Britain Is New Hamas Hub

Arutz Sheva.com
by Malkah Fleisher

(IsraelNN.com) In the last 10 years, London has become the primary worldwide bastion of Hamas, according to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a non-governmental organization dedicated to the memory of fallen Israeli Intelligence Community agents.

Britain in recent years has consitituted a legal threat to Israeli officials who are being accused of harming PA Arabs. An arrest warrant issued in December against opposition leader Tzipi Livni is just one instance of an aggressive stance toward the Jewish State.

In 2005, General Doron Almog was informed by Israel's ambassador to Britain that he may be arrested if he exited his plane in London. He chose to stay aboard and return to Israel after having traveled to England to raise money for a charity.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report shows that these incidents are not accidental, but rather concentrated political activity by the Hamas terror organization. The findings say London has become the epicenter of Hamas' political, legal, and propaganda campaigns in Europe. Hamas operatives note that they have been particularly successful, with the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood, in controlling the discourse regarding Arabs in Israel, and initiating widespread anti-Zionism throughout the country.

The report estimates that Britain's value in Hamas's eyes stems from a series of advantages that Hamas finds in that country:

A. Political freedom and freedom of speech prevailing in Britain allows Hamas to promote anti-Zionism freely. Hamas takes advantage of British democracy to spread incitement against Israel and lash out against Israel and the Jewish people. This is despite Hamas' distinction as a terrorist organization by the European Union. Though activities by terror groups is technically illegal in Britain, the legal system has shown great tolerance, which has been exploited by radical Islamic elements, including Hamas.

B. A broad infrastructure of activists, supporters, and collaborators consisting of Hamas activists who took refuge in Britain in the 1990s, as well as radical Islamic elements such as prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and radical leftist organizations which are hostile to Israel and the West. This team is enabling Hamas to reach into the political, media and academic arenas in Britain.

C. Britain is one of the world's most important communications hubs, especially when it comes to Arab media such as newspapers, Internet, and television. Hamas exploits Arab media operating in London to spread its messages in the Muslim communities of the world, including Western countries and the Middle East.

D. Hamas is exploiting aspects of the British legal system which enable them to file lawsuits in British courts against senior officers and political figures in Israel for "war crimes." This has created a convenient situation in which Hamas, with the support of the British infrastructure, is leveraging the Goldstone report in order to prosecute Israeli public fiures and de-legitimize Israel.

The report says Hamas works hard to conceal their activities and avoid prosecution, rarely attributing to themselves the disinformation and advocacy of violence they publish and distribute. Because they consider children to be a primary target for their messaging, they spend a lot of effort writing anti-Israel and pro-war propaganda for minors.

Hamas also uses British organizations, politicians, and other channels to garner money and supplies for use in Gaza, according to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

A Usurpation of National Sovereignty.

Middle East and Terrorism.com

by Peter Berkowitz

The controversy sparked by the Sept. 15, 2009, publication of the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report, may appear to exclusively concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, it involves a usurpation of national sovereignty by international law that has implications well beyond Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighborhood.

The latest round in this controversy got underway on January 29, when Israel delivered "Gaza Operation Investigations: An Update" to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The carefully crafted 46-page document affirmed Israel's unequivocal commitment to the law of armed conflict, and it reported substantial progress in investigating allegations of unlawful conduct against Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and commanders arising from Operation Cast Lead.

Operation Cast Lead took place from Dec. 28, 2008, to Jan. 18, 2009. Israel carried out the operation because Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups had launched approximately 12,000 rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip since 2000 against civilian populations in southern Israel. Paradoxically, given that Hamas's deliberate and premeditated attacks on Israeli civilian populations and its use of fellow Palestinians as human shields were flagrant war crimes, international ire has from the outset swirled around the alleged criminality of Israel's operation.

It would be a mistake to think that Israel's lawyerly self-defense is of purely legal interest. This battle reflects a continuation of war and politics by other means. Indeed, the battle is fraught with weighty implications for all liberal democracies struggling against transnational terrorists.

Israel's update focuses on refuting one particular charge leveled by the Goldstone Report: that Israel's system for investigating allegations of wrongdoing in military operations "does not comply" with the requirements of international law. Israel also argues that the Goldstone Report's gravest accusations — that Israel systematically and deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure — rest on unsubstantiated or demonstrably false claims.

In fact, over the course of 62 years of confronting asymmetric warfare, Israel has developed an exemplary system, combining military justice and civilian oversight, for enforcing the law of armed conflict. In July 2009, in "The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects," a 156-page paper published in anticipation of the Goldstone Report, Israel explained the system in detail. It also provided a provisional account of the IDF's investigations of approximately 100 complaints, including 13 that had led to criminal investigations. Yet the publication did nothing to deter Team Goldstone from usurping Israel's rights and responsibilities by producing and publishing at breakneck speed — it completed its mammoth 545-page report in five months — its own factual and legal findings.

Israel's update underscores that its system for handling misconduct allegations is substantially similar to those in United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia. It also notes that to date the IDF has launched 150 investigations concerning the Gaza Operation, 36 of which have been referred for criminal investigation in which "criminal investigators have taken evidence from almost 100 Palestinian complainants and witnesses, along with approximately 500 IDF soldiers and commanders." For every one of the 34 allegations of harm to civilians or damage to civilian property discussed at length in the Goldstone Report, the IDF has initiated an investigation — 22 of which the IDF pursued before the Goldstone Report's publication, and 12 of which it promptly pursued after the report aired them.

The charge against Israel's investigation system is an astonishing attempt to shift power from sovereign states to international institutions. Based on it, the Goldstone Report recommends that courts in countries around the world claim authority under "universal jurisdiction" to try Israeli soldiers, commanders, and civilian leadership, and that the International Criminal Court proceed with investigations and prosecutions.

