Goldstone Wordle
I really recommend you check it out. 24 hours from now I'll be posting the answer here, if you haven't found it on your own by then.
The security sources believed that the ship was in its way to unload its weapon shipment, which includes anti-armour missiles, somewhere close to Haradh where it could be hidden in a farm before Al Houthi rebels collected them.
The Haradh area is only tens of kilometers from the western frontline of Al Malahaid.
Earlier on Monday, the independent paper Al Ahali said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards train Al Houthi rebels in training camps in neighboring Eritrea. The paper also said that the Iranian revolutionary guards transport the weapons through the Eritrean harbour of Asab, from where it is transported to Yemen's Midi Harbour.
Abdullah Al Mahdoon, one rebel leader, who surrendered himself to the army earlier this month, said in previous statements, that Al Houthi rebels receive unlimited support from the Iranian revolutionary guards, and experts from the Lebanese Hezbullah....
U.S. arms-control experts say that Qum is probably one of at least a half-dozen undeclared sites in Iran's "nuclear archipelago." At its present rate of production, Qum's estimated 3,000 antiquated IR-1 centrifuges would take two years to churn out enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb, according to Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. If Iran had another secret site, its parallel fuel cycle would cut down the waiting time to a year.
Furthermore, because Iran went to the trouble of hiding Qum, it's likely hiding other key components of a weapons program too. Take the conversion plant at Isfahan, which provides the uranium that goes into an enrichment facility--in this case, the site at Natanz. Both sites are being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The amount of uranium needed at Qum, some 7 to 16 percent of Isfahan's stockpile, would be too great a diversion to go unnoticed, says Andreas Persbo, an arms-control analyst at the U.K.-based Ploughshares Fund.
The existence of Qum's secret enrichment facility thus implies a corresponding conversion plant, as well as mines to extract uranium ore, labs to turn the enriched fuel into a metal, and workshops to produce firing circuits and high-explosive lenses. Indeed, The New York Times recently reported that classified portions of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate listed some dozen additional suspected nuclear sites in Iran. As the black sites multiply, chances are that Western intelligence agencies will not be able to keep tabs on all of them. It's a game of hide-and-seek that the West can't afford to lose.
Whereas French presidents since Charles de Gaulle have tilted towards the Arab states and demanded more of Israel in the search for peace, Sarkozy has embraced Israel as an ally and has put its security on a par with Palestinian rights. Sarkozy's warmth toward Israel should not be mistaken for a strategic shift. French national interests have been defined to include close relations with Arab states, after all, and those ties have actually been quietly deepened even as Sarkozy has reached out to Israel.
"Apart from his dealings with Israel and his very radical stand against Iran, Sarkozy's Middle East policy has been very similar to those of his predecessors — only with more activist engagement," explains Jean-François Daguzan, a Middle East expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "Sarkozy has shown he wants France to play a much larger, active role in the region than it has in the past, and to do that it has to have stronger ties to Israel, but without alarming its traditional Arab allies."
Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of Sarkozy strengthening ties in the Arab world during his tenure. He brought Syria out from international isolation, for starters, and then sought to use Paris' privileged position with Damascus to create political stability in Lebanon. Earlier this year, Sarkozy similarly enlisted Syria and Egypt to help his drive to halt the violence in Gaza. Sarkozy has also upped France's ability to project power in the region — and sent yet another warning in Iran's direction — with this year's inauguration of a new permanent French military naval and air compound in Abu Dhabi.
"Sarkozy has also improved his relations with leaders in Iraq with an eye toward reconstruction there," Daguzan notes with a chuckle. "That may be the only move that Americans might take issue with, since the rest of what he'd done his largely been moving in the same direction as U.S."
The single most important explanation for Sarkozy's activism in search of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, of course, a simple one: He's trying to succeed where, until now, the U.S. has failed.
"When Hamas deals seriously with the Goldstone report, with some reservations on it, this is evidence that Hamas respects the international law and is ready to cooperate with this law," Khaled Meshal told the Web site Palestine Note in an interview from his base in Damascus.
"If the report or any other side has any reservations on Hamas' actions, we are ready to explain them and we will form an honest and neutral investigative committee in Gaza to give Goldstone and its committee and the international community the facts."
...
Meshal rejected the claim that Hamas had deliberately targeted Israeli civilians during the fighting, when thousands of rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip - which it controls - into Israeli communities.
