Maybe President Obama should travel to Pakistan and make angry statements about the government of Pakistan being unwilling to make peace with the Taliban.

I am wondering. Is Pakistan already under a war crimes investigation by the UN because "nobody is perfect" (and hence Pakistanis are war criminals) or is this simply not relevant here?

 

Do not shift attention away from your own problem by focusing upon other conflicts.

That is the rhetoric strategy most Zionists always take.

The UN is not perfect, but acted against non-Jews including Omar al-Bashir.

Before being so worried about the Goldstone Report, Israel should have cooperated with Goldstone who is Jewish.

Now that's a nice way of making sure that no real conflict will ever be tackled.

As long as there is a conflict Jews are involved in, we cannot address the other conflicts because doing so would shift attention away from the Jew problem?




Yes. We have an issue with the world ignoring genocide and slavery and focusing on innocent Jews instead.

But following your logic the world will never address any of the real problems because there is always someone accusing the Jews of something.

When did the UN _act_ against Omar al-Bashir?

He is still in power and proceeds with his genocide.

The only action we have seen against evil was the coalition invasion of Iraq. The UN, naturally, was against it.

All the UN did was organise 4 billion dollars for Gaza and, of course, nothing for Bashir's victims.

Attack the Jews and get beaten, and you get money. But if you are black and the Arabs attack you, you get nothing.

I think it is time that the UN stops rewarding attacks against Jews and focus more on problems like genocide and slavery which are rampant among the very countries that condemn Israel the most.

Sometimes you have to side with the good guys even if it means siding with the Jews.




Goldstone is also incompetent. Whether or not he is Jewish doesn't matter.

There is no need to cooperate with everybody who makes up accusations against Israel. We are really sick and tired of that game.

Every two years somebody accuses Israel of war crimes. It's becoming more than ridiculous. (And if at some point in the future they will actually find something, it will be used as proof that all the accusations have always been true, I am sure.)

Even Goldstone himself complained that the UN "human rights" committe at the end only chose those parts of his report that accused Israel of crimes.

Goldstone accused Israel of war crimes, without evidence. He also accused Hamas of war crimes (and there is plenty of evidence for that, including Hamas' own admissions). The "human rights" committee then chose to ignore the accusations against Hamas and judged Israel guilty of the crimes she was accused of. Evidence never came into play. Goldstone didn't have any.

It has been over 2000 years. I think we can end the experiment of accusing Jews of every crime possible.

 

Fussyvet,

Two things interest me greatly.

Do you show similar hostility to, say, an Arab or Muslim who rather talks about Israel then the (real) crimes committed by Arabs and Muslims, or is this a Jew-only reaction?

And how on earth are accusations against Israel even comparable to real and already proven crimes committed by the Arab side in this conflict against both Jews and Africans? Why should anybody focus on the accusations against Israel rather than the genocide and other crimes committed by Israel's enemies? What's the point?

In short: How would we make the world a better place by paying more attention to (unproven) accusations against the only one capable of defending himself on the one side in this conflict than to the (already proven) crimes committed by the other?

 

This is a personal question. I do show similar hostility to someone who supports the Darfur genocide. So what? We Japanese do not have anti-Jews-habits.

If you need evidence, you should have showed everything that showed Israel's innocence. Are there something Israel can prove their innocence? Being tired is not a good reason.

The HRC did not choose unilateral accusations. The report condemns both Israel and Hamas, which was endorsed at the General Assembly. In the first place, the HRC refused the Goldstone Report because of US, Israel, and Fatah who were put a pressure by Israel's blackmailing using "the secret tape".  

I don't compare. You do. I said so, that was the rhetoric language among you. No other proven crimes committed by the Arab side can undo what Israel have done. 

None should focus on Israel rather than, say, Darfur. Both should be accused. But even Omar al-Bashir, who are issued an arrest warrant for by the ICC, cannot be arrested because Israel and the America's double standard cause the Arabs to hide such a shameless criminal. Maybe, BO is going to veto the Goldstone Report in the Security Council and Israel will never be a criminal while China-backed Sudan has been accused.