This flies in the face of the standard presumption. As Israel observes, "Under international law, the responsibility to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict by a state's military forces falls first and foremost to that state." Such investigations are inevitably difficult and time-consuming: They involve not tightly controlled crime scenes, well-preserved evidence, and eyewitness testimony delivered close in time to the alleged crime, but ever-changing battlefields, constantly deteriorating evidence, and witnesses whose testimony can only be obtained weeks or months after the event.

By arrogating to itself, under the cover of international law, lead responsibility for investigating alleged Israeli unlawful conduct, the Goldstone Report set an ominous precedent that jeopardizes the rights and responsibilities of national self-government. By the same token, the Bush-administration officials who established the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and the Obama-administration officials who chose to maintain it, could be exposed to the judgments of foreign courts and international tribunals.

The Goldstone Report's specific accusations of wrongdoing are also problematic. Much attention last week focused on the update's disclosure that the IDF had disciplined a brigadier general and a colonel for the unauthorized firing of explosive shells that landed in a populated area. Generally neglected, however, has been the update's evidence and analysis directly contradicting several more-dramatic Goldstone Report allegations of IDF criminal conduct.

For example, the Goldstone Report found that, in the absence of legitimate military objectives, Israel intentionally destroyed the Namar water-wells complex — including pumping machines, pipes, and civil-administration buildings — by air strikes to deprive Gaza's civilian population of clean drinking water. Israel's update, however, provides photographic evidence demonstrating that the Namar water wells were located inside the walls of a Hamas military compound.

The Goldstone Report found that Israel undertook a "deliberate and premeditated strike" to damage a vacated Gaza wastewater-treatment plant in the al-Sheikh Ejlin neighborhood to cause raw sewage to flow into and destroy farmland. Israel's update, however, reports that the damage to the plant did not stem from a deliberate IDF attack. The IDF may have damaged the plant inadvertently during a battle with Hamas fighters, or Hamas fighters themselves may have attacked the plant to set loose sewage to hamper the movements of Israeli tanks operating in the area. Whichever turns out to be the case, Israel's update stresses, "there was no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony to support the conclusion of the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report."

The Goldstone Report found that Israel conducted an aerial strike on the el-Bader flour mill to deny Gaza's civilian population the means of providing for their own sustenance and to render them more dependent on Israel. Israel's update, however, points out that the Goldstone Report contains no evidence that the flour mill was struck from the air, that "photographs of the mill following the incident do not show structural damage consistent with an air attack," and that the available evidence indicates the flour mill was struck by tank shells during combat operations.

And the Goldstone Report found that Israel destroyed the Abu-Askar family home despite its "unmistakably civilian nature." Israel's update, however, maintains that "due to its use as a large storage facility for weapons and ammunition, including Grad missiles, the house of Muhammad Abu-Askar was a legitimate military target." It also emphasizes that because the IDF issued warnings to the family to evacuate and delayed the attack until the night, when fewer civilians were present, no civilian casualties ensued.

At the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, former head of the National Security Council Gen. (Res.) Giora Eiland told me bluntly that the Goldstone Report is a thoroughly and dangerously political document. "Its aim," he said, "is to undermine Israel's right to self-defense, to create a situation in which it is helpless and has no alternative other than to rely on the goodwill of the international community."

But concerning the most fundamental matters of self-government and self-defense, Israel and other liberal democracies struggling against transnational terror should not rely on the goodwill of the international community. The Goldstone Report's severe flaws provide powerful evidence of that.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where he chairs the Koret-Taube Task Force on National Security and Law.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Now Iran Wants a Seat on the UN Human Rights Council

Pajamas Media.com

Yes, you read that right. While beating, jailing, raping, torturing and murdering its dissidents, Iran’s Islamic regime is now campaigning for — what else? — a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. The Tehran government that brought us the killing last June of Neda Soltan now aspires to a new perch at the United Nations where the ayatollahs can wrap themselves in the UN flag while condemning the free world and redefining “human rights” to absolve or ignore their own atrocities.

New members of the 47-member UN Human Rights Council will be “elected” by secret ballot of the 192-member UN General Assembly this May. The seats, which carry terms of three years each, are allocated among regional groups. Iran is a member of the Asian group, which now has five candidates running for four seats: Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Thailand… and Iran. Which means Iran, with its oil-fueled, terror-backed clout, has a good chance of winning a seat already; and if any one of the other four contenders drops out, Iran could be an automatic shoe-in, if the UN General Assembly follows its usual practice under such circumstances of filling the open seats by acclamation.

More details on this process in my column this week for Forbes.com: “Don’t Let Iran On the Human Rights Council.”

The last time Iran tried this stunt was 2006, when John Bolton was serving as President George Bush’s ambassador to the UN. I had a chance to hear Bolton talk about that this past Thursday, when we were both interviewed about Iran on Fox Business TV by David Asman. Asman asked Bolton how Iran was kept off the Human Rights Council in 2006. Bolton answered that this had entailed a big effort by the entire State Department, reaching out within the UN itself and enlisting U.S. embassies around the world to make the case to America’s friends, allies (and, I would guess, acquaintances) that it would be immensely damaging to let Iran win a seat. Iran lost

The Bush administration was able to accomplish that much even without having a seat on the Human Rights Council itself – which the U.S. in 2006, under Bush and Bolton, declined to join, on grounds that it was too flawed in design to do a decent job. That concern has been richly vindicated. Since the “reformed” Human Rights Council was launched in 2006, it has reverted to the same Orwellian failings as its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission — absolving or ignoring most of the world’s worst human rights abusers (including Iran, on which it has issued not a single condemnatory resolution), and focusing most of its efforts instead on condemning the democratic nation of Israel. Last year alone, the Human Rights Council brought us both the anti-Semitic Durban Review Conference, and terror-biased Goldstone Report).

