Democracy Now: Goldstone Retracts Part of His Report on Israeli Assault on Gaza, Leaves Rest Intact

[Douglas Carpenter]

watch/listen/read transcript/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/4/judge_goldstone_retracts_part_of_his

The lead author of The Goldstone Report on the 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza has backtracked on one of his key findings. In an editorial run Friday by the Washington Post, Judge Richard Goldstone said, “Civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.” Now Israel has called on the United Nations to retract the report on the devastating war that led to the death of about 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, and 13 Israelis. To discuss the implications of Judge Goldstone’s position, we are joined by Adam Horowitz and Lizzy Ratner. They are co-editors of an abridged version of the U.N. investigation, titled The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict. “Judge Goldstone actually only comments on one small part of the report,” Horowitz says, “which I take as an implication that the rest of the report stays intact and that he is still in support of that.”


snip:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Adam, we just have about a minute, but the importance of whether the Dahiya Doctrine revealed that Israel was targeting civilians—can you talk about what that Dahiya Doctrine was?

ADAM HOROWITZ: Sure, the Dahiya Doctrine is the war doctrine that Israel first used in the 2006 attack on Lebanon, which basically said that any area that they were receiving fire from, they would consider the entire area to be a military target. Dahiya is a neighborhood in Beirut that was absolutely flattened. Leading up to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, the Israeli military and political command was very clear that they were going to recreate Dahiya in Gaza. And many people, including Judge Goldstone and the Goldstone Report, say that’s exactly what happened. And that’s one of the most damning charges of the Goldstone Report, which Goldstone does not address in this op-ed, that there was an intentional policy of collective punishment, of attacking the civilian infrastructure, the electricity, the food, the people of Gaza, to punish them for having elected Hamas. And that’s a charge that still stands.

watch/listen/read transcript/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/4/judge_goldstone_retracts_part_of_his




.

[shira]

1. Come on now, that small "part" he retracted is the central conclusion of his report. n/t

[azurnoir]

2. well that is what certain political would like us to believe but here is what is said

ADAM HOROWITZ: He talked about one small point. He said that there was not a policy, an intentional policy, to target civilians. This was something that was mentioned in the report, but it was just one small issue. Much larger was the issue of intentionally attacking the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, which he doesn’t mention, and the idea of just disproportionate and indiscriminate violence, which he doesn’t address and which affects civilians disproportionately.

it is Israel's justification of damaging or destroying things such as water, electrical, agricultural lands, and food supplies because these could benefit the combatants oh and if a bunch of civilians get killed well take your choice here kids

a there were combatants firing near by or human shields - always popular of course

b oops or our commander(s) read the map, satellite or drone images wrong

c well it's sad but civilians get killed what can we do? this could also be filed under 'glittering generalities'

did I miss any I'm sure I did

[Shaktimaan]

4. And?

Yes, those are three common examples of how people are accidentally killed during wars. That includes civilians, press, UN observers and members of one's own military. Do you think that writing them down here in some way de-legitimizes them as explanations?

What do you think? That these things do not actually happen and are merely used as convenient excuses to obfuscate a policy of killing innocent civilians? You must know that this is an actual product of warfare... it's a real thing that occurs... have you seen the estimated figures for the war in Iraq, for example?

I am really curious about this one. Seriously, what do you really think is going on?

[azurnoir]

5. Israel had no policy that was explicitly aimed at kiling civilians

remember? What the US did in Iraq or what it is currently doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan are IMO crimes and does not somehow legitimize Israel's actions in Gaza

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Well, destroying civilian infrastructure is a war-crime...

That's not just something I think. It's an actual fact. It doesn't matter if it's Israel or some other country that does it, the destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war-crime...

[shira]

9. Not when it's used for military purposes by terrorists who target "enemy" civilians.

For example, terrorists store weapons in a school and fire from that location.

That civilian infrastructure is now a legitimate military target.

The only question is whether it can be proven that the IDF response was disproportionate - blowing up the entire neighborhood vs. one building - was that really necessary for military purposes - or can it be PROVED that IDF commanders deliberately called for a disrproportionate irrational response...

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Destruction of civilian infrastructure IS a war-crime....

There's no 'oh, but my side were saving the world from terrorists so we had to destroy the infrastructure!' about it. That's an excuse that any country would try to use to justify their own war-crimes. As I said, destroying civilian infrastructure is a war-crime regardless of whichever country it is that's carrying it out. Israel shouldn't get special treatment in that regard...

