Goldstone v. Ros-Lehtinen and Berman http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/goldstone-v-ros-lehtinen-and-berman/ Goldstone wins on points. en-us rkampeas@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-10-30T;21:42:00-05:00 Comment by Evan Zuesse tzur@optusnet.com.au Readers of all the above would be interested in some revelatory comments regarding the “Goldstone” letter to Congress elsewhere on-line.  It turns out the letter was written not by Goldstone, although no doubt he signed it, but by his J-Street advisor, Morton Halperin.  This sheds light not only on the probity or lack of it of Judge Goldstone, but also of J Street - and also George Soros, who is sponsoring and funding a lot of this. Here are the other items, the first by the Editor of The Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb, the second by Steve Rosen, an academic posting on the Harvard University “Middle East Forum” blog: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/j_street_adviser_morton_halper.asp J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a document authored by Judge Richard Goldstone that is now being circulated on Capitol Hill. The document was written in response to HR 867—the resolution sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman condemning Goldstone’s report on Israeli war crimes in Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone explains in the document that he sends his “comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors.” Spencer Ackerman reported today that J Street would oppose the resolution in the House, but J Street chief Jeremy Ben-Ami has also said his organization “refuses to embrace” the Goldstone report. But it seems that certain elements of J Street have indeed embraced Goldstone and his report. Upon further inspection of the Goldstone letter, the actual author seems to be Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros’s Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded here. (A check of the file’s “properties” reveals the author as Morton H. Halperin.) Individuals with official ties to J Street are not just embracing the Goldstone report, they are involved in efforts on behalf of Goldstone himself to scuttle opposition to the report in Congress. It’s just another example of the disconnect between J Street’s official positions and the actions of those who are connected to the organization. Posted by Michael Goldfarb on October 30, 2009 12:51 PM http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/11/j-street-allied-to-goldstone J Street allied to Goldstone?? by Steve Rosen  •  Nov 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm I haven’t posted for a while, but this is remarkable. Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard discovered ("J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone") that a letter purportedly written by Judge Richard Goldstone to criticize a House of Representative resolution condemning the Goldstone report (HR 867 sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman) was substantially written by Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros’s Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded from the Standard. A check of the file’s “properties” revealed the author as Halperin. There has been a lot of warm and cozy talk about expanding our definition of the pro-Israel family to include some cousins who dissent a little here and there, like calling for less pressure on Iran and more on Israel. But this Goldstone maneuver is not mere dissent, but an apolgia for a report that would, if left unanswered, make it impossible for Israel to defend itself against a systematic campaign to target Israeli civilians. Mort Halperin was one of the key founders of J Street, and held what may have been the first serious fundraiser for the new organization in his home. This is not merely wrong, but profoundly evil, and it is being done by one of the fathers of J Street, which tosses around the phrase “pro-Israel” while robbing it of all meaning. Readers of all the above would be interested in some revelatory comments regarding the “Goldstone” letter to Congress elsewhere on-line.  It turns out the letter was written not by Goldstone, although no doubt he signed it, but by his J-Street advisor, Morton Halperin.  This sheds light not only on the probity or lack of it of Judge Goldstone, but also of J Street - and also George Soros, who is sponsoring and funding a lot of this.

Here are the other items, the first by the Editor of The Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb, the second by Steve Rosen, an academic posting on the Harvard University “Middle East Forum” blog:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/j_street_adviser_morton_halper.asp

J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a document authored by Judge Richard Goldstone that is now being circulated on Capitol Hill. The document was written in response to HR 867—the resolution sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman condemning Goldstone’s report on Israeli war crimes in Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone explains in the document that he sends his “comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors.”
Spencer Ackerman reported today that J Street would oppose the resolution in the House, but J Street chief Jeremy Ben-Ami has also said his organization “refuses to embrace” the Goldstone report. But it seems that certain elements of J Street have indeed embraced Goldstone and his report. Upon further inspection of the Goldstone letter, the actual author seems to be Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros’s Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded here. (A check of the file’s “properties” reveals the author as Morton H. Halperin.)
Individuals with official ties to J Street are not just embracing the Goldstone report, they are involved in efforts on behalf of Goldstone himself to scuttle opposition to the report in Congress. It’s just another example of the disconnect between J Street’s official positions and the actions of those who are connected to the organization.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on October 30, 2009 12:51 PM

http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/11/j-street-allied-to-goldstone
J Street allied to Goldstone??
by Steve Rosen  •  Nov 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm

I haven’t posted for a while, but this is remarkable.
Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard discovered ("J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone") that a letter purportedly written by Judge Richard Goldstone to criticize a House of Representative resolution condemning the Goldstone report (HR 867 sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman) was substantially written by Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros’s Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded from the Standard. A check of the file’s “properties” revealed the author as Halperin.
There has been a lot of warm and cozy talk about expanding our definition of the pro-Israel family to include some cousins who dissent a little here and there, like calling for less pressure on Iran and more on Israel. But this Goldstone maneuver is not mere dissent, but an apolgia for a report that would, if left unanswered, make it impossible for Israel to defend itself against a systematic campaign to target Israeli civilians. Mort Halperin was one of the key founders of J Street, and held what may have been the first serious fundraiser for the new organization in his home. This is not merely wrong, but profoundly evil, and it is being done by one of the fathers of J Street, which tosses around the phrase “pro-Israel” while robbing it of all meaning.

]]> 2012-02-10T;12:44:00-05:00 Comment by Evan Zuesse tzur@optusnet.com.au Ron Kampeas may think that Richard Goldstone wins on points, but I do not.  In fact, many of his responses are “disingenuous”: he fudges the issues, dodges the points, and unfortunately simply does not tell the truth or is “economical” with it.  E.g.,he claims at the end of his letter that his Report was not shaped by Hamas.  He omits to mention that a major source for his Goldstone Report was TAWTHEQ. According to the “Elder of Ziyon” blog, “TAWTHEQ is quoted in the context of the Gaza war more often than HRW and seems to be mentioned in the report body about as often as PCHR (although PCHR is mentioned more in footnotes.) In other words, it seems that Goldstone put a lot of emphasis on TAWTHEQ’s direct testimony to the Commission.  Who is TAWTHEQ? It is not an NGO - it is Hamas!  The organization is an Arabic acronym for the “Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals.” The possible objectivity of such an organization seems remote.” See elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/Goldstone Report This address follows directly after the http:// - there is no www. in it.  The analysis of the TAWTHEQ group is article #8 in the “Goldstone Report” file.  The “Elder of Ziyon” blog is probably the most detailed and devastating of the analyses of that report.  But also see the other links in http://www.goldstonereport.org Goldstone’s dismissal of the possibility that Gazan witnesses might reasonably fear retaliation from Hamas if they testified in support of the IDF conduct of the war, or refuted Hamas claims, is derisory.  This refusal to admit that he is dealing with a criminal organization and cannot ignore issues like intimidation, human shields, etc., runs right through the Report.  There are literally no democratic nor responsibly self-critical Palestinian institutions allowed in Gaza.  It is far from having the transparency and honesty in matters of war or peace that Israel has.  Goldstone ignores this. Or rather, throughout his Report he makes it clear that he considers Hamas/Palestinian claims far more credible than Israeli.  He dismissed Israeli government documents and Israeli NGO analyses dealing with some of the very cases he deals with in the Report, and then has the gall to claim that there was no information from Israel or the IDF to support its side of the conflict, which is why, he says, he favored the Hamas side and version of events.  Actually he refused to take into account Israeli-sourced information presented to him regarding the IDF incidents and policies he criticises. Instead, many of his trusted Gazan witnesses, and many of the victims, whom he claimed were civilians, have been shown to have been members of Hamas militias.  This information was often presented to Goldstone before the completion of his Report, e.g., by Lt. Col. Jonathan Halevi among others (see http://www.goldstonereport.org for links): he refused to accept these corrections.  On the “human shields” issue his answer avoids the crux of the matter entirely, and even ignores “international law” on this issue.  In his answer the question becomes not whether Hamas positioned rockets or fighters in schools, crowded streets, hospitals, etc. - which they did, as a matter of course, and which is itself an evidence of using civilians as human shields and a war crime - but whether Hamas forced civilians in front of them as literal shields.  Whether civilians are forced into or volunteer for such “shields” is not the issue in international law.  