Under President Barack Obama’s policy of “engagement,” the U.S. reversed course last year, seeking and winning a seat on the Human Rights Council. The rationale of Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice was that the U.S. could better leverage good behavior from the Council by “working within.” The effect has been to confer on the Council a renewed legitimacy, which may help explain why Iran again covets a seat.

For Iran to win that seat would send a terrible, disheartening message to the dissidents inside Iran — effectively telling them that the “international community” sides with the thug regime now beating, jailing and killing them in reply to their demands for basic human rights. So where’s the Obama administration on this? We’ve heard nothing yet. Surely “engagement” does not extend to letting Iran slide into a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

UN report co-author: Hamas fired 2 rockets before Gaza op

Haartz.com
By Anshel Pfeffer and Danna Harman

A co-author of the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead claims that Hamas fired only two rockets at Israel prior to last winter's conflict, according to a new report published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The center's head, Dr. Dore Gold, former ambassador to the United Nations and an adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, revealed the report at a press conference on WednesdayAccording to Gold's report, compiled by Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, during all the Goldstone Commission's interviews with Palestinian civilians, neither Travers nor its other members asked the interviewees who said their houses had been blown up by the Israel Defense Forces whether they were members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or whether weapons had been stored in their homes. (The transcripts of the interviews have been posted on the UN Web site.)

When Travers interviewed two Palestinian psychologists, he asked them how Israeli soldiers could kill children in front of their parents as if it were a fact.

In an interview last week with the Middle East Monitor, Travers leveled harsh accusations at the Israel Defense Forces that do no appear in the Goldstone report. He said the IDF had used drones that could detect people inside of buildings by their body heat and did so in attacking houses in which dozens of Palestinian civilians had taken shelter. According to Travers, Israel had attacked the Gaza Strip although Hamas supposedly only fired two rockets at Israel in the month before the operation, and that Hamas had wanted to continue the cease-fire.

The institute's report notes that Travers ignored the fact that in three days alone during the month before the IDF campaign, Hamas had fired 32 rockets at Israel and that according to Hamas spokesmen, among them the organization's leader in Damascus, Khaled Meshal, Hamas had resolved to end the cease-fire.

In two other media interviews, Travers rejected any possibility that Hamas had been using Gaza Strip mosques to hide weapons, despite Israel's evidence to the contrary and the testimony of a British army officer who visited Gaza and found clear signs that a mosque had been used for this purpose. According to Travers, the claim about the weapons in mosques "reflects Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion."

The report by the Jerusalem think tank also includes quotes from an interview Travers gave in which he accused Israel of murdering many Irish soldiers who where members of the UNIFIL contingent in South Lebanon. When asked about the fact that there had been official disagreement in Britain with the findings of the Goldstone report, Travers said that "Britain's foreign policy interests in the Middle East seem to be influenced strongly by Jewish lobbyists."

Travers contradicted the Goldstone report itself in his remark that he found no indication that Palestinians testifying before the commission feared reprisals by Hamas if they reported on the group's activities.

The Goldstone report found that Israel had purposefully struck Palestinian civilian targets, infrastructure and sites where there had been no Hamas military activity. According to Dahoah-Halevi, who perused a great deal of material on the Hamas Web site, if the Goldstone Commission had examined that material, to which the institute had referred it, it would have found a great deal of evidence of Hamas activity at the sites in question.

Institute director Gold called on Judge Richard Goldstone, the commission chairman, to condemn Travers' remarks.

Asked by Haaretz in an e-mail to respond to the report, Travers said that he was "not in a position to respond" in time for the paper's deadline. He wrote that Mr. Dore Gold's accusations of anti-Semitism were "of course an old canard - designed to silence reasoned debate on Israeli issues and is heartily rejected."

Railroading Israel into court

ISRAPUNDIT.COM

By BENNY AVNI, NY POST

An important battle in the global War on Terror takes place today on the East River, as the UN General Assembly resumes its hearings on knocked-together allegations that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza last winter.

The chosen tool of the world Israel-bashing lobby is South African Judge Richard Goldstone, whose now-infamous report made an overstated and poorly substantiated case against the Israel Defense Force. He also charted a careful road map for taking the job of prosecution away from Israel’s unbiased, independent and long-admired justice system and handing it to the Hague-based International Criminal Court.

The ICC, set up just eight years ago, has yet to prove its judicial merits. More important, it clearly lacks jurisdiction here.

To start with, the 1998 Rome Statute (which created the ICC) plainly allows the court to step in only when national courts are unable or unwilling to try war crimes. In fact, Israeli courts have long done so.

Second, the ICC has no power over countries that haven’t joined it — such as Israel and the United States. To override all this international law, Goldstone has asked every UN body that might listen to sit in judgment over whether Israel’s own investigations are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.” If, after a period of six months, the United Nations deems that Israel has failed, it would refer the matter to The Hague. (Goldstone isn’t picky: He’s also called on European national courts to take up the supposed Israeli war crimes.)

Why would the United Nations have any standing here? Goldstone’s report also ginned up a narrative claiming that Israel’s true aim in Operation Cast Lead wasn’t to end Hamas’ daily barrage of rockets at civilians but was instead part of a grand strategy to beat Gazans into submission. A country intent on such evil, Goldstone claimed, can’t be trusted to investigate its own crimes.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is due to report today to the General Assembly on how Israel has responded; he will likely pass along a letter Israel has written to him without judging its merits. Next week, the Assembly will decide how to proceed.

This process, which allows UN members to put one country’s war tactics in the dock, is highly volatile, to put it mildly. Most UN member states have never had their own independent judiciaries. They cast their UN votes on the basis of the self-interest of their rulers, with only the barest effort to justify the decision on higher moral grounds. And animosity toward Israel is the rule in the General Assembly chamber.

In its letter to Ban, Israel’s foreign ministry easily disposes of the notion that its army “can’t investigate itself” — describing how the IDF’s advocate general is institutionally independent of the military chain of command and is ultimately answerable to the country’s highly esteemed Supreme Court.

