Berman and Ackerman respond to Goldstone

Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:01pm

The House is preparing to vote on a resolution condemning the U.N.'s Goldstone Report, but not before making changes to the text to respond to the complaints of Goldstone himself.

Meanwhile in New York, the U.N. General Assembly was preparing for a possible vote on a resolution supporting the Goldstone Report on Wednesday and Arab U.N. delegations were circulating a draft today.

The Congressional resolution, which simply expresses the opinion of Congress and has no actual force of law, deems the report "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy," and "calls on the President and the Secretary of State to strongly and unequivocally oppose any further consideration of the [report] and any other measures stemming from this report in multilateral fora."

Sponsored by House Foreign Affairs heads Howard Berman, D-CA, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, the measure is expected to pass by a wide margin.

Justice Richard Goldstone, the primary author of the report, wrote a lengthy memorandum to the bill's sponsors criticizing the text of the House resolution. In a dear colleague letter circulated Monday, Berman and Gary Ackerman, D-NY, responded to each of Goldstone's complaints.

Chief among them was the issue of whether the U.N. Human Rights Council issued a mandate for the report that prejudged Israel's guilt in alleged war crimes committed during the Gaza operation. Berman and Ackerman rejected Goldstone's contention that he altered the mandate to include the examination of rocket attacks on Israel in addition to Israeli actions in Gaza.

"The broadened mandate Justice Goldstone sought was discussed, but not voted on, at an UNHRC plenary session. It was then announced via a press release in an altered formation, more restrictive than the formulation envisioned by Justice Goldstone," Berman and Ackerman wrote.

"Even though Justice Goldstone made earnest efforts to alter the mandate, he did not fully succeed ... we intend to alter the resolution to take account of Justice Goldstone's effort."

UPDATE: As expected, the House overwhelmingly passed the measure, with 344 members voting for, 36 voting against, and 22 voting "present."

Here are the new test portions of the resolution added before passage:

Whereas Justice Richard Goldstone, who chaired the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,' told the then-President of theUNHRC, Nigerian Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, that he intended to broaden the mandate of the Mission to include "all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after," a phrase that, according to Justice Goldstone, was intended to allow him to investigate Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians;

Whereas Ambassador Uhomoibhi issued a statement on April 3, 2009, that endorsed part of Justice Goldstone's proposed broadened mandate but deleted the phrase "before, during, and after," and added inflammatory
anti-Israeli language;

Whereas a so-called broadened mandate was never officially endorsed by a plenary meeting of the UNHRC, neither in the form proposed by Justice Goldstone nor in the form proposed by Ambassador Uhomoibhi;


And this clause has been expanded, so it now reads that resolution:

calls on the President and the Secretary of State to continue to strongly and unequivocally oppose any endorsement of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora, including through leading opposition to any United Nations General Assembly resolution and through vetoing, if necessary, any United Nations Security Council resolution that endorses the contents of this report, seeks to act upon the recommendations contained in this report, or calls on any other international body to take further action regarding this report.


Advertisement

 

How utterly embarrassing for

How utterly embarrassing for us as a nation. This punctuates the message that the US has no interest in human rights, international law, or any form of internationalism.

If Obama wants to send a message to the arab/muslim world (actually the entire world) he will reject the rejection and operate in good faith on the Goldstone report, or at the very least, use this power to force Israel to actually stop settlements and come back to the table to negotiate. Currently Obama looks totally impotent on this issue and has been made to look like a fool by Bibi.

Lest that egg on Obama's face dries there...

We voted for change, where is it?

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, doesn't have some of the same editorial traditions of our own media, in which nationalist exceptionalism is not to be challenged under any circumstances.

So, from time to time, you get pieces like Gideon Levy's opinion column, demanding that Barack Obama stop "sucking up to Israel."

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change.

As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Erdogan has indicated a willingness for Turkey, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, to bring it before that body regardless of what transpires in the HRC. That would move it a step further, where after presumably acrimonious discussion, it would be vetoed by the US, perhaps with Britain and/or France joining it.

