Friday, August 6, 2010

A Law Professor on the Goldstone Report

Barry Meislin recommends an article by Peter Berkowitz, who's a kind of law professor, on the legal aspects of the Goldstone Report - he doesn't like it. I don't ave the time to comment,but it's an interesting read.


Anonymous said...

for somebody who is more interested in the more elevated take on life, here is Tariq Ramadan at the LSE -
admirable how he manages to drone on without ever saying anything all the while insinuating that he himself is the deepest thinker of them all and make the greatest platitudes sound like revelations.

I managed to tolerate it for 25 minutes of the more than 90 there are.

The man is a fraud and I am really mad at the academic establishment that they praise such a hollow nut
how are the not formal educated ever to find out who it is worth to listen to when the certified knowers kowtow to an ignorant strutter like this one?

I hope reading Berkowitz will cure the brain damage that's just been inflicted on me.

"Quest for Meaning"


Gavin said...

He almost got there too. Goldstone had no choice but to separate the Hamas authority from the armed groups. The author noticed that but didn't pick up why. Goldstone and his cohorts went into the investigation with the assertion that Israel was still the occupying power in Gaza and for them to accept that the Hamas government was an integral part of the armed conflict would paint Hamas as the occupying power of Gaza. (note) If Hamas were the occupying power then the overwhelming weight of culpability for the conflict would fall on them.

I think the main problem with all these analysts is they appear to believe Israels critics are basically honest but misguided. They're not. They're plain dishonest, none of them really believe that Gaza is still occupied by Israel. The Goldstone report is akin to people who tell a lie and then find themselves having to tell even bigger lies to maintain the original one. Once Goldstone has aserted Israel's occupancy of Gaza he had to subsequently distort every scenario which might indicate otherwise. Understand that and you can see the thread winding throughout the report.

(note) One of the main arguments used to support Israel being an occupying power is a (Nuremburg) military tribunal stating that it wasn't necessary to have troops on the ground to be occupying a territory. That was regarding the Croatian puppet government set up by the Germans. Goldstone had to make the Hamas 'ruling authority' appear to fit that scenario by separating it from the armed conflict.


Anonymous said...

do you have any idea what would happen to the situation at sea, if Israel would be cleared of any occupy-whatever?

(Greenwood towards the end mentioned something about a case with Israel, I think in connection with the Flotilla, MAY BE coming up in The Hague - Mankell said so in a recent interview also - but I have heard nothing about maritime courts - except this about Pirates which leaves me more confused than ever -

I don't know if Croatia in wartime had a seacoast and if so, was it ever defined how power was allocated there? I understand that maritime courts are separate entities

I agree with you on Goldstone - in my book he belongs to the bunch of wannabe world leading messiases*) i.e. people who are wanting/dreaming it bigger than Gandhi or Mandela

*) my favourite is Kouchner because he is good at upkeeping his saintly image, but there are lots all the way down to Edward de Bono, who insist that they have found the "world formula" - de Bono seems to combine it with something from the ancient powers of Malta.


Barry Meislin said...

Call Goldstone NOW!!

Gavin said...

Sorry Silke but we're getting further apart, I seem unable to get my message across to people so I'll concede defeat on it. I'm very comfortable that I'm correct in what I've been saying but I'm no Yaacov & I can do no more.

People take things too literally, they see something in front of them but don't think to ask how it got there. If you want to understand laws then you need to ask why the law was put in place and what it is intended to achieve. It's not necessary to be legal-trained to understand the principles upon which laws are based.

In answer to your question. It will depend on whether Israel can get the UN enquiry to see the naval blockade as being distinctly separate to the land blockade. The terms of reference for the enquiry will reveal how this progresses, if there is any use of the word 'occupied' in the literature for example then we can almost certainly expect to see another Goldstone report.


Barry Meislin said...

Gavin, why so demoralized?

You have explained correctly, time and time again, why Gaza MUST be seen as occupied (even if it's not); why the PA MUST insist that the West Bank is occupied (and why they won't agree to any Israeli presence there); and why, ultimately, all of pre-June-1967 Israel MUST be seen as occupied.

The conflict MUST continue.

The Palestinians MUST continue to be perceived (and perceive themselvs) as victims.

The Palestinians MUST continue, as a result, to receive huge amounts of monetary handouts and international sympathy.

Iran, Syria, Hezbullah, and Hamas MUST be seen as trying to rectify a terrible humanitarian problem (instead of trying to destroy the Jewish State)---and therefore excused or even encouraged in their great humanitarian initiative.

Everything about Israel MUST be seen to reek of occupation.

Until Israel is disappeared.

Anonymous said...

please don't give up

just because I see the world as this guy sees it and thus perceive advantages in keeping things murky doesn't mean I am convinced that I am right.
I am a product of ol' Europe which means I am deficient at seeing things other than in terms of Catch 22 piled on Catch 22 and any definitive move loaded with possibilities for unexpected consequences.

In my book the UN has long stopped being content with seeing Israel at the pillory but now wants to see her at the stake but whether taking a straightforward definable positions with no backdoors is the best way to deal with it I don't know, having found myself too often at the losing end for putting my trust into the rational and reasonable.


The Enemy of My Enemy
Facing the threat of a nuclear Iran, the hostile Arab-Israeli relationship is giving way to a more complex picture

Barry Meislin said...

Lebanon continues to insist that it is still occupied by Israel, even though the U.N. insists it isn't (the U.N. being, presumably, a Zionist---or Zionist-loving---organization).

Syria too never tires of claiming how the Zionist Entity is occupying its territory.

Syria, of course, has justifcation; but what has Syria been doing to try to regain her occupied territory?

Just about everything to ensure that it will not, cannot, be returned.

But then Syria would much rather have control over Lebanon, which is, by far, the larger prize....

Occupation? But no; Syria insists that Lebanon has always been part of Syria. (Palestine and Israel, too, for that matter.)

Gavin said...

Barry no offense mate but you don't understand what I've been saying. There is 'occupation' as a legal status under international law and there is 'occupation' as a word in the dictionary. When the UN and all the NGOs who bash Israel say 'occupation' they refer to the legal status, when The Palestinians say 'occupation' in relation to Israel they're using the dictionary word. The two are entirely unrelated.

You say that the rules keep changing. They don't. People just don't understand or know the rules that Israels enemies at the UN & NGOs are playing by. Learn those rules and you'll discover a very consistent pattern in the behaviour of the UN and all the NGOS who constantly bash Israel. They're predictable because they do follow rules, and when people are predictable it's a lot easier to find ways of combatting them.

I'm not particularly demoralised, I'm well used to people not grasping what I'm talking about.


Barry Meislin said...

I think we're talking right past each other on this.
Of course you're right that there is a distinction between the legal meaning and the dictionary meaning.

Or at least there ought to be.

But there isn't.

Not in the current Through-the-Looking-Glass world in which we increasingly inhabit, and in which those transnational, global, post-post modern institutions apparently seem to flourish (though that too is deception....)

In that world, where a word "means what I want it to mean," "occupation" (dictionary/emotive meaning becomes "Occupation" (legal meaning) as long as it remains a useful tool with which to bash Israel, weaken Israel, and ultimately destroy Israel.

...which goal has become the moral imperative of our time.

(Now should that be "moral" in the dictionary sense? Or in the legal sense?)

Anonymous said...


I bet a donation to Michael Totten's pot that if Israel would call "them" out on their "persistency", their rules would change faster than you can say howdy. "They" are into a game of gotcha combined with all kinds of mirrors and as long as Israel is not in a position to say to hell with all of you, which as yet no state has ever pulled off, the Kouchnerian preachers of supermorality will continue to be justified in dreaming that they might become world rulers.

Have you noticed the recent Gaza-news? - now that the food shortage has been thoroughly debunked they come up with violation of dignity i.e. now Gazans have acquired the same status of high sensibility rich ladies on Siegmund's couch were accorded.

Victor btw has a nice quote from Abba Eban about maneuvering at the UN. Of course I am not saying that maneuvering is always the best tactic, calling them out on their game may also be, but when to apply what and possibly in which combination to best effect must be left to the hopefully as highly tuned to the task guts of the Abba Ebans of this world and I think it is about time to stop this all out in the open and thus give them more leeway for meddling.