The letter also details how, as an initial result of 150 ongoing investigations into allegations of wrongdoings in Gaza, two top army commanders were reprimanded for employing too much firepower in civilian areas.

But as international pressure grows, Israeli politicians are divided on how to continue. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is pushing to establish an independent investigative body of acclaimed Israeli jurists to counter Goldstone. But Defense Minister Ehud Barak warns that once you open that door, Israeli soldiers would drag with them a personal lawyer to the next battlefield to protect them from future international prosecution.

America has heroically stood by Israel at the United Nations so far, letting everyone know that it would veto any Security Council attempt to send Goldstone’s allegations to the ICC. But the Obama administration has also reportedly used the case as a club to beat Israel into yielding on such issues as settlements and reopening the Gaza border — telling Jerusalem officials, “Our fight against Goldstone would be much easier if . . .”

Such an approach is clearly wrongheaded. Israel has always been the enemy’s first target in the War on Terror. From plane hijackings to suicide bombings, every terrorist tactic was created and perfected by anti-Israel terrorists before migrating to American and European shores. (The latest innovation: Gaza fishermen this week floated explosive-filled barrels to shore, forcing Israeli surfers and swimmers to abandon beautiful winter beaches.) Similarly, the Palestinian terrorists’ use of Palestinian civilians’ suffering to enrage world opinion was quickly copied in other theaters of war.

If Goldstone’s tactics succeed, future imitators will surely build cases for “war crimes” in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. Indeed, the ICC’s top prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has already expressed interest in trying allegations against NATO troops, including Americans, operating against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The United States should protect Israel in this case as if it were protecting itself — because it is.

Hamas "regrets" civilian deaths caused during Cast Lead

JPOST.COM STAFF,E B. SOLOMONT AND HERB KEINON
06/02/2010 01:52

Foreign Ministry response: “Who are they trying to fool now?In a report by a committee set up by Hamas to examine UN allegations of war crimes the authors said: "We regret any harm that may have befallen any Israeli civilian."

Israel dismissed any apology for the three non-combatants hit by rockets from Gaza during Operation Cast Lead as disingenuous..
"We hope the Israeli civilians understand that their government's continued attacks on us were the key issue and the cause," added the report, of which Reuters obtained a copy.

In response to the report, delivered to the United Nations this week, Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said on Friday: "For years Hamas has boasted about deliberately targeting civilians, either through suicide bombings, by gunfire or by rockets. Who are they trying to fool now?"

The Hamas report, after listing Palestinian grievances such as the Israeli embargo on Gaza, reaffirmed earlier comments that its improvised rockets were fired purely defensively and were aimed at Israeli military targets. They simply lacked the necessary accuracy, the terrorist organization said.

Both sides presented documents to the United Nations in recent days which they say showed they had conducted suitable investigations. In a message on Thursday to the General Assembly, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon withheld judgment on whether either party had met Goldstone's recommendations
“Israel is satisfied that the secretary general of the United Nations accurately reflected the Israeli document submitted this week,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement published Friday afternoon.

The ministry said Israel’s document “fully expresses Israel’s obligation to hold independent and reliable investigations, which would measure up to the yardstick of international law.”

“Despite the difficulties presented by the Gaza theater, Israel kept international norms and will continue to do so in the future, while primarily maintaining the security and well-being of its citizens,” the statement continued.

A senior Israeli official said Israel has been in constant contact with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and other UN officials. The United States has also been a key advocate, deploying senior officials to convey a strong message on the issue. “There is no US pressure on Israel,” the official said, with respect to calls for further investigations of its actions during Operation Cast Lead. “They respect decisions that Israel is making.”

The United States has played a “constructive” role in dealing with the Goldstone report, including making sure the Secretary-General’s report was balanced and credible. “In that regard, we very much appreciate the efforts of the US and other countries and other democracies to set the record straight and make sure that the UN’s continued dealings with this will be in a proper manner,” the official said.

Israel's reaction came despite Ban's statement, where he said he was uncertain whether Israel or the Palestinians had met UN demands to undertake "credible" investigations into allegations that they deliberately targeted civilians during last year's Gaza offensive.

Ban's highly anticipated report to the 192-nation General Assembly cautioned that such investigations must be conducted "wherever there are credible allegations of human rights abuses."

Israel says it has launched investigations into 150 separate incidents, including 36 criminal probes so far, and gathered evidence from almost 100 Palestinians who had complaints or were witnesses.

The Palestinians only created a commission to carry out an investigation in late January, despite a General Assembly resolution in November urging both sides to conduct investigations by Friday.

In a short preface to his 72-page report, nearly all of which is responses by Israel and the Palestinians, Ban concluded he could not ultimately determine yet whether Israel and the Palestinians had met the General Assembly's demands to carry out credible, independent investigations into their own actions.

He said he hoped the assembly's resolution will, in fact, result in probes "that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards."

But, he added that "no determination can be made on the implementation of the resolution by the parties concerned."

While Israel was pleased with the UN chief's response, Ban took heat from human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, for what they said was a failure to adequately assess investigations being carried out by both sides.

"We were hoping that the Secretary-General would give more of an evaluative assessment,” said Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at HRW. Instead, “He clearly avoided the issue.”

“He’s declining to pass judgment on whether the investigations are adequate or not, but at the same time, he’s saying that they have to do it.”

Abrahams said HRW does not believe either side has conducted an adequate investigation. “Until we see concrete action, and not just statistics in reports, we cannot determine that the Israeli investigations are truly impartial,” he said. “We’ve firmly and unequivocally rejected Hamas’ conclusion that it did no wrong. It’s absurd to claim that they were only targeting military objects in Israel when all the evidence suggests they were targeting civilians.”

