addala, direct complaints by individuals to the Military Advocate General or to the Attorney General.

Out of all of those complaints so far, 23 criminal investigations have already been opened and are in various stages. From the information that I received this morning, at least 11 of them have already proceeded to the stage of taking evidence from the Palestinian complainants and the others are at various stages.
Correlating those with the 36 incidents that the Goldstone Report chose to investigate, 12 of the incidents in the Goldstone Report are at various stages, either already of criminal investigations or investigations that may lead to criminal investigations.

I should mention that 12 of the incidents that are referred to out of the 36 incidents in the Goldstone Report were not known to the Israeli authorities until the publication of the report. Those are mainly dealing with damage to property and so on. And that means that no complaint had been received by the Israeli authorities. They were raised for the first time in the Goldstone Report, and those have been referred to the authorities for examination and investigation at the moment.

I'll just finish the legal aspect by saying that obviously all of the decisions along the way, whether it's the decision of the Military Advocate General or the Attorney General whether to open criminal proceedings or not open criminal proceedings, are all subject to review by our Supreme Court, which, as you know, can be petitioned for judicial review by Israelis, Palestinians, human rights organizations.

So, really, the dismissive attitude of the report for this entire system is very, very troubling, very troubling for Israel, very troubling for other countries that have similar systems, and troubling for other countries that often rely on the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court. I actually just received through my e-mail today, a decision of a Canadian Court, a Superior Court in Montreal, which last week relied on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. And so the attack on the legitimacy of this report is troubling from a legal point of view.

And, finally, I think the third reason why it's such a troubling report is its recommendations. Its recommendations, I think, are unprecedented, both in terms of their scope and in terms of their one-sidedness. There is an attempt in the recommendations of this report to harness not just the Human Rights Council but the Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Criminal Court, the domestic legal systems of almost every country – every country in the world, in fact – as part of a political campaign against Israel, and in a really blatantly one-sided manner.

We're talking about a recommendation that there be a moratorium on the use of certain weapons by Israel, but no restriction on the use of weapons by Hamas. We're talking about the establishment of an escrow fund it's called, a fund for supporting victims, but the victims are all Palestinians, and the only party required to pay into this fund, of course, is Israel. We're talking about the use of what's called universal jurisdiction, putting Israelis on trial abroad. But it's clear from the report the intention is only to put Israelis on trial abroad and not to put any other violators of human rights and so on. So, very, very damaging, very one-sided, very non-credible recommendations.

So I think those are the three main reasons why there's been such a strong response to the report. And I'll just finish with one final personal comment as a legal advisor within the government, within the system. And I think the role of any legal advisor, governmental or military legal advisor, is to be two-faced. Maybe all lawyers are two-faced, but by "two-faced" I mean spending part of our time being advocates of governmental policies to the world, but also turning round and doing the other half of our job, which is to be advocates of compliance of international law within the system, to our political leaders and to the military.

And a report of this nature, a report which pretends to represent international law but really perverts international law, really undermines the advocates of international law within the system because it really says that there is no lawful response to the charges of terrorism. And that's simply not true. It's not a workable proposition, and ultimately it's going to undermine respect for international law both in our region and probably elsewhere across the world. Thank you.

Also check out this piece by Soccer Dad.

People really are trafficking Arab organs

But since they are Arabs, it barely makes the news.

From AFP, via Daily News Egypt:

Eleven Jordanians were charged on Wednesday with trafficking human organs and selling them illegally in Egypt, police said.
"Three other suspects are being interrogated, while seven more people are still on the run. We have been following on the issue with the Egyptian authorities for several months," he said.
The suspects, who were extradited from Egypt on Monday, are part of a group preying on poor people in the kingdom, a police spokesman told AFP.
In some cases, people were paid to donate organs while still alive, while in others organs were being removed from people who had died and sold on the black market, the official said.
"The group sold rich Arabs kidneys for up to $30,000 each. If convicted, they face 10 years in prison with hard labor," the source added.
In 2007, Jordan created a National Commission to Promote Organ Donation in a drive to crack down on illegal trafficking and also to encourage Jordanians to donate their organs after death.
That came after authorities uncovered more than 80 cases of trafficking that year.
Organ trafficking is banned in the kingdom, with jail penalties and up to 20,000 dinars ($28,000) in fines. –AFP

Chag Sameach! !חג שמח

Another week, another holiday. Wishing all my Jewish readers a happy Sukkot, nice weather, and no bees.

I will not be blogging until Sunday night or Monday.