Yes. You show similar hostility to a non-Jew who supports a genocide and to a Jew who supports no such thing. That's the problem.

 

I don't need to show Israel's innocence. Accusations need to be proven, not disproven.

 

The HRC council did not pay any attention to the parts of the report that accused Hamas of crimes and Goldstone himself was upset about that. (And the fact that he was surprised by it shows you how incompetent he is. As if anybody was seriously expecting that the "human rights" council would condemn anyone but Israel.)

 

Israel hasn't done anything.

This is the starting point.

People think that accusations are proof but they are not.

For 60 years (and ultimately for 2000 years) Israel and Jews have been accused of every crime under the sun and there was never proof. People have murdered Jews and attacked Israel because of those silly lies and it has to stop.

We cannot discuss every new accusation as if THIS TIME it is real. At some point we will have to decide that it is enough. 2000 years are enough. Let's focus on somebody else for a change.

 

In contrast to Israel's "crimes" with Sudan the evidence is quite visible. That's why Sudanese blacks are fleeing to Israel.

You don't see many Gazans flee to Sudan, do you?

 

Hahaha! Because they cannot move to any place. They are confined to Gaza. They cannot go through Egypt. They cannot even go beyond the sea. How can I see them flee from Gaza under such a condition?

How is it more visible than Israel's? Because there are more testimonies of Darfuris than those of Gazans? Which evidence are you talking about? Are there any differences between human rights organizations in Gaza and Darfur? Or are the accusations against Khartoum more credible because they are not against Israel?

I know the comment of upset Mr. Goldstone. But that does not undermine him. In fact, many Zionists are trying to defame him here and there. Those are very hideous.

The borders were open before Hamas took power.

The border were also open several times since then.

They also manage to smuggle weapons in, including rockets. I find it hard to believe that fleeing Gaza is more difficult than wandering through the desert for weeks.

I think you have a weird idea of what Gaza looks like.

 

Israel's so-called "crimes" are not visible at all. All you know is what people told you. And you don't care if they lie.

The fact is that the living standard in the "occupied territories" is higher than in Egypt. Some "oppression", that.

 

They are more credible because there are fewer people reporting from Darfur then from Gaza.

If Gaza were such a hell hole, why are journalists attracted to it? Have you ever thought about that?

 

The man doesn't deserve better. Because of him and people like him the wars against Israel will continue and more people will die.

And he doesn't care.

He is proud that he "spoke up against Israel", as if speaking up against Israel, which these days takes up well over 50% of the time the UN discusses anything, is something dangerous and daring.

Because of people like him Jews have been under attack for over 2000 years. (And note that it doesn't matter whether he is Jewish, black, or pink and blue.)

And because of people like you the terrorists continue to know that they have world-wide support for their agenda.

 

I meant sources for actual accusations, not sources for possible accusations.

There are two types of witnesses I don't accept. Those that give details but not their names, and those who say that something must have happened and give their names.

But if you read that other article you already know why I don't believe Goldstone's lies.

(I will never understand why so many people believe that a Zionist must believe every lie told about Jews or Israel in order to be anything but a fanatic.)

 

 

Here's a good example of Goldstone's "evidence".

Goldstone alleged that Israel targeted civilians. Israel alleges that civilians died becaus Hamas terrorists used them as human shields. Goldstone alleges that civilians were not used a shuman shields.

Israel's evidence for the human shield "excuse" are videos such as these, that show terrorists firing rockets and then escaping shielded by women and children:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-hamas-terrorist-uses-children-as.html

This video was recorded by the IDF (who record many of their missions) in January during the Gaza war.

You can see how the terrorist fires a rocket in the upper left of the picture then runs to the gate where he waits. Shortly afterwards his family (a mother and three children) arrive as if called my mobile phone (Gaza has a mobile phone network, in case you didn't know) and he escapes among them.