"Hamas does not aim to kill civilians. Hamas does not want to target the civilians," he said. "Hamas defends itself, but because it has simple abilities and its rockets are inaccurate in targeting, so it reaches the civilians, but we do not intend to do that."
Police sappers were at the impact site, and the IDF also launched an investigation.Let me guess: Either it was shot off by an unknown group over which neither Hezbullah nor the Lebanese army has control, or it accidentally flew out of someone's garage in southern Lebanon.
Army Radio reported that the rocket landed near the northern town of Kiryat Shmona, and that a fire broke out in the impact site.
Many nearby residents also reported hearing a loud sound, according to Israel Radio.
Over the last few weeks, there has been concern in Jerusalem that as the election process nears, it will not be a time of great "creativity" and "flexibility" on the Palestinian side. Rather, as the US tries to put together a framework for Palestinian-Israeli talks, the concern is that an Abbas playing to the Palestinian electorate will lead to a "hardening of positions."
The impact of the elections has for the last few weeks been a factor Jerusalem has taken into consideration when trying to explain the difficulty the Americans are having in putting together a framework acceptable to both sides. While Abbas only announced the elections on Friday, the likelihood of a vote has been in the air for weeks.
The Palestinians have said that there must be a complete settlement freeze before negotiations can be restarted, and - according to the Israeli account of the pre-negotiations taking place - have shown no flexibility at all on the matter, something now attributed by some in Jerusalem to domestic Palestinian electoral considerations.
There has been a debate as to whether J Street is “pro-Israel.” Well, one branch of J Street now says it isn’t or at least doesn’t want to say it is anymore. Because that’s a bad thing, and people might take offense. This report explains:
J Street’s university arm has dropped the “pro-Israel” part of the left-wing US lobby’s “pro-Israel, pro-peace” slogan to avoid alienating students. That decision was part of the message conveyed to young activists who attended a special weekend program for students ahead of J Street’s first annual conference, which began on Sunday. … We don’t want to isolate people because they don’t feel quite so comfortable with ‘pro-Israel,’ so we say ‘pro-peace,’” said American University junior Lauren Barr of the “J Street U” slogan, “but behind that is ‘pro-Israel.’”
Way behind. It seems that a basic component of supporting Israel is not being ashamed or embarrassed to support Israel. And J Street’s head, Jeremy Ben-Ami, in perfect live-and-let-live-who-are-we-to-tell-kids-what-to-think mode offers this mind-numbing explanation:
Ben-Ami described himself as “concerned but realistic” about the students’ choice to leave out the pro-Israel piece of J Street’s slogan. He added, “Some in the community might not want to hear that this is where a lot of young people have come to, but we have to deal with people where they’re at and address their concerns.” …
It is our goal to change traditional conversations when it comes to Israel and to broaden the notion that there is only one way to express love and concern for it,” Ben-Ami said to applause. “We are here to redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel. No longer should this ‘pro-’ require an ‘anti-.’”
Pro-Israel, anti-Israel. Whatever. It’s enough to give moral equivalency a bad name.
But clarity is good and it’s nice to know J Street doesn’t mind dropping “pro-Israel” from its self-designation. If only it had told all those congressmen and senators it had lured into hosting an event for a “pro-Israel” group.
The Water Authority slammed Amnesty International on Monday for failing to allow it to make any sort of presentation to Amnesty's researchers or react to the organization's findings on water allocation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before the publication of its new critical report on Tuesday morning.
The authority also called into question some of the basic facts presented in the report.
...
The report also cites a vast difference in daily water use for the two parties. Amnesty cites 400 liters per day for Israelis, and just 70 for Palestinians. That figure puts the Palestinians below the World Health Organization recommendation of 100 liters per day.
However, the Water Authority hotly disputed those figures. According to the authority, while Israelis use 408 liters per day of fresh water from natural sources, Palestinians use 200 liters per day. While acknowledging the difference between these two amounts, the authority stressed that it was nowhere near as drastic as Amnesty had portrayed it.
The Foreign Ministry also refuted the report on Tuesday, stating that according to the existing water agreement, the Palestinians are allocated 23.6 million cubic meters of water per year, but "in actual effect, they have access to twice as much water."
In its statement, the Foreign Ministry said that Israel has "extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity" of water supplied to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians have "significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement" by neglecting the construction of sewage treatment plants despite "foreign funding earmarked for this purpose," as well as drilling over 250 unauthorized wells.
