Hello friends. Today I must sadly, once again, crap on Israel and Hamas. This sad state of affairs has been necessitated by an American lawyer, Trevor Norwitz, launching a silly attack against the Goldstone report.
See what I did there? By starting off with a simple claim that the attack is “silly” I have already biased you against it. It seemed only fair to do this because it’s what Trevor does throughout his entire fucking letter.
Throughout this post quotes from Trevor’s letter will be in Italics and my responses will be in…normal…or whatever non-italic is called.
…report was difficult to read not only because of its obvious lack of balance, but also because it does raise some hard questions about the precise manner in which Israel reacted to the years of rocket attacks against its towns and people and the threats it faces.
In this statement Trevor implies that he is open to the idea that Israel may have done something wrong, but he then undermines it completely by stating that EVERYTHING Israel did was a “response” and thus justified. This is despite the fact that it was Israel who refused to renew the ceasefire, and who moved in first.
Passing judgment based on one-sided (and tainted) evidence. Your Mission took Israel’s refusal to cooperate as an invitation (or perhaps as an excuse) to allow the scales of justice to weigh with only one pan being filled. Time and time again, you made findings of fact based solely on evidence provided by the Palestinian side of the conflict.
Umm…how exactly can Goldstone give the other side when the other side refuses to give it?
The Israeli government refused to co-operate with the fact-finding mission and made it difficult to speak to the people involved or get their side of the story. That is the fault of the Israeli government, so if it is a failing in the report it is THEIR fault, not Goldstone’s. This is exactly what Israel intended when they refused to co-operate. Political analysts said before the investigation started that Israel had refused to co-operate in order to be able to criticise the report later on.
Tell you what: why don’t you tell me what Goldstone should have done?
but if your investigation was truly seeking to uncover the truth, you quite simply could not have reached conclusions and made such momentous and awful accusations based on one-sided evidence. As one entrusted to find the facts, you had a moral if not legal obligation to seek the truth, and if you were not able to do so, you should have said just that, rather than pretending that you have established the truth (“based on information provided”) when you knew that was not so and that you had only heard one side of the story.
Oh I see! You wanted Israel’s stonewalling to be successful. You wanted the investigation to fail simply because Israel wanted it to fail. Would you really rather live in a world where those accused of crimes can escape by simply refusing to talk to the courts? I have no doubt that you would not, a fact which simply highlights your own biases in this matter.
Moreover, your Report shows virtually no effort to look beyond the evidence presented to you (overwhelmingly from the Palestinian side) to find out what really happened in Gaza and – most crucially – why: why Israel launched the (unfortunately named) “Operation Cast Lead” and why individual officers and soldiers took the actions they did in the heat of battle.
This is more of the Israeli side of the story, that the Israeli government refused to give. Once again we must ask: exactly how the fuck can Goldstone get their side of the story when they refuse to give it? Osmosis? Telepathy? Reading the innards of dead Palestinian civilians?
Ok, that one would actually work. Since all you have to do is determine they were killed by Israeli munitions, which they were.
To cite one important example, it was widely reported that the Hamas high command was camped out in the Al-Shifa Hospital, which would of course constitute a war crime and would probably have justified Israel attacking that hospital notwithstanding the civilian presence there. Fortunately for any actual civilians in the hospital, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) refrained.
Hang on. So you’re saying that in a report on war crimes one should spend time looking at times when the combatants DIDN’T kill a lot of civilians?
Ok. It’s kinda like that book I didn’t just read that was about all the times the Nazis DIDN’T kill any Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, Russians or political prisoners. It just seems that your bias is shining through again. You honestly feel that the times when the IDF didn’t kill civilians are more important than the times that they did. By your logic I am a virtual saint, because I have repeatedly Not-Killed people every day of my life.
I suppose it’s still better than when Israel was claiming that Hamas presented a genuine military threat due to their “sophisticated weaponry.”
(Continued on Page 2)