UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report

[GabonX]

The Goldstone report is a UN

GENEVA, October 16, 2009 -- Today's emergency UN Human Rights Council debate on the Goldstone Report predictably saw a line-up of the world's worst abusers condemn democratic Israel for human rights violations. In a heated lynch mob atmosphere, Kuwait slammed Israel for “intentional killing, intentional destruction of civilian objects, intentional scorched-earth policy,” saying Israel “embodied the Agatha Christie novel, 'Escaped with Murder'.” Pakistan said the “horrors of Israeli occupation continue to haunt the international community’s conscience.” The Arab League said, “We must condemn Israel and force Israel to accept international legitimacy." Ahmadinejad’s Iran said “the atrocities committed against Palestinians during the aggressions on Gaza should be taken seriously” and followed up by the international community “to put an end to absolute impunity and defiance of the law.”

What the world's assembled representatives did not expect, however, was the speech that followed (see text below), organized by UN Watch. We invited as our speaker a man who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend the democratic world from the murderous Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taleban. The moment he began his first sentence, the room fell silent. Judge Goldstone, author of the distorted report that prompted today's one-sided condemnation of Israel but not Hamas, had refused to hear Col. Kemp's testimony during his "fact-finding" hearings. But UN Watch made sure today that this hero's voice would be heard -- at the U.N., and around the world

---------------------------------------

UN Watch Oral Statement
Delivered by Colonel Richard Kemp
UN Human Rights Council
12th Special Session, 16 October 2009
Debate on Goldstone Report

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/71326

Kemp also claims that during the Gaza War that "women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect intelligence and ferry arms and ammunition between battles"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ke ... ad_in_Gaza
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/Show ... 0&IID=3026

[GabonX]

This is interesting as well.

[spurgistan]

Must have had some sweet binoculars to see how Israel was conducting the assault on Gaza from Afghanistan.

[BigBallinStalin]

That first article is completely wrong: "author of the distorted report that prompted today's one-sided condemnation of Israel but not Hamas." The Goldstone report actually accuses both sides...

Granted most of the criticism is leveled against Israel, it makes sense considering their history of occupation, frequentelly trodding over the rules of the Geneva Convention, ignoring international law, and the list goes on.

That recent excursion of theirs into the Gaza Strip was horrid. The UN Watch can spew out all the crap they want, it doesn't changed the fact that it was a very dirty fight, mostly civilians were killed and injured, and Israel is completely in the wrong here.

Women and children trained to fight? Sure, how many? "Err, err, uhh, it's still justified to kill most of those women and children." Thank you, please sit down.

And if a foreign force has occupied your homeland for over 50 years, wouldn't you do the same? Would you have the guts and determination to resist and to fight?

______________________--

And your dear Kemp goes on: "While Kemp acknowledges that "of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes. Kemp concludes that from his "knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza"

HAHHAHA, ok, good one, Mr. Kemp. Impressively pulled that one outta the proverbial "hat."
_____________________

And three cheers for the Jerusalem Center of Propaganda Affairs as well!
\


_______________________________



man, gabon, to hell with your propaganda articles concerning this topic.


_____________________________________-


spurgistan, they've must've been provided by Mossad.

[GabonX]

For the record, Kemp wasn't in Afghanistan during the operation. The funny thing about this is that, even though he wasn't, it would be irrelevant as he is referring to well documented precautions that Israel took during the conflict (dropping leaflets, texting cell phones, abandoning campaigns, etc.).

If a country is having military rockets fired at it on a daily basis (at civillian centers as opposed to military targets, and for over two years none the less), and the UN has done nothing to stop the attacks, what exactly is the proper response?

[2dimes]

Let's get a link in here to that forum with the hot Israeli women with machine guns.

[GabonX]

Women and children trained to fight? Sure, how many? "Err, err, uhh, it's still justified to kill most of those women and children." Thank you, please sit down.