My interview with The Forward

On Wednesday, a Forward reporter did an email interview with me for a story that he planned on writing about the substance of the Goldstone report. He indicated that he was working on the story for the rest of the week. I don't see it published yet, and it was driving me crazy not to blog about it, and since the holiday starts tonight I couldn't hold off any longer. Here is the interview:

--Do you think there is any merit to Goldstone’s findings? If so, where do you think he got things right?
The entire process was flawed, from the time of the formation of the Commission up through the release of the report. Although I do believe that Goldstone consciously tried to extend the mandate in order to look at both sides of the story, and I do not ascribe any maliciousness to him, the framework of the Commission was faulty from the start. This is the central problem. The very framing of the report adheres to the Palestinian narrative - just looking at the table of contents, we see that he chooses to start the "military operations" section with the "blockade," not with the rocket fire that preceded it by years. Similarly, he chooses December 27th - the day Israel attacked - as the start of "military operations" and ignores Hamas' declaration of war three days beforehand altogether. It could have been framed that Israel was counterattacking, but that does not fit the narrative that Goldstone adheres to.
These are just two examples of how the framework one chooses will inevitably color the results. In these two cases, Israel is assumed to be the aggressor and the initiator. The framework does not allow any other viewpoints to be seriously considered, as they are basic assumptions from which the rest of the report flows. There are other dimensions to the flawed framework he uses, for example he chose to highlight specific heart-wrenching stories to illustrate alleged Israeli war crimes rather than look at the full context of the operation (or to mention equally heart-wrenching stories from Sderot.)

--Having looked at the report thoroughly, if you had to boil down the main methodological errors that led to his findings being lopsided what would they be?
Besides the reliance on suspect "eyewitnesses," I would say that it is his inability to imagine or believe alternate Israeli explanations for various events. The report consistently shows more skepticism for Israel's viewpoint than for the viewpoints of the Palestinian side. It is difficult to accept "even-handedness" between a democracy that has every interest in (and history of) investigating and correcting its mistakes and an organization that has every interest in twisting facts for its own gain. It is even more problematic to see how Hamas statements are treated as more reliable than Israel's. (See here.)

--Other people I’ve spoken to point to the report’s reliance on Palestinian eyewitness testimony as its central problem? Do you agree? If so, why? Is there something inherently untrustworthy about Palestinian witnesses?
At the risk of breaking rules of political correctness, the answer has to be (in general) "yes." There is a script that Palestinian Arabs are conditioned to use, and when they speak to the press for the record they almost always adhere to it. I have a number of examples here, and in context of the Gaza operation the most telling are this story from an embedded YNet reporter and this story where an anonymous farmer tells another reporter that, yes, there were actually rockets from the area that every "eyewitness" claimed had none.

--Is there any way Goldstone could have carried out his reporting differently? What steps could he have avoided to keep him from ending up with the conclusions he reached?
One can argue as to whether Israel should have cooperated with Goldstone (I think they were correct in not doing so) but Goldstone penalized Israel for its non-cooperation. If he was after the truth, he should not weight the testimony of Palestinian civilians higher than Israeli claims; on the contrary, he should have worked extra to see Israel's perspective despite its official non-cooperation. He simply did not give Israel the benefit of the doubt, while he was rarely skeptical about Palestinian Arab claims.

Self-death count update

I haven't been blogging all the PalArab murders and deaths from tunnel collapses lately, but I have been keeping track.

A few recent items include a mother who strangled her 16-year old daughter with a scarf while she was sleeping (don't know yet if it was an "honor" killing,) a 65-year old man murdered in a family dispute (both in Hebron), and a body found today in a garbage dump in Gaza City.

My count of violent deaths in PalArab territories this year is up to 198, roughly the same pace as last year.

Who says that Fatah cannot compromise?

Ma'an reports:

Success of the peace process requires a halt to settlement construction including in East Jerusalem, Secretary General of the Palestinian President’s Office At-Tayeb Abed Ar-Rahman said on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas Thursday.

While Abbas was earlier reported to have caved to American demands that he drop the “precondition” that Israeli settlement construction must be stopped as a gesture toward the seriousness of the new government before he would sit for talks, a demand by the Fatah party that negotiations not continue until settlements stop seems to have re-activated the demand.

Just because the Fatah-dominated PA has added a precondition to talks that it never had with previous Israeli governments doesn't mean that it is inflexible or incapable of compromise. Why, it is bending over backwards in another set of negotiations - with Hamas terrorists:

Member of Fatah central committee Jamal Muheisen revealed an agreement amidst his party Thursday to accept holding legislative elections based on 80% proportionate and 20% constituent, and noted Hamas had confirmed its acceptance a 70/30 split. “This means we are not only 10% off from each other now,” he said.

Muheisen added in an interview with Palestine Radio the decision was in the interests of reaching a unity agreement. He noted disagreement on the pass percentage remains, but that Egypt is currently working on a plan to resolve the difference. Fatah requested parties get at least 2% of the vote before they gain a seat in the Palestinian Legislative Council, while Hamas wants at least three.

Who can doubt that the PA wants peace when they are so willing to unify with a terrorist organization?