Israeli offers to supply the Palestinians with desalinated water were rejected due to political concerns, said the statement, adding that "Israel has reduced significantly its use of fresh natural water since 1967, consistently closing the gap between Israeli and Palestinian consumption."
[A]ccording to the Water Authority, while Israeli access to water before 1967 came out to about 500 cubic meters per person per year, nowadays it is just 149 cu.m. per year, a drop of 70%. In contrast, from a pre-1967 86 cu.m. per person per year, Palestinian consumption has risen to 105 cu.m.
The Water Authority also stressed that it routinely provided the PA with more water per year than the amounts stipulated in the Oslo Accords. It also said Palestinians routinely dug illegal wells and refused to purify and reuse their sewage for agriculture. Instead, they dumped their sewage into the streams in the West Bank, causing massive pollution.
The Israel-Palestinian water policy is based on an interim agreement between the two parties, particularly on Article 40 of Annex III to the agreement, which relates to the question of water and sewage. According to the agreement, 23.6 million cubic meters of water will be allocated to the Palestinians annually. In actual effect, they have access to twice as much water.
Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the joint water commission) and handling of sewage (The Palestinians are not constructing sewage treatment plants, despite their obligation to do so. Rather, they allow the sewage to flow unheeded into streams, polluting both the environment and groundwater).
The authors of the report met with MFA officials, and were briefed on all the factual details. They were also presented with the Israeli position paper on the subject, which contained verifiable facts that contradict all the objections presented in the bank's report.
Significantly, the authors chose to ignore the MFA position, and declined to take the facts presented to them into consideration in the published report. They rely totally on unsubstantiated information supplied by the Palestinian Authority, which raises a serious question mark over the credibility of the report and the intentions of its authors.
Lawyers in Britain and other European countries have been collecting testimonies of Palestinians and other data from Gaza since January, which they maintain proves that war crimes were committed by the IDF during the offensive. The evidence is linked to IDF officers holding ranks of battalion commander and higher, who were in command during various stages of Cast Lead.
The other nations who have lawyers collecting information on the matter include the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Norway, whose laws, as well as Britain's, allow the issuance of arrest warrants against foreign citizens suspected of war crimes.
Attorney Daniel Makover [pictured. CiJ] from London is coordinating the efforts in Britain. One of his colleagues visited the Gaza Strip several weeks after the fighting in order to collect testimonies. Palestinians civilians also gave the legal assistant their approval, and asked that he file the suits in their name, in line with British law.
Speaking to Haaretz, Makover refused to offer details on the identity of the IDF officers or how many were listed, but said that much depends on the specific details of each case. Makover said that anyone who was involved in an incident may face criminal charges. The attorney added that there are officers who are obviously candidates for charges, and others who are less obvious, but emphasized that it depends on the facts collected on the ground.
Makover said that the Goldstone report on the fighting in the Gaza Strip will bolster the efforts of the activists, and said that some of the instances mentioned in the report were already known to the attorneys. Makover is part of an unofficial network of attorneys operating in various countries in Europe, exchanging and sharing information so that suspected officers may be arrested in those countries.
Daniel Machover is a British lawyer. He is the head of civil litigation for Hickman & Rose Solicitors and was the co-founder of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights in 1988. His father, Professor Moshé Machover, was one of the founders of the Israeli socialist group Matzpen.
According to an interview in The Independent, "Close observations of his parents' treatment at the hands of the Israeli authorities - including the strip-searching of his mother - heightened Machover's awareness of the potential for those in uniform to abuse their powers". [1].
Daniel Machover, a London lawyer, is (2005) a spokesman and founder-member of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights. He works in Hickman & Rose, a solicitors’ firm in Islington where he works as a partner, handling judicial review work and actions against the Home Office for assaults on prisoners and deaths in custody.
Machover's parents (his father is Moshe Machover) were Sabras, born in Palestine to a family of Zionists on both sides of his parents’ marriage. His Polish grandmother had arrived in the 1920s and then established several kibbutzes. After the 1967 war, his parents were among a group of Israeli Jews who opposed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. They put their names to an advertisement in an Israeli newspaper, along with many others who felt the same, urging the State of Israel to withdraw behind the 1967 borders. The family received death threats and the atmosphere became unpleasant. Finally, the family left for the United Kingdom. They had intended to return – but ended up staying in the UK.
