The egregiously pro-jihad, anti-Israel, and propagandistic Goldstone Report was funded by the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- the same group to which Barack Obama is sending a special envoy.
"Big answers to big lies: Israel refutes UN's despicable Goldstone Report," from the New York Daily News, February 14 (thanks to Larry):
The defamation of the Middle East's lone democracy, victim of relentless terror, by the United Nations Human Rights Council has come into ever sharper focus with Israel's response to the panel's Goldstone Report.The document is purported to be an account of alleged war crimes committed during Israel's January 2009 offensive in Gaza, as well as an assessment of atrocities by Hamas, the terror group that provoked the war by shelling Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars for more than a year.
In actuality, investigator Richard Goldstone served up what the council craved: a wholesale denunciation of Israel that, if left to stand, would outlaw its ability to fight terrorist attacks.
Goldstone's report included this venomous assertion: "The operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas."
Israel has now answered with a sober 46-page missive to the UN secretary general. Most news reports focused on the fact that Israel announced disciplinary action against two senior military officers. But far more significant was a thorough rebuttal of Goldstone's irresponsible narrative.
To appreciate how profoundly Goldstone distorted the record, consider Israel's findings in three of the most inflammatory cases he cited - a water facility supposedly bombed intentionally, a flour mill supposedly targeted for destruction and a home supposedly demolished as part of a deliberate attack on civilians.
Regarding destruction at the "Namar wells," the Israel Defense Forces understood the site to be a military compound, not a water facility. Additionally, standing orders forbade inflicting damage on water installations. "To the contrary, the IDF made significant efforts to ensure that the population of Gaza had a sufficient and continuous water supply," Israel reported.
Or consider what happened at the El-Bader flour mill. Goldstone alleged Israel targeted the site purposely to deprive Gaza's people of food.
Never mind, as Israel points out, that "Hamas had fortified this area with tunnels and booby-trapped houses, and deployed its forces to attack IDF troops operating there."
Never mind that "IDF issued early warnings to the residents of the area, including recorded telephone calls, urging them to evacuate. Such telephone calls were made to the flour mill as well."
Never mind that "IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas positions in the vicinity of the flour mill."...
If Goldstone had any honor, he would retract his libel....
I am not holding my breath.
Why are there more Muslims living in Israel than any other non-Islamic country (as a percentage) if Israel is so bad?
Why don't Muslims leave Israel and go to Islamic countries if Israel is so bad?
Israel - What the Left Doesn't Know or Doesn't Want Us to Know
What I can never understand is why the UN doesn't care about
- copts
- upland Burmese tribes like the Karen
- Sudanese
- child brides
- systemic abuse of women in middle east and north africa
- the terrible treatment of Palestinians by Kuwait, Saudi, etc
- and so on.
I can't believe that the only big problem in the middle east and north africa is Israel....
Well, what happened was, in the Year 4 A.D. a Muslim had a good idea, and then there was a 2000 year vacume before another idea came along, however it was a very bad one and manifested in hate.
Unfortunately there was no third idea, ie: the study of geography.
So we now enjoy the quid pro quo, aided and abbeted by the liberal media.
May i take this opportunity to give a special thanks to the BBC for their unswerving dedication to underminding anything positive about Israel.
The Muslims that may have been kidnapped from the promiced land are probably working in London, overpaid, under worked, and yes you've guessed it : for the BBC !
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/jay-smith-on-speakers-corner-hyde-park-debating-with-muslims/
Jay Smith on Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park, debating with muslims
Goldstone is a dastardly neoliberal-neocon Jew who did evil unto Serbia, and now does evil unto Israel.
Glory to Zionism!
Down with the NNs!
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
CAIR - LA ... Trying to stop charges against students who protested the speech at Irvine.....
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-nlg-ask-calif-university-da-to-drop-charges-against-irvine-11-84310337.html
Just watched the debates with Jay Smith.Amazing!The debate
with Shabbir Ali was very interesting.He was intellectually honest,which is a rarity among Muslims and never found excuses or got defensive on violence in Islam.
