It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.N. officials defend report critical of Israel's Gaza assault

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

U.N. officials defend report critical of Israel's Gaza assault


www.rawstory.com

Responding to an Israeli call for retraction, the principal researchers behind the United Nations' Goldstone Report -- which was highly critical of the Israeli military's actions during the major assault on Gaza in 2008-2009 -- insisted that no details have come to light that would contradict their findings...

South African judge Richard Goldstone has faced enormous criticism since the report was published, and he recently said that he...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
It would be kind of funny if it wasn't so tragic, that when this report came out, many of us were actually placing bets on how long Richard Goldstone could hold out against the onslaught of the inevitable Israeli smear campaign (or possibly something far worse). Apparently, the other week he gave in and reversed his "personal assessment". Of course, this probably isn't because he sincerely believes he was wrong, but rather that he was given some kind of incentive to make such a change (either beneficial or harmful), though to be fair, only he and any possible participants know the motive.

However, even though Richard Goldstone cracked under Israeli pressure, the authors of the report hold steady in their findings. It will only be a matter of time before the smear campaign shifts from Goldstone, to the actual researchers and authors of the report and we can only hope that their spines remain intact. However, we can't really blame Goldstone for his apparent crack, as we have no idea what it's like to be targeted in such a way. We can all say how spineless we think he is for reversing his stance, but we really have no idea if he or his family was threatened or if we offered a substantial reward for his reversal. Can we honestly say that we would do something different, given the same circumstances?

I don't think it's much of a secret to anyone, both supporters and detractors of Israeli policies, that you can't criticize Israeli policies and expect to survive politically (and sometimes at all). The same goes for the media. If you value your career, ignore what's happening in Israel or just spin the focus on the Palestinians while ignoring Israel's part. In American politics alone, it is known as political suicide to not vote in a manner beneficial to the state of Israel. It's much to worse to go as far as criticizing something Israel has done. Same in the media world. Look at Helen Thomas for just one recent example.

The largest lobbying effort to ever grace the face of the planet comes not from the oil industry, the Catholic Church or even the banking industry but rather Israel. When you sponsor such a global lobbying effort, you can apparently do whatever you want without fear of reprisal or harmful consequence.

Lets step back and look at the situation for a second. If someone launches a relatively harmless rocket into Israel, they are labeled a terrorist. However, when an organized assortment of naval vessel and aircraft deliberately attack and unarmed and neutral American vessel for hours on end, attempting to send it to the bottom and leave no survivors (by machine gunning the lifeboats and napalming the deck), you are a victim. When you bomb civilians, you are a terrorist, so long as you are Arabic, though when Israel does the same, they are a victim.

I guess that is the benefit of having the largest lobbying effort in the world. If only Hitler would have known this dirty little secret, we would all have blonde hair, blue eyes and a German accent.

So, while Goldstone reversed his personal assessment and the media jumped all over this story, the authors of the report hold steady in their original findings, though of course the mainstream media will stay relatively silent on that little tidbit....



--airspoon


www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 15-4-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


S&F

Facts are facts and the truth is just that..
Money, power and influence have a way of altering history and truth..
I commend these people on sticking with the truth.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I found it quite telling when they attempted to label the report "antisemitic" when Goldstone himself was Jewish. I think that fact opened a lot of eyes. the facts on the ground are quite clear, Israel broke international laws, and is guilty of war crimes. It's a fact. Israel was willing to send agents after German War criminals, into various nations to kidnap them. They went to great lengths to make sure anyone guilty of war crimes (that wasn't part of operation paper clip) was rounded up and dealt with.

Yet we can't hold them to the same standards. Honest, independent, investigation is apparently racist.

Hell, I'm even willing to say some of what happened was unintentional, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. Ambulances, hospitals, water tanks, schools, those were the targets in cast lead.

and regardless of everything else, someone, anyone, needs to explain to me how the video and pictures of IDF raining white phosphorus down on a city isn't a war crime. It's a banned weapon. How is that picture antisemitic? How is this factual report "blood libel"?

I get that i'm apparently an antisemite and have come to terms with that, any views i have on the actions of the Israeli government and military are obviously tainted through my holocaust denying jew hating self. Fine, whatever.

But the pictures and videos tell the story, and I'm interested to see how the videos and photos are part of same anti-jew conspiracy.

i'm not the one re-writing history to suit my needs. I'm not the one with the "internet defense force" using "megaphone" to tain online polls and disrupt online communications on sites JUST LIKE THIS. I'm not the one actively engaged in a whitewashing of wikipedia. i'm not the one actively engaged in a whitewashing of youtube.

Heck, I don't even call the Israelis racist for their views on the Arabs.

I just don't see how anyone, with a straight face, can try to spin this in a favorable light.

civilian targets, medical targets, banned weapons,

Those facts REMAIN.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 





i'm not the one re-writing history to suit my needs. I'm not the one with the "internet defense force" using "megaphone" to tain online polls and disrupt online communications on sites JUST LIKE THIS. I'm not the one actively engaged in a whitewashing of wikipedia. i'm not the one actively engaged in a whitewashing of youtube.


I gave you a star for your post, But this bit right here is 5 star material




top topics
 
7

log in

join