A spokesman for the Secretary-General, Martin Nesirky, defended Ban’s response, telling reporters in New York that it was not his job to analyze what both sides told him. “It’s the right, and I guess you could say the obligation, of human rights groups to look carefully and scrutinize and criticize. That’s what they do. They work very hard to ensure that people are held to account. That’s right and proper,” Nesirky said. “The bottom line here, in the three-page report from the Secretary-General,” he added, “is that the work is still continuing.”

Nesirky stressed that Ban was not asked to analyze. “He was not asked to analyze,” he said. “He was not asked to express his views on the responses that were received.”

Nesirky made clear that with regard to any future action, the General Assembly would decide what to do next. “The Secretary-General remains personally moved by the plight of all civilians harmed during the Gaza conflict,” Nesirky said. “He has consistently called for credible domestic investigations, and did so again in the report.”

The report barely a day old, no member states have initiated fresh resolutions, according to Jean Victoire Knolo, the spokesman for GA President Ali Treki.

“Consultations are ongoing,” he told reporters in New York. Pressed to assess Ban’s report, Knolo said Treki was “not expecting anything specific from the Secretary-General other than what the resolution sets up in writing.”

“The report is now with the member states,” he said. “There is no specific timetable as such,” he added. “I think we have to leave it to the member states to come up with what they think the next steps should be.”

In November, the General Assembly raised the possibility of demanding Security Council action if adequate investigations by both sides are not carried out.

But Jerusalem seems to be in no hurry to establish any kind of independent investigative committee.

Israeli officials said it was not clear what the General Assembly would do with Ban’s report, and whether it would be satisfied with the Israeli and Palestinian responses or push the issue further.

The officials said Ban’s report was expected to be “dry” and void of recommendations, along the lines of “this is what I asked the sides, and this is what they responded.”

Israel released a 46-page paper last Friday documenting the steps it had taken to investigate IDF actions during Operation Cast Lead, stressing that its military judicial system was independent and came under civilian review, and dismissing four of the 36 allegations of war crimes found in the Goldstone Report.

The document also revealed that disciplinary action had been taken against two top officers – a brigadier-general and a colonel – for permitting artillery fire near a UN compound in a neighborhood in Gaza City.

Contrary to previous expectations, no decision was made in Jerusalem prior to Ban’s submitting his report about whether an independent judicial committee would be set up to look into Goldstone’s allegations, and if such a body were created, what form it would take.

“No such decision was taken,” one government source said Thursday when asked if Israel would establish a committee, adding that he did not know whether any such decision would be made.

“We think that the report we submitted stands on its own,” the official said. “It is a comprehensive, independent report that meets international standards for transparency.In the meantime, he said, the army was continuing with its internal investigation.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi have come out adamantly against any committee with authority to question soldiers and officers. They have, however, expressed a willingness to go along with establishing a judicial investigative panel to review internal IDF investigations and determine whether they were thorough enough and lived up to accepted legal standards.

The IDF, meanwhile, is continuing preparation of an in-depth, point-by-point rebuttal of the Goldstone report, which is expected to number over 1,000 pages and be ready within a number of weeks.

A Moral Evaluation of the Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead)

I covered these issues thoroughly in Bomb Gaza before invading.

The utter defeat of Hamas should be accomplished with the least number of IDF casualties. No one has the right to sacrifice our soldiers on the alter of world opinion. Bombing, with advance warning, is the moral thing to do. Never equate Jewish deaths with the enemies deaths. Our duty is to our own soldiers.

International Law

By Asa Kasher, JCPA

SUMMARY
*
In Israel, a combatant is a citizen in uniform; quite often, he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His state ought to have a compelling reason for jeopardizing his life. The fact that persons involved in terrorism are depicted as non-combatants and that they reside and act in the vicinity of persons not involved in terrorism is not a reason for jeopardizing the combatant’s life more than is required under combat conditions.The ethical doctrine which follows from the IDF Ethics document mandates that, whenever possible, you must warn non-combatants that they are residents of a neighborhood where it is dangerous to stay. In Gaza, the IDF employed a variety of unprecedented efforts meant to minimize injury to non-combatants, including warning leaflets, phone calls, and non-lethal warning fire.
*
There is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the warned neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. Israel should favor the lives of its own soldiers over the lives of the well-warned neighbors of a terrorist when it is operating in a territory that it does not effectively control, because in such territories it does not bear the moral responsibility for properly separating between dangerous individuals and harmless ones.
*
Proportionality is not a numerical comparison, but an assessment of existing threats and the measures that must be taken in order to avert them. Proportionality is justifiability of the collateral damage on grounds of the military advantage gained.
*
Compare the Gaza operation to the U.S. Marine operation in Fallujah, Iraq, in late 2004. During the operation, about 6,000 Iraqis including 1,200-2,000 insurgents were killed. Of the city’s 50,000 buildings, some 10,000 were destroyed, including 60 mosques. Thus, the U.S. left a trail of destruction in Fallujah far greater than anything Israel inflicted on Gaza. Comparing IDF activities to those of military forces of Western democracies is an essential part of any present attempt to use international law.
*
We in Israel are in a key position in the development of customary international law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.

Note: BeeSting adds song for Israel: (which is my response to this article).

Israel should not be calling inquiry into Gaza war to appease Goldstone It’s all about politics

Israpundit.com

By Giora Eiland

In recent days we have seen a renewed debate on whether Israel needs to establish a commission of inquiry to look into the Goldstone Report’s charges.

The debate is legitimate, yet it appears that supporters of such commission are being naïve. There are four good reasons why not to establish a commission of inquiry and there is not even one real reason why we should do so.

The first reason has to do with the subject matter. Operation Cast Lead can be examined according to military-professional criteria, moral criteria, or diplomatic criteria. It must not be examined in line with international law criteria, as Goldstone wants, for the simple reason that it’s irrelevant. International law that pertains to wars is premised on three assumptions: The war pits states against each other, both sides deploy soldiers in uniform, and both sides are committed to the same codes. None of the above conditions was present in Gaza.

