Ellison: Don't Dismiss Goldstone Report on Gaza (AUDIO)

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

-
@ 37 & 38 no tos, why remove my comments?
================================================================

You have persistently SPAMMED this site with all sorts of drug and other kinds of trash ads; while continuing to violate TOS and insult fellow posters. None of this behavior will be tolerated! We have warned you many, many times; the most recent was just 2 days ago.
================================================================

This type of behavior is unacceptable and your comments will now continue to be deleted.
================================================================

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

#35: I can't speak for the moderator. I am not he/she. My guess is that using someone's screen name as part of the new poster's screen-name may be considered a violation, perhaps incitement (???). If that is correct, then it may not matter exactly what the poster had said in the later-removed comments. I think that I have been assertive in reply, though not pumping back the same level of confrontation. I have tried my best to be analytical and somewhat witty, albeit sarcastic at times. My posts consist mainly of details and factual representations and a few conclusions. It is a mistake to confuse these with being "biased". In a few years, computers will be able to compose well enough to pass them off as human authors. When that happens, some people will claim that the computerized data-base is 'biased'. (e.g. "Zionist" computers). But the fact will be then as it is now, only one reality is real.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

" . . . you will consistently babbly on about something 1000 years ago"
My narrative as to international treaties and law goes back 90 years. That was plain and simple math. The controversy started with WW1 and had a few twists along the way, including the holocaust, the 1947/48 U.N. Partition Plan and the 1967 Israeli acquisition of Gaza and West Bank. Your math is only off by a scant 920 years. The fact that you have no bashfulness to assert such blatant mistakes speaks volumes about your own bias. True facts can not be "bias". Falsehoods can be bias or simply ignorant (or sometimes both). Take your choice. The Palestinian-Arab people have been the victims of the Arab leadership. The Jews have also been victims, including as played out in WW2, wherein all the Arab nations (except Jordanian-Palestine) were officially allied with the Nazis. More recently, the street-level Palestinian-Arabs have become the much greater victims and there is no denying that. The debate is over who is responsible, not over who the greater victims are. The settlement offer proffered by Barak in 2000 and rejected by Arafat called for Israel to vacate 97% of all ground it acquired in 1967. So you are telling me that all this suffering (on both sides) is the result of that remaining 3%? I can show you videos of Chairman Arafat repeating "not one inch" about 50 times (in Arabic) in a single 1/2 hour speech. Obviously, the inches were NOT the problem and even if the US government thinks it is, they are wrong. Or, they themselves know its ridiculous but possibly are trying to appease the militancy. Both stupidity and appeasement have been repeated throughout modern history. The U.S. government does not control the legal borders of Israel. If the US government wishes to punish Israel for not being as naive as themselves, or, for not being willing to contribute to the appeasement effort with Israeli land, that is their prerogative. It is Israel's prerogative to accept the State Dept. demands or to refuse and accept the consequences.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

"iSRAEL IMMUGRANTS WERE GIVEN A HOME IN PALESTINE.."
Inaccurate. A "NATIONAL Home" (A.K.A. a NATION) was established as a matter of international law, for the Jews of the region and of the world. This INCLUDED the Jews of Palestine, who were therefore NOT "immigrants" but indigenous NATIVES. There is no spin here and I do not spin my data. The last time "Palestine" was part of any other nation was during its 400 years as part of Turkey and ruled by the sultans in Istanbul. You say: "ISRAEL THEN BY U.N. BECAME THE SO-CALLED " STATE" OF ISRAEL IN THE STATE OF PALESTINE." That is also wrong. Palestine was willingly and voluntarily abandoned by the Turks in the same exact set of legal treaties which established Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. etc.. The "Supreme Allied Powers" (England, France, USA and Japan) were placed in charge (BY TURKEY--THIS IS IMPORTANT) of designing and implementing the new borders of the "Jewish National Homeland" as specified in the League of Nations Mandate. The legal owner (Turkey) handed title of Palestine to the Allies for the purpose of dividing ALL of Palestine into TWO new nations. There are already TWO nations in Palestine. No spin here either. All documented for 90+ years. This is why the League of Nations instrument was called a "MANDATE" while the United Nations action was referred to as a "PLAN". Because neither the League of Nations or the United Nations has the authority to create or destroy legal nations, or to alter their borders. The transfer of title was accomplished via TREATIES involving the LEGAL OWNER of Palestine (Turkey). Therefore, if the Israelis are occupying anyone, it would have to be Turkey, as they were the previous legal owner. Hebrews can also be "Palestinians" (say it with me--P-A-L-E-S-T-I-N-I-A-N--J-E-W-S). Adversaries of Israel overlook the fact that Israel has permanent peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt. Both are NATIONS under international law. "Palestine" is NOT a "nation". Never was. The notion that "Palestine" is (or can possibly be) legally "occupied" is a phantasm.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

Part-2 You: "half-baked insinuations." "how the hell do you say disputed when israel is occupying land that wasn't theirs before they invaded in 1967?" Because the legal conventions governing the ownership of the area date to WW1 (not WW2) and provide for two (and ONLY two) sets of national borders, the first being "The Jewish National Homeland" and the other being whatever else remained of geographic "Palestine". Whatever else remained became Jordan and it occupied 4/5ths of GEOGRAPHIC Palestine. Jordan may or may not have had clear legal title to its land and as I said, Jews acquired by Jordan in that transaction were denied residence therein. Rest assured, if the Zionist leadership had chosen to retain the name "Palestine" for its Jewish nation, the regional Arabs would NOT today be calling themselves "Palestinians". They would be calling themselves "Ishmailis" or something like that. But the fact is that the "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" were never legally part of Jordan and/or Egypt. They both legally belong to Israel, in their entirety. Israel knows that it can't retain these locations and frankly doesn't want to. But they were never part of any NATION known as "Gaza", West Bank" or "Palestine". Get that one strait please. Many names appear on maps (such as "Siberia"). That does not make them countries. In the interim, Israel wishes to negotiate permanent borders with the local Arab population--in order to afford them a THIRD autonomous nation, within the geography previously known as "Palestine". Such borders are presently DISPUTED and no tribunal has ever adjudicated this dispute. Therefore, presently, there is no legal "occupation" by Israel of "Palestine". Now, if you have repeatedly accused me of being "biased" but my facts and legal interpretation are strait, what does that say about you and your false information and conclusions? As a matter of strict international law, it is more viable that Israel disputes Jordan's legal ownership of Jordan then anyone disputes Israel's legal ownership of its present 2009 borders.

Part-1: "Palestine" as a GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE, NOT A NATION started its existence on or about 134-CE. At first, it was part of the Roman Empire (not a "nation"). In 334-CE, the Roman Empire Became the "Holy Roman Empire" and "Palestine" referenced a geographic area (not a "nation") belonging to the Holy Roman Empire, until 638 when the young Islamic caliphate overran the Roman position and captured Palestine. It was STILL NOT a nation but was still a geographic reference now belonging to the Muslims. It was at that time when Jews WERE ALLOWED BACK INTO Palestine, a the Romans had banned Jews from moving there. Over the years control switched a few times but NEVER was Palestine a NATION. The fact that the name "Palestine" may have appeared on maps does not dispose of it as a nation. Maps also might say: "Sahara Desert", although there has never been any country named "Sahara", (only a gambling casino in Las Vegas). Therefore, the "Sahara Desert" can NOT be legally "occupied" because it does not exist as a nation. Now, back to true history: For approx. 400 years up to the end of WW1, "Palestine" was a geographic reference belonging entirely to the Turkish-Ottoman Empire. There was still NO NATION named "Palestine". Jews (and ONLY Jews) were again prohibited from moving there, although significant numbers made in in anyway, mainly through bribes of Turkish officials and Jews were also STILL there from earlier migrations--when doing so was legal. Jews resided in the part of Palestine now known as "Jordan". There are no longer any Jews in Jordan because they were legally precluded from citizenship as Jews. Those Jewish populations became part of the many who ultimately migrated into Israel.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

"trollstein must be looking at a mirror, because he just described exactly what israel does. "
If that is true, how come the people with the details, names, dates, places, references, citations are almost exclusively the supporters of Israel while the people without those, who's opinions are an amalgam of bumper-stickers with an occasional fortune-cookie tossed in for variety are the adversaries? As I have repeated dozens of times, being critical of the decisions of the government of Israel is not intrinsically anti-Semitic. It can be anti-Semitic in practice is the criticisms involve double-standards or reliance on false information.
For example, you say: "israel needs to stop the illegal settlement building on occupied palestinian land . . ." I reply that the land is DISPUTED ownership, that no tribunal has ever adjudicated this legal dispute and no nation by the name of "Palestine" has ever existed in the entire history of mankind. I further submit that the geographical borders of Israel have very LITTLE to do with the conflict. It is just another canard, manufactured for PR consumption and the REAL dispute is over the existence of ANY Israeli borders For a country to be legally "occupied", it first must legally exist. Palestine does not exist as a nation and therefore can not be "occupied". Israel's legal right to exist stems from the international treaties consummated following WW1. Their title-and-deed derives from that era. The world may not like this but legal ownership is not a matter of popularity.

