Nov. 16-20: Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare
Jeanne Desko: Palin's Blame Game
Chris Hayes: What's Sarah Palin's Future In American Politics?
Richard Kim: Sympathy For The Devil?: Oprah and the Palin Media Blitz

« Anti-missile Missiles and the Politics of Fear | Home | Hillary Clinton's Role on Iran, Israel/Palestine, and AfPak? »

Obama Administration Joins Israel In Attacking UN Report On Gaza As Anti-Israel

By M.J. Rosenberg - September 19, 2009, 3:27PM

The Obama administration issued a statement Friday night criticizing the UN report on war crimes in Gaza for focusing more on Israel's crimes than on those of Hamas. "Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

Hmmm, I wonder why the report's focus was unbalanced. Perhaps it was because 1387 Palestinians were killed in the war (of whom 320 were kids). Seven Israeli soldiers were killed (3 more were killed by friendly fire).

As for the US, it would behoove us to be more concerned about those Palestinian deaths in that we supplied the weaponry, while the Hamas thugs get their primitive weaponry from other sources.

Here is the full test of the administration's statement.

MR. KELLY: Okay. So I have a reaction to the report of the fact-finding mission of Justice Goldstone. As President Obama made clear at the time of the events covered by the report, we are deeply concerned about the loss of life and humanitarian suffering in both Israel and Gaza. As we've said previously, prior to U.S. membership, the UN's Human Rights Council set forth a one-sided and unacceptable mandate for this fact-finding investigation.

Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas's deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative.

We also have very serious concerns about the report's recommendations, including calls that this issue be taken up in international fora outside the Human Rights Council and in national courts of countries not party to the conflict. We note in particular that Israel has the democratic institutions to investigate and prosecute abuses, and we encourage it to use those institutions.

We believe this report should be discussed within the Human Rights Council, and we look forward to participating in that discussion. We will approach discussions on the report keeping in mind the underlying causes of the tragic events in Gaza earlier this year - the lack of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the attacks by Hamas against innocent civilians.

Our focus right now, as I've said before, is to get all sides to take steps to re-launch Israeli-Palestinian negotiations so we can end this conflict and the humanitarian suffering it has caused. We will move forward in discussions of the report while keeping that overriding goal at the forefront. We hope efforts related to the Middle East at the Human Rights Council and other international bodies will look to the future and how we can support the goal of a two-state solution."

67 Comments

| Leave a comment

mom, apple pie, and israel - for some not necessarily in that order.

israel is to the usa as mini me is to dr. evil.

youTube: Dr. Evil and Mini Me - just the two of us

Posted by BluePearl
September 19, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink

Mr. Rosenberg,
You are being dishonest. You problem is not with Israel using excessive or disproportional force against Hamas and causing civilian casualties. Your problem is with Israel using any military force against Hamas.
When police is trying to apprehend a child rapist, there is no proportional force a child rapist is allowed to use to protect himself against policy.
For you, Israel is raping the Arab land in Palestine, murdering Arab children and harvesting organs from dead Palestinians. From your point of you, any act of resistance is a war crime in itself.

Seven Israeli soldiers were killed (3 more were killed by friendly fire).

I understand your regret that Hamas was not able to kill any Israeli children recently in spite of its best efforts, but keep your dream alive. The dream shall never die.

Posted by AnnaA
September 19, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink

Not AnnaA!!!&%$#!

Israel's creation of, shelling and bombing of its open air prisons and Bantustans for Palestinians is "resistance", and "do unto others as you think they would do unto you, if they were able to".

Posted by NobleCommentDecider in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thank you for honesty. You do believe the the creation of Israel is a war crime by itself, therefore Israel has no right to resist the Hamas resistance. Any such attempt is a war crime.

and "do unto others as you think they would do unto you, if they were able to".

Here is what would do unto Istael if they were able to:
http://www.universityracism.multiservers.com/Text/Hamas.htm

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from NobleCommentDecider
September 19, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink

"Anna" is a veteran of the war in Chechnya. Hedoes not believe in proprtional response.