Simply their use in this fashion is already illegal.  Furthermore, he rejected IDF videos available on the internet showing Hamas using civilians and civilian areas as human shields (and also dressing as civilians themselves, also a war crime).  There is plenty of evidence that with or without the consent of their civilian neighbors, without consultation in fact, Hamas fighters regularly did use civilians and civilian areas as shields, stored weapons in private homes, shot from crowded streets and groups of children, even positioned their military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s main hospital.  All of this is known to Goldstone.  His phrasing in his letter obscures all this.  He claims that he got the UN HRC to change the mandate to include possible Hamas war crimes.  Actually, he did not.  The HRC considered this change and voted not to ratify it.  He only got a verbal commitment from the HRC head, which carried no weight without ratification from the Council itself.  That is how the HRC could pass a resolution, on receiving the Report, which only condemned Israel for alleged war crimes and recommended UN indictment of Israel, and was totally silent on Hamas.  Goldstone pretended to be surprised and hurt by this omission.  It was actually entirely in order.  He is just trying to cover himself.  Moreover, his insincerity in this matter is shown by the fact that only 5% or less of the actual report deals with allegations against Hamas, and it is all generalities and even exonerations, there are no detailed cases dealt with and nothing therefore that would be indictable; but over 95% of the over 500 pages focuses on Israel.  So the entire Hamas section is just a fig leaf, intended to be such. He claims that Ms. Chinkin, one of the four investigators on the Goldstone Commission, is quoted misleadingly for condemning Israel heatedly for war crimes even before undertaking the investigation, because she also mentioned in passing Hamas use of rockets as war crimes.  But he fails to mention that the heavy weight of her statement was anti-Israel and pro-Hamas, and that she had served on pro-Palestinian advocacy groups before becoming a member of the Goldstone Commission.  In no way is she a neutral arbiter. A major issue is whether the Goldstone Report strips from Israel, or any liberal democracy, its moral right of self-defense against terrorist groups.  Goldstone says he does not do this.  Yet it is very difficult to see how any democracy can defend itself in his terms.  In his letter above, he misrepresents “Just War” theory to do this (note his reference to ius ad bellum), including issues of “proportionality,” risk to civilian lives, etc.  On this, see for example Michael Walzer, “Responsibility and Proportionality in State and Non-State Wars,” available at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/09spring/walzer.pdf For detailed refutation of the Report, case by case, see the Elder of Ziyon blog and other links named above. Ron Kampeas may think that Richard Goldstone wins on points, but I do not.  In fact, many of his responses are “disingenuous”: he fudges the issues, dodges the points, and unfortunately simply does not tell the truth or is “economical” with it.  E.g.,he claims at the end of his letter that his Report was not shaped by Hamas.  He omits to mention that a major source for his Goldstone Report was TAWTHEQ. According to the “Elder of Ziyon” blog, “TAWTHEQ is quoted in the context of the Gaza war more often than HRW and seems to be mentioned in the report body about as often as PCHR (although PCHR is mentioned more in footnotes.) In other words, it seems that Goldstone put a lot of emphasis on TAWTHEQ’s direct testimony to the Commission.  Who is TAWTHEQ? It is not an NGO - it is Hamas!  The organization is an Arabic acronym for the “Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals.” The possible objectivity of such an organization seems remote.”

See elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/Goldstone Report
This address follows directly after the http:// - there is no www. in it.  The analysis of the TAWTHEQ group is article #8 in the “Goldstone Report” file.  The “Elder of Ziyon” blog is probably the most detailed and devastating of the analyses of that report.  But also see the other links in http://www.goldstonereport.org

Goldstone’s dismissal of the possibility that Gazan witnesses might reasonably fear retaliation from Hamas if they testified in support of the IDF conduct of the war, or refuted Hamas claims, is derisory.  This refusal to admit that he is dealing with a criminal organization and cannot ignore issues like intimidation, human shields, etc., runs right through the Report.  There are literally no democratic nor responsibly self-critical Palestinian institutions allowed in Gaza.  It is far from having the transparency and honesty in matters of war or peace that Israel has.  Goldstone ignores this.

Or rather, throughout his Report he makes it clear that he considers Hamas/Palestinian claims far more credible than Israeli.  He dismissed Israeli government documents and Israeli NGO analyses dealing with some of the very cases he deals with in the Report, and then has the gall to claim that there was no information from Israel or the IDF to support its side of the conflict, which is why, he says, he favored the Hamas side and version of events.  Actually he refused to take into account Israeli-sourced information presented to him regarding the IDF incidents and policies he criticises.

Instead, many of his trusted Gazan witnesses, and many of the victims, whom he claimed were civilians, have been shown to have been members of Hamas militias.  This information was often presented to Goldstone before the completion of his Report, e.g., by Lt. Col. Jonathan Halevi among others (see http://www.goldstonereport.org for links): he refused to accept these corrections. 

On the “human shields” issue his answer avoids the crux of the matter entirely, and even ignores “international law” on this issue.  In his answer the question becomes not whether Hamas positioned rockets or fighters in schools, crowded streets, hospitals, etc. - which they did, as a matter of course, and which is itself an evidence of using civilians as human shields and a war crime - but whether Hamas forced civilians in front of them as literal shields.  Whether civilians are forced into or volunteer for such “shields” is not the issue in international law.  Simply their use in this fashion is already illegal. 

Furthermore, he rejected IDF videos available on the internet showing Hamas using civilians and civilian areas as human shields (and also dressing as civilians themselves, also a war crime).  There is plenty of evidence that with or without the consent of their civilian neighbors, without consultation in fact, Hamas fighters regularly did use civilians and civilian areas as shields, stored weapons in private homes, shot from crowded streets and groups of children, even positioned their military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s main hospital.  All of this is known to Goldstone.  His phrasing in his letter obscures all this. 

He claims that he got the UN HRC to change the mandate to include possible Hamas war crimes.  Actually, he did not.  The HRC considered this change and voted not to ratify it.  He only got a verbal commitment from the HRC head, which carried no weight without ratification from the Council itself.  That is how the HRC could pass a resolution, on receiving the Report, which only condemned Israel for alleged war crimes and recommended UN indictment of Israel, and was totally silent on Hamas.  Goldstone pretended to be surprised and hurt by this omission.  It was actually entirely in order.  He is just trying to cover himself.  Moreover, his insincerity in this matter is shown by the fact that only 5% or less of the actual report deals with allegations against Hamas, and it is all generalities and even exonerations, there are no detailed cases dealt with and nothing therefore that would be indictable; but over 95% of the over 500 pages focuses on Israel.  So the entire Hamas section is just a fig leaf, intended to be such.

He claims that Ms. Chinkin, one of the four investigators on the Goldstone Commission, is quoted misleadingly for condemning Israel heatedly for war crimes even before undertaking the investigation, because she also mentioned in passing Hamas use of rockets as war crimes.  But he fails to mention that the heavy weight of her statement was anti-Israel and pro-Hamas, and that she had served on pro-Palestinian advocacy groups before becoming a member of the Goldstone Commission.  In no way is she a neutral arbiter.

A major issue is whether the Goldstone Report strips from Israel, or any liberal democracy, its moral right of self-defense against terrorist groups.  Goldstone says he does not do this.  Yet it is very difficult to see how any democracy can defend itself in his terms.  In his letter above, he misrepresents “Just War” theory to do this (note his reference to ius ad bellum), including issues of “proportionality,” risk to civilian lives, etc.  On this, see for example Michael Walzer, “Responsibility and Proportionality in State and Non-State Wars,” available at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/09spring/walzer.pdf

For detailed refutation of the Report, case by case, see the Elder of Ziyon blog and other links named above.

]]> 2012-02-10T;12:44:00-05:00 Comment by Michael Hess bbsnews@gmail.com Any congressperson who votes in favor of this resolution is voting in favor of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. All people of conscience should cry out at this travesty. HR 867 is un-American. Americans do not support war crimes and crimes against humanity. Any congressperson who votes in favor of this resolution is voting in favor of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

All people of conscience should cry out at this travesty.

HR 867 is un-American. Americans do not support war crimes and crimes against humanity.

]]> 2012-02-10T;12:44:00-05:00