Blumenthal went on to trash Elie Wiesel for speaking this past weekend at the Christians United for Israel conference in San Antonio. After mocking Pastor John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, Blumenthal said "the last time Elie Wiesel trusted someone so much it was Bernie Madoff." Wiesel admitted earlier this year that he lost "everything" he had in Madoff's ponzi scheme. The audience erupted with laughter at Blumenthal's tasteless joke.
26 Oct 2009
If we conduct any investigation it's not because of the Goldstone report.
MS. HOCKINGS: Welcome back to World News Today. I'm Lucy Hockings. There have been reports from Israel that say the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ordered a review of the internal military inquiries which cleared Israeli troops of serious wrongdoing during their offensive in Gaza last winter. A recent UN investigation concluded that both Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement had committed war crimes during the conflict in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
Well, joining me here in the studio is Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon. Thank you very much for joining us.
DFM AYALON: I'm pleased to be here.
MS. HOCKINGS: Can you confirm these reports about the inquiry?
DFM AYALON: Well, there is ongoing debate in Israel because we also want to know for ourselves what happened, although the IDF started already on day one of the operation and we launched an independent report. And here, I think, it is important to say that in our military system, the military advocate general is a completely independent entity.
MS. HOCKINGS: Mr. Goldstone, though, states it's insufficient for the military to investigate itself. It is calling, in the Goldstone report, for an independent review to be set up in the next six months. Is that going to happen?
DFM AYALON: It may very well. After the Second Lebanon War in 2006, we decided of our own accord to do it because it seemed very important to us. But, you know, things like that take a long time. Just here in Britain it took almost eight years to conduct such an investigation.
MS. HOCKINGS: But to not do it looks like you've got something to hide.
DFM AYALON: And we do not. So this is one of the main reasons why we may go for it.
MS. HOCKINGS: If you don't do it, are you willing to then face these consequences which may be a war crimes proceedings at the International Criminal Court? That's what the UN Security Council may refer as well for you.
DFM AYALON: No, I don't think this is the case because I think the decent countries in the world, you know, Britain, France, the United States and many others who actually share with us the same values of democracy, free press and everything else, will not let it happen. If we conduct any investigation, Lucy, it's not because of the Goldstone report. We don't approve of the Goldstone report.
MS. HOCKINGS: Are there any elements of the Goldstone report you accept?
DFM AYALON: Not quite; I'll tell you why: because it was a prejudgment before it even started. And the Goldstone report is also very politicized. Who decided on the Goldstone report? It wasn't even in the U.S. It was countries like Cuba and Libya and Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have nothing to do with human rights. So it was very, very political.
MS. HOCKINGS: Can we take a look at the situation at the moment? We had these clashes yesterday at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. The Palestinian Authority says that Israel is looking for an escape clause to avoid meaningful negotiations. How do you respond to that?
DFM AYALON: Not at all. If you look really objectively, Israel has wanted peace and has done a lot in terms of giving away territories, in essence, for peace. We made peace with Egypt. We returned to Egypt the entire Sinai; the same with Jordan. We evacuated Gaza completely back in 2005 before this terrorism.
MS. HOCKINGS: But that's interesting you say that, because your boss recently, Mr. Lieberman, the Foreign Minister, said that there is no prospect of a peace agreement with the Palestinians any time soon.
DFM AYALON: He said it in a very, very sad tone, and he said he was just looking objectively and benefiting from the experience of the last 16 years, from the Oslo Accords in 1993 until now, where we tried everything - incremental, all the way - to no avail. But that does not mean that he is not saying: I will be the first one to be happy to be proven wrong. So we will try anyway. But the Palestinians have to come to the table clean-handed as well and without preconditions. This is what we are calling for. Let's sit and talk.
MS. HOCKINGS: Danny Ayalon, thank you very much for your time.
DFM AYALON: Thank you.
This is not the time for a full discussion of the Goldstone report, which in my view was fatally flawed. There are many questions that one might legitimately ask about Israel's conduct of the war: Why was it necessary for Israeli forces to use so much firepower? How do you carry out a war against a terrorist organization that attacks your citizens and hides amid a civilian population? What risks are Israeli soldiers obligated to take, beyond those inherent in combat, to prevent harm to civilians? The Israelis that I know are asking these questions; it is right for them to do so, and it is right for the government of Israel to deal with these issues.