Posted by M.J. Rosenberg in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink

Pure, Mr. Rosenberg. Don't try to hide behind so called "proportional" response lie. Be honest, like NobleCommentDecider. You didn't not support any military response in Gaza.
Prove me wrong without ad hominent attack. Point to any military campaign in a urban area with less civilian casualties.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from M.J. Rosenberg
September 19, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

Americans in Iraq. If our rules of engagement stated that to preserve an American life a GI may kill any number of civilians, we would not have 4000 dead.

The Israeli rule is that any number of civilian dead is a small price to pay to preserve an Israeli life.

I hate the war but am proud that Americans know that they can't kill anyone who gets in their way.

Here is the Israeli ration: 1400 to 10. That tells you everything.

Posted by M.J. Rosenberg in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink

Good for you, Mr Rosenberg You trying to to engage in the resasoble discussion. However, I don't see how American ratio is any better than Israeli. Please choose whom believe Israeli and American estimates or Iraqi and Hamas estimates.

Let start with The Persian Gulf War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Coalition losses: The DoD reports that U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire),

Iraqi deaths The exact number of Iraqi combat casualties is unknown, but known to be heavy. Some now estimate that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 fatalities. [6
A report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force, estimated 10,000-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war.[70] This analysis is based on Iraqi prisoner of war reports. It is known that 20,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed.
Saddam Hussein's government gave high civilian casualty figures in order to draw support from the Islamic countries.[citation needed] The Iraqi government claimed that 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign.
According to the Project on Defense Alternatives study,[71] 3,664 Iraqi civilians and between 20,000 and 26,000 military personnel were killed in the conflict. 75,000 Iraqi soldiers were wounded in the fighting.
Civilian deaths
The increased importance of air attacks from both warplanes and cruise missiles led to much controversy over the level of civilian deaths caused during the initial stages of the war. Within the first 24 hours of the war, more than 1,000 sorties were flown, many of them against targets in Baghdad. The city received heavy bombing due to being the seat of power for President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces' command and control. However, this also led to substantial civilian casualties.
During the long bombing campaign prior to the ground war, many aerial attacks led to civilian casualties. In one particularly notable event, stealth bombers attacked a bunker in Amirya, causing the deaths of between 200 and 400 civilians who were taking refuge there at the time. Subsequently, scenes of burned and mutilated bodies were broadcast and controversy raged over the status of the bunker, with some stating that it was a civilian shelter while others contended that it was a centre of Iraqi military operations and the civilians had been deliberately moved there to act as human shields. An investigation by Beth Osborne Daponte, has estimated civilian fatalities of about 3,500 from bombing, and around 100,000 from other effects of the war

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from M.J. Rosenberg
September 19, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink

While estimates on the number of casualties during the invasion in Iraq vary widely, the majority of deaths and injuries have occurred after U.S. President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations" on May 1, 2003.[136] According to CNN, the U.S. government reported that 139 American military personnel were killed before May 1, 2003, while over 4,000 have been killed since 2003.[136] Estimates on civilian casualties are more variable than those for military personnel. According to Iraq Body Count, a group that relies on Western press reports to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase, while more than 60,000 civilians have been killed as of April 2007.[137]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from M.J. Rosenberg
September 19, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

M.J. Rosenberg, you sound quite disappointed as the Jews again won their fascist Islamic enemy and didn't let your wet dreams to be fulfilled. Your hate is your greatest obstacle. Most of the Arab dead were terrorists with or without their Khafia uniform. The other few citizens were killed as human shields for their Hamas "warriors". I think that Israel did the least necessary action after the terrorist shot 1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar bombs from the Gaza Strip struck southern Israel in 2008 Only!
Israel calculated the war very efficiency and that what makes you angry. I don't think that the Jews have to plead your mercy. Its better one Jew lives in hand than ten dead Hammas terrorists in the ground.