And if a foreign force has occupied your homeland for over 50 years, wouldn't you do the same? Would you have the guts and determination to resist and to fight?

If I was going to fight, I would fight military forces instead of targetting civillian centers. Hamas targets towns, the only result of which can be civillian casualties and NOT objective military advancements. They are not an organization of military strategists, but rather an organization of vandals.

Their most affective 'strategies' are political, not military.

Yes, Hamas trains women and children to fight.







Many of the people who were killed in the operation and were billed as civilians, were undoubtedly active participants of the war. Undoubtedly there were legitimate civilian deaths as well, but this is the result of the kinds of strategies employed by Hamas.
Hamas fights out of civilian centers. It is not uncommon to use houses or even schools as arms caches, and there are extensive writings (from both Hamas and critics of the organization) on how they specifically seek to maximize their own civilian losses so as to gain international sympathy.

Once again, I ask the question:
If a country is having military rockets fired at it on a daily basis (at civillian centers as opposed to military targets, and for over two years none the less), and the UN has done nothing to stop the attacks, what exactly is the proper response?

[spurgistan]

Nobody denies that Hamas is a thuggish organization. In fact, if the resolution is more focused on pointing out Israeli human rights abuses, the rationale is this nobody needs convincing that Hamas doesn't follow any sort of military conventions. The point is that your article clearly distorts the Goldstone Report, which says that both Israel and Hamas committed grave human rights abuses. People who attack this (surprised nobody's referenced antisemitism yet - you guys are really showing restraint) are defending the right of people to drop bombs on civilians. From either side. They're both morally repugnant.

Also, I'm not sure training women to fight is the definition of "evil."

[GabonX]

Once again I pose the question:

If a country is having military rockets fired at it on a daily basis (at civillian centers as opposed to military targets, and for over two years none the less), and the UN has done nothing to stop the attacks, what exactly is the proper response?

[spurgistan]

I do not pretend to know that. However, I feel rather confident that the response to indiscriminate firing of missiles at civilian areas is not indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.

[GabonX]

The idea that Israel is guilty of "indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas" is ludicrous. There is absolutely no merit to that statement.

Prior to bombings, Israel dropped thousands upon thousands of leaflets warning civilians that an attack was imminent. They sent out hundreds of thousands of text messages to Palestinian phones warning people of what was to happen. In addition, many operations which could have crippled the Hamas leadership, were abandoned because the risk to civilians was to great.

Israeli strikes in the conflict were anything but random. They were pinpoint precision strikes against places where there were known arms caches, terrorists, or where Israeli troops had been fired upon.

The question still stands, though the answer is rather obvious...

[got tonkaed]

long article...and certainly one that does not have a pro-Israel bias. Something to perhaps counteract the normal fare on the issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

[Lord and Master]

Nobody denies that Hamas is a thuggish organization.

Hmmm... Seeing as Hamas is now the official, democratically elected Government of Palestine, which nobody can deny, you may wish to re-think your statement. Seeing as it's DEMOCRACY, and you HAVE to agree with anything that's proof of DEMOCRACY. Not like NATO/UN strong-arming some bewildered goatherders to give up their ancestral homeland some 50-odd years ago...
The current state of Israel (ie it's actions and "justifications" thereof) is frankly a disgrace. I am increasingly appalled by the abundance of big-budget Hollywood films depicting the plight of the Holocaust-era Jewish populations of Germany/German-occupied territory and, while symnpathising 100% with said plight of said subjugated/victimised peoples, find it quite unspeakable that the very descendants of those poor people are even now guilty of the most heinous atrocities upon their fellow Man.
When's George bleeding Clooney gonna bring out a film about the kids of Palestine, whose village was utterly wiped from the face of the Earth because one of them had the temerity to throw a stone at a tank?
Wise up Israel. It's getting very fucking old.