As most military conflicts today have similar characteristics, the only criteria we should examine ourselves in line with is the global standard. If we wish to be even stricter, we should look at the American and British standard. We can agree to be examined based on the written American doctrine, in line with the operational orders issued in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or according to American and British acts on the ground. This must not be done by attorneys, who use the laws of war as their criteria.

The second reason is the timing. Israel just handed over to the United Nations a detailed document that responds to each and every claim made by the Goldstone Report. Don’t we believe our own document?

The third reason is political. Those who appointed the Goldstone Committee are trying to push Israel into a situation whereby any effective military operation will be considered illegitimate. Goldstone specifically said that Israel can only utilize precise commando operations against the rocket threat. Adopting this approach completely contradicts the American interest. As opposed to the negative predictions, whereby the US won’t back us should we fail to establish a commission of inquiry, the US and other Western countries will be supporting us, if only because of their identical interests on this front.

The fourth reason is domestic. The Israeli public accepts the need for a commission of inquiry and even demands it when it turns out that the army’s and political leadership’s performance was disappointing (as was the case in the Yom Kippur War and in the Second Lebanon War,) or when genuine concerns emerge as to the army’s morality (as was the case in Sabra and Shalita.) The public will justifiably resist an inquiry aimed at appeasing the gentiles and placing the IDF at court for no good reason.

Supporters of a commission of inquiry argue that establishing it will serve to mitigate the international pressure and minimize the risk of indictments against senior Israeli officials overseas. This is baseless, as the pressure on Israel is political and not based on substantive reasons.

About two years ago, legal proceedings were launched in Spain against six senior Israeli officials charged with harming civilians in the operation to assassinate Salah Shahade. In that case, Israel conducted itself “well” – the issue was subjected to an inquiry outside the army and was even heard by the High Court of Justice. Yet all of that did not convince the Spaniards to lay off.

So why was the Spanish legal procedure annulled? The Spanish law drew dozens of lawsuits from across the world against the whole world. When legal proceedings were launched against Chinese generals charged with crimes against humanity, China made it clear to Spain that it better change the law. Spain got scared and indeed changed the law.

In 2002, the UN secretary general initiated a commission of inquiry over the “Jenin massacre.” Why was the commission called off even before it was established? Because Israel managed to enlist both the US Administration and Congress to the cause of resisting the move.

In other words, neither justice nor law are the tools of the trade here, but rather, pure politics. The establishment of a commission of inquiry in Israel will not mitigate the pressure against us, but rather, merely serve to encourage hostile elements to continue to press Israel.

Goldstone report: Israel and Palestinians respond to UN

BBC NEWS.com

Page last updated at 23:04 GMT, Friday, 29 January 2010

Israel and West Bank Palestinians have responded to the UN's Goldstone report which accused both of them of war crimes during Israel's Gaza operation.

The Israeli defence minister said there was no army as "responsible... moral and accurate...even under impossible conditions," as Israel.

The Palestinian ambassador to the UN said a high-level commission had been set up to investigate war crime claims.

The UN secretary general is to report early next month on any further steps.

The UN General Assembly has demanded that both Israel and Hamas launch independent investigations into their conduct during the 22-day Israeli operation which began in December 2008.

When Secretary General Ban Ki-moon make his own recommendations for further action in early February, he is not expected to advocate a process leading to international criminal trials, as proposed by South African judge Richard Goldstone.

A former international war crimes prosecutor, Mr Goldstone investigated the offensive, and said crimes had been committed on both sides.

He accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure during the conflict, in which human rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died

An Israeli official said the submission to the UN was not intended to respond in detail to the allegations and incidents outlined in the report, but to explain why the Israeli justice system was "reliable" and "independent".

"The Goldstone report is distorted, falsified and not balanced," said Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

Fighters and commanders on Israeli operations should know that "the state of Israel stands behind you also on the day after," he added.

Israel has been widely criticised by human rights groups for using heavy firepower and causing hundreds of civilian casualties.

It says it was targeting the Islamic movement Hamas, which controls Gaza, in response to continued rocket fire at Israeli towns.

Israel blames Hamas for firing from residential areas and putting civilians at risk, and says its own interpretation of international law is in line with other Western countries such as the US and UK.

Arrest fears

Pressure has been growing within Israel to mount some form of independent inquiry.

In December, a UK court issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes for former Foreign Minister and current opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners in the UK have tried several times to have Israeli officials arrested under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

This allows domestic courts in countries around the world to try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.

A key factor in the issuing of warrants is whether the country in question has carried out an independent inquiry.

130 investigations

A senior Israeli government official told the BBC there is now consensus within the cabinet, except for Mr Barak, that some kind of investigative body independent from the military should be established.

One compromise option may be a panel of judicial figures to review the conclusions of internal military investigations, the official said.

The Israeli military has opened about 130 investigations into specific incidents, of which about 30 are criminal investigations.

At least 48 have been closed with no wrongdoing found. One has resulted in the prosecution of a soldier for stealing a Palestinian's credit card.

According to the foreign ministry, as of November, 26 of the investigations, 10 of them criminal, are among the 36 incidents the Goldstone report details.

Human rights groups such as the Israeli organisation B'tselem have been involved in helping arrange for Gazans to give testimony in the criminal probes.

They believe criminal investigations include:

• Six incidents where civilians carrying white flags were allegedly shot
• Six cases of alleged use of human shields
• Two alleged uses of flechette shells filled with small darts
• The case of the Samouni family, where witnesses say more than 20 people were killed in an attack on house Israeli troops had told them to gather in.

West Bank commission

Meanwhile, Palestinian ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour told journalists that his government had this week set up a high-level commission to investigate the charges of war crimes.

Mr Mansour submitted its programme of action to Mr Ban.