[eyl]

21. What shira said, however

- and she's correct - that if civilian infrastructure is used for miltary purposes, it loses its immunity. Likewise, if a military target is adjacent to a civilian insfrastructure target, damage against the latter in the course of an attack on the former is not neccessarily a war crime.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Sorry but shira is totally wrong

Nothing unusual in that. There's no point having any laws in place to protect civilians if the country carrying out the attacks just has to play the terrorist card. Israel destroyed a lot of civilian infrustructure, and even if the terrorist excuse were to be believed for some of the destruction, that still would leave a whole lot of destroyed infrastructure that constitutes war crimes.

[shira]

35. So you think the IDF destroyed a lot of civilian infrastructure for no military purpose?

Goldstone's team accused Israel of destroying a chicken farm, saying Israel had no good reason to do so....

Here's Israel's response:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1483B296-7439-4217-933C-653CD19CE859/0/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf

(1) The Sawafeary Chicken Coops
122. According to allegations included in the HRCFF Report,58 in January 2009 IDF forces bulldozed several chicken coops owned by the Sawafeary family in Zeytoun, purportedly as part of a deliberate strategy of destroying civilian infrastructure.

123. The command investigations conducted with regard to this incident reveal that the Sawafeary chicken coops were destroyed for reasons of military necessity.

124. Specifically, the investigations revealed that the area around the Sawafeary chicken coops was occupied by an IDF ground force beginning on 4 January 2009, as part of the ground maneuver, with the intention to take control of rockets and mortar launching sites and reducing the number of terror attacks on Israeli territory. The force took positions in several houses, including one house that was adjacent to the chicken coops. This positioning was necessary to secure the area for military operations against Hamas and to protect the IDF troops in those operations. The IDF’s defense plan for this area needed to meet three serious threats to the safety and security of the IDF troops: the firing of anti-tank and RPG missiles on IDF positions; sniper fire; and infiltration of terrorist operatives into the immediate vicinity of the forces in order to plant and detonate explosive devices, including by suicide bombers.

125. The terrain in the area made this location more dangerous for IDF forces. The area was agricultural in its original use and thus included many orchards, groves, and greenhouses, located between and around the houses occupied by the IDF. This made it harder for the IDF to identify Hamas positions and fighters. The threat was not theoretical—on 5 January 2009, an RPG missile was launched at one of the IDF positions in that area. In addition, several shooting incidents occurred originating from the orchards located to the south of the chicken coops.

126. In order to overcome these threats, the IDF decided to create a security zone around each of the IDF positions with a perimeter of 20–50 meters around each post, which would allow uninterrupted observation and firing capabilities for the force in each position, as well as joint protection among the different IDF outposts. These security zones allowed IDF forces to anticipate at an earlier stage the approach of terrorist operatives.

127. The Sawafeary chicken coops were located only a few meters away from one of the key IDF positions. The IDF position was, itself, dictated by the lay of the terrain in the area. As the command investigation determined, this IDF position could not be adequately secured if the chicken coop structures were left intact. The demolition of these structures was needed to allow a clean line of sight for protection of IDF forces. The investigation also determined that the decision to destroy the coops was consistent with the demands of the principle of proportionality: there was a compelling military need for the area to be cleared for the safety of the IDF forces and for the success of IDF operations against the Hamas forces operating in the area. The local commanders determined that these advantages outweighed the damage to private property that would result from the demolition. The commanders avoided the destruction of residential buildings or other facilities in the area, when such destruction was not required by military necessity or appeared to be disproportional.

128. The MAG reviewed the findings of the command investigation and concluded that the destruction of the chicken coops was lawful, as it was necessary to protect IDF forces operating in the area. It did not violate the limitation on destruction of private property because it was justified by military necessity. The MAG also found that the destruction of the chicken coops did not violate the ban on destroying any object that is indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. It was dictated by the location of specific operations against Hamas,
and not part of a campaign to interfere with the production of food supplies in Gaza. It was not intended to deny the civilian population in Gaza access to essential commodities.59 As a result of these findings, the MAG determined that no further proceedings were necessary.

129. Although the MAG found no violation of the Law of Armed Conflict in this incident, he recommended several changes to IDF procedures in cases involving destruction of private property, which are detailed below in Section IV of this Paper. In particular, the MAG found that the decision to destroy the chicken coops was made by a relatively junior IDF officer, and that such decisions were more appropriately and typically made at more senior levels. While the MAG found that the particular rank of the officer making the decision did not indicate wrongful or criminal conduct (as neither the Law of Armed Conflict nor IDF procedures at the time required that such decisions be taken by an officer of any particular rank), he has recommended that the IDF’s procedures for destruction of civilian property be reviewed in several respects, as detailed in Section IV below.