But the Goldstone report chose not to focus on these questions. Its central assertion is that Israel targeted Palestinian civilians, intentionally causing their deaths. This is a stunning and outrageous charge. I reject it, the people of Israel reject it, and - most important - it is not supported by the facts. This is not a thoughtful judicial report attempting to make difficult moral judgments. It is a political report based largely on unverifiable Palestinian claims that is meant to be used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon Israel.
If you doubt this, read the report. Its reasoning is shaky in some places and more often absurd. The accusations against Palestinians are expressed in language that is understated and restrained, while the accusations against Israel are expressed in wording that is sweeping, bold, and absolute. And upon closer inspection, many of these charges include phrases such as "it seems that," "it would appear," and "we have no definite proof but..." In an interview in the Forward, Goldstone acknowledged that nothing in the report could be used as proof in a court of law and that it contained no actual "evidence" of wrongdoing by Israel. Among the public that heard about this report and the diplomatic community that seized upon it, I doubt if one person in a hundred is aware of what we are now told is the report's limited scope. Didn't Justice Goldstone have an obligation to make this clear from the beginning? And this too: you cannot be a moral agent if you serve an immoral master, and Richard Goldstone should be ashamed of himself for working under the auspices of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
It will be important for Israel to continue with the investigations that it has already begun. Still, I suspect and I fear that the damage has already been done. This report, no matter how compelling the refutations that follow, will become a staple of U.N. gatherings and international meetings. It will be used to incite against Israel and to portray every Israeli leader connected with the military as a war criminal. It will become an instrument to inflame Palestinian extremism. And it will be invoked every time that Israel defends itself against attacks on its civilian centers. In short, it has made the work of peace much harder than it already was.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism and one of the most prominent doves in the country, blasted J Street earlier this year for "drawing a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel." Yoffie spoke at the J Street conference today and was booed by the audience for criticizing Goldstone. J Street is trying to find the space between its hard left, anti-Zionist base and the larger community of liberal, pro-Israel Jews. It's not clear they'll succeed.
Dr. David Tzengen fought in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, and then he fought to clear his name and those his colleagues and exposed the lies about the "slaughter." Now he enlists again and writes to judge Richard Goldstone: "You allowed yourself to be deceived by the terrorists fabrications". He calls to: "Check again."
Dear Judge Goldstone,
My name is Dr. David Tzengen, I work in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. More than half of my patients are Palestinians from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. I speak Arabic, and I established the first training program for Palestinian doctors in the field of pediatric endocrinology. The doctors whom we train are highly valued, and they are included as authors in studies that we have published in leading journals.
I was also chief medical officer of my division during the operation in Jenin in 2002. I was responsible for the medical care of our soldiers, and I was also responsible to facilitate full medical services by the hospital in Jenin for the civilian population, and I was personally involved in countless medical treatments that Palestinians (including combatants) received from Israeli doctors.
During and after the operation, the hospital director in Jenin was the source of what was falsely called the "massacre in Jenin, which killed 5,000 people." That same person, Dr. Abu - Ghali, also argued that part of the hospital in Jenin was destroyed by Israeli tank missiles.
You know, honorable judge, that these statements were proven and documented to be shameless lies, not only by Israeli sources, but also by "Human Rights Watch" and by UN organizations. Only 52 deaths were counted on the Palestinian side (and 23 on the Israeli side). These organizations and photographs of the hospital in Jenin after the operation showed no evidence of any destruction Israel caused to the hospital.
Immoral behavior by Palestinian physicians is not new
This Dr. Abu - Ghali, the hospital director, a doctor, lies and incites in the martyrs' service. It is hard to believe that the director of the hospital can give such transparently false testimony. I cannot understand it and you cannot understand it, but unfortunately, that's what happened .
Tragically, the immoral behavior of physicians in the Palestinian Authority is not new. Pediatrician George Habash sent his terrorists to kill Israeli children in schools, and so also the leader of Hamas, Dr. Rantisi, and so also pediatrician Dr. Mahmoud a - Zahar encourages firing missiles from Gaza on Israeli children's schools.
Please, Judge Goldstone, you should really be careful when such liars serve as the basis for your report. I am sure you mean well but as an eyewitness to events in Jenin and and to the distorted reports in the media and by the UN thereafter, I understand what happened to you. How a man with such standing and integrity can be made into a linked report so wrong.