@ 24. looking at a mirror xxxxxx?,
===============================================================
Please refrain from harassment, using vulgarity or insulting language when discussing another member of AA. Continued abuse of the Terms of Service can and will cause your comments to be deleted!

This is your Last Warning!!

Attacking an "idea" is acceptable, whereas attacking a "person" is not. We ask that you familiarize yourself with our Terms of Service, whose link is located at the bottom of every page.
===============================================================
Thank you for all of your cooperation
http://airamerica.com/terms/
===============================================================

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

As was stated by the congressman in his audio clip, Israel refused to participate in the discussion of the report. This is not unlike what Abdula Abdula did when he withdrew from the Afghan election runoff, believing that the cards had been stacked. You can believe what you want but the numerous enemies of Israel are well known for half-truths, quarter-truths and outright fabrications. They do this so proficiently because the world is so eager to believe them.

I have an idea: Lets put Janet Reno in command of the Israeli military and see how fast conditions worsen for the Gazans.

a must read

Apparently swat teams have orders to avoid killing children. But Israel...

Swat teams do not kill lots children to get the bad guys.

Israel does.

"swat teams do not kill children to get hostages."
Really? Hostage takers rarely take children hostages, except in the Mid East, where all the children are hostages--on both sides. Swat members have their orders to protect all hostages, adults and children, unless doing so is impossible. In that case, the leader decides the tactics which could include a full assault, with bullets flying. In the case of David Koresh, entire families were burnt alive (including numerous children) and these people were not even hostages. They were just religious fanatics. No charges were brought against the FBI or the feminist, liberal Janet Reno. I might have (minimally) asked for her resignation. But the proverbial Swat team has to decide if the situation is likely to degenerate and if so, is free to assault, women and/or children not withstanding. The situation is Gaza was deteriorating because 1) They had been firing rockets out from one group of hostages into another group. 2) The supply of banned weapons entering Gaza was being augmented and reinforced daily. Now, going back to Branch Davidians to compare circumstances: The Davidians were not bringing in more weapons and not shooting rockets at the FBI, let alone at civilians in the neighboring towns.

swat teams do not kill children to get hostages.

"those people who died in Gaza had to and it was probably their own fault they were killed, not the Israeli government's"
When a hostage situation occurs, suppose for instance it is a casino, the swat team has to prevail. They have no alternative. Depending on the circumstances, the hostages may get out unharmed, or, they may all perish. The hostage-takers may demand asylum, jets to Cuba, Vanna White, whatever. Sometimes the families of the hostages insist that these demands be granted. All par-for-course. But after the smoke clears, the Swat team is not judged on how many hostages were hurt or died. One or all is the same from a guilt perspective against the Swat team. The only criteria is if the Swat team acted according to practices which are defined based on the actions of other Swat teams in past hostage situations. The Palestinian-Arabs are (and have been) quite unfortunate pawns, in an international game involving oil, politics and religion. A very toxic cocktail that creates a wake of tragedy. They can not overwhelm their own leaders, who condemn them to this perpetual misery. Actually, its the international community's fault, not the Israelis and not the street-level Palestinian-Arabs. In this case, it is the proverbial family-members to the above referenced hostages who have sent the hostages into the said casino to redeem their honor and really to redeem their gambling chips.

Apparently a British Colonel said everything is Ok in Gaza so we can all rest assured, those people who died in Gaza had to and it was probably their own fault they were killed, not the Israeli government's.

Oh and by the way, Bush said there were mushroom clouds in our future so it was a good thing we invaded Iraq. That's all you need to know folks.

@ 11. aj

Absolutely.

"They claim that the nation of Israeli should be allowed to be as reckless and deadly as the terrorists. Civilians be damned!"
Not at all. What the supporters of Israel have been saying for years is that its easy to quarterback with other people's security. Whether one civilian died or one million, is less relevant then whether other nations would have done more to protect the civilians who were caught in the middle. "The <Human Rights> council ignored testimony from experts such as Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who stated that "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."" <Ibid>
This point should dispose of this argument. But it does not. Those who continue to persist that Israel needs to do MORE then the already MOST STRINGENT measures in the entire history of warfare--to protect civilians which Hamas itself wishes to cash in for publicity, are possibly under the false assumption that Israel is by its core nature illegitimate, unlawful, immoral and should rightly be replaced by a tyrannical Islamic theocracy. There is no way to allow Israel credit for its basic right to exist in peace without concluding that the 90 ongoing years of sectarian attacks by Arabs against Hebrews would cause any OTHER country, given the same circumstances, to react as violently or more so. Over the months of debate on this web site on this subject, the opponents of Israel have basically repeated the same mantras. They never have once named the name of any single other country who would not have defended itself against the same conditions. In fact, the entire subject has been basically ignored and thereby marginalized, when it should rightly be the central topic. Humans are only to be judged against other humans. This may sound cold but any other method of judgment is even colder because it would be patently unjust. The just can not be colder or less human then the unjust. The Troll leader did not invent this concept. Every form of jurisprudence is based on this same tenant. We do what we can do. We can't do more then we can do and should not be expected to do more then others do.