(Note that there are many such videos. They were published by the IDF in January during the battle.)

Goldstone's "evidence" for the non-use of human shields is this:

474. The Mission’s attention has been drawn to a well-known incident in which women and children followed calls to gather on the roof of the house of a Palestinian man who had been informed by the Israeli authorities that his house would be targeted. This incident has been documented in video footage in the public domain and is referred to in submissions received by the Mission as evidence of the use of human shields. The Mission notes, however, that the incident occurred in 2007. No such incidents are alleged by the Israeli Government with regard to the military operations that began on 27 December 2008. The Mission received no reports of such incidents from other sources. On the contrary, in one case investigated by the Mission, a Hamas official received a phone call from the Israeli armed forces to the effect that his house would soon be targeted. He evacuated the house with his family and alerted the neighbours to the imminent threat so that they, too, were able to leave their homes before the missile did indeed strike.

Note that Goldstone acknowledges that Israel warns people when their houses are targeted so their families can escape. (I am not aware of any other armies besides the obviously criminal IDF that bother to do that.)

Also note that he acknowledges that human shields were used in the past (or at least that one video shows that they were).

And then note that he claims that "no such incidents are alleged by the Israeli Government with regard to the military operations that began on 27 December 2008".

Here is where we catch him in a lie.

See this (published January 21st 2009):

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1607

Some media reports have referred to the mingling of Hamas fighters among civilians as merely an Israeli claim. One unsigned report by the Associated Press, for example, reported that "Israel says Hamas militants are launching rockets from civilian areas and using non-combatants as human shields" (emphasis added; AP, "Israel denies attack on clan members in Gaza town," Jan. 10, 2009).

Independent of whether the human shields claims are true, it is on record that by January 10th Israel has already made the claim, which Goldstone says Israel didn't make.

If his "mission" received no such reports it must be because they either don't read the paper or perpetually ignore what Israel tells them (in which case they shouldn't make statements about what Israel didn't tell them).

Finally note that he then decides that human shields were not used. Instead of providing evidence that Israel targeted civilians, he merely states that he wasn't shown evidence that those civilians were used as human shields by Hamas. It is a lie that he wasn't shown such evidence and it doesn't prove a war crime even if there were no such evidence.

Do you remember that accusations have to be proven, not just not disproven?

So Goldstone's "evidence" here is that he simply states that no human shields were used by the terrorists and he bases this judgement on the fact that he can lie about what Israel said and on ignoring the video evidence by claiming that no such reports reached him.

Now, I have no intention to go through the entire report to find out how much else Goldstone has ignored or lied about, but I figure that one example of a direct lie is good evidence for the theory that maybe the entire "report" is a fairy tale. If the "investigator" cannot be bothered to read the papers or use Google and feels it necessary to lie about what Israel said during the incident, how can I trust him?

 

> Do you remember that accusations have to be proven, not just not disproven?

> If his "mission" received no such reports it must be because they either don't read the paper or perpetually ignore what Israel tells them (in which case they shouldn't make statements about what Israel didn't tell them).

How could he receive what Israel told him? Do you mean Israel cooperated with him, just sending the paper? 

> So Goldstone's "evidence" here is that he simply states that no human shields were used by the terrorists and he bases this judgement on the fact that he can lie about what Israel said and on ignoring the video evidence by claiming that no such reports reached him.

Why would he lie? What advantages would he expect to be given by such a lie? Nothing.

> And because of people like you the terrorists continue to know that they have world-wide support for their agenda.

As long as Hamas is defined as terrorists, Israel can be victims and continue the settlement. The settlement is Israel's priority. If Hamas becomes "good boy", it will kinda bother Israel. Recently, I read the news that Mr. Mofaz in Kadima told Israel should talk to Hamas, which got very controvertial because it was taboo. But I felt happy a bit when I knew such a lowmaker was there like him although he may be being attacked everywhere. 

