By Alan Dershowitz busy, particularly because of recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip. "
The board of Human Rights of the United Nations is a scandal. It is the successor of the defunct Commission on Human Rights of the UN. Both organizations have a long history of setting aside condemnation of Israel, and willful blindness on those who violate human rights by the worst culprits of the world, many of which dominate the Council for Human Rights, man and his predecessor.
As Anne Bayefsky University of Hudson Institute, has recently noted: ":" The Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel and decisions that all other 191 UN member states combined. Council spends more time to demonize Israel, the more likely he will be unable to ever condemn the genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt. " The same mandate
who authorized the investigation in Gaza reveals his bias against Israel. The Council has already concluded, without any pretense of investigation, that Israel is guilty of "serious violations of human rights, linked to its military attacks. "
He also concluded that the Gaza Strip "is still occupied," even though Israel ended its occupation and withdrew all its soldiers and settlers since 2005. In addition, the current chairman of the board has limited the scope of the investigation to "violations committed in the context of the conflict which took place from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009." These are the dates of the Israeli response to more than seven years of rocket attacks by terrorists operating behind human shields in Gaza, Hamas and its terrorist allies have fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells, wounding and traumatizing for women, men and children in Israel. But these attacks have caused self-defense military actions of Israel, are excluded from the survey, according to mandate and its interpretation by the Council President. It is as if the Council had convened an inquiry into the United States and terrorism, but limited the investigation solely to actions taken after September 12, 2001.
The simple idea of the Council of the UN leading an "independent" or an objective investigation is ludicrous. It is as if a Mississippi Court composed entirely of whites investigating self-defense of a black man, in response to years of lynchings by whites, limiting its inquiry to the events that followed the lynching. There is simply no way for an investigation conducted under the auspices of the Council of Human Rights of the UN, and to remain fair. His history of prejudice should not be legitimized by men and good women who truly care about human rights.
is why it was so surprising and troubling & see a good man like Richard Goldstone to agree to lead the team of investigators appointed by the board of Human Rights of the UN. Goldstone is a South African who fought apartheid and led a major investigation into the causes of violence there, finally criticizing the government itself have established violence through a "third force". Would he have succeeded if his commission had been limited to white members only and if the mandate of his investigation was limited to black violence by excluding white violence which provoked? Would he have agreed to loan the reputation of his name to legitimize the poor narration of the course consisting of only white apartheid? What would it have been "if it was a black lawyer, deliberately selected pat court composed only of whites to play" Uncle Tom "just because he was black?
Goldstone has been selected to head the inquiry precisely because he is Jewish. Do not let up any ambiguity on this cynical reality. I do not blame the board of the UN have selected a Jew to legitimize its investigation concealed upon the Jewish state. But I wonder how a man like that Goldstone was able to allow himself to be manipulated this way. Has not realized how we had played him. How high his reputation is exploited in the interest of intolerance? Oh yes, Goldstone will be "impartial". That is precisely what the Council wants "a condemnation of Israel and the equivalent Hamas acts dissimilar.
Hamas admits and even boasts of having committed numerous war crimes: first, he boasts of having fired rockets at Israeli schoolchildren and derives its first rockets at times when Israeli children or going home from school, he hit several kindergartens, elementary school and during games (fortunately, the children were sent home), he celebrates every civilian death and injury it causes. Shooting at civilians is a war crime.
Then Hamas brags to hide behind human shields, which is also a war crime. A leading legislator from Hamas bragged that Hamas ... "used as human shields women, children, seniors, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. As they reported to the Zionist enemy: "We love death as much as you love life. "
Third, since Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, every rocket attack from Gaza is a violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which authorizes a member of the United Nations to defend itself against " armed attack. "
Fourthly, these attacks are part of a long-term strategy to destroy a UN member nation, like the Hamas charter states clearly. No "investigation" is needed to conclude that Hamas had committed war crimes.
Israel, on the other hand, is committed in legitimate self-defense: as Richard Kemp, the prominent British expert told the BBC during the war in Gaza: I do not think there was ever a time in the history of war which an army has made greater efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the death of innocent people, that the IDF does today in Gaza. "
Be impartial conduct as against asymmetric, or find a moral equivalence where none exists, this is the worst result of intolerance immoral. Yet a moral and legal equivalence is exactly what this commission investigation "found" after "its mission independent fact-finding" unless it finds that Israel's conduct has been worse than Hamas because more people died under fire that under the Israeli rockets of Hamas. Investigators ignore the law that keeps murderers who hide behind human shields responsible for the deaths of human shields, even if the bullets that killed them were from the weapons of those who engaged in legitimate self-defense.
Consider the analogous situation of the Navy Seals who were killed Somali pirates have kidnapped merchant ship captain Richard Phillips. Such attempts at relief have sometimes resulted in the tragic deaths of the hostages. Would it be fair to go on trial for killing seals, instead of pirates? That is exactly what the Commission Gaza's goal is to Israel. It ignores the fact that Hamas always exaggerates the number of civilians killed in this category including the armed police (who are also terrorists), "civilians" wanting to be human shields or to voluntarily allow their home be used to manufacture, store or fire rockets, "children and women" have become terrorists, and even "collaborators" killed by Hamas.
Goldstone will do its best to be impartial. But he knows that if his report does not condemn Israel at least as strongly condemns Hamas that it will never be accepted by the Council for Human Rights of the UN and its work will be reduced to zero . It is an experienced international diplomat. He knows who appointed him. It includes its mandate. He will try to expand it to include war crimes of Hamas in order to be "impartial," even if Hamas is already boasting of his crimes.
Israel knows it. They know Goldstone. They know that his appointment was calculated to make it difficult for Israel to refuse to cooperate with an investigator Jew who had close ties with the Jewish state. If they refuse to cooperate with this group of eminent investigators, they will be considered by some to fear the "truth." If they cooperated, they know the "truth" produced by this survey will be a lie. They are in a no-win situation, just because Richard Goldstone has accepted an appointment he should never have accepted.
Israel must conduct its own investigation, and let Splash fall where they may.
Richard Goldstone to resign in protest if the Council of Human Rights is a legal or moral equivalence between the numerous war crimes committed deliberately by a terrorist, and unintentional deaths caused by the use of human shields to protect terrorist actions against legitimate self-defense undertaken by a democracy to protect its citizens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment