Prof,
do you know why the US cannot admit that Israel committed war crimes?

Because the instant that happens our Arms Export Control Act will kick in and we will have to zero out military help to Israel.

This is all political, and Palestinian civilians are paying the price -- as well as those killed in 9/11.

We (USA) will continue to live in the fantasy land where Israel has not committed war crimes, and will continue to send them cluster bombs to use on civilians.

I think it is in bad taste that the spin you give to this story is that it could have been used politically. How about demonstrating some outrage at your tax dollars being used to kill children and women?

I only read that Rice expressed "our very serious concern with the mandate that was given." She said that the UN Human Rights Council, but not the UNSC, should consider the report. The more telling quotes in this article appear later:

"I am shocked and distressed that the United States would not unilaterally dismiss it," Abraham Foxman said, reacting to the response to the Goldstone report by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "There was a one-sided unacceptable mandate for this fact-finding investigation and that mandate was set forth before we joined the Human Rights Council," Crowley said. "Now we have a report. We’re going to take a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the substance of the report at this point. But in terms of its recommendations, we will consult with various countries and determine how to take action going forward."

You'll have to provide stronger statements from the US to label our reaction as denouncing.

Considering the UNGA is around the corner, I think the statement was fine. What matters is what we tell Israel in private, not in public over such a hot potato.

Maybe that explains why much of the commentary just accuses Goldstone and his team of "bias" and attacks them personally but doesn't refute the allegations in detail.

Not only did you not read the report, but you haven't read the substantive analysis of the report. Sorry to disappoint you Professor Walt.

Just a taste of why this report is sham.

1. The Report is cut and paste from anti-Israel or far left NGOs written before the investigation occurred

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/goldstone_report_pages_of_ngo_cut_and_paste_
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/digest_info.php?id=2636

2. A senior member of the terrorist organization the Popular Front was cited as a witness 30 times without noting his back ground.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/16/richard-goldstone-report-israel-gaza

3. In paragraph 820 the report says that Israel killed 15 people in a hospital not even mentioning that 6 of those people were armed fighters shooting from the hospital.

‘Umar Abdul Hafez Mousa al-Silawi Al Qassam Brigades
Ra’ed Abdul Rahman Mohammed al-Msamha
Sa’id Salah Sa’id Battah Al Qassam Brigades
Muhannad Ibrahim ‘Ata al-Tannani Al Quds Brigades member
brahim Mousa Issa al-Silawi Al Qassam Brigades
Ahmed Hamed Hassan Abu ‘Eita Al Qassam Brigades

4. "495. 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. "

I guess you tube is better informed than Goldstone as here is a video of a secondary explosion of a weapons cache in a Mosque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=player_embedded

Ground level video of anti aircraft weapons in Mosque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zd55Zhj5gQ&feature=player_embedded

5. Paragraph 493 "The Mission found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress"

Again you tube posters know more than Goldstone.
Hamas member dressed as civilian plants bomb, goes into civilian house, then comes out with white flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJgfZ9_6miE

More problems with the report
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-la.1.mn_commentary.newart3-2009sep18,0,4123099.story?track=rss

More of the outlandish legal reasoning and conclusions in the report
http://volokh.com/posts/1253283907.shtml
And on and on and on

I expect this report will be about as embarrassing as Durban Conference once all of the "evidence" is analyzed.

The same actors on the UN Human Rights Council would be using this "international lawfare" on us next. One has to weigh the effect of lending this sham of a body any sort of legitimacy at all, knowing that we are target #2 vs. the benefits of sending a message as Walt wants, which I imagine would be merely symbolic and not have any significant material effect.

I suspect most of the people who are now excoriating the report and denouncing Goldstone haven't actually read the 500-plus page report either. Maybe that explains why much of the commentary just accuses Goldstone and his team of "bias" and attacks them personally but doesn't refute the allegations in detail.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Can the hypocricy be any clearer?

"I suspect more of the people who are now excoriating the criticisms of the report and denouncing the critics haven't actually read them either. Maybe that explains why much of the commentary just accuses the critics of "bias" and attacks them personally but don't refute the criticisms in detail".

Walt, if you want to refute the critics, refute them based on the facts, not on your feelings. This hand waving dismissal is extremely weak, and obviously so. As even your fans have noted (on a different post, an indication that this is a pattern with you): Stick to "just the facts" to avoid being written off by a large group of readers.

There are plenty press and official rebutals to ridiculous allegations in the Goldstone report, but alas, professor Walt is true to form. First he admits that he never read the report, he ignores that the allegations of the report were predetermined, leaves out that the report was commissioned by nations that don't recognize Israel with the purpose of condemning it, then he accuses others of not reading the report - a lie, finally, he claims that the report gets a bad rap because no one actually read it - lie, and that allegations in the report haven't been discredited - another lie. Mr. Walt, what your colleagues have said about Osama bin Laden reading your work is 100% true, some books deserve their audience.

Analysis: Blocking the truth behind the Gaza war

Sep. 21, 2009
JONATHAN D. HALEVI, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs , THE JERUSALEM POST
On September 15, 2009, the UN investigating commission known as the Goldstone Commission published its conclusions regarding Israel's Gaza operation (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009), accusing Israel of violating both international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, and committing war crimes.

In response, the Israel Foreign Ministry issued an official statement accusing the commission of bias and one-sidedness, and of ignoring the thousands of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians which, Israel claimed, made the military operation an absolute necessity. "The one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission, and the resolution that established it, gave serious reasons for concern.... At the same time the report all but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into an arena of battle," said the ministry.

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended?

The commission never asked about Palestinian war crimes

Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN Web site provide reliable evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth. Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. They never asked about:

1. Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings.

2. Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighborhoods when IDF soldiers were operating in or near the area.

3. Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by the IDF despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area.

4. Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF units.

5. Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs.

6. Planting various types of anti-personnel and improvised anti-vehicular bombs near houses and detonating them;

7. Sniping and firing heavy machine guns at Israeli soldiers within residential areas.

None of the statements taken by the commission (as posted on the UN Web site) reported even a single instance of the presence of armed Palestinians, or of Palestinians firing rockets at Israel or shooting at IDF soldiers operating in the Gaza Strip.

There was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, which occur with the most disciplined armies. We can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire. In fact, the statements reported that throughout the entire three weeks of fighting there was no significant Palestinian resistance.

The commission did not press the witnesses in order to elicit more information and did not confront them with the reports issued by the terrorist organizations themselves, which detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. It did not adequately examine Palestinian rules of engagement - or the lack of any such rules. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity, casting doubt on their reliability.

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, and posted the questions and answers on the commission's website. The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission:

Statements from the Silawi family

Three members of the Silawi family were interviewed by the commission: Moussa al-Silawi (91, blind), Sabah al-Silawi (Moussa's wife) and Mouteeh al-Silawi, a Hamas official.

The most detailed statement was that of Mouteeh al-Silawi, deputy director of the Hamas administration's Muslim Religious Endowments Ministry for the northern Gaza Strip, who said he was giving a sermon when the mosque was attacked on January 3.

He claimed that there was no military activity in the Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque or around it during the attack. Worshipers came to the mosque seeking a safe haven on the assumption that it was a secure place. The evening and night prayers were said one after another to prevent unnecessary movement of worshipers outside the mosque. Israel committed a war crime in violation of international law by attacking civilians in a mosque, the witness said.

The commission members did not ask about armed men in the mosque, whether it was used for military purposes or incited worshipers to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel. They did not ask if there were weapons in the mosque, if armed men were operating near the mosque, whether Hamas and its Izzadin Kassam Brigades controlled the mosque and used it to recruit operatives, or the identity of the casualties and their organizational affiliation (including members of the Silawi family).

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that the casualties in this incident were terrorists and included members of the Silawi family, who were represented to the commission as innocent civilians. Among them: Ibrahim Moussa Issa al-Silawi; Omar Abd al-Hafez Moussa al-Silawi; Sayid Salah Sayid Batah; Ahmed Hamad Hassan Abu Ita; Muhamad Ibrahim al-Tanani; Rajah Nahad Rajah Ziyyada and Ahmed Assad Diyab Tabil.