[thegreekdog]

long article...and certainly one that does not have a pro-Israel bias. Something to perhaps counteract the normal fare on the issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

While this article illustrates why one should have symptathy for the Palestinians, it does not illustrate why one should have sympathy for Hammas. In fact, of the groups illustrated in this article, Hammas is one of the bad guys.

[spurgistan]

The idea that Israel is guilty of "indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas" is ludicrous. There is absolutely no merit to that statement.

Beirut, 2006. This is downtown. Wanna blame this on Hezbollah? Or maybe it was North Korea.

[got tonkaed]

long article...and certainly one that does not have a pro-Israel bias. Something to perhaps counteract the normal fare on the issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

While this article illustrates why one should have symptathy for the Palestinians, it does not illustrate why one should have sympathy for Hammas. In fact, of the groups illustrated in this article, Hammas is one of the bad guys.

I think you can rather clearly separate sympathy with the Palestinians from political support of Hamas.

[BigBallinStalin]

For the record, Kemp wasn't in Afghanistan during the operation. The funny thing about this is that, even though he wasn't, it would be irrelevant as he is referring to well documented precautions that Israel took during the conflict (dropping leaflets, texting cell phones, abandoning campaigns, etc.).

If a country is having military rockets fired at it on a daily basis (at civillian centers as opposed to military targets, and for over two years none the less), and the UN has done nothing to stop the attacks, what exactly is the proper response?

Obviously to massacre its civilians in the attempt to discourage further resistance to their occupation.

[BigBallinStalin]

The idea that Israel is guilty of "indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas" is ludicrous. There is absolutely no merit to that statement.

Prior to bombings, Israel dropped thousands upon thousands of leaflets warning civilians that an attack was imminent. They sent out hundreds of thousands of text messages to Palestinian phones warning people of what was to happen. In addition, many operations which could have crippled the Hamas leadership, were abandoned because the risk to civilians was to great.

Israeli strikes in the conflict were anything but random. They were pinpoint precision strikes against places where there were known arms caches, terrorists, or where Israeli troops had been fired upon.

The question still stands, though the answer is rather obvious...

Right, that first paragraph is complete crap, Gabon.

Oh they sent warnings? Where are they going to run to? Did you not forget how densely populated and poor the Gaza Strip is? It's a lame excuse used by the Israeli government to weakly justify their attack.

Pinpoint? This bomb right here, ladies and gentlemen, is accurate to within 2 centimeters. Yes that's right, but don't forget that it tends to level things within 100 feet around it...

Your question has lost standing a long time ago.

[GabonX]

Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.

To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.

To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.

In every instance when peace was offered to Israel it was accepted. What they will not accept is pacifism to the point of self destruction which is seemingly what the world community asks of them.


Israel maintains the right to defend it's citizens from lethal projection. If faced with the prospect of having it's citizens fired upon, or firing into civilian areas to destroy the weapons which would be fired, they will choose the latter, and rightfully so.

[BigBallinStalin]

Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.

To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.

To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.

1) In every instance when peace was offered to Israel it was accepted. What they will not accept is pacifism to the point of self destruction which is seemingly what the world community asks of them.


Israel maintains the right to defend it's citizens from lethal projection. If faced with the prospect of having it's citizens fired upon, or firing into civilian areas to destroy the weapons which would be fired, they will choose the latter, and rightfully so.

1) Israel will not bow down to international law-specifically on settlement building and annexing East Jerusalem as well as accepting UN Security Council resolution 242 and 338. If you took the time to read into every peace process since the 60s, you'd see a trend where Israel makes a ridiculous and illegal demand, the US won't force it to be reasonable, and then they both shift the blame on the Palestinians for not accepting the peace treaty. The United States is the main reasons behind that since it fails to force Israel to make acceptable and reasonable demands in every peace process. Also, there were attempts by the elements within the Israel government to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians help without US intervention, but these are cut short when the public hears of them and the US makes their move.

This isn't accepting pacifism or not. Many Israelis are sick of this constant war, a lot do want peace in a reasonable manner.