Posted by Abe Bird in reply to a comment from M.J. Rosenberg
September 21, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink

The head of Fallujah's hospital, Dr. Rafie al-Issawi, has consistently maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to register their families' deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children. The Iraqi Health Ministry in Baghdad, part of the U.S.-installed government, gave a lower figure of about 271 killed, with 52 of the dead being women and children. On October 26, the independent British-based group Iraq Body Count reported that the civilian death toll in Fallujah in April was about 600, based on their extensive evaluation of the numbers reported by local hospital officials and the Health Ministry, as well as mainstream media accounts

http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-fallujah.html

By historical standards, however, the grim reaper isn't doing well in Fallujah when it comes to collecting American casualties. Mop up operations continue, but the city is now controlled by U.S. and Iraqi government forces. They killed an estimated 1,200 resistance fighters, and captured 1,100 more in six days, a remarkably short time for a major urban battle, which usually are measured in weeks or months. As of Friday, the re-taking of Fallujah was achieved at a cost of 51 Americans and five Iraqi dead, and about 425 wounded, of whom about a quarter have been returned to duty. Some 15,000 Marines, soldiers and Iraqi troops were involved in the attack. "That kill ratio would be phenomenal for any battle, but in an urban environment, it's revolutionary," said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a respected military strategist. "The rule has been that the attackers would take about a quarter to a third of its force in casualties."

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/uFs.htm

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

Absolutely correct, AnnaA--just because Israel behaves in a thuggish and brutal way is no reason to think that America is innocent. I'm glad you're finally seeing things clearly.

Actually, I know you embrace the thuggishness, but this is one reason why the Obama Administration or any other American administration would defend Israel--they know damn well that if one sets this kind of precedent, where a Western democracy is held to the human rights standards that we use against dictators who've lost their usefulness to us, there's no telling where it could lead. High ranking Israelis are tried--then it's high-ranking Americans when they set foot overseas (maybe in Spain, where there's some judge who actually cares about moral consistency).

Can't have that.

On the other hand, it never hurts to remind those Arabs that they might be subjected to war crimes trials if they get uppity, so notice the Obama administration carefully singles out Hamas as guilty of atrocities.

Posted by DonaldJ in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink

they know damn well that if one sets this kind of precedent, where a Western democracy is held to the human rights standards that we use against dictators who've lost their usefulness

In the similar conflicts dictators would target the enemy civilians and would kill not hundreds but hundred thousands civilians.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from DonaldJ
September 19, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink

Depends on the human rights violator and the circumstances. Most governments aren't as bad as they possibly could be--they calibrate their degree of murderousness in amoral but rational ways. This applies to democracies as well. Only the extreme psychotics like Pol Pot and Hitler just kill and kill and kill even when their genocides waste resources they could be using to defend their regimes.

Israel could not have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and gotten away with it, but hundreds it could and did.

Posted by DonaldJ in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

Israel can't get away with anything. No matter how hard Israel tries to prevent civilian casualties, the enemies always exaggerate the number of casualties and use such inflated data for PR wars. US can get ways with killing thousands of civilians, while it tries to minimize the losses of innocent lives.
Russia did get away with killing hundred thousands people in Chechnya. Third world dictators can murder intentionally as many people as the please while denouncing of Israel for human right violations

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from DonaldJ
September 20, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

Obama can't be fair and balanced because he helped to lay the groundwork for the Rape of Gaza.

from Obama's Speech at AIPAC. June 4, 2008

I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story. . .we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security. . .I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure. . .Hamas now controls Gaza. . .Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. . .As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade . . .We must isolate Hamas. . .Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. . .let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. . .You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe

Obama can't condemn what he has supported.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
320 dead kids.

Posted by Don Bacon
September 19, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink

An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[13] According to IDF, out of 295 Palestinian non-combatants, there are 89 under the age of 16 and 49 women[13] The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[13] Additional 162 Palestinian men were listed by IDF as "unaffiliated," meaning that those names have not been attributed to any militant group.[13] The IDF "conceded that Palestinian civilians died because of mistakes in intelligence and targeting, but said the military did not find any case in which an Israeli soldier deliberately shot a civilian."[235]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War#Casualties

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Don Bacon
September 19, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

And as usual the IDF is the only 'reliable' source needed, right?

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink

And as usual Hamas is the only 'reliable' source needed, right?

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

No Anna the 320 number that Don Bacon sited wasn't the "Hamas" claim. If you looked at what was in the link you linked us to you would find out that number was from a Israeli humanitarian group. I am not a Hamas defender as you would like to portray me and would not accept their numbers blindly. The facts are the facts...many innocent Palestinians died in the latest Israeli attack on Gaza. Those are indispitable facts...except for the IDF.

I don't know why I even bother with you, you are consistently intellectually dishonest.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink

Sigh...

* s/b

cited

and indisputable

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

you would find out that number was from a Israeli humanitarian group

What was the source of their information? I don't think Israeli people can travel to Gaza.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

You provided the link...ask them or wikipedia. You used the link as a factual source of information Anna. So from the same link I got a different number than what you said. The same question you asked me could be asked about how the IDF arrived at their numbers. I happen to look at claims by sides involved in a dispute with great suspicion...hence I am very skeptical of both IDF and Hamas claims.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink

And I should add the 320 Don Bacon cited was what MJ originally said in the main body of the post. I am sure it is more than the 89 which the IDF claims...they have a vested interest in the number being on the low end.

I think it is important to use independent groups to verify these numbers. It appears that MJ has done that, as he always has, and that is why I follow his contributions here closely.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

OK, Let's agree to use your estimate. Still the civilian casualties are extremely low for a military operation of such size. Please compare the casualties in the Fallujah operation to the Gaza war casualties. The civilian casualties are roughly the same but Fallujah population is several times smaller than Gaza population.
If you have any cont-example, please share it with me.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well not to be snarky Anna but if you accept the 320 total aren't you anti-Israel just like the UN and Goldstone allegedly are?

That was the main thrust of this post. The UN and Goldstone are taking an anti-Israel position with their findings. I don't know how the latest military action by the IDF stacks up against others and, with all due respect, have little interest in parsing the numbers.

Let me end by putting into this context. Lets remove this from the Israeli-Palestinian and say there was an attack on America that left 320 American children, or even 89, dead. The B-52's would already be in the air. But then again recent US military operations in the Afghan theater have resulted in a, allegedly, high civilian death toll...so I guess with the American government, as well as the Israeli government, women and children dying are ok as long as they are not your women and children.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well not to be snaky Libertine but the main thrust of this post. was that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza by using the disproportional force and caused excessive, according to international norms, casualties However, because you don't know how the latest military action by the IDF stacks up against others, I don't think you can have an informed opinion.

..so I guess with the American government, as well as the Israeli government, women and children dying are ok as long as they are not your women and children.

This is the case with ALL democratic governments in the world. They value lives of own civilians and soldiers more than lives of enemies'
civilians and soldiers. If you have a problem with this, that your problem is not with Israel, but with the world.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink

This is the case with ALL democratic governments in the world. They value lives of own civilians and soldiers more than lives of enemies' civilians and soldiers.

There is a HUGE difference between combatants and civilians. And once a country goes down the road where the deaths of civilian women and children are viewed as acceptable that country is immoral and barbarian. In the defense of Israel and the US the 2 governments issue statements of remorse, though Israel tries to pin the all blame on Hamas for Israel's actions, when civilians are killed. But bottom line is that using military action to resolve disputes will always lead to the death of innocents.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 19, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

And once a country goes down the road where the deaths of civilian women and children are viewed as acceptable that country is immoral and barbarian
All countries in the world accept the deaths of civilian women and children as the collateral damage. There has never been a war where innocent civilians were not been killed. Some countries make no effort to minimize such casualties, some countries target civilians. I claim, based on the result of Gaza war, that Israel minimized civilian casualties better than any other country ever did.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink

All countries in the world accept the deaths of civilian women and children as the collateral damage. There has never been a war where innocent civilians were not been killed. Some countries make no effort to minimize such casualties, some countries target civilians. I claim, based on the result of Gaza war, that Israel minimized civilian casualties better than any other country ever did.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 19, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink

See my reply below

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

Obama's Administration joins Israel in attacking UN report, now that was unexpected. What a joke this new USA regime is. Peace talks, oh yeah that's the ticket. I can't wait for 'til Obama unveils his cocked up pipe dream process. I wonder if he'll do it with another of his sanctimonious speeches? Some are already speculating that the new process will be called Roadmapolis. Has a nice ring to it, I think.

http://tonykaron.com/2009/09/08/obama-to-unveil-roadmapolis/

Posted by PanGloss
September 19, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

STOP DREAMING. there won't be a palestinian state. period. israel and the US are in the same parade. the purpose of this parade is to give the illusion of marching but it is just standing still.

the only chance for there to be a palestinian state is through the spreading of the BDS movement on a major scale like the british trade unions, the toronto film festival, academic boycotts, and france's veolia transport company, etc. the ball has started rolling.

individually stop buying israeli products with a 729 bar code.