Statement of Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar

Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar represented himself to the commission as the director-general of Hamas's Ministry of Muslim Religious Endowments. He said he had been detained in Israel in 1992 for belonging to Hamas.

He told the commission that his house was "unjustly" blown up by the IDF. He said he had received a telephone call warning him to evacuate the house from someone who identified himself as an IDF representative and that 20 minutes later his house was struck from the air.

Askar said a short time later the area around the Fakhura school was also bombed. The school served as a shelter for many Palestinians from Beit Lahiya, al-Salatin and al-Atatra, who regarded it as a safe haven because it was located in the middle of the refugee camp and it was flying the UNRWA flag. He said he saw three bombs hit the school region and he heard more. Two hit the house of the Diyab family, killing 11 people. Dozens of people were killed near the school and most of the casualties were children, Abu Askar said. There were no armed men in the area, as opposed to Israeli claims, he said. Two of his children, Khaled and Imad, were killed, as was his bother Raafat, all of them, according to Askar, innocent civilians.

Although Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar admitted being a Hamas operative and having been detained by Israel, the commission did not think to ask whether he was connected with Izzadin Kassam. They did not ask him whether those killed near the school belonged to any organization or were military-terrorist operatives.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that contrary to his claims, he and his sons were directly and closely linked to Izzadin Kassam, a connection that included providing terrorists with weapons and ammunition, and that there were a number of terrorists in the Fakhura school area, including Mohammad Fuoad Abu Askar himself and Khaled Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar, Mohammad's son. Another son, Ahmed, was killed on July 7, 2006, when he tried to launch an anti-tank missile at an IDF unit, and yet another son Osama was critically wounded fighting the IDF on October 13, 2004.

Others terrorist operatives killed in the same Fakhura school incident included: Bilal Hamzah Obeid, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Raafat Abu Askar, a military-terrorist operative in the security services with the rank of warrant officer; Osama Jemal Obeid, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Iyad Jaber Aman, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Abd Muhammad Abd Qudas, a Fatah operative active in Palestinian Military Intelligence; and Atia Hassan al-Madhoun and his son, Ziyad al-Madhoun, operatives in the Brigades of National Resistance, the military-terrorist wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Statements of Wail and Salah al-Samouni

Wail and Salah al-Samouni described the shelling of Wail's house, where the extended Samouni family had sought shelter and where more than 20 people were killed.

They told the commission: At about 5:30 a.m. on January 5, Wail left the house with other men to bring wood for a fire. As soon as they left the house a helicopter filed a missile at them and then a number of missiles at the house. After the house was hit the wounded proceeded toward Salah a-Din Street and were refused medical attention by IDF soldiers. Salah claimed that the soldiers fired shots over their heads to frighten them and make them leave more quickly. They said there was no activity of armed Palestinians around the house. Salah al-Samouni said that "everyone is a farmer, I swear to Allah that everyone is a farmer," and rejected the possibility that they were armed or wanted.

The commission did not ask about the identity of the dead Palestinians and about the possibility that some of them were terrorists. It did not challenge their claim that there were no armed Palestinians in the area, despite reports by both Palestinian terrorist organizations and the IDF about exchanges of fire in the area.

In addition, the commission did not press the witness about his claim that the soldiers did not provide medical attention, in contradiction of a statement given by a female member of the family who told the NGO B'Tselem that the soldiers had given them medical aid.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that Wail and Salah al-Samouni hid important details from the commission that could shed light on the event. An examination of their statements and the statements of other members of the Samouni family to human rights organizations and published in Palestinian newspapers raises questions as to the veracity of their version of what actually happened on January 5.

Members of the family repeatedly claimed that all the people in the house were ordinary civilians. However, at least three were affiliated with Islamic Jihad. Meisa al-Samouni did not tell B'Tselem that her husband, Tawfiq Rashad Hilmi al-Samouni, who was killed on January 5, was an Islamic Jihad terrorist. She and the other members of the extended family, including Wail and Salah (who gave statements to the Goldstone Commission), never mentioned or hinted that other family members in the house at the time were Islamic Jihad operatives, among them Muhammad Ibrahim Hilmi al-Samouni and Walid Rahad Hilmi al-Samouni. A Islamic Jihad flyer noted that Muhammad and Walid al-Samouni were active in fighting against the IDF in the Zeitun neighborhood.

