Israel to World: "Suck It."

Meaning?

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, April 4, 2011 3:24 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

in lebanon at least, there's a lot of bad blood from the 70s and 80s, when not everyone there welcomed the PLO. know less about syria.

I'm going to turn your question back on you -- it's quite clear that he's taking a number of things back. First of all, "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document" is a direct quote from him, so I didn't write anything that he didn't say himself. Second of all,

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

This is a significant shift.

― Mordy, Saturday, April 2, 2011 4:46 PM Bookmark

Sorry, but how so? All I see here are vague, out-of-context quotes. Saying it would be "a different document" -- well that's true if any changes at all would be made, even minor ones. HOW would the evidence have influenced the findings, and what was the evidence, and what specific findings would change?

It does seem like Goldstone has changed his position a bit, in that he is saying now that the Israeli armed forces were not deliberately charging civilians and do seem to be properly investigating incidents in which civilians were killed. He might have reached these conclusions in the original report if Israel had cooperated with his inquiry.

A separate issue really is one of collateral damage - how careless do you have to be in targetting enemy combatants before the effect is more or less the same as targetting civilians?

Also, as Bradley Burston (an Israeli journalist writing for Haaretz) has said, it might be wise if, next time the Israeli armed forces are blowing up somewhere, Israeli government figures do not say things that suggest that actually they are indiscriminately targetting civilians (see: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/the-next-israel-arab-war-goldstone-will-be-there-1.353865 )

I was only talking about Syria, following on from what I think is an untrue claim from you about the status of Palestinians in that country.

I wrote: "(oh Israel should settle all of them, but we'll keep our Palestinian refugee community in refugee camps and refuse to let them integrate into Syrian society)" So it's kind of a joke to be like, "they like hanging out with themselves. Syria would totally let them integrate into Syrian society if not for that," and then give the punchline, "oh yeah, also they aren't allowed to be citizens." I don't see how the first thing makes sense with the second. Maybe they're more allowed to integrate than Lebanon refugees but they are completely disenfranchised, and primarily for the reasons mentioned above (to give them a bargaining chip re right of return as well as prevent a reality on the ground situation where the refugees are just de facto Syrians).

Sorry, but how so? All I see here are vague, out-of-context quotes. Saying it would be "a different document" -- well that's true if any changes at all would be made, even minor ones. HOW would the evidence have influenced the findings, and what was the evidence, and what specific findings would change?

It seems pretty self-evident to me that he is writing that if they had the full evidence before writing the report he would not have claimed that there were war crimes on both sides of the conflict. Remember that war crimes is a tightly defined claim and doesn't mean the same thing for a UN report as it does for a pundit calling a President a war criminal. It seems obvious to me that he would not have used that term (esp re evidence that showed that civilian deaths came about from legitimate military information and a right to military action). I think this is a huge split on the original report. Also, I don't really get why you think he wrote this op-ed if he was just making "even minor" changes. He's obviously not writing, "Oh, there were some small negligible differences that might've been produced if we had more information earlier" -- you don't need a very public column in a major newspaper to make that non-point. He's saying that there would've been fundamental changes were the report created today. I think you're pretty obviously misreading his comments.

nb I think Israel can still be censured for the way they conducted Operation Cast Lead, but there's a significant gulf between 'war crimes' and other kinds of criticism.

I think you're pretty obviously misreading his comments.

― Mordy, Monday, April 4, 2011 11:07 AM Bookmark

I think you're pretty obviously doing the same -- I don't see where it says "I no longer believe war crimes were committed."

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

How do you think it would influence their findings about intentionality and war crimes without - you know - changing their minds about whether there was appropriate intentionality and war crimes? Is there some third pole where it's war crimes but still changed? Like, how are you even reading that quote? What does it mean to you? "It probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes. But I still believe they committed war crimes so I guess it wouldn't really influence those findings." Are there some other findings you think it might have influenced?

HOW would the evidence have influenced the findings, and what was the evidence, and what specific findings would change?

So obviously he doesn't include a lot of examples of this kind of thing, but he does include one.

For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.

The original assumption was that this was a war crime. That the Israeli government, with intention and malice, ordered an attack on a home that had 29 innocent civilians in it. B/c these things are required to declare this a war crime, this became a war crime according to the UN. After research they discovered that the commander erroneously interpreted a drone image. The results are still tragic and should be condemned, but without intention and malice this is not a war crime. Unless you don't believe it makes a difference if it's a war crime or not, this is shift from the original Goldstone Report.

Remember that war crimes is a tightly defined claim and doesn't mean the same thing for a UN report as it does for a pundit calling a President a war criminal.

ha this is cute

you're otm in the other argument

"ha this is cute"

I could have made that argument more eloquently. What I really meant is that even if you believe that intentionality doesn't matter here - ie: that this action with intentionality/malice is morally equivalent to the same action without intentionality - Goldstone obviously disagrees with that. So even if you don't believe he's actually making a shift, he clearly believes he's making a shift.

Haaretz op-ed:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/growing-mideast-democracy-could-benefit-israel-too-1.354143

OK, can someone explain to ME why suddenly seeking a two-state solution based on the '67 borders is some kind of treachery toward Israel? I thought that was the standard, mainstream position. IDFGI

About 300k settlers live outside of the 1967 borders - a fair proportion of them are going to be voting for Netanyahu. Israel has, as far as i'm aware, never regarded a return to the old borders as a mainstream position as it would, in their view, leave them vulnerable to attack and require them to uproot fairly significant populations from East Jerusalem and newer settlements. The debate in the past has been about how much Israel wants to keep (about 6%), how much Palestine is willing to give (about 2%) and what kind of compensation they can expect to get for it (not much).

Obama's move is the right one - morally and legally. It's certainly also the dominant position internationally - within Europe and the UN. It's not something that Netanyahu's going to accept without a fight though.

My understanding was that settlers wouldn't necessarily have to be "uprooted" but that equivalent land would be taken off Israel in a kind of tit for tat game? Hard to see how that would work though TBH. Especially given differences in the land, like "We'll take this verdant valley and you can have that nobbly old rocky hill over there"

Yeah, a literal return to the 1967 borders would require significant displacement of people. A negotiated settlement informed by the 1967 borders would still require a lot of people to move but not so many. I doubt Netanyahu would rule out the latter and i doubt Obama was really proposing the former.

Oh yeah, THIS is the thread where history mayne started calling me antisemitic. Nice.

great detective work there sherlock

ah so this is where 67bordersgate got talked about.

and god damn, it manages to be even more infuriating than the usual flap about israel! even though nobody died! well done, planet.

RAFAH BORDER CROSSING, Egypt -- Hundreds of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip arrived here by the busload on Saturday to pass through the reopened border into Egypt, taking the first tangible steps out of a four-year Israeli blockade.

lolwat?

Technically, you're right, of course. It was an Egyptian blockade.

And a blockade under challenge once more, for it will soon be Flotilla Time.

And here is a bizarre story on the subject: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/did-netanyahu-s-office-distribute-a-fake-video-against-gaza-flotilla-1.370030

Wow, shameless AND incompetent.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/more-than-100-000-take-to-streets-across-israel-in-largest-housing-protest-yet-1.376102

say what else you will about israel, they're still an active political public

this will help things

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/middleeast/12jerusalem.html

Israel’s Interior Ministry gave final approval on Thursday to construction of a contentious 1,600-apartment complex in East Jerusalem and said it would soon approve an additional 2,700 housing units there, a move that infuriated the Palestinians and could undercut American efforts to salvage long-stalled Middle East peace talks.

that picture is pretty lol tbh

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3130.htm

oh my stars and garters

i should start a thread Fatah to World: "Suck It."

^ three posts which effortlessly encapsulate the entire palestinian conflict

Doesn't really belong here, but this makes me so angry:

Intimidating protest highlight Israeli religious divide

i'd call their bluff and send my daughter to school wearing an enormous false beard

That Jerusalem protest is quite bizarre.

I have often thought that one day Jerusalem will see a united bloc of religious nutters (Jewish and Muslim primarily) who will face off in local politics against people who are not religious or who hold easy-going religious views. This is, obviously, a somewhat naive hope.

Israel trading 1,000 prisoners for Gilad Shalit. I say wtf. One soldier isn't worth a thousand prisoners. I'm sure my parents are thrilled at the implicit fuck you, though -- "one of ours is worth a thousand of yours."

“@AlbertBrooks: Gilad Shalit is finally going to be released! Hated his reviews but didn't think he deserved prison.”

I hate to sound callous, but I've always found the Gilad Shalit hysteria extremely bizarre behavior for a nation. I can't imagine the US getting that up-in-arms over a single kidnapped soldier.

the "togetherness" effect of israel and the fact that it's a small country where everyone's serving in the army makes the difference of morality and responsibility towards soldiers.

Remember that story the Army made up about that female soldier that was captured in Iraq and then rescued? Or how they dealt with the Pat Tillman situation? Differences of degree, not of kind.

true

it's the "one for all - all for one" culture in Israel, especially considering the army.
Rabbin set the "rule" that if a kidnapped soldier can't be rescued in a military operation - he should be released whatever the price is.
the logic is that if the country isn't responsible for it's soldiers and make every effort to release them - people wont be willing to serve.
the emotions involved in this issue (people imagining themselves and families in the situation) are very strong, and are hard to imagine for non israelies. it's a question of tradition and culture.
after 5 years of negotiation they made the tough decision,(with a feeling that it's a "now or never" point in time) with promises of the Shin Bet they could handle the threats that will arise from it,if and when .time will tell.

it's hard that hard to imagine, really -- it's awful, awful, awful what's happened to that poor kid. fuck a hamas.

it's NOT that hard to imagine

it's hard to imagine he's still alive...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/best-deal-ever.html

tldr (yet)

So is Condi Rice's revisionism as good as Cheney's?

remind me what was Cheney's revisionism?

Taking credit for killing Bin Laden, etc.

oh, this is her recounting the negotiations between olmert + abbas. i assume it's true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html

Israel's friend to world: suck it

huzzah! more settlements!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/israel-settlement-growth-unesco-vote-palestinians