Posted by BluePearl in reply to a comment from PanGloss
September 19, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has a prominent advertisement on Steve Clemons's above diary.

Gaza.
Hamas.
Conflict.
Facts!
Click here

The Ministry is not a big fan of Judge Goldstone, judging from the sites it links to (excerpts):

THE GOLDSTONE INQUIRY: THE UN BLOOD LIBEL
Goldstone Courts Global Fame and Glory

Richard Goldstone's efforts to broadcast his activities are totally unprecedented in the UN human rights system. He organized the first-ever webcasting of a UN human rights "inquiry" against a UN member state, and the repeat broadcasting of the unsubstantiated accusations of its self-proclaimed "victims."

The Goldstone Legacy for More Hate

The Goldstone report was launched on 15 September 2009 in New York. . . .Goldstone will present his report in person at the forthcoming session of the UN Human Rights Council. His report will spawn Israel-bashing resolutions and calls for a "follow-up" report, which will in turn mean more resolutions, and so on. The Goldstone report will, therefore, become one more tool contributing to UN-driven demonization of the Jewish state and antisemitism.

Posted by Don Bacon
September 19, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink

As an American citizen, I feel utterly humiliated by this statement from our government.

Posted by Dan K
September 19, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

Judging by the UN Report's standards, the US itself is arguably guilty of equally heinous war crimes, not only in Iraq, but under Democratic administrations in Afghanistan and Kosovo as well. So should it come as any surprise, Dan, that the criminals themselves are slow to recognize the crime?

Of course, one's opinions on these matters generally depends on political judgments as to the nature of the conflict. Judging by your past comments, you believe deeply that the entire State of Israel is a historic injustice and the Gaza operation aimed at terrorizing and cowing the population into submission. You might reach a different conclusion if you saw the conflict as one in which Israel sought to protect itself from indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire aimed at its civilian population over the course of several years from territory controlled by an organization sworn to its destruction that was in the process of smuggling more and more deadly weapons with which to accomplish its goals. Either way, the notion that these judgments can be arrived at through the pure application of international law is nonsense.

Here's how the Economist put it:

To some, Israel’s Gaza war will always be in principle unjust: a disproportionate response to Hamas’s rockets. Indeed, the suffering in Gaza, from war and the economic blockade, has been grievous. They may be tempted to applaud Mr Goldstone’s report for that reason alone. Yet if the mere fact of Israel’s attack were enough to condemn it then Mr Goldstone’s report was pointless all along. And there is a danger of double standards. American and European forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo also caused thousands of civilian deaths, without attracting a Goldstone.

Or more bluntly, Haaretz correspondent Ari Shavit:

If there are is such a thing as an international community, international law and universal ethics, they must seriously consider putting Obama on trial for his responsibility for severe war crimes.
Absurd? Yes, it's absurd. No sane person in the world believes that the United States, Russia or China could be subjected to purist international law. The United States has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the last few months encouraged Pakistan to make an extremely brutal military move in its Swat Valley. The United States was not required to account for it because everyone understands that this is the price of the terrible War on Terror. Russia committed blood-curdling war crimes in Chechnya, while China deprives its citizens of basic rights and is conducting a wicked occupation in Tibet. They are not asked to pay for this because everyone understands that you don't mess with superpowers.

But not only superpowers are immune. Saudi Arabia practices an open, declared policy of discrimination against women and the international community does not see. Sri Lanka is crushing the Tamil national movement, causing a ghastly humanitarian disaster, and the international community does not hear. Turkey is brutally oppressing the Kurdish minority, and the international community does not speak.

Only in matters involving Israel, do international law and justice suddenly discover that they have teeth. Only when Israel is involved is the judgment administered out of context. Only Israel is required to uphold a moral standard no superpower or Middle Eastern state is required to uphold.

