Friday, October 23, 2009


If you haven’t seen the movie Judgement at Nuremberg, you should. It was a movie of the trial of 16 Nazi Justices. One Judge in the dock, Schlegelberger, played by Burt Lancaster, was a good man who had reluctantly served the Nazi Regime until he resigned for reasons of conscience in 1942. He was found guilty. And in the end he agreed the verdict was a just one.

This case is referred to by Ayal Rosenberg in GOLDSTONE : A CRITIQUE OF SELF-APOTHEOSIS. He begins with this introduction of it,

    The criminal culpability for crimes against humanity of judges enforcing law within an “organized system of injustice” was established in The Justice Case of the Nuremberg Trials

and quotes from the Judgement

    “The prostitution of the judicial system for the accomplishment of criminal ends involves an element of evil to the State which is not found in frank atrocities which do not sully judicial robes”

    “Schlegelberger resigned. The cruelties of the system which he helped to develop was too much for him, but he resigned too late. The damage was done. If the judiciary could slay their thousands, why couldn’t the police slay their tens of thousands? The consequences which Schlegelberger feared were realized. The police, aided by Thierack, prevailed. Schlegelberger had failed. His hesitant injustices no longer satisfied the demands of the hour. He retired under fire”

    “We are under no misapprehension. Schlegelberger is a tragic character. He loved the life of the intellect, the work of the scholar. We believe he loathed the evil he did, but he sold that intellect and that scholarship to Hitler for a mass of political pottage and for the vain hope of personal security. He is guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.”

Then comments

    The legal principles arising from the Nuremberg Justice Case were codified in the Rome Statute which is the founding document of the International Criminal Court. The culpability of a willing judge within an inherently unjust system is covered by the Statute’s declaration that “individual criminal liability will be incurred in crimes against humanity and war crimes by a person…who knowingly aids, abets and otherwise assists, directly and substantially in commission of such a crime, including the means for its commission.”

After pointing out how Goldstone is presented as a man of virtue, an eminent jurist etc, he condemns him as follows

    Goldstone claims, over and over (the scale and frequency of self adulation in itself should set off alarm bells) that his report is all about accountability for crimes against humanity and the integrity of international humanitarian law. This is a subterfuge coming from a subtle and fraudulent apartheid judge. As far as Goldstone is concerned the report, as everything else in his life, is about self: self-conceit; self-aggrandizement; self-praise; self-righteousness; self-worth; self-adulation and, most importantly, self-promotion.
You see, Goldstone was one of those culpable judges, who served an evil regime, apartheid South Africa and now serves another evil regime, the United Nations.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Israel enraged over UN report claiming war crimes in Gaza

Israel has good reason to have stopped cooperating with international investigations into its military activities, and to even try to prevent such probes from happening at all when possible. These "independent" investigations almost always conclude by accusing Israel of the most heinous wrongdoings in the most hostile language possible.

It is little wonder that these investigations ultimately come to such conclusions, considering that they typically accept Palestinian claims and accusations at face value, despite a gross lack of evidence.

That was again the case on Wednesday when a UN fact-finding mission headed by Richard Goldstone issued a report based on figures and testimonies provided by Gaza's Hamas rulers that accused Israel of "actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity" during its military incursion into Gaza earlier this year.

The 547-page report accused Hamas of the same for deliberately firing rockets into Israeli population centers during the month-long conflagration, but seemed to ignore the decade of Palestinian rocket fire that preceded Israel's reluctant and long-delayed commitment of major ground forces to solving the problem.

The Goldstone Commission demanded that Israel launch its own investigation into the charges contained in the report, and recommended that the International Crimes Court (ICC) in The Hague open war crimes proceedings against the Jewish state if it failed to comply within three months.

The report elicited frustration and anger in Israel over what has become a ritual of drumming up war crimes charges any time the Jewish state dares to militarily defend itself.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said the Goldstone Commission Report "mocks history and fails to distinguish between aggressor and those acting in self-defense."

Peres said Goldstone and his colleagues never would have come to such conclusions "had their children been living in Sderot, under the constant threat of Hamas rockets."

In a written statement, Peres reminded the UN that Israel fully withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and during the following three years tried to respond to mounting Palestinian aggression from the coastal territory with diplomacy, before finally concluding that it must go to war to defend its citizens.

A Foreign Ministry statement expressed "disappointment" that the UN had once again ignored Israel's right to self defense and had drawn erroneous and despicable conclusions about Israel's intentions based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.

Israeli legal experts said they don't expect the UN Security Council to adopt the commission's report, or for the ICC to actually open war crimes proceedings against the State of Israel, but warned that the report could form the basis of individual war crimes suits against Israeli military and political leaders.

The one bright spot of the report for Israelis was its insistence that Hamas release Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. But even that section was marred by dubious language by referring to Shalit as a "prisoner of war," a form of captivity legitimate under international law.

Shalit's father, Noam Shalit, corrected Goldstone and his team by noting that "Gilad is not a prisoner of war. Gilad is an abducted person and a hostage."

Meanwhile, Goldstone's daughter, Nicole Goldstone, insisted in an interview with Israel's Army Radio that her father, a South African Jew who previously served as a Constitutional Court judge, "is a Zionist and loves Israel." She was adamant that her father would never try to harm Israel, and only agreed to be part of the commission to help Israel and its neighbors move forward toward peace.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev retorted in a later interview that the Goldstone Commission had done the exact opposite of advance peace. Armed with such a damning report, Israel's "peace partners" are certain to become even more uncompromising and extreme in their demands.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Netanyahu: We're ready for peace, but won't be 'suckers'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said that while his government is ready to go to great lengths to make peace with the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors, he and his ministers won't be fooled and won't be "suckers."

Speaking at a pre-Rosh Hashanah event for Likud activists at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds, Netanyahu's remarks were in response to concerns that his acquiescence to Western demands for a settlement freeze marks the end of the Zionist vision in the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria, even if the Arabs do not reciprocate.

Netanyahu said he will not allow international pressure to halt the normal flow of life in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and that regardless of what future concessions he may make, he will never allow those areas to become a Hamas stronghold as Gaza did following the Israeli withdrawal there.

Netanyahu's speech came just a day after US State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said Israel should stop building new homes for Jews on the eastern side of Jerusalem, as well as in the rest of Judea and Samaria.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also saw Netanyahu's new willingness to implement a temporary settlement freeze as an opportunity to up the ante, and declared that all Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria are illegal, according to his interpretation of international law.

In fact, it was international law, in the form of the San Remo Resolution passed in 1920 by the League of Nations, precursor to the UN, that legalized "close Jewish settlement" in the region that today encompasses Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan.

The San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920

This resolution, consisting of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is the basic document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. The San Remo Resolution concerning Palestine and the Jewish National Home was adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 25, 1920 by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by the Ambassador of Japan (K. Matsui). The Resolution was a binding agreement between these Powers to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State within its historic borders “from Dan to Beersheba”, an agreement that was incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine.
הדפסה | גרסת ®MS-Word | שלח מאמר

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

La Puissance mandataire s’engage a nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nomme par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances allies sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grand Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.

In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation:

La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interets economiques que l’Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterraneenne possede en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation a la presente resolution, jusqu’au reglement des interets italiens en Turquie d’Asia.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Netanyahu: Jerusalem is ours, deal with it

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as he departed for Europe on Monday that Israel will never accept limitations on its sovereignty in Jerusalem. His remarks were seen as a direct response to pressure from US President Barack Obama for Israel to stop building homes for Jews in those parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians.

Sources close to Netanyahu told The Jerusalem Post that is the message he will deliver to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell after touching down in London. From there, Netanyahu will travel to Berlin to convince German Chancellor Angela Merkel of Israel's steadfastness when it comes to the holy city.

Netanyahu is expected, however, to soften that news by offering to halt construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria for a period of one year to determine if Israel truly has any peace partners on the Palestinian side.

The prime minister said he expects his peace gestures and the international community's reaction to them will persuade Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to resume peace talks by October.

Netanyahu will also press his European hosts for greater economic sanctions against Iran over it's defiant nuclear program. Netanyahu said that if Europe and the rest of the international community would sufficiently tighten the screws on Iran, then there would be no need for talk of a last-ditch military option.

That Obama is unashamedly anti-Israel is painfully obvious. His pro-Arab/pro-Islam bias has been manifest since day one of his Presidency. (Opinion)

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Obama about to betray Israel, says former intel official

A former top US intelligence official warns that the Obama Administration is about to break America's long ties of friendship with Israel, and maybe even take steps toward the dissolution of the Jewish state.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to Douglas Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network, the source said:

"I have every reason to believe, based on what I’ve seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own… or worse."

He went on to note that the betrayal likely won't happen in one dramatic moment, but rather subtly, behind the scenes, and over the course of several years.

The Obama Administration is preparing to "provide more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel’s defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation," said the source.

Israeli officials have of late noted a marked increase in the pressure from Washington to more rapidly acquiesce to Arab land-for-peace demands, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has clarified that Washington is none to pleased with incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to commit to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

UN: Oops, Hamas did fire from our facilities

the recent Gaza war, while all eyes were on Israel, the United Nations
heedlessly repeated Palestinian accusations that Israeli forces had
fired on its facilities in the Hamas-ruled territory without

Now that the war is over, and fewer people are paying attention, UN officials are admitting otherwise.

Speaking before the UN Security Council on Tuesday, UN
Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes blasted Hamas for making
"cynical" use of public civilian facilities across Gaza during the

"The reckless and cynical use of civilian installations by
Hamas and indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations
are clear violations of international humanitarian law," said Holmes.

Holmes also acknowledged that it is Hamas meddling that is
largely responsible for humanitarian aid not reaching the people of

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream international media brushed
aside most of what Holmes had to say and focused only on his call for
Israel to fully throw open the border crossings into Gaza.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Jimmy Carter blames Israel for Gaza war

US President Jimmy Carter insisted on Monday that the Hamas terrorist
organization is a group of trustworthy and respectable individuals that
cannot possibly be blamed for the recent violence in and around the
Gaza Strip.

Speaking on NBC's "Today" show, Carter said that Hamas can be
trusted, and that the terror group had adhered fully to the terms of an
unofficial six-month ceasefire prior to the outbreak of the Gaza war.

By making such an assertion, Carter indirectly blamed Israel
for the violence that engulfed Gaza and southern Israel for three
weeks. He sidestepped the fact that prior to the start of the Israeli
offensive, Hamas had significantly escalated its rocket attacks on
southern Israel.

Carter tried to qualify his remarks by acknowledging Hamas had
done some bad things, but remained adamant that the terror group must
be engaged diplomatically and made part of the "peace" process.

The interview was part of a PR campaign to push the former
president's new book, "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land," which
Carter indicated is being written first and foremost to influence the
policy decisions of President Barack Obama.

Said Carter: "I am writing another book about the Middle East
because the new president of the United States is facing a major
opportunity — and responsibility — to lead in ending conflict between
Israel and its neighbors. The time is now. Peace is possible."

Carter's previous book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," was
highly critical of and in many places openly hostile toward Israel.