Actually, due to Egypt's large nearby army, this allows the Israeli and the United States government to justify militarizing Israel even further and adds to the instability of the region. Let's also not forget that the US provides Egypt with a lot of its weapons as well. In fact, we alone ship about $3 billion per year to Israel and Egypt (perhaps over $2 billion to Israel, it's been about 2-3 years since I check this, so the total could be around $5bn). About 90% of all weapon imports into the Middle East come from the United States. If anyone wants any kind of path to peace, it would be the halting of this dangerous militarization policy of the US.

And for f*ck's sake, you're quoting Benjamin Netanyahu. Regarding the killing of civilians, he simply labelled it as punishing the Palestinians. And to what degree? They even block building materials into the Gaza, so people have an extremely difficult time rebuilding their homes. Goldstone Report cited the destruction of flour factories and egg farms as evidence that the Israeli army acted unethically. He argued that the destruction of 5,000 homes and the attacks on schools and mosques cannot have been accidental. That man has had Gaza on siege for a long long time.

This has been a waste of my time. You're not contributing anything but one-sided extremist crap, Gabon.

[thegreekdog]

long article...and certainly one that does not have a pro-Israel bias. Something to perhaps counteract the normal fare on the issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

While this article illustrates why one should have symptathy for the Palestinians, it does not illustrate why one should have sympathy for Hammas. In fact, of the groups illustrated in this article, Hammas is one of the bad guys.

I think you can rather clearly separate sympathy with the Palestinians from political support of Hamas.

I can. I question whether others can. Or rather, I question whether the plight of the Palestinians can justify Hamas's activities (at least to some people).

[got tonkaed]

I think its always difficult to get too far in justifying the actions of a group who advocates the destruction of another group. No matter how blue in the face you attempt to get in terms of pointing out not all Hamas is hardline, there is still far too much rhetoric that suggests a severe threat to grant very much in that direction.

Its also difficult in some ways to judge Israel harshly, though certainly many people do it, and it can be done. It does not take much to compare the amount of damage done by inaccurate missiles vs the very powerful and precise IDF. Nor would it take much to be stunned at the sheer imbalance of destruction in recent history. Yet, few countries have the prospect of missiles being launched at them as frequently (even if inaccurate) as Israel. I do not think the idea is very far off that no one would stand for this.

There are just a large number of things that one wishes would be different, but it is clear it is not the case, nor is it clear if it will be the case at any point in the future.

[thegreekdog]

I think its always difficult to get too far in justifying the actions of a group who advocates the destruction of another group. No matter how blue in the face you attempt to get in terms of pointing out not all Hamas is hardline, there is still far too much rhetoric that suggests a severe threat to grant very much in that direction.

Its also difficult in some ways to judge Israel harshly, though certainly many people do it, and it can be done. It does not take much to compare the amount of damage done by inaccurate missiles vs the very powerful and precise IDF. Nor would it take much to be stunned at the sheer imbalance of destruction in recent history. Yet, few countries have the prospect of missiles being launched at them as frequently (even if inaccurate) as Israel. I do not think the idea is very far off that no one would stand for this.

There are just a large number of things that one wishes would be different, but it is clear it is not the case, nor is it clear if it will be the case at any point in the future.

Nor is there a quick and easy answer (although to hear some presidents' past speeches, you might think differently).

[BigBallinStalin]

I think its always difficult to get too far in justifying the actions of a group who advocates the destruction of another group. No matter how blue in the face you attempt to get in terms of pointing out not all Hamas is hardline, there is still far too much rhetoric that suggests a severe threat to grant very much in that direction.

Its also difficult in some ways to judge Israel harshly, though certainly many people do it, and it can be done. It does not take much to compare the amount of damage done by inaccurate missiles vs the very powerful and precise IDF. Nor would it take much to be stunned at the sheer imbalance of destruction in recent history. Yet, few countries have the prospect of missiles being launched at them as frequently (even if inaccurate) as Israel. I do not think the idea is very far off that no one would stand for this.