Over the course of the military offensive in Gaza, Israel used excessive firepower and this must not recur. Severe incidents took place during the operation which must be investigated. But the inquiry must be carried out by us, and among ourselves. As long as Judge Richard Goldstone doesn't probe the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka or Turkey, just as he probed Israel, he is not a moral figure. A law is a law only when it applies to everyone and does not discriminate, as Goldstone did.

Posted by Armchair Guerrilla in reply to a comment from Dan K
September 19, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink

1.Of course the law always discriminates and to suggest otherwise is naive.

2. Every war brings war crimes, and while all war crimes can't be prosecuted there's nothing wrong with starting somewhere, with Milošević, Taylor, Karadžić, Mladić, al-Bashir, and perhaps Israel. Then Bush and Cheney.

Posted by Don Bacon in reply to a comment from Armchair Guerrilla
September 20, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink

Daily "israel bad" post from MJ. Please move on.

Posted by John
September 19, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

No, thanks.

Posted by Don Bacon in reply to a comment from John
September 19, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink

MJ: What say you now that your "God" (your words, not mine) points out the obvious defects in the Goldstone report you so glibly embraced. Had the Bush administration responded similarly, would your comment have been as mild? Somehow I doubt it.

But as I mentioned above, these are essentially political judgments dressed up in legal garb. The Obama statement gets it just about right, recognizing the humanitarian suffering in Gaza and Israel, but criticizing the "overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel," and the utter lack of any balancing context for its actions. Of course, the Obama administration is focused on ending this conflict, a goal that is only hindered by the report that will undoubtedly be used to bludgeon Israel while reinforcing Israelis' belief that they will never get a fair shake.

More from the Economist:

The pity is that the report frustrates the objective that Israel should be striving for: to hold its politicians and soldiers to the highest standards of Israeli and international law. After its costly war in Lebanon in 2006, Israel plainly chose to minimise its own casualties by using massive firepower in Gaza. It went too far. There have been credible allegations that individual soldiers broke rules banning the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields sent first into properties where fighters may be holed up; that civilians known not to pose any military threat were killed in cold blood and that Israeli forces used white phosphorous over built-up areas. Israel is pursuing 23 criminal investigations so far into the Gaza operations. It must finish the job. Unlike Syria, say, Israel is a democracy that claims to live by the rule of law. It needs to make its case by moral force as well as by force of arms.

The UN report has not come at a good moment. Barack Obama is trying to restart direct talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The peace process was never going to be easy. With its thimbleful of poison, the Goldstone report has made the job all the harder.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14455609

Posted by Armchair Guerrilla
September 19, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink

The UN report has not come at a good moment.

There is never a good moment for justice -- but right now is pretty good, when one considers the war crimes that have been committed.

Posted by Don Bacon in reply to a comment from Armchair Guerrilla
September 20, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink

In response to AnnaA's comment here...

But that ignores the point that countries who start or try to continue wars know that civilians will be killed...the moral failing falls on them in those cases. I see little or no initiatives for peace happening in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute (thanks to entrenched interests on both sides who benefit from war) nor the US military in Afghanistan.

All wars, even the Cold War, lead to hundreds of thousands of innocents being killed. There will always be war. I am not being polyanna-ish and think all wars can be prevented. But when countries feel that war is something other than the choice of last resort they are immoral. Some claim Israel has no choice but to take the actions that they have. I cannot disaree more with that idea. I feel for the last decade the people leading Israel have been actively working against the peace process in their dispute with the Palestinians...and Hamas gives them a perfect casus belli. In fact all to Hamas's liking and blame...they want to stay in power over the Palestinians. The parties who gain most, in terms of internal power they gain because of the war, in the respective countries seem to want to continue it.

Posted by Libertine
September 20, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink

Finally w are getting somewhere. You've just proved my point. You don't object to a "disproportional" use of force by Israel, your object to any use of military force by Israel.

Some claim Israel has no choice but to take the actions that they have.

I don't claim this. Practically all wars are wars of choice. FDR had a choice not to be involved in war with Germany in WW2 or not to start a total war with Japan.
President Lincoln had a choice not to start Civil War. Many more civilians were killed in that war than in the Gaza War.