should be read by everyone

I think I realize now what the Israeli apologists are saying. They claim that the nation of Israeli should be allowed to be as reckless and deadly as the terrorists. Civilians be damned!

And here I thought Israel wanted to be a civilized and enlightened nation. Nope. Israel wants to be a nation that operates just like the terrorists. A nation without regard for innocent human life, only more powerful than than it's enemies.

What a nation!

Of course we have many in the US with this mindset. Think Bush/Cheney and all the clowns you see on the street who respond to every dilemma with "just nuke em".

Oslo accords mean so much to the over thousand dead, including children, killed recently because Israel violated the cease fire.

"Whenever a Palestinian gets crazy enough from the opression and decides to do something about it . . . "
And therein is the sum and substance of the complete and entire controversy--in a single sentence.
When the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, including the abandonment of Jewish neighborhoods which had been continually Jewish for 3,200 years ongoing, they believed that it would solve NOTHING. Because, unlike most people in the world, they knew what the real and true dispute was over, and it was NOT over WHICH borders but ANY borders. But the Israelis, bowing to pressure from the international community, including the USA packed their bags and departed anyway. At that time, Gaza had NO blockade and could have chosen to try and establish a viable existence for its citizens. Some people would say that such an existence would have been somehow substandard and intolerable anyway. But in reality, those Palestinian-Arabs in Gaza had more freedom and opportunity then their counterpart Palestinian-Arabs now residing in about 8 OTHER Arab countries. Besides, these people were required under the Oslo agreements to forego certain preferences, such as possession of heavy armor and fly-over autonomy. Those objections being removed from the total equation, the residents of Gaza had few TRUE grievances with the deal that the Israelis left them with--when Gaza was vacated. They took the opportunity to begin an offensive with the backing of Hamas, who's charter calls for the disassembly of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic theocracy. Bottom line, apply that situation to any modern, well armed democracy in the entire world and the result would have been either the same or probably even worse for the Gazans who had chosen to relentlessly attack their neighbor. The world can condemn Israel all it likes but the only practical difference between the MILLIONS of murdered Black Sudanese and the still-living Israelis, is Israel's ability (and willingness) to fight back.

Why Does AIPAC Spy on Americans?
by Grant Smith, November 05, 2009
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2009/11/04/why-does aipac-spy-on-americans/

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Steven J. Rosen will be allowed to move ahead with his civil defamation lawsuit against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosen and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman were indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act in 2005 along with Department of Defense Employee Col. Lawrence Franklin for passing classified national defense informaiton. Franklin pled guilty, but Rosen and Weissman’s case never went to trial — US attorneys gave up (PDF) after the presiding judge made a successful prosecution unlikely.

Rosen’s 2009 civil lawsuit contends that AIPAC defamed him when its spokesperson claimed that he "did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees." Rosen’s many filings in court reveal that his fundamental case is that AIPAC commonly circulates and distributes classified US government information when it suits the organization’s purpose in lobbying for Israel. AIPAC defamed him, he alleges, by claiming he was somehow unique.

An FBI file declassified and released on July 31, 2009 (PDF) backs up Rosen’s assertions. In 1984 AIPAC obtained a classified report compiled from the business secrets of US industries and associations opposed to signing a bilateral trade agreement with Israel. The FBI found that AIPAC had "attempted to influence members of Congress with the use of a purloined copy of the ITC report and had usurped their authority."

The Washington Field Office of the FBI went on to assert that "AIPAC is a powerful-pro Israel lobbying group staffed by U.S. citizens. WFO files contain an unsubstantiated allegation that a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service was a staff member of AIPAC."

...

Israel has been targeting peaceful protesters now. Non-violent protesters have been arrested and computers confiscated. Smells like fascism to me.