An Islamic Jihad poster commemorating Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni is captioned: "He [Muhammad], along with the mujaheed Walid Rashad al-Samouni, blew up the tank, causing the deaths of a number of Zionists, as admitted by the enemy, on the first night of the ground invasion during the war south of the Zeitun neighborhood."

Statement of Khaled Muhammad Abd Rabbo

Khaled Abd Rabbo reported on the deaths of two of his children on January 7, 2009. Khaled lives in Jabalya, in a four-story house. He and his family did not leave it even when the ground fighting began, he said. He claimed he saw no activity of armed Palestinians in the area.

He said that on January 7 an IDF unit entered the area around his house and positioned tanks nearby. The soldiers used a megaphone to call the residents out of the house. They came out holding a white flag, and one of the soldiers got out of a tank and shot at his children for no reason. He said two of his daughters were killed, another was seriously wounded, and his wife was also wounded.

No questions were asked by the members of the commission, not about the events, or whether there was fighting in the area, or whether there were armed Palestinians.

Contrary to the claims made by Khaled Abd Rabbo, Palestinian sources reported on armed Palestinian activity in the area near the incident and on exchanges of fire between Palestinians and the IDF.

At the time Khaled claimed his daughters were shot by IDF soldiers, four other Palestinians were killed nearby: Ibrahim Abd al-Rahim Suleiman, 19, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Shadi Issam Hamad, 33, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine operative; Muhammad Ali al-Sultan, 55, an Izzadin Kassam operative; and Ahmad Adib Faraj Juneid, 26, another Izzadin Kassam operative.

An Izzadin Kassam report reveals information about the exchange of fire between the IDF and armed Palestinians in the area where Khaled Abu Rabbo's daughters were killed, and its closeness in time to the events he reported. His version and the Izzadin Kassam Web site provided similar descriptions of the advance of IDF armored vehicles into the area at the same time.

However, Abu Rabbo did not tell the UN commission about the exchanges of fire between IDF and Izzadin Kassam. The possibility cannot be ruled out that his children were caught in the crossfire and may have been killed by Palestinians.

AS WE can see from a detailed analysis of freely accessible Palestinian sources (in Arabic), competing explanations exist that counter the claims of the Palestinians who testified before the Goldstone Commission. At the same time, questioning by the members of the commission proved to be superficial and was ill-suited to elicit the truth about events in Gaza.

Dr Goldstone may benefit from a crash course in Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue

I suspect most of the people who are now excoriating the report and denouncing Goldstone haven't actually read the 500-plus page report either. Maybe that explains why much of the commentary just accuses Goldstone and his team of "bias" and attacks them personally but doesn't refute the allegations in detail.

I mostly just don't care at this point. Most of the whole neighborhood in the Middle East is such a black hole for human rights that pointing out that either Israel or Hamas abused them in an active conflict is like pointing out that the sky is blue.

Shouldn't it be obvious that Israel's game plan from day one was to refuse to cooperate in any way with the investigation so that they could later accuse the commission of bias when an Israeli perspective wasn't contained in the findings? A few lines from the executive summary:

8. The Mission repeatedly sought to obtain the cooperation of the Government of Israel. After
numerous attempts had failed, the Mission sought and obtained the assistance of the Government
of Egypt to enable it to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing.

20. By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from
meeting Israeli government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to meet with Israeli
victims and to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian
victims.

26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant
information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted
comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the
Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies
from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.

Call the report anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-whatever you'd like. Just don't make the ridiculous assertion that the Israeli perspective is underrepresented and claim it as proof of bias in the report.

Of course they did not cooperate with a mission from the UNHRC, the most biased part of the UN whose raison d'etre is condemning Israel and ignoring everyone else. Not to mention that the purpose of the investigation was to catalogue Israeli war crimes. In other words, they already made their conclusion about war crimes before the investigation began.

delete post

No moral clarity in your remarks. Just blackmail.