See, Judge Goldstone, your report on the case of "Al Fakura" on January 5-6 (paragraphs 688-651 in the report). You are reporting how Israel was accused of directly bombing the UNRWA school. It took two weeks to withdraw this accusation, but you, distinguished judge, went to collect your evidence only from those people who spread the blood libel.
Judges are expected to look for evidence
Furthermore, when you analyzed the arena, you claimed that you could not verify the numbers, 24 dead and 40 wounded, but that these numbers are not considered exaggerated. At the end, in the part dealing with factual findings, you already determine that 24 people were killed and 40 injured.
Have you by some chance tried to verify any part of these invented and inciteful figures? Have you watched the al-Jazeera or BBC reports from that date regarding the incident? Did you at least try to verify your "factual findings" through the records of emergency rooms that referred people to the trauma department that day? Did you review the identity cards of the "dead" or the cemetery in which they were purportedly buried?
Well, no you did not do it.
Since you are a Judge, I must be convinced that you did not mean to harm Israel, I am trying to believe you have reached Gaza without prejudice, but judges are expected to at least look for a little evidence (the media, emergency room records, burial places, etc.) relating to evidence and not to accept impossible "facts".
We advocate peace
But you allowed yourself to be mislead by fabrications from terrorists, or even from doctors like Dr. Abu Ghali from Jenin. My colleagues in Israel and I are proud of the medical services that are given to everyone equally, regardless of their origin. We're also proud to belong to a nation identified as having higher moral values than others.
I call upon you, Judge Goldstone, to take the al-Fakura incident, examine the media coverage of the same date, to see the events in this context, to try to live for one day with responsibility for the existence of a small nation of six million Jews who are constantly threatened by 300 million Muslims. I call upon you to try not to draw conclusions from those lies and deceptive witnesses, even if they are supposedly professionals.
In the modern world, propaganda and lies are definitely part of war, and as a judge it is forbidden for you to serve as a tool to strengthen hate and confrontations. We are advocates for peace, we are lovers of peace, and we try our best to fight for our right to exist while maintaining the highest moral standards, even at the cost of our lives.
Dear Judge Goldstone,
My name is Dr. David Zangen, I am a consultant in Pediatric Endocrinology and diabetes at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem. Over 50% of my patient population is Palestinian from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. I speak Arabic and initiated the first training program for Palestinian physicians in the field of Pediatric Endocrinology. The trained physicians were fully respected and were included as first authors on our studies that are published in world leading professional journals.
But, at the same time I happened to be the chief medical officer of my brigade during the Defensive Shield Operation in Jenin 2002. I was responsible for the medical treatment of our soldiers but also for enabling the hospital in Jenin to provide full medical services to the civilian population and I was personally involved in numerous medical treatments that Palestinians (including warriors) received from Israeli physicians.
During and after the operation the director of Jenin hospital was a source to what has been falsely called the "Massacre in Jenin where 5000 people were massacred" this same person Dr. Abu Rali has also claimed that one part of the Jenin hospital was destroyed by Israeli tank missiles "12 tank rockets were shot at the hospital …" etc
You should know, honored Judge that these statements have been proved and documented as straight lies not only by Israeli sources but also by the Human Rights Watch and the UN organizations counting only 52 dead people on the Palestinian side (23 on the Israeli side). These organizations and photographs of Jenin hospital following the operation showed no evidence for any destruction at the hospital buildings etc.
This Dr. Abu Rali a director of a hospital, a physician, lies and incites in the service of the Shahids. It is hard to believe that a director of a hospital can give such an obvious false testimony. I can't understand it and you can't understand it but unfortunately this is what has happened. Even persons who would usually be considered reliable sources become advocates of straight lies. Tragically, moral misbehavior of doctors in the Palestinian Authority is not new. The Pediatrician George Habash sent his terrorists to kill children in Israeli schools and so did the Hamas leader the pediatrician Dr. Rantisi…and so continues to do the Pediatrician encouraging the sending of rockets from Gaza on innocent Israeli schools Dr Mahmud Zaher.
Please judge Goldstone, you should really be careful when such straight liars serve as the basis for your report. I am sure that you mean well but being an eye witness both to the events in Jenin and to the subsequent media and initial false UN reporting I do understand what happened to you. How a person of such stature and integrity could become associated with such a faulted report.
Look Judge Goldstone at your report on the Al Fakhura event on January 5-6th 2009 (paragraphs 651-688). You do report how Israel was accused for directly bombing the UNRWA school. It took 2 weeks to withdraw from this accusation but you, honored Judge, went back to get your testimony only from the same people who spread the blood libel of bombing the school. Moreover when analyzing the scene you claim that you could not verify the numbers of 24 dead and 40 wounded but these numbers are not considered exaggerated. Finally in the Factual findings part you already determine that 24 people were killed and 40 injured!
Did you by any chance try to validate any of these invented and inciting details? Did you look at the Al Jazeera or BBC reports from the same very date of the event? Did you try to validate your "factual findings" conclusions by getting at least Emergency Room charts on the people admitted to their trauma department on this very day? Did you go over the I.D.'s of the "dead" people and the place or cemetery where they were supposedly buried?
Well you didn't!
In all the scene of "40 dead and 40 wounded" filmed by Al Jazeera and other channels reporters and screened at the same day all over the world you could not see bodies or blood spots in the streets beside two or three casualties and one footage of a single wall damaged by a bomb. As a physician who was at terrible suicide events with smaller number of casualties I can testify how it looks like for hours following the event….The media documentation of the Al Fakhura event does not verify and definitely does not go along with the fantasy and lies of your witnesses.
As a judge I must be sure that you did not mean to hurt Israel, I try to believe that you came to Gaza without prejudice…but a judge is expected to look at least for some evidence and verification (media, ER registration, burial places etc….) of the testimonies and not accept impossible "facts". You have let yourself to be misled by fabrications made by either terrorists or even doctors such as Dr. Abu Rali from Jenin.
I and my colleagues in Israel are proud of the medical service that is given equally to every human being regardless of his origin; we are also proud to belong to a nation that has the imprint of having higher moral standards than others.
The price that we pay for this status is very high. The Palestinians and other Muslims around the world, either common people or even respected doctors, use straight lies as part of the war against us. The Western world media criticizes us and tries to find where we were not behaving up to the extremely high moral standards that we made ourselves.
I call on you Judge Goldstone take this Al Fakhura event, look at the media coverage from the very same date…see the events in the context…try to live one day with the responsibility for the existence of this small nation of 6 million Jews threatened constantly by 300 million Muslims. I call on you to try and not draw conclusions from such lies and misleading witnesses even if they come from so-called professionals. In the modern world propaganda and lies are definitely a part of the war and as a judge you should not serve as a tool for augmenting hatred and conflicts.
We look for peace, we love peace and we do try our very best to fight for our right to exist in the highest possible moral standards even at the cost of our lives.
In fact, the NLG has cooperated closely with the ISM, one of whose "Free Gaza" board members "has been an active member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) for 25 years"; and the NLG has advised activists from the student Group Viva Palestina, which the University of California-Irvine has asked the FBI to investigate because of its alleged material support of Hamas, about how to avoid questions from the Israeli authorities during their visits to Gaza.
What is more, there are close ties between the NLG and CAIR, which has recently been implicated in a plot to fund Hamas. For example, one board member of CAIR-Chicago "has been committed to working with the National Lawyers Guild" while another currently "is active in the National Lawyers Guild Middle East Committee."
And we now learn that the NLG is actively providing legal support to the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation," of which its own NLG International Committee is a member organization. Consider this email from Katherine Fuchs, National Organizer of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which she sent to her colleagues and friends on October 22:
J Street spokespersons have demonized and trivialized anyone who dares to disagree with their positions as superannuated Yiddish speakers or neoconservative reactionaries. This is the organization that endorsed the showing of the anti-Semitic play, "Seven Jewish Children" by Theater J, which is also participating in the J Street conference. Poet Josh Healey was excluded from the conference, but only because he likened Guantanamo prison to Auschwitz, not because he wrote that
Israelis, no JEWS ("the chosen people") are doing what the Nazis did to Jews. It did not occur to J Street leaders that such sentiments are not appropriate to a conference of a Jewish organization, let alone an organization that is pro-Israel. Rather, J Street guru Jeremy Ben-Ami noted that:We are sorry for any distraction that this issue may cause for those interested in working with us to advance the cause of peace and security for Israel and the Middle East.
Presumably, Ben-Ami would consider Mein Kampf to be only a "distraction" for those interested in working to better German - Jewish relations in the 1930s.