April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

The Goldstone Report

Called “the terrorists’ Magna Carta,” the Goldstone report is a commission created by the UN’s Human Rights Council, an organization that has been blatantly anti-Israel since its establishment.  Its stated intent was to investigate alleged human rights abuses during the was in Gaza.

In January of this year, Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan said, “‘I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”  In October, he elaborated in front of the UNHRC:

[T]he Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population…

Who went on the mission to investigate war crimes?

Other members of the mission included Hina Jilani of Pakistan, a country that has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and Prof. Christine Chinkin, who was one of the signatories of a letter, published in the Sunday Times on January 11, 2009, and entitled, “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense – it’s a war crime.”

Hardly a group of unbiased observers.  So it’s not surprising that despite this:

It is common knowledge that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Even the mission could not escape the facts that Hamas fires rockets from urban areas (p. 446-447), that its gunmen mingle with the civil population and that “members of Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians” (p. 481). The use of human shields is openly admitted by a Hamas member who states that: “[Hamas] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machines” (p. 475).

The Goldstone report found:

Goldstone does worse even than establish a moral equivalence between the instigators of genocidal violence and those who were attempting to defend themselves against it. He presents Israel, the victims of such aggression, as war criminals and the Palestinians, the actual instigators of terror, as its victims. This is not moral equivalence but moral inversion.

He acknowledges no such crimes by Hamas within Gaza itself — not least against other Palestinians — such as turning the entire population of Gaza into hostages by siting its rockets and terrorist infrastructure amongst that population and additionally using them as human shields.

(To clarify, this is quite different from the intra-Palestinian violations of human rights he found took place as a result of the violence between Fatah and Hamas).

Even worse, he presents the Palestinian aggressors as victims of Israel, requiring Israel to make reparation to those from whose houses and streets it was being attacked. No reparations to Israel are required from any Palestinians, even though Goldstone accepts that Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing thousands of missiles at its civilians.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the current administration plans to give cover to the UNHRC, conferring legitimacy to its anti-semitism and putting its weight behind oppression, not freedom:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

Unfortunate, but not unusual for this president.

Comments are closed.