This report sets a precedence for deeming any defensive actions against Muslims as "war crimes".
"Amanpour interviews Goldstone: Mediocrity abounds
Christiane Amanpour interviews Richard Goldstone about his Report. He systematically misrepresents both the report and what his Mission did; she, having done desultory homework, misses most of his misinformation.
Given the importance of this report and how badly done it was, she (and other interviewers) have let us down."
http://seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=809:dwmgoldstone19jan10&catid=60:dialogues-with-the-media&Itemid=160
Thats because the UN is in the pockets of Islamists and the rest of the tinpot tyrannical regimes, which between them make up the majority. International law only applies to the West and moreso to Israel, whilst the rest use it as a tool, both to undermine the West and to cover their own backs. Why else would tyrannies like Syria find themselves on human rights councils? The UN has long outlived any usefulness it might once have had, because it no longer stands for the good intentions it was created for.
Obama did not initiate the US envoy to the OIC. He is simply replacing the rep that was appointed by Bush. Right?
An article by Alan Dershowitz on the Goldstone Reports other willing collaborators, and especially on Desmond Travers, an obvious, and clearly demented, antisemite:
When Irish Colonel Desmond Travers eagerly accepted an appointment to the Goldstone Commission, he was hell-bent on revenge against Israel based on paranoid fantasies and hard left anti-Israel propaganda. He actually believed, as he put it in a recent interview, that "so many Irish soldiers had been killed by Israelis," with "a significant number who were taken out deliberately and shot (in southern Lebanon.)" This is of course complete and utter fantasy, but it was obviously part of Col. Travers' bigoted reality.
Travers came to the job having already made up his mind not to believe anything Israel said and to accept everything Hamas put forward. For example, Israel produced hard photographic evidence that Gaza mosques were used to store rockets and other weapons. Other photographs, taken by journalists, also proved what everybody now acknowledges to be true: namely that Hamas, as its leaders frequently boasted, routinely use mosques as military munitions depots. When confronted with this evidence, Travers said, "I don't believe the photographs." Of course not; they don't comport with his politically correct and ideologically skewed world-view. This is what he had previously said about why he didn't believe that Hamas used the mosques to store weapons:
We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. ...If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a [sic] many better places to store munitions."
But that is exactly what Hamas did, despite Travers' insistence on paraphrasing Groucho Marx's famous quip, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"
Most disturbing, however, was Travers' categorical rejection of Israel's claim that it attacked Gaza only after enduring thousands of anti-personnel rockets intended to target Israeli civilians, mainly schoolchildren. In fact, Hamas rockets hit several schools, though fortunately the teachers had dismissed the students just before the rockets would have killed dozens, perhaps hundreds, of them.
This is what Travers said about Hamas rockets:
...the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. The Hamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel and not only that but Hamas sought a continuation of the cease-fire. Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups, [i.e. groups that were violating a Hamas order not to fire rockets]." (emphasis added).
Again, Travers' rendition defies the historical record and tells us more about Travers than it does about what actually provoked Israel into finally taking action to protect some million civilians in range of Hamas' rockets. In fact Israel complied with the cease-fire, under the terms of which Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the process of firing rockets at its civilians.
Just before the hostilities began, Israel offered Hamas both a carrot and a stick: it reopened a checkpoint to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It had closed the point of entry after the checkpoint was targeted by Gazan rockets. Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, also issued a stern, final warning to Hamas that unless it stopped the rockets, there would be a full-scale military response.
This is the way Reuters reported it:
Israel reopened border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, a day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned militants there to stop firing rockets or they would pay a heavy price. Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shafts from Gaza at Israel on Friday. One accidentally struck a house in Gaza, killing two Palestinian sisters, ages 5 and 13." (emphasis added)
Despite the opening of the crossings, the Hamas rockets continued - not none, not "something like two," but many - and Israel kept its word, implementing a targeted air attack against Hamas facilities and combatants.