The people who want to dismiss this report are the people who would like the US and Israel to have the right to indiscriminately take military action without regard for the lives of innocent civilians with no consequences.

Do not dismiss this report!

I did not read the Goldstone report. I have no access to it. I heard enough responsible personalities describing it as balanced. It accuses both sides of war crimes. However, it seems that Israel got the worst of the blame just for the fact of being Israel, believed to be 3rd most powerful nation on earth, and of course for the witnessed outrageous devastation in Gaza after the sieze fire.

Israel, with its mighty force, can crush, if I dare say, even well equipped American force assembly. Imagine that force going against the tiny, blockaded, strip of land we call Gaza.

The Palestinians in Gaza, we call terrorists, are fighting for their survival, for removing the blockade and the freedom that Israel enjoys. That tiny Gaza is blockaded by land, sea and air. They get in only what Israel allows to let in.

Whenever a Palestinian gets crazy enough from the opression and decides to do something about it, then all hell will break loose. Israel will attack, murder, snipe, bulldoze/rocket homes, vehicles, shops or do whatever necessary in the name of retaliation. As a bonus, Israel will blockade food from going into Gaza. Just like we saw happen last January during the biggest offensive against Gaza ever. They did it quickly, while Mr. Bush was still in power, because, they knew Mr. Obama would not give them the green light.

What I am attempting to convey is the fact those miserable Palestinians have been stepped on, abused, misused, taken advantage of, have been without homes, land of their own and blockaded for years. Yet, they are refusing to surrender.

That is their sin. They refuse to be broken. They have even been driven into the point of strapping themselves with explosives and committing suicide missions just to do some damage to the oppressor, and THAT has been used against them by Israel for the international view and to justify more attacks. Please know that , I am not condoning suicide bombing. BUT, when you are in so much pain, beaten, humuliated, with no dignity, no presence, etc. I believe, if not MOST, some of us WILL do the same.

From what I have read f the Goldstein report, it makes sense, plain and simple...

Will everyone agree with these determinations? Probably not, but what REMAINS is sensible and literate...so I am giving it far more credence than other ideas at the moment.

This controversy is really much simpler then it may seem. This is not a war over exact borders (1/2 mile one way or the other). It is not a war over the various checkpoints, walls, blockades, etc. Since the 1920s and the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, this conflict was commenced to prevent any nation of Jewish majority on the Arabian Peninsula. Every single Arab nation, with the sole exception of Jordan sided with the Axis in World War 2. When the Arab leadership could no longer prevent Jewish independence, they launched a war to destroy the fledgling Jewish nation. Little has changed, except for one key element: Having established a viable foothold, the Hebrews reinforced their military position to the point where their adversaries can no longer pretend that a victory on the battlefield is foreseeable. That's when the strategy changed. The new strategy has been to make life as intolerable as possible for the government of Israel, knowing that by crossing certain lines, such as utilizing terror against Israeli civilians and shooting rockets, Israel will eventually be required to retaliate, as any modern, well equipped nations would certainly do. The counter-offensive then becomes cast as the offensive. The United Nations, which is dominated by dictatorial governments, lacking basic civil rights and closer akin in complexion to the unelected Arab governments then to any in the West, has become an executive committee for war-lords. In Africa alone are about 85 votes in a General assembly of about 190. Add in the Arabian votes, plus the other assorted non-Arab Muslim nations, and about 50% of the General Assembly is thus represented. Maybe three or four true democracies in the entire lot. Factor in the strategic value of oil to certain Asian nations, plus the tendency that Russia has to frustrate anything that the USA does and that includes it alliances, and its an utter miracle that Israel has not been convicted of war crimes long ago for its actions in World War 2.

“When the Goldstone Commission released its one-sided report, blaming Israel for war crimes in Gaza, the United States and many other nations denounced it for what it was: an irresponsible and extremely biased report that blames Israel while forgiving the terrorist violence waged against Israeli civilians by Hamas.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) wasted no time in weaponizing the Goldstone Report. The HRC was not slated to convene again this year, but met in a special session to endorse the Goldstone Report. By a vote of 25-6, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the report and recommended that other UN groups follow its recommendations, including the UN Security Council, by referring war crime prosecutions to the International Criminal Court if Israel fails to investigate the war crimes proffered by the Goldstone Commission.328
The resolution was opposed by the United States, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine. Eleven additional nations abstained while another five withheld their vote completely. Even South African judge Richard Goldstone, primary author of the troubled Goldstone Report stated his displeasure with the HRC's resolution, stating "There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas, as we have done in the report."329 . . . . . . . “
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/exclusives. tml#a116