He said this was the response of the West Bank Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian government in Gaza, led by the Islamist Hamas movement, came out with its own response earlier this week, but did not formally submit it.

It rejected charges of war crimes, saying its rockets were not targeting civilians.

That conclusion is disputed by the international Human Rights Watch organisation.

_______________________________________________________________

Note: Please see http://www.thegoldstonereport.com/ Goldstone Report (I posted yesterday). BeeSting

.

Goldstone Report - There are No Winners in War

The first thing the Goldstone report failed to understand, as you can see from the above pictures, is the most basic of concepts: there are no winners in war.

Above are pictures of Israel and Gaza, pictures taken before, during and after the war. No one won the war. There was tremendous suffering on all sides - before, during and after the war. The Goldstone report failed, not only because it failed to understand this basic fact, but also because it ignored so much of what came before. Palestinian groups, including Hamas, have been responsible for launching more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli cities. In November, 2008 alone, over 120 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli cities, injuring hundreds of people. One woman, a doctor who has treated Israeli and Palestinian patients equally and without discrimmination was called to testify before the Goldstone mission. She spoke of her injuries, after being seriously injured during a missile attack. She was days before her 8th operation to repair the damage.

In the end, her moving testimony was all but ignored, relegated to a mere technical note. She later spoke of her humiliation at the hands of the commission, one determined to produce a report that was all but written before they even started their work.

And thus begins the United Nation's latest travesty of justice.

For those wishing to read the report, you can find the text here: Goldstone Report. The truth of what really happened in Gaza, before and after, however, will not be found in this 575 page report. In this day and age, it is hoped that few people will actually print it, for it is most surely not worth the paper.

Important things Goldstone didn't consider:

History of Rocket Attacks on Israel

Goldstone Mission Suppressed Evidence

Many videos submitted to the Goldstone mission proving that Hamas used Palestininans as human shields

And finally, while Israelis ran for shelter in the protected structures Israel has created for them to deal with thousands of incoming rocket attacks over 8 years, the Hamas leadership hid in bunkers and left their people without protection. Israel did all it could (see Israel's Efforts to Avoid Casualties) and yet still, innocent civilians died on both sides of this conflict. That is war.

What effort did Hamas take to protect its population? Goldstone never says.

What effort did Hamas take to warn Israeli civilians of its plans to attack? Goldstone never acknowledges the truth here either.

The fundamental truth is that Israel did all it could to avoid causing civilian casualties and Hamas did all it could to cause them. Goldstone's mission failed because this simple truth was never acknowledged, never confirmed, never written.

All this report does is offer lip service to years and years of suffering: "The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military bjectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based." Pathetically inaccurate way to describe the 15 seconds a mother has to shield her child; a father has to find shelter for his family.

It is also important to note that others turned down the offer to head the commission, realizing that the mission was flawed from the outset. Mary Robinson, who has never been considered a friend of Israel by any stretch of the imagination, chose honor above "glory" when she refused the job:

"I refused to accept the invitation from the president of the Human Rights Council at the time, Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, to lead the investigation following the Human Rights Council's January 12, 2009 resolution. As a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, I felt strongly that the Council's resolution was one-sided and did not permit a balanced approach to determining the situation on the ground....

I was also aware that the UN Human Rights Council had made repeated condemnations of Israel over the past two years but had focused little attention on large-scale violations of human rights in other countries. This pattern of action and inaction by the Council has given greater credence to those who believe the UN’s highest human rights body is inherently anti-Israel."

-- Mary Robinson, is a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland
Copyright 2009 TheGoldstoneReport.com All rights reserved.

Dershowitz critiques Goldstone report

By BY BY BY BY E.B. SOLOMONT, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
28/01/2010 04:59

Commission accused of employing different criteria in assessing evidence.

Dershowitz critiques Goldstone report
By BY BY BY BY E.B. SOLOMONT, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
28/01/2010 04:59

Commission accused of employing different criteria in assessing evidence.

NEW YORK - Just as Israel prepares to rebut a report condemning its military offensive in Gaza last winter, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is charging the authors of the Goldstone Report with basing their conclusions on biased evidence and flawed analyses.

In a 49-page critique, "The Case Against the Goldstone Report: A Study in Evidentiary Bias," Dershowitz accuses the Goldstone Commission of employing different criteria in assessing evidence against Israel and Hamas.

"They skew it one way against Israel and another way against Hamas," Dershowitz told The Jerusalem Post in an interview on Wednesday.

According to a copy of Dershowitz's analysis, "The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors believe."

"It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements," he added.

Dershowitz's analysis comes just as Israel is set to deliver a response on Thursday to the Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.

Although technical, the analysis addresses the crux of the report.

"It undercuts the entire thrust of the report when you see they used totally different criteria when evaluating evidence against Israel and evidence against Hamas. It's the Achilles heel of the report," said Dershowitz.

"Every doubt is resolved against Israel and every doubt is resolved in favor of Hamas, and the end resolution is a charade of justice."

According to Dershowitz, all four members of Goldstone's fact-finding committee had an agenda, including the UN staffers who wrote up their findings.

Citing the presence of Hamas security guards during witness testimony, Dershowitz said, "That Goldstone would say that Hamas wasn't there when he was making interviews is absurd."

Charging that few defenders or critics have read the Goldstone Report in its entirety, he said the report "doesn't satisfy even the most minimal standards of honestly and credibility, and it's somethingGoldstone ought to be ashamed of.

"He is truly a villain because he allowed his good name to be used to lend an imprimatur to such a bad report," he said.

Dershowitz said that Goldstone had done so "for his own vanity" and to advance his career in international circles.

"He's willing to sell Israel out to do it," he said.

Dershowitz expressed hope that an IDF report would dispel misguided conclusions that Israel targeted civilians and Hamas did not use human shields. But he said there should be an independent, quasi-judicial investigation by Israel into its actions during the Gaza operation.

