RSS

Fri, Sep 18th 2009, 17:35

Member deleted

Reading the whole 575 page report might be somewhat of a chore, but I would definitely suggest taking a look at the Recommendations section (starting on page 545) for a sense of what these findings conclude.

The path that this report could take - From UN Human Rights Council, to UN Security Council, to ICC - could prove very useful as leverage in gaining concessions from Israel on the current peace process. The Security Council especially has the opportunity (by referring the matter to the ICC for investigation) to make it clear to Netanyahu that continued defiance (i.e. the recent settlement issues) of attempts at brokering negotiations between the PA and Israel can no longer be ignored or tolerated.

My biggest concern would be for the ICC, which would gain in the fact that it would be investigating a Western-oriented nation for the first time (a common complaint from many in the International Community being that the ICC only targets non-Western personae), but, at the same time, might have their efforts halted by the UNSC at the last moment as a concession to Israel should Netanyahu bow to the pressure. That could mean a further stigmatizing of the ICC as a tool of the Council rather than a significant judicial entity.

Sat, Sep 19th 2009, 06:15

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

The ICC runs another risk should it allow itself to be used in such a cynical way. It risks being
'Durbanized', becoming yet another discredited institution which has become a tool of the anti-'Zionist' movement......

Tue, Sep 22nd 2009, 21:35

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

Leaving the credibility of the conclusion of the Goldstone report aside (just pause for a second to think about what countries dictate the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council), Tony Karon's implied suggestion (as well as David's explicit one) to use the report as a political leverage against Israel just goes to show that it is not (legal and moral) justice a lot of critics of Israel are interested in, but "lawfare" (against Israel). Donald hit the mark with the term "Durbanized".

Sat, Nov 7th 2009, 13:53

Member deleted

There are a few pertient issues that ties itself with the Palestine Question. The first is: who is responsible for turning Palestine into a Palestine Question? The second is: how many states recognize Israel as a state? Both these questions are important since the right of a state to defend its population is its first responsibility that comes from the idea of the state in the first place (whether one reads the contractual state or the consensual state here).
Secondly, the issue remains of the boundaries/frontiers of the states: this forms an important dimension in the present context since even Palestine has been recognized as a state, with the attendant question of : Does the coming into being of the state of Palestine solve the Palestinian Question? Another question that comes with the idea of the state of Palestine is: Does it have boundaries and do Israel and Palestine have border disputes that come across as violence as we see and read about?
A clear headed answer to these questions should solve the problem and the attendant emotive issues arising from it that tend to have distinct religious outflows and affects far-off regions and populaces - in the world of images that media construes and affects lives and the quality of life elsewhere too.

Sat, Nov 7th 2009, 19:42

Edward Simon Okun, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, (3)

In consideration of the justness and evenhandedness of the report, most people would agree it is certainly important to investigate not only the acts of the Iranian-funded, terrorist organization of Hamas, but also the specific military actions of the Israeli army. The fact that Israel is held to such a drastically different (higher) standard of criticism speaks volumes about the type of society that they represent; democratic, transparent and free (specifically in their press).

Hamas explicitly targets civilian centres with every mean at their disposal with the stated goal of exacting the highest number of civilian casualties as possible. In contrast, the intent of the Israeli military action in this conflict is to destroy the infrastructure of the organization responsible for this brand of state-funded terrorism. The fact that Hamas have woven themselves into the fabric of Gazan society makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Israeli army to target only Hamas and its military structure while sparing civilian lives and infrastructure. That said, the Israeli military’s use of certain modes of warfare, specifically the use of white phosphorous, is troubling and should certainly be investigated.

Given the context of this military campaign, I feel it is important to note that, although the report attempts portray itself as fair and neutral, which it very well might be, it is not perceived in this light by many, most notably anti-Israel lobbyist groups and governmental organizations. These groups will use this report as proof and vindication for their views that Israel behaves unjustly and in a bullish manner, whilst dismissing the condemnation of Hamas on the grounds that it is not a legitimate representative of the people of Gaza being an outwardly-funded organization thrust upon the populace against their will; an assertion which is almost completely untrue.

I feel the report, though supposedly condemning both sides equally, harms Israel’s public image to a much larger degree, as it has the greater to lose.