This is one of the Goldstone mission's best examples of Israeli war crimes vs. civilian infrastructure and it was IRRESPONSIBLE and IGNORANT.

Ken Roth of HRW is no better, as he just recently brought up the "white flags" incident in his response to Goldstone's OP-ED. If Roth and HRW had any credibility, they wouldn't even mention this incident...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255218#259010

It's a safe bet that when Goldstone and HRW's best arguments for Israeli war crimes turn out to be shit, that Israel's conduct during OCL was lawful.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. That's what I've been saying, and it's a war-crime...

I don't think you understand that just because the IDF claims something, it doesn't make it fact. The IDF has a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth, and I've yet to hear an explanation from anyone as to why we should all blindly believe what the IDF says, especially when it comes to its habit of throwing the term 'terrorist' around in order to excuse itself. It doesn't, and as I've already pointed out, the destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war-crime and there's no exceptions made for Israel. That just makes a mockery of laws created with the intention of protecting civilians and civilian infrastructre, and I'm not sure how anyone who tries to use the argument you have could believe that the US hasn't committed war crimes in Iraq with the way it destroyed civilian infrastructure, or that Russia hasn't done the same in Chechnya...

Sorry, but even if I believed that the very valid claims that Israel has committed war-crimes were to be 'shit', how does that then translate into Israel's conduct during OCL being lawful? That's a massive call and seems to be motivated by a desperation to believe that Israel hasn't done anything wrong...

[shira]

37. But what evidence do you have that Israel's intent was malicious & had no military purpose?

Are you going only by HRW and Goldstone's claims - because if so that doesn't make it fact as both play fast and loose with the truth WRT Israeli actions....

Maybe you should provide 1 or 2 of the most OBVIOUS, EGREGIOUS examples that prove Israel's ill intent towards Palestinian civilians during OCL...

The point I was making WRT those 2 cases I brought up in my last post is that THOSE cases are 2 of the most cited "obvious" examples Goldstone and HRW use to try proving their point WRT ill Israeli intent. If that's the best they've got, then they have NO evidence Israel's overall intent was anywhere near as malicious as they claim, and therefore what the IDF did generally speaking was lawful.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I've already explained why destroying civilian infrastructure is a war crime

I've asked you whether you think the US committed war crimes in Iraq or whether it can use the same excuses you think Israel can use. You haven't answered the question which is a shame as I think it'd give some insight into how you come to the conclusion you did with OCL. I think my xplanation in my earlier posts have been very clear, but obviously there's a problem if you think that you get to decide if destruction of civilian infrastructure is acceptable to you or not. It doesn't work like that.

[shira]

26. You're wrong, Violet...

Geneva Protocol 1977...

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

"when combatants fire from within civilian structures or activate roadside charges from trees and fields, these structures are to be considered legitimate military targets."

Good thing you're not in charge of International Law, or else Hamas could fire away at civilians with impunity from schools and mosques.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I'm not. Read my reply to eyl

Just because the idf claims there's terrorists somewhere does not give them the right to destroy civilian infrastructure. Doing that constitutes a war crime. The same standards apply for Israel as for other countries and if yr going to trot that line out then it'd be impossible to argue that the US committed war crimes in Iraq or that Russia did in chechnya.

Yr final comment is absolute nonsense and displays an inability to comprehend the very simple concept that the IDF making an accusation does not make their accusations facts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Absolutely correct

[azurnoir]

12. and the 'proof' would be.........

the 'good word' of IDF?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Video would be a good start. Secondary explosions could count as well

During the last Gaza fracas, a military vehicle hid in the a civilian garage. An F-16I solved that problem. Normally bombing civilian residences is not allowed. The video is on Youtube.

[azurnoir]

15. aha well then post the vid and lets have a look see

tell us is titled or embellished so that absolutely know beyond any question of a doubt what we are seeing? sort of like the ones last spring of the Mavi Marmara incident?

eta and failing that the ever popular 'secondary explosion' it is if nothing else predictable

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I did at the time...have to go find it again.

IIRC it was drone video and and F-16I doing the damage. I was an IAF sourced video.

My comments about secondary explosions also goes back to the last Gaza incursion. A few mosques were hit and the secondaries were well in excess of the actual attack

[azurnoir]

17. well you brought it up

but apparently do not want to post it so ok

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. I poked around on YouTube

It looks like the IDF channel ages things out (is there a size limit for a channel?) so they are no longer up. Still looking for the original links.