There are just a large number of things that one wishes would be different, but it is clear it is not the case, nor is it clear if it will be the case at any point in the future.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

The problem is from all the actors: the US, Israel's hard-right warmongers, and the Palestinians' Hamas and Fatah as well groups beyond political control--like the ones responsible for the rocket attacks.

Most of the blame would land on the US, but with Israel's strong lobby, influencing much of the decisions there... Who knows, it's a terrible situation, and no one really wants peace except I'd say the people that live near and around those war-torn areas, and the occupied territories. The people that see the injustice have to be sick of it, on both sides. Considering the lackluster efforts of the United States at curbing Israel's illegal actions while fueling the IDF and usually emboldening the hard right-wingers in Israel to not address the injustice, that Netanyahu and Co. staunchly hold a no-peace stance, that the Arab League has been completely useless regarding this matter, and that the Palestinians aren't left with many options, once can see that it's many actors are at fault here.

The Israelis and the Palestinians are both victims. People tend to forget how Palestinians are treated within their own land. And people tend to forget how the main heads of state for the US and Israel adversely affect their own peoples. There's no future security in the status quo that's being maintained, and it doesn't look like there's any change on the horizon.

The US will continue to veto anything reasonable from the Security Council that would make their precious Israel look bad, Congress essentially discredits the Goldstone Report (and we all know how well-informed those guys generally are), the weapons continue to flow into Israel, Israel continues to build settlements to make a two-state solution even more difficult, they continue to oppress the Palestinians in the occupied and annexed territories, the Palestinians are generally left with little options, extremist groups outside of Hamas and Fatah control will spring up in response to this injustice and their inability to engage in conventional warfare, and on and on.

It's a disgraceful, ongoing chapter of humanity's history.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think its always difficult to get too far in justifying the actions of a group who advocates the destruction of another group. No matter how blue in the face you attempt to get in terms of pointing out not all Hamas is hardline, there is still far too much rhetoric that suggests a severe threat to grant very much in that direction.

Its also difficult in some ways to judge Israel harshly, though certainly many people do it, and it can be done. It does not take much to compare the amount of damage done by inaccurate missiles vs the very powerful and precise IDF. Nor would it take much to be stunned at the sheer imbalance of destruction in recent history. Yet, few countries have the prospect of missiles being launched at them as frequently (even if inaccurate) as Israel. I do not think the idea is very far off that no one would stand for this.

There are just a large number of things that one wishes would be different, but it is clear it is not the case, nor is it clear if it will be the case at any point in the future.

Nor is there a quick and easy answer (although to hear some presidents' past speeches, you might think differently).

There almost was a quick and easy answer. Shortly after Clinton bungled the peace process from December 2000 and a little onward until the Palestinians rejected the ridiculous demands, months later the Israelis and Palestinians picked up where Camp David left off and resumed talks in Taba, an Egyptian town , and in Eilat, an Israeli town. Six months later, the proposals looked favorable and were more generous to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians in return offered a number of concessions. The refugee issue was close to being concluded as well. However, in February 7 with Israeli elections closing in, talks were suspended until afterwards. Unfortunately, Barak lost, and Ariel Sharon came to power, and of course Sharon refused to return to the negotiating table.

It was close, but oh well, right? It's stunning how much was done with US interference, and from what I know a few years ago, the Taba maps have yet to be disclosed to top US officials. What is irritating is how the US will claim the Palestinians are never interesting in peace and are only interesting in achieving their demands through violence. The US even failed to pressure Barak into signing this peace agreement with the Palestinians while it was going on. There's never any US interference pressuring the Israelis to act for peace. The US just gives Israel the incentive to never really be serious about peace agreements.

That US standpoint really irritates many people around the world. If we continue to hold such aggressive stances, we will not improve our security. Instead, we'll make more and more enemies and have a less secure future.