The President of the Security Council, in concert with the President of the General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General, should be encouraged to make every effort in their own spheres of responsibility to bring the debate before the General Assembly under the provisions of UNGA 377A (the "Uniting for Peace Resolution").

An artifact of the Cold War designed to circumvent Soviet vetoes, it is little known now but absolutely applicable to the smoldering situation in the Middle East. Its great virtues are that it gives the General Assembly the enforcement powers normally within the purview of the Security Council, and vetoes do not apply.

Holding Israel accountable to its obligations under international law is part of the role of the international community through agencies like the United Nations, the IAEA, and others. What Israel does not want is to be held accountable.

I am embarrassed as a US citizen for my President and our useless congress. We voted for change, where is it?

Even...

Even supposing that the report is biased, does that justify unilateral rejection of the accord? Wouldn't it serve Israel's interests best to prove through open investigation that the Goldstone report was biased?

At lets face it. Over one thousand Palestinian civilians die in a war protecting the lives of a few Israelis. Why is the life of a single Palestinian child so wortheless to the Israeli government? The US has made active efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to, despite increased risk to their soldiers, protect the lives of civilians. This has strategic benefit, but it's also the only morally justified way to fight. Especially if you've been occupying these people's land for some forty years.

Lastly, doesn't AIPAC and the Israeli lobby's hold over the US legislature reinforce like half of the negative Jewish stereotypes?

(1) AIPAC and other pro-Israeli voices in America link all criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism. If the Jewish people are defined by the actions of the Jewish state, it means that any true criticism of Israel becomes in the minds of many features of the Jewish people. Anyways, it's an absurd argument. It's equivalent to arguing that anyone who is critical of Saudi Arabian is racist towards Arabs.

(2) AIPAC almost controls the foreign policy affairs of the world's largest nation. The most pernicious anti-semitic stereotype in history is that Jews are trying to run the world through conspiracy. AIPAC hides behind accusations of bigotry based on the damage caused by this stereotype any time anyone calls them out for being a disproportionately powerful lobby, which they clearly are.

> Over one thousand

> Over one thousand Palestinian civilians die in a war protecting the lives of a few Israelis

The purpose of the war was to stop continued rocket attacks against whole towns in Southern Israel. So its more than a "few Israelis" being protected.

What's your point?

Primitive rockets from Gaza,have taken thirteen Israeli lives in the past four years,while Israeli forces have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the occupied territories in the past two years alone, almost half of them were civilians, including some 200 children. And that's not even counting Gaza.

What is today Sedrot was a Palestinian town ethnically cleansed by Israli terrorists in 1948.

All Palestinians were killed or forced out of their lands and homes by the Zionistas. No wonder it's a target. Palestinian people used to live and thrive in Sedrot.

If Israel was not simultaneously running the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement, you might have a point.

Also, if, during the period between 2000 and 2009 that Hamas shot those thousands of Rockets, Israel had not shot 14500 mortars into Gaza, you might also have a point. But you don't.

I guess its over 1,000 Palestinian civilians...

That is, if one counts all non-uniformed HAMAS operatives as civilians.

Of course, that doesn't include the HAMAS members who were in uniform.... except for the fact that the UN doesn't recognize HAMAS as combatants, only as civilians regardless of their garb.

Nobody doubts that life was

Nobody doubts that life was hard in the Israeli border communities during the rocket attacks. But life was a hell of a lot worse in Gaza. I'm annoyed and a little offended too that Netenyahu would compare Hamas's attacks to the Blitz, which killed tens of thousands of Londoners.

As for its outright rejection Sam, as the Congressmen explained

The UNHRC's (itself a continuation of its predecessor human rights body) unending bias against Israel highlights why Justice Goldstone's investigation was dismissed out of hand by the Israeli government.

That not only the report itself, but the subsequent UNHRC commentary and vote, expanded the anti-Israel bias only confirms how little the UN body, investigative group, and its report, have to do with human rights.