Israel told everyone, yet Goldstone claimed he didn't know.

It took me literally five minutes to find a fault in Goldstone's report. How diligant could he have been if it's so easy to find both a press article and a video proving him wrong?

 

I don't think he lied. I think he is incompetent.

I think his intentions were pure (which is why he was shocked when the council decided to ignore his accusations against Hamas), but he is a moron.

Only a moron would be surprised when the "human rights" council decides to focus only on Israel and only a moron could manage to ignore press articles about the very conflict supposed to be researched and only a moron could ignore the video evidence and then claim that such evidence doesn't exist.

Well, a liar could also manage all that, but I don't believe Goldstone is a liar, as I said.

He is merely incompetent. He was exactly what the "human rights" council, a group of Israel's enemies (not over human rights but ideologically), needed. An incompetent but honest Jew was the ideal person for the job. It was just a pity that he also researched Hamas' crimes which then had to be ignored by the council.

 

There are no Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip. Hamas' territory is Jew-free.

Israel cannot talk to Hamas because it would upset the Palestinian Authority, who are also Hamas' enemies.

Hamas is not a terrorist group because Israel needs Hamas to be evil, Hamas is a terrorist group because that's what Hamas wants to be. Hamas are "defined" as terrorists by Israel and the Palestinians. They are NOT the representatives of the "Palestinian people".

As for Israeli "settlements" in general. There are also Arab "settlements" in Israel, both registered and unregistered. Nobody complains about those.

And, in fact, local Arabs don't complain about Jewish villages as much as the rest of the world does. Living in the same street as a Jew is really less of a problem for an Arab in Hevron than western liberals think it is. USUALLY relations between Jews and Arabs both in Israel (including Jerusalem) and the territories are quite good.

I don't know why the rest of the world suddenly decided to bring up the issue of the West-Bank not being Jew-free enough.

If Obama wants to try out if segregation really brings peace he can try it out in Chicago, not Jerusalem. From what I hear most Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem don't mind living next to each other, regardless of international feelings about a non-segregated Jerusalem. (Also note that the Jewish "settlements" in Jerusalem are often thousands of years old.)

Here are a few articles of mine about the "settlements":

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/369466/More_Israeli_Settlements

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/367718/East-Jerusalem_and_the_Palestinian_Authority_-_An_Interview

In the interview with "israel today" the young woman said that she and with her a majority of inhabitants of Jerusalem do not want a partition of the city, but that nobody asks them. She is the ninth of eleven siblings and it was her father who taught his family not to hate Israel.

This attutide is normal among Jerusalem Arabs. Hebrew University, the university Albert Einstein founded in the 1920s, is also in "East-Jerusalem". Apart from being under Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967 there is nothing that makes it a "settlement". And the surrounding areas are inhabited by both Jews and Arabs.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/364938/Spain_Israel_team_out_of_contest_over_West_Bank

When [the Arab student was] asked why he chose to study in Ariel, he responds, "I have Jewish friends, who work for the Israeli Electric Corporation, and some of them study here. They told me about the place. I was planning to study in Tel Aviv or Haifa, but it is more difficult to study and work at the same time there. I also heard the electronics department here is one of the finest in the country."

Despite the controversial politics of the area and hostility between settlers and Palestinians, more Arab students are studying at a college in the Jewish settlement of Ariel, 25 miles (40 km.) northeast of Tel Aviv. About 300 Arabs are enrolled at the College of Judea and Samaria, half from Israeli Arab towns and half from Palestinian territories.

The university here was excluded from a European science competition because it was a "settlement", i.e. because it was Jewish. It is also one of the best universities in the West-Bank, open to Jews and Arabs.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/358469/Villages_or_Settlements_if_the_Inhabitants_are_Jews

Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Saturday that Jews would enjoy freedom and civil rights in a future Palestinian state.

...

“In fact the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, co-existence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever.

“Jews to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel,” Fayyad said.

Apparently even the PLO themselves can see other solutions that segregation.