"I don't think what Israel did in Gaza is perfect. I think there were mistakes; there may have been crimes committed by individual soldiers and I think that has to be investigated by a distinguished, quasi-judicial committee," he said.

That concept, however, would contradict a plan being pushed by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, who are hammering out a plan to create a judicial investigative panel to review internal IDF investigations of alleged wrongdoing during Cast Lead. Such a panel would not have the authority to question soldiers or officers.

The Goldstone Report, made public this past fall, accused both Israel and Hamas of crimes against humanity, demanding that both sides launch independent investigations or face possible criminal charges at The Hague.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to address the General Assembly on February 5 with a report on any progress made by either side.

Hamas on Wednesday said its own investigation of alleged wrongdoing cleared Palestinian armed groups of intentionally firing at civilians, the AFP reported."The committee worked around the clock to uncover the facts, despite the certainty that there were no violations of international human rights law that amount to war crimes," the news agency quoted Hamas justice minister Muhammad Faraj al-Ghul as saying.

A 52-page document will be submitted to the UN in the near future.

Jerusalem Post.com

J'lem preparing report for UN despite refusal to recognize Goldstone

Haaretz.com
By Barak Ravid

Israel is preparing a report in advance of the United Nations General Assembly meeting to discuss progress in implementing the Goldstone report - even though Israel doesn't recognize that document.

The Goldstone report accused Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, sparking a storm of controversy.Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been asked to report on their progress to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will present this at the February 5 meeting.

However, Israel is not planning to give its report directly to Ban, as the United Nations had requested, because it does not officially recognize the Goldstone report

Instead, it wants Ban to tell the General Assembly that he supports the Israeli report, which is being prepared by the Foreign Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces. Israel intends to distribute it at the United Nations before February 5.

A senior official in Jerusalem said, "The secretary general wants to be the messenger, not to take a stand." This would work against Israel in the General Assembly, because Israel "doesn't stand a chance" there.

Israel's report will include summaries of its investigation of injured Palestinian non-combatants during the Gaza operation.

The Israeli report was compiled by the Foreign Ministry, the Justice Ministry, the IDF Military Advocate General and the IDF's planning branch. It details 100 cases investigated by the IDF, 30 of which were cited in the Goldstone report.

A Foreign Ministry source said they fear Israel's report will not satisfy the international community, because "the world wants to know how many convictions or indictments there are" against soldiers for violating orders.

This is not the report that the IDF leaked to the New York Times on Saturday. That report is being written by the IDF to counter the Goldstone report and has "no diplomatic significance" an official said.

Meanwhile, outgoing Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has been pushing for an independent probe into the Gaza operation by a committee headed by a retired High Court justice. The Foreign Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the Prime Minister's Bureau reportedly favor the move, while the IDF and Defense Minister Ehud Barak oppose it.

Israel is not expected to present the idea of a probe to Ban, but senior officials in Jerusalem said the matter is still under discussion and things may change.

Israel to rebut Gaza war report

By Dan Williams
Reuters
Sunday, January 24, 2010; 9:07 AM

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has prepared a rebuttal to a U.N. report censuring its conduct in the Gaza war, Israeli officials said on Sunday, arguing the United Nations' findings were so unfair as to have fueled a global wave of anti-Semitism.

Issued in September by a panel under South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the non-binding report cited evidence Israel had unlawfully targeted Palestinian civilians and gave it six months to investigate -- or risk prosecution in foreign courts.

Israel had boycotted the panel and brushed off its findings, calling them biased in favor of Gaza's Hamas rulers.

But Israeli officials have voiced worry that the suspicions raised, if unaddressed, could hobble future military operations. Cabinet minister Yuli Edelstein said Israel would make do with internal army probes of last year's war that resulted in a handful of courts-martial over minor offences, but would deliver a "formal response" to the Goldstone report on Thursday.

"It is certainly already clear that, for many of the 'incidents' and 'crimes' described in the report, no proof was found," Edelstein told Israel Radio.

Noting that Wednesday is U.N.-designated International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Edelstein said he would meet U.N. Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon in New York and suggest that the report had triggered recent attacks on Jews worldwide.

"When you light a match in the name of freedom of expression and human rights and even the fight against war crimes, when the double-standard is so salient ... sometimes it is translated in a manner far more extreme than the U.N. may have intended," Edelstein said.

FROM HOLOCAUST TO HAMAS

Israel said it attacked Gaza to stem years of Palestinian rocket salvoes and in the absence of peace prospects with Hamas, an Islamist group that refuses to recognize the Jewish state and spurns Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for his diplomacy.

Israeli shelling in Gaza's cramped precincts killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. They were the focus of the Goldstone report, though it also rebuked Hamas for its rockets -- which killed 10 Israeli civilians in the war. Three troops also died.

An Israeli diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the response to the Goldstone report aimed to disprove allegations that Israel wreaked deliberate damage on Gaza's impoverished and aid-dependant civilian infrastructure.

"Israel will pass this document on to the relevant U.N. officials, but still insists that it remains outside of the Goldstone process," the diplomat said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Poland, site of Nazi death camps. He similarly linked the Gaza war's fallout to anti-Semitism.

"The fight against anti-Semitism is more crucial than ever, as there is a significant increase in the manifestations of anti-Semitism since Operation Cast Lead," he told his cabinet, using Israel's codename for the Gaza offensive.

"This anti-Semitism comes with a new tack, which is the bid to deprive the Jewish state of the right to self-defense."

Goldstone is himself Jewish and has publicly identified as a Zionist. Israeli officials say they regard his ethnicity as irrelevant to the substance of the report.

Goldstone Gaza Report: Col. Richard Kemp Testifies at U.N. Emergency Session

UN Watch Statement, delivered by Col. Richard Kemp, October 16, 2009, UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Goldstone Report

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Governments Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence 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.


Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.