My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Sunday, September 20, 2009

NGO Monitor on the Goldstone Report...

NGO Monitor is a very trusted source of analysis...
1. The 575-page Goldstone report is primarily based on NGO statements, publications, and submissions (70 references each for B’Tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and more than 30 for Al-Haq and Human Rights Watch). In its analysis of NGO submissions and testimony, NGO Monitor found numerous false and unsubstantiated allegations. Nevertheless, the Goldstone committee simply copied the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims, rendering the entire report invalid.

2. Goldstone’s press conference in New York and the report’s recommendations constitute another step in the Durban Strategy, crystallized at the 2001 NGO Forum, using the language of human rights and international law as weapons in the political war to isolate and demonize Israel, and restrict legitimate responses to terror.

3. Still no “human shields” in Gaza. Following HRW and Amnesty, paragraph 495 ignores evidence that contradicts Goldstone’s predetermined conclusions: “Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.”

4. The report copies NGO distortions of international law, including:
* Promotion of the false legal claim invented by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (and promoted by NGOs such as B’tselem, HRW, Amnesty) that Gaza remains “occupied” after the 2005 disengagement (p. 9). The political objective of this distortion is to manufacture humanitarian obligations that do not exist under international law. (The ICRC, in contrast, had acknowledged that Gaza is an “autonomous territory.” However, after the release of the Goldstone report, the ICRC changed its website to promote the biased conclusion of the Mission.)
* The classification of the Gaza police force as “civilian” (paras. 33-34) even though independent studies have shown that more than ninety percent were members of Hamas’ military wing and active combatants.
* The claim that under the Geneva Convention (para 28) Israel has a duty to supply food to Gazans. No such duty exists and the Commission does not cite to any specific provision of the Convention to support its claim. For more on NGO distortions of international law regarding Gaza, see NGO Monitor’s report on the topic.
* Paragraph 493 claims that the failure of armed Palestinian groups “to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself.” This is patently false. The adoption of civilian dress is a violation of the IHL obligation against perfidy.

5. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone’s report asserts that the “data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent …” (para. 30). There is no such “consistency” -- the numbers claimed by these organizations differ by the hundreds. Goldstone also fails to note the major lack of credibility in PCHR’s data, such as characterizing two leading Hamas military figures, Nizar Rayan and Siad Siam, as civilians. And as researchers have shown, the B’Tselem data, while different from PCHR’s, is also unreliable.

6. Prior to the report’s release, Goldstone made several public statements that the Commission’s work was “not judicial. This is not a court.” (This claim was used to defend Prof. Christine Chinkin’s membership on the committee, who should have recused herself because of prejudicial comments made during the war.) In contrast, the report draws legal conclusions, asserting (without basis) that “the normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law” (para 15). But these legal judgments are issued without any evidentiary procedures in place, including the right to cross-examination or guarantees of due process.


Blogger Lucy said...

So can we ignore the bits of the report that criticise Hamas as abusing human rights or just ignore the bits that criticise Israel for the same thing?

8:21 AM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

We can ignore the whole report because it was a biased, horrible investigation. But, we knew that before the report was issued.

As for Hamas, only an idiotic leftist, like yourself, would see them as equivalent to Israel.

Hamas is a genocidal organization, dedicated to the destruction and death of all Jews.


10:40 AM  
Blogger Lucy said...

Gay, right and unable to hold a sensible, grown up discussion i see.
Oh well. I'm sure there are some right wingers out there who don't resort to childish name calling when their posts are confronted.
Both were accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the UN 'biased, horrible' report, and according to you, both are cleared of all charges against them. Myself, i'd go the other way and have them both infront of the ICC and let them sort it out rather than dismiss out of hand what the UN team discovered.

2:32 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Dear Lucy: I have no faith in the UN when it comes to Israel.

I knew the report would be biased before it came out, and I wasn't disappointed.

Hamas is a genocidal organization - they are dedicated to the murder of all Jews around the world. It's in their charter.

Israel did nothing wrong in defending itself.


2:58 PM  
Blogger Lucy said...

Israel does have a right to defend itself but do you extend that right to Israel's neighbours, notably the Palestinians?
The Lukid manifesto states that it: 'flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river'.

The Hamas party doesn't want an Israel and the Lukid party doesn't want a Palestine.

Both are out to destroy or stop the other one coming into being with the only difference the way they are going about it.

I am pro-Palestine and have no qualms with saying what Hamas are doing is wrong and should be condemned as i have no qualms about berating Israel when it does wrong also.

Why is that never reciprocated by pro-Israeli supporters?

4:00 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Dear Lucy:

How on earth can you equate Hamas and Likud? Hamas is genocidal - not only wanting to destroy Israel, but to kill all jews. Likud is a political party that has demonstrated it wants peace - first by signing a peace treaty with Egypt,and by recently (netanyahu) coming out in support of a palestinian state.

Israel has many times offered generous peace terms to the Palestinians - only to find them rejected. Look at Camp david in 2000 and then taba. The Saudi Foreign Minister said that the palestinian rejection of the Israeli offer was a crime against the Palestinian people.


5:29 PM  
Blogger Lucy said...

I was pointing out the similarity between their manifestos, namely that neither wants the other one living beside them.

6:10 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Lucy: Similariities???

Hamas wants to kill all Jews.

Likud is wary of a Palestinian state and would prefer some sort of autonomy.

Is that similar to you?


8:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home