Not surprisingly, Travers said that he "rejected ... entirely" Israel's claim that its "attack on Gaza was based on self-defense." Instead, he compared Israel's attack on Hamas to the unprovoked Nazi bombing of "Guirnica."
Travers has repeatedly claimed that "no substantive critique of the [Goldstone] report has been received." This is an out-and-out lie. I have read dozens of substantive critiques, and have written a 49-page one myself. The truth is that Travers has studiously ignored and refused to respond to these critiques. And of course he blames everything on "Jewish lobbyists."
Nor was Travers the only member of the commission with predetermined views and an anti-Israel agenda. Christine Chinken had already declared Israel guilty of war crimes before seeing any evidence. Hina Jilani had also condemned Israel before her appointment to the group, and then said that it would be "very cruel to not give credence to [the] voices" of the victims, apparently without regard to whether they were telling the truth. And then there is Richard Goldstone, who told friends that he too took the job with an agenda, which he says was to help Israel! Why any reasonable person would pay any attention to a report written by four people who had prejudged the evidence and came to their jobs with agendas and biases is beyond comprehension.
Ok Robert, here it is, please notify me asap if there is any copyright issue and I'll remove it from my site straight away : THE FIRST ARTICLE OF BLOGGING THE QUR'AN TRANSLATED IN FRENCH.
If you get someone to check it out and if you're happy with it,I can publish one every week, I believe it's an amazing material and many people will be blessed by it. Below the first lines of the article and a link to the full article. God bless you Robert and all of you guys who are fighting the good fight.
Ok Robert, voilà, c'est fait, et je t'en prie informe moi au plus tôt s'il y a quelque problème que ce soit en ce qui concerne les droits d'auteur : LE PREMIER ARTICLE DE BLOGUER LE CORAN TRADUIT ENTIEREMENT EN FRANCAIS.
si tu demandes à quequ'un de le vérifier et si tu es satisfait du résultat, je peux en publier un par semaine, je suis convaincu que c'est un outil extraordinaire et que beaucoup seront bénis. Ci-dessous un lien vers l'article complet ainsi que les premières lignes de l'article. Que Dieu vous bénisse Robert ainsi que vous tous qui combattez le bon combat!
"
“Bloguer le Coran”, par Robert Spencer : Introduction
Pour comprendre quelles sont les motivations des terroristes du Djihad islamique, il serait bon de commencer par explorer ce qu’eux-mêmes disent au sujet de ce qu’ils font et pourquoi ils le font, et ce qu’ils veulent . Cela vous amènera à vous pencher sur le Qur’an (ou Coran), le livre saint de l’Islam. Les djihadistes le citent fréquemment et se aiment à se présenter comme ceux qui suivent « le pur Islam », l’article de foi tel qu’il est enseigné dans le Qur’an et la tradition islamique. C’est pourquoi dans le cadre de mes recherches j’ai cité le Qur’an à plusieurs reprises – et rarement un jour ne se passe sans que je sois accusé de choisir intentionnellement certains passages violents plutôt que d’autres et de les citer « hors-contexte ». En attendant, le Conseil sur les Relations Americano-Islamiques (Council on American Islamic Relations) et les autres groupes musulmans nous disent que pour comprendre le vrai et pacifique Islam, il nous faut lire le Qur’an.
C’est donc pourquoi dans les mois qui vont suivre, je vais le lire avec vous, et en discuter dans une série d’articles. En entier. Pas de « choix intentionnel » ou « hors contexte ». Dans son intégralité, du début à la fin. Certain parmi vous sont peut-être familiers avec la série de David plotz sur Slate, « bloguer la Bible » (« Blogging the Bible »). Cette série y sera similaire, mais au lieu de seulement écrire ce que pense ou ce que je ressens au sujet d’un certain passage, je me référerai, contrairement à Plotz, aux commentaires – tous de sources musulmanes – sur le Qur’an.
Je tenterai d’expliquer comment le Musulman moyen qui étudie le Qur’an comprend chaque passage particulier, et ce que cela peut signifier pour les non-musulmans."
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/bloguer-le-coran-par-robert-spencer-introduction/