I feel for the last decade the people leading Israel have been actively working against the peace process in their dispute with the Palestinians…

Your feelings are wrong. Two recent prime ministers offered Palestinians 98 % West Bank and Gaza, but Palestinians continue to insist on the "right" of return several millions Arabs to Israel. But this is a topic for another day.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 20, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink

We were attacked by the Japanese, which is justification, but we tried to end the war with the Axis as soon as possible.

You can argue that Israel was attacked by Hamas precipitating this but you cannot argue that Israel is trying to end their dispute as soon as they possibly can.

That is the BIG difference.

That being said I think Hamas are no better...in fact worse, because they are terrorists who intentionally target civilians. But that in no way justifies being as bad as they are in trying to defeat them. The Hamas goal is continued conflict with the Israelis because with peace their hold on power disappears...and the Israelis seem very happy to continue to allow them to maintain the stanglehold they have on the Palestinian people. When the pro-war faction in Israel says they want a 'safe and secure' Israel living in peace, but make no effort to reach that goal they are as much to blame. A pox on both (the pro-war Israelis and Hamas) houses...

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink

We were attacked by the Japanese, which is justification, but we tried to end the war with the Axis as soon as possible

By dropping the Atomic bomb. I'm not sure what's your point. Now, you seems to suggest that Israel should go in Gaza and destroy Hamas.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 20, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink

I did not suggest that. There is a big difference in waging, and winning, conventional versus non-conventional wars. And inherent in trying to win a non-conventional war using conventional war tactics is the fact that trying to do so will result in massive civilian casualties.

BTW...I do major issues with the morality regarding the way the Allies ended the war in the Pacific. But that is for another thread, I digress...

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink

And inherent in trying to win a non-conventional war using conventional war tactics is the fact that trying to do so will result in massive civilian casualties

THe fact is that the war in Gaza didn't not result massive civilian casualties

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Libertine
September 20, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink

Based on the length of the latest action you feel casualties were kept low? I happen to think they were massive. And in the context of their continuing actions against the Palestinians, how many civilians have been killed? I guess it is all about perspective

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink

And I want to add that the tactics that Israel is using will assuredly mean, sans a negotiated peace, there will be generations of new, and increasing in number, Hamas fighters wanting to kill Israelis.

Posted by Libertine in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink

Judging by your past comments, you believe deeply that the entire State of Israel is a historic injustice and the Gaza operation aimed at terrorizing and cowing the population into submission. You might reach a different conclusion if you saw the conflict as one in which Israel sought to protect itself from indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire aimed at its civilian population over the course of several years from territory controlled by an organization sworn to its destruction that was in the process of smuggling more and more deadly weapons with which to accomplish its goals.

Really my judgments about the nature and justification for the war aren't that germane, AG. Israel's armed forces, which it appears are now thoroughly infiltrated by a bunch of fanatical, racist religious kooks, were set loose by it's ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious gurus on and undisciplined and vengeful rampage of "wilding" to collectively punish Gaza's civilians for the rockets. The fact that Israel had legitimate security needs doesn't have much to do with it. Nor is it a question of whether the response is "disproportionate" under international law. Even if the war itself were a proportionate response, the atrocious, brutal conduct by elements of the armed forces should be abhorrent to all civilized people, as should be the abject failure of Israel's government to establish proper discipline for its troops, and its tolerance for the presence dangerously racist and genocidal ideologues in its command structure.

I know a pogrom or fascist rampage when I see one. And while I don't think the entire IDF is guilty of such atrocious behavior, significant portions of it are. Instead of running interference for these animals, the Obama administration should be demanding to know what Israel is going to do to purge its once respected military forces of thugs, racist psychopaths and savages.

Posted by Dan K
September 20, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink

bunch of fanatical, racist religious kooks, were set loose by it's ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious gurus on and undisciplined and vengeful rampage of "wilding"

When bunch of fanatical, racist religious kooks, are set loose, usually ten or hundred thousands or even millions of innocent civilians are getting killed. In this case, Israel had achieved the lowest level of civilian casualties in the history of the urban warfare.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Dan K
September 20, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink

Interesting. They don't wantonly kill and injure people, including children, they achieve casualties. Some achievement.

Hey, judge, I didn't kill anyone -- I achieved casualties! Set me free!

Posted by Don Bacon in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink

In all wars they kill and injure people, including children.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from Don Bacon
September 20, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink

In this case, Israel had achieved the lowest level of civilian casualties in the history of the urban warfare.

Really? As measured by whom?

Posted by Dan K in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink

As measured by available information. I've provided plenty information to prove my assertion. Do you have any example to disprove it?

Posted by AnnaA
September 20, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink

"In all wars they kill people including children"

AS A DELIBERATE POLICY to terrorize the civilian population? I don't think so, Miss!

I served in the military for seven years and I have never heard of hundreds of children being killed as a deliberate tactic and then justified on the specious argument that they were a threat to one of the most heavily armed (by America) armies in the world.

There are always people who will spread propaganda throughout the media for their cause and hope that it will be absorbed as truth, and there are those who will disseminate fact as informative news.

It was ever thus in every conflict.

Posted by bluecanary
September 20, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink

AS A DELIBERATE POLICY to terrorize the civilian population? I don't think so

Even the UN report doesn't allege that several hundren children in the Gaza war were killed AS A DELIBERATE POLICY to terrorize the civilian population.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from bluecanary
September 20, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink

Yes I know. That's because Goldstone is a self-hating Jew. er .. no. The UN are self-hating Jews or is it the IDF are self-hating Jews? It's exceedingly confusing isn't it with all these self-hating people milling around cyberspace?

You don't suppose for a minute that it's just a ploy for the world to forget that over 300 innocent children and a hundred of their mothers were killed last December/ January, in Gaza, and that as yet nobody has been brought before the ICC?

Posted by bluecanary in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink

You don't suppose for a minute that it's just a ploy for the world to forget that over many thousands innocent children and many thousands of their mothers were killed in Afghanistan and hundred thousands killed in Chechnya and that as yet nobody has been brought before the ICC?

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from bluecanary
September 20, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

Good point! Or upon reflection, perhaps just garbage.

Afghanistan doesn't claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East, or the most moral army in the world.

AND, THE AFGHAN ARMY DOESN'T TARGET CHILDREN.

So, it's just a ploy for the world to forget that over 300 innocent children and a hundred of their mothers were killed last December/ January, in Gaza, and that as yet nobody has been brought before the ICC?

Posted by bluecanary in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 20, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink

I was not talking about AFGHAN ARMY . I was talking about the US. Americans have killed many thousands innocent children and many thousands of their mothers.
AND, THE ISRAELI ARMY DOESN'T TARGET CHILDREN.
So, it's just a ploy for the world to forget
that over many thousands innocent children and many thousands of their mothers were killed in Afghanistan by Americans and hundred thousands killed in Chechnya by Russians and that as yet nobody has been brought before the ICC?

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from bluecanary
September 20, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

Mr AnnaA

It is the US army you were referring to that has killed many thousands of Afghan children!

OK Mister! Evidence. Dates, places and numbers please?

Nothing else - no opinions, just substantiated dates, places and numbers.

If you fail to reply within 4 hours, it will be assumed that you and all your published comment, on all these columns, is similarly based on Hasbara propaganda and is without merit, and worthless.

Posted by bluecanary in reply to a comment from AnnaA
September 21, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
2001-2003 direct deaths: at least 3,100 to 3,600
2001-2003 indirect deaths: at least 3,200 - 20,000
2001-2003 direct & indirect deaths: 6,300 - 23,600
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan:
A Comprehensive Accounting [revised]

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Clinton_US_deeply_regrets_civilian_losses_in_Afghanistan_37456.html
Washington - US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized Wednesday for civilian casualties after a US airstrike this week may have killed more than 100 people in western Afghanistan.

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from bluecanary
September 21, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink

CHILDREN, Mr AnnaA, CHILDREN!

Unarmed INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Do you have evidence or not?

Posted by bluecanary
September 21, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/19/obama_administration_joins_israel_in_attacking_un/index.php#comment-3608294

Posted by AnnaA
September 21, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink

mr. anna, you are such a strong defender of israel. are you trying to assuage your guilt for not moving to israel and coming to live in the usa instead?

Posted by BluePearl
September 21, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink

Is this your best argument?

Posted by AnnaA in reply to a comment from BluePearl
September 21, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink

Coming Soon	Nov. 30-Dec. 4
January 12-16