[King_David]

3. Let me correct that headline:

How it should read :

Goldstone Retracts the Central Most Important Part of His Report on Israeli Assault on Gaza, Leaves Insignificant Rest Intact, for now.

[shira]

8. +1. Says something about the credibility of the entire report....

...and those who supported its dishonest claims.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I read the transcript earlier today. Thanks for posting it, Douglas...

It's very interesting and touches on a few things I was thinking when I read Mr. Goldstone's op-ed the other day, especially this bit: '...there’s an article in the Times today highlighting that and highlighting the Israeli strategy now to try to have the entire report retracted by the U.N., although in Ha’aretz this morning, the Israeli newspaper, they’re already saying that there’s no way that the U.N. is going to retract the report, that there’s no way one op-ed in the Washington Post can outweigh a 500-page U.N. report that had, you know, months of research and—that has gone into it.'

[King_David]

28. It probably will be retracted sooner ,rather than later.

Author of the Goldstone Report, Judge Richard Goldstone, promised to work to nullify the contested report and has accepted an invitation to visit Israel, Army Radio reported on Tuesday.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?...

[oberliner]

30. I do not believe his efforts will be succesful

Time will tell, though.

[oberliner]

13. Shocking response from the Mondoweiss crew!

People see what they want to see apparently.

[azurnoir]

18. yes people do see what they want to and just in case sometimes

they can if so inclined be told what they are seeing

but I am curious just who is this 'Mondoweiss crowd?'

[oberliner]

19. The person being interviewed is Adam Horowitz

He is the co-editor of Mondoweiss, with Philip Weiss.

[azurnoir]

20. Does that in your opinion delegitimize the article and would it be

any more or less that the article(s) published by NYT's Ethan Bronner, who's son currently serves in IDF?

The seems to be quite supportive of Israel's reaction

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03goldstone.html


the second seems to reconsider the first a bit , but note the different co-writers of the 2 articles

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/middleeast/06goldstone.html?src=twrhp

[oberliner]

22. Not at all

It's very consistent with everything else that he has written on the subject.

Ethan Bronner is similar consistent in his POV.

Everyone is responding predictably.

[azurnoir]

23. have you noticed the giyus? crowd seems to think this is a victory? n/t

[oberliner]

24. Don't know what that is

A typo or an acronym?

A google search turns up some odd-looking group that I've never heard of.

[azurnoir]

25. ah an odd group I'll take your word for it I've seen it refered to here before n/t

[oberliner]

29. I try to stick to center, left, and far left

Although, Mondoweiss seems to straddle the nether regions between far left and far right.

Yet, they are apparently left enough to be posted with fondness here.

Some of the comments there make me ill.

[King_David]

27. Not a victory as damage already done,but

It certainly is a vindication.

[azurnoir]

32. so you apparently know what giyus is? can you explain? n/t

[King_David]

38. giyus ? No clue nt

[azurnoir]

39. Interesting indeed, as you seem to an avid supporter of Israel

upon Googling giyus I found that it is an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support

[King_David]

40. Never heard of them,cant be that important

;)

[azurnoir]

41. sort of like the more known but equally as 'unimportant' AIPAC ? n/t

[King_David]

46. Sorry,you lost me there.

[shira]

43. Only one correction in entire 575 page report...

Only "one" correction? That "one correction" as Goldstone puts it, reverses THE entire premise and theme of the report. Almost everything else spins the "proof" for this central theme. When the most essential and slanderous conclusion of the report is negated, all that is left are the polemical contortions that prop up this false premise.

http://blog.camera.org/

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. Goldstone denies intention to retract UN report - Jerusalem Post

Goldstone denies intention to retract UN report

y JPOST.COM STAFF
04/06/2011 07:39

In AP interview, judge refutes Yishai's claims that he promised to seek nullification for his report on Operation Cast

South African jurist Richard Goldstone denied Interior Minister Eli Yishai's claim that he planned to work to nullify his report on the the IDF's Operation Cast Lead in 2009, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Goldstone, in an interview with the Associated Press, said that Yishai had called to thank him for his Washington Post op-ed piece, but that the two never discussed the actual report. Goldstone said that he had responded to Yishai's thanks, telling him his utmost concern was for "truth, justice, and human rights."

snip:

As for his report on the 2009 Gaza offensive, Goldstone reiterated that the "intentionality on the part of Israel" required review, and that "domestic investigation could lead to further reconsideration." The judge concluded, however, that no part of the report needed reconsideration at the present time.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=215347

[Scurrilous]

45. Thanks.

:kick: