The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
nal as to Mike Appleton:
“In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies.
My remark, here, was obviously (I thought) intended to be taken as sarcasm.”
*****************
I am telling, you are being sarcastic.
Mespo:
come on man, dont you know about the evolution of christian ethics?
Although if you read Bob McDonnells’ thesis you might think you were reading a 10th century guide to marriage counseling. So maybe evolution is not the correct word.
Mike Appleton:
In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies.
My remark, here, was obviously (I thought) intended to be taken as sarcasm.
Mr. Teleprompter seems to get lost at the five minute mark.
Forget Israeli War Crimes
What about RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW
billy:
“Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.”
***********
If you believe this statement either you are a stranger to any of the “sacred texts” of most of the world’s religion, or you are willfully deluding yourself. Find me some condemnation of slavery or misogyny in the Christian Bible and then we’ll talk about how it is the “moral compass” for modern day morality. You must be in deep, brother.
Mike on the other hand chooses not to conceal his own obvious contempt for Christians, primarily Catholics. At least “you both” have this in common judge..
Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.
Mikes’ biases are spelled out in all his obvious “troll baiting”. You are in opposition to Bob because he opposed you in an earlier blog. Your deception is plane to see. Mikes’ obvious biases are “palpable” as yours are. You believe Mike is right in yout judgement, maybe you haven’t thought enough.
billy:
“The most “brilliant” argument and rebuttal I have yet read on this blog. I took logic at UCLA, this my friend(s) is how it is done.”
*************
Not to demean, in any way, my learned friends but this is neither’s pinnacle work. I think you need a logic refresher course. Mike S. implies his status supplies him superior knowledge of the situation–another logical fallacy I call “Father knows best.” Bob,Esq reduces most every rebuttal to a Kantian analysis of morality based on principles of duty or necessity divorced from experience. His admiration for Kant is palpable (as Mike S. points out), and that my student of logic, without more, is the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
In it’s pristine form morality may indeed be based on notions of duty and necessity, but pray tell, from whence do we get these notions. Are they just there rattling around in our heads? I think not. I suggest that we get them from common historical experience which provides societal support for normative conduct. To my mind, that is what Mike S. is saying about the mid-East problem. History has prescribed opposing duties to each of these antagonists which compel them to act in accord with their perceptions of morality. A massacre by one gives rise to the need to respond by the other with the entire panoply of human responses i.e. revenge, appeals for pity, outrage, most anything except mercy or forgiveness … and the treacherous cycle continues ad infinitum.
Ultimately and in my judgment, Mike S is right. Bob,Esq barely conceals his resentment of Israel when he so “Freudianly” laments that “… she’s (Israel) just never called on anything; like my sister.” This is personal opinion with a Kantian overcoat. In my experience, Israel is “called” on many things–this report being just one of them. And so likewise are the Palestinians and their radical proponents. This is not a logical exercise of finding the angel among the devils, but rather deciding which flawed position is the least acceptable to us, and applying our historical principles to judge that actor.
I “like” you Mike, but you have done some serious “troll-baiting” on anything related to Judaism, the Holocaust, Israel, and rants against Catholicism. I have read your posts for months, and I can clearly “tell” you have a sharp mind, with your own built in, “obviously” biased views. Your objectivity is somewhat impaired, especially when it comes to matters of religion. You just “go-off” on anyone who has anything positive to say about Catholicism or the Church or Christianity in general. Clearly this is a “forum” that caters to people of your ilk. I noticed, with “regularity”, that you have a proclivity to redefine words in order to make them conform to your value system; and are not always “intellectually honest” with your foes that you are debating. Something to reflect on. We aren’t always right or wrong. Remember what I said about dichotomy and this blog? Its’ okay, I have my own biases as well, thats’ why I am me and you are you. Ain’t life grand?
The most “brilliant” argument and rebuttal I have yet read on this blog. I took logic at UCLA, this my friend(s) is how it is done. I may get a brain fart because I get caught up in “feelings, but make know mistake, this is the “sequential” path “you must go by, cause in the long run, theirs still time to change the road you’re on”. Paraphrase from Zeppelin 4, Stairway to Heaven. Brilliant, truly an honor to read posts this thoughtfully written by both Mike and Bob Esq., bravo…….
Mike S.,
Would you say that you treat the terms Palestinian and Semite in an equally abstract manner? Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.
Mike S.: “Bob where have I ever talked of or defended Israel as a place of “moral immaculateness?”
That’s a re-assertion of one of my claims.
“You seem to be debating a perception and not me. I think I deserve the courtesy of being debated on my own words and not on your perception of what they might be.”
Mike, I am not debating a perception; I’m discussing with an intelligent person, who has a proclivity for being fairly verbose (& troll-baiting) on the topic of Jews, Judaism & Israel (and dare we forget circumcision), my claims about the state of Israel and its a-moral similarity to my sister.
“Most of what you write here Bob is personal opinion, despite your cloaking it in philosophical terms. I get it. you believe Israel behaves immorally and feels entitled to because of its’ history and you believe that it is a theocracy. That’s your belief, it isn’t mine. Both are opinions that can be defended.
What’s the point, we disagree strongly? Remember, you called me out specifically because I’m Jewish, so I answered you on my terms, obviously you don’t accept them. Tough.”
Mike, to say that most of what I write is merely opinion is to say I don’t know how to argue. I’m not opining, I’m arguing.
As to my comparison of Israel to the immoral actions of my sister, you had this to say:
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems…..”
Compare with: “you believe Israel behaves immorally and feels entitled to because of its’ history and you believe that it is a theocracy. That’s your belief, it isn’t mine.”
I ‘believe’ opinions change much quicker than arguments; and I believe you’ve contradicted your initial ‘opinion.’ As to the theocracy issue, I said ‘thinly veiled theocracy’; as in laws regarding marriage & citizenship (e.g. ‘there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people’) etc., etc.
Full out theocracy; no. Thinly veiled; damn straight by definition of Israeli nationality.
Mike S.: “Both are opinions that can be defended. What’s the point, we disagree strongly? Remember, you called me out specifically because I’m Jewish, so I answered you on my terms, obviously you don’t accept them. Tough.”
Mike, I chose to have an argument with you. And what is an argument; a pile of opinions? No. To paraphrase: ‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.’
The fact that you are Jewish merely coincides with my observation that you possess a vast knowledge about Israel and its policies; i.e. the general topic we’re discussing.
Mike S.: “I’m happy for you that you have a philosopher you believe in. I’m not sure his definition of morality is one I’d agree with or actually even be interested in.”
I don’t ‘believe’ in things like the categorical imperative; I simply can’t refute them. And to give you a broad brush of what Kant wrote, let’s just say its the abstract reconstruction of the common thread running through all systems of morality.
Mike S.: “Truthfully, there was something insultingly smug about the whole of this part of your post, but then that’s you.”
Not smug; pragmatic. Here’s an opinion, I consider New York to have the lowest threshold tolerance for bullshit. If you think I’ve been mocking you, guess again. I have no tolerance for racism or bigotry; and whenever it rears its ugly head, I want nothing more than to verbally destroy the head it happens to exist in. And if the nightmare that you suggested ever happened near me, my next move would be towards my rifle. So get off my back with that ‘insult’ crap.
“Bob, I’m deadly serious about this, that you can’t empathize is understandable, but mocking me doesn’t do you credit I’m afraid.”
I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios. I’m a Catholic that’s gone astray, but you don’t see me expecting the Spanish Inquisition do you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself? Fear must be tempered with reason; e.g. the chances of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack are less than being killed by a falling vending machine. Yet the country, like a person, has been suffering from (if I may borrow a psychological term) a 9/11 neurosis; invading other countries and raping the constitution out of its allegedly “rational fear.”
But I digress…
On to the issue of Lebanon. Let’s start again; without you injecting yourself into the picture. You say it’s not a clear cut issue, I say the invasion lacked any justification on a moral or legal level, and at the very least was completely unjustified as being wholly disproportional. Essentially, as I stated before, a macro-cosmic example of my sister’s post traumatic sense of morality.
The question I asked was “Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?” At first blush you may want to accuse me of the fallacy of complex question. But since I know where you stand on the Bush/Cheney issue, per Lebanon, are you saying that Ariel Sharon moved Israel to act immorally just like Bush & Cheney?
Moving on.
Mike S.: “However, you reject my historical concerns seeming to deem them irrelevant to your line of discussion. The morality of an issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum as much as you would seem to want it to.”
In principle, it does:
Kant: “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be valid morally, i.e., as the ground of an obligation, has to carry absolute necessity with it; that the command ‘You ought not to lie’ is valid not merely for human beings, as though other rational beings did not have to heed it; and likewise all the other genuinely moral laws; hence that the ground of obligation here is to be sought not in the nature of the human being or the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but a priori solely in concepts of pure reason, and that every other precept grounded on principles of mere experience, and even a precept that is universal in a certain aspect, insofar as it is supported in the smallest part on empirical grounds, perhaps only as to its motive, can be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”
Saturday bath material? Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing; most importantly explain logically — why?
Are you getting a handle yet on why I’m CONSTRAINED to reject history as any form of moral compass?
Mike S.: “Your value judgment deems that Israel has behaved badly, over and above all the nations and people’s around her.”
No, she’s just never called on anything; like my sister.
Mike S.: “I don’t believe that to be the case. There we stand. Frankly, Bob you could call me anything you want and it really wouldn’t matter to me, because I believe I’m right and I certainly believe I know much more about the issue than you do.”
Once again:
‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.’
So…why do you ‘believe’ you’re right?
Herr freitag,
You need a “time out” please go now and look in the mirror!
Mr. Appleton, shouldn’t you be at a gay pride seminar, serving cupcakes, cupcake?
The complexity of the Palestinian Israeli conflict has taken considerable effort to detangle. A summation is provided by Bertrand Russell of recent JT blog fame…
The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. —Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970
Had European civilizations of times past and the U.S. too welcomed Jews, we would never have found ourselves in such a twisted mess. It’s our own mistakes we’re entangled in.
First the truth. Healing and peace will come after.
Herr Freitag. You appear confused. This site is for those who wish to express their own viewpoints, or respond to the views of others, in a thoughtful manner. You would perhaps be more comfortable at world net daily or, if you have the ability to do so, you might google “white supremacist” for a selection of sites more compatible with the maturity level of your contributions.
You’re so yellow,you stink out loud.
I hold certain truths to be self-evident (in addition to those with which we are all familiar). They include the following:
1. No nation is incapable of inflicting the most vicious cruelty against the people of another nation.
2. The risk of inhumane treatment of others increases to the extent that the offending nation fears that its continued existence is at risk.
3. When inhumane treatment of others is excused or ignored, either due to inaction on the part of other nations or through the moral and financial support of allies, it develops its own legitimacy in the eyes of the offending nation.
4. When accusations of inhumane treatment are laid before an offending nation, the defense is always based upon the necessity of retaliation for acts of equal immorality.
In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies. As rafflaw noted at the inception of this thread, one of the legacies of the Bush-Cheney years is precisely that form of degeneracy, the view that a country’s moral standards are defined by its enemies. This is no more a valid principle of international conduct than it is of personal conduct, but our own nation has made it acceptable, and it will take years to undo the damage.
Boo-hoo, boo-hoo, boo-hoo. Cry me a river