I wrote back in September, re the Goldstone Report on Israel’s actions in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead:
My inclination is to dismiss out of hand any report that emerges from the U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes such human rights stalwarts as China, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I’m even more inclined to do so when it establishes a four-person panel to issue a investigate and issue a report on human rights abuses in the recent Gaza war and the panel is initially ordered to focus only on Israel and ignore Hamas (and it’s not clear the mandate was ever really changed); one of the members had already declared Israel guilty of war crimes; the chairman of the panel was on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch when it accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza; and the panel couldn’t do much actual investigating, because the Israeli government quite properly wouldn’t let its members set foot in Gaza or Israel.
Nevertheless, others are taking the report quite seriously. Perhaps this will change their mind (and if it doesn’t, I don’t think anything would):
The report [from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs] refers to recent remarks made by Desmond Travers, a retired Irish army colonel, who was one of four members of the fact-finding mission to Gaza and Israel.
Travers rejects the idea that Israel launched the offensive in Gaza on December 27, 2008, as an act of self-defense in response to Hamas rockets.
The Jerusalem center report says he bases this idea on a “fact” that he presents that in the month prior to start of the war, only “something like two” rockets that fell on Israel. [An IDF timline shows that between Dec. 19 and 27, just before Operation Cast Lead began, approximately three hundred rockets and mortars fell on Israel from Gaza.]…
Travers also rejects Israel Defense Forces photographs as proof that Hamas hid weapons in mosques during the conflict.
“I do not believe the photographs,” Travers said, describing the IDF evidence as “spurious.” [Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?]*
Travers also criticized Israel’s past presence in Southern Lebanon, asserting that Israeli soldiers had “taken out and deliberately shot” Irish peacekeeping forces in the area.
He accused “Jewish lobbyists” of [strongly] influencing British foreign policy in the Middle East and said that efforts to block the Goldstone reports findings have failed.
Here’s the full text of the interview from which these quotes are derived. All the quotes check out, but the quotes recounted above don’t begin to illustrate Travers’s hatred of Israel, unwillingness to credit anything Israel says or question any Hamas assertions, and general nuttiness. To get the full sense of it, you have to read the whole thing. For example, did you know that there is no evidence that Hamas used human shields or intimidated the civilian population? In fact, according to Travers, any such allegations are likely an artifact of “Israeli combat troops specially trained to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in civilian attire. They worked as ‘franc-tireurs’ (literally ‘free shooters’) and could have been in a position to cause confusion among the population.”
*Further: “And then when, for example, you see photographs of weapons caches found in mosques, like ones taken in the Zaytoun area where the Israeli Giv’ati Brigade went in – and demonstrated a particular enthusiasm for brutality and racist abusiveness in their operation in that area – I would say that unless they can give me absolute forensic proof, I do not believe the photographs.”
UPDATE: I think it’s worth reprinting in full Travers’ utterly weird claim about Israel murdering Irish soldiers:
But anyway, because so many Irish soldiers had been killed by Israelis, (some too by Palestinians and/or their Lebanese cohorts), with a significant number who were taken out deliberately and shot (in South Lebanon), slowly but surely, the body-bag phenomenon came into effect, and suddenly Ireland is now perceived as almost entirely pro-Palestinian.
David Schwartz says:
All of the evidence against my conspiracy theory just shows how deep the conspiracy runs!
February 10, 2010, 11:48 amHarry Schell says:
I have to rate the Goldstone report, and particularly the attitude of this Irishman, as par for the course of assembling proof and deriving conclusions by UN panels, as defined by the IPCC handbook “How to Settle “Science”.
The UN training course for these panelists was quite successful, though it helps if you start with people of the right “attitude”. Such people understand the IPCC directives quickly and are eager to demonstrate their learning.
February 10, 2010, 12:03 pmneurodoc says:
Incredible! And outrageous, though it is wonderful he choses to be so candid. How likely/unlikely is it that the NYT and/or Washington Post will report this?
February 10, 2010, 12:22 pm1040 says:
Prof. Bernstein, do you disagree with this statement? I am not reflexively pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel/anti-semitic (a term which seems to be thrown about far too casually on this blog), but to deny that Jewish lobbyists have a strong influence on British foreign policy seems to me to be denying reality.
February 10, 2010, 12:26 pmorca says:
The Jerusalem center report says he bases this idea on a “fact” that he presents that in the month prior to start of the war, only “something like two” rockets that fell on Israel.
The linked IDF report shows that indeed only two rockets fell on Israel in October of 2008.
http://idfspokesperson.com/2008/12/26/
February 10, 2010, 12:28 pmLiberty Reader says:
But Octber was not the month prior to the start of the war, Nov 28-Dec 27 was, and Hamas had in the meantime called off its almost-cease fire.
February 10, 2010, 12:34 pmorca says:
Wrong, Israel broke the truce with a raid into Gaza on November 4, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
Indeed if you look at the IDF link in my comment above, you see the IDF itself marks the beginning of hostilities as November 4, 2008.
February 10, 2010, 12:38 pmneurodoc says:
Do you think that oil, which Israel doesn’t have but its neighbors have plenty of, is a strong influence on British foreign policy, or do you think oil played no role in the “humanitarian” decision to let the Lockerbie bomber go home to Libya? Arabs and those who lobby on their behalf have no clout with Whitehall, or whatever influence they have is no reason for concern? In what ways do you think British foreign policy would be different absent what you believe to be the “strong influence” of “Jewish lobbyists”?
February 10, 2010, 12:41 pmLiberty Reader says:
But Travers wasn’t referring to November, he was clearly referring to Opearation Case Lead:
February 10, 2010, 12:47 pmLiberty Reader says:
Travers may have meant that, but he certainly doesn’t make that clear in context.
February 10, 2010, 12:52 pmorca says:
Oh, come on. Travers said only 2 rockets fell on Israel “in the month prior to start of the war.”
The IDF confirms that in October of 2008, only two rockets fell on Israel.
Israel launched its first raid of the hostilities on November 4, 2008.
IDF statisticians mark the start of hostilities as November 4, 2008.
Travers spoke the truth.
Splitting hairs is no way to defend against charges of war crimes.
February 10, 2010, 1:03 pmLiberty Reader says:
Where exactly does it say that the IDF marks the “start of hostilities” as 11/4/08? What I’m seeing is that the tally of rockets launched against Israel goes back to 2/08?
February 10, 2010, 1:08 pmAvatar says:
So Israel “broke the truce” on Nov. 4 with a raid, and there had been two rocket launches in the previous month.
Please, for the sake of information, tell me this: precisely how many rocket launches per month were permitted under the terms of the truce?
February 10, 2010, 1:10 pmLiberty Reader says:
And it goes without saying that Israel didn’t “justify its attack” based on the 2 missiles that fell in October, but on the hundreds that fell before and after, and on the fact that doing nothing allowed Hamas the initiative to decide when and where to attack or not.
February 10, 2010, 1:11 pmEric Rasmusen says:
“But anyway, because so many Irish soldiers had been killed by Israelis, (some too by Palestinians and/or their Lebanese cohorts), with a significant number who were taken out deliberately and shot (in South Lebanon), slowly but surely, the body-bag phenomenon came into effect, and suddenly Ireland is now perceived as almost entirely pro-Palestinian.”
I’m amazed. I thought this was going to be some kind of an ambush interview. But actually it is clearly supposed to be a *sympathetic* interview of the wise and fair colonel.
February 10, 2010, 1:12 pmChris says:
Orca is ignoring the point, brilliantly demonstrated by DB, that anyone who disagrees with Israel or the Israeli army, is a “nutter”.
February 10, 2010, 1:15 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, anyone who thinks that Israel deliberately shot Irish peacekeeping soldiers in South Lebanon, among the many other bizarre claims in this interview, is a nutter.
February 10, 2010, 1:19 pmthirdeblue says:
So an Israeli raid in early November led to Hamas breaking the ceasefire, which led to increased mortar attacks, which led to Operation Cast Lead, which in turn led to…..
You feel like giving a backhanded slap to both sides and telling them both to grow up. It would be comical, except its so sad, the way both sides cut off their noses to spite their faces.
February 10, 2010, 1:19 pmorca says:
Where they break their November 2008 into two parts:
November(until 3.11)
-
-
November (since 4.11)
130
90
7
Yeah, but in this case the IDF agrees with Colonel Travers.
February 10, 2010, 1:21 pmthirdeblue says:
This betrays my ignorance, but what were Irish soldiers doing there?
February 10, 2010, 1:22 pmLiberty Reader says:
The Goldstone report itself, to which the interview pertains, specifically dates the start of relevant “Israeli Military Operations in Gaza” to December 27, 2009. Game, set, and match.
February 10, 2010, 1:29 pmorca says:
Only in your mind. Nobody else is buying the lame attack on Colonel Travers, who comes off as very calm and professional and, more importantly, convincing.
UNIFIL’s mission is “to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, to restore international peace and security, and to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.”
February 10, 2010, 1:34 pmthirdeblue says:
Liberty Reader,
I’m not trying to be an ass here, but by your logic, hostilities only started when Israel gave it a name. You have to admit that something happened between October and November of 08 to cause the number of mortar attacks to increase dramatically. This increase is what led to Operation Cast Lead… To say these two events are not intertwined is dishonest.
February 10, 2010, 1:34 pmLiberty Reader says:
You’re convinced that Hamas doens’t use human shields or intimidate the residents of Gaza? That Israel took out and deliberately shot Irish soldiers? That the “Jewish lobby,” but no one else, (say, the large Muslim population in England, the BBC’s rampant hostility to Israel, oil money, and so on), should be singled out for influencing Britain’s Middle East Policy? Is that because you have no regard for the facts, or something else?
February 10, 2010, 1:44 pmChristopher Cooke says:
To DB: I am not sure Travers is a nutter. He is referring to attacks on UNIFL peacekeeping forces in Southern Lebanon in 1980. See this military website:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?88240-A-history-of-Irish-peacekeeping-in-Lebanon
Perhaps he is biased by the experience of commanding men who were kidnapped or shot by allies of the IDF in Southern Lebanon, but that does not make him a nutter.
February 10, 2010, 1:50 pmLiberty Reader says:
I’m not talking about when hostilities started, that would be when Hamas started blowing up buses almost two decades ago. I’m talking about what Travers was referring to. He’s being interviewed about the Goldstone Report, which discusses hostilities starting in Dec. 2007. He’s asked, in that context, about Israel’s attack on Gaza, and its claim of self-defense. The “attack on Gaza,” by the Goldstone report, and in popular discourse, started on Dec. 27, 2007. He responds that only two rockets hit Israel the month “preceding Israel’s operations.” Once again, in context this refers to Operation Cast Lead. He is obviously confused about the timeline, but his apologists decide that it’s not he who is confused, but the rest of us. If either he or his interview had referenced the events of early November, then I’d your objections.
February 10, 2010, 1:52 pmorca says:
I think Colonel Travers saiys it best at the end of the interview the OP linked to:
February 10, 2010, 1:54 pmWhat I found was that the quality of the criticisms was appalling. Nevertheless, they self-perpetuated. If it was from an academic or a political or a senior military figure it would tend to regurgitate every now and then in a different shape or form or in a different blog or email or website or newspaper. So the obvious PR strategy by those who would defend Israel at all costs was to keep slinging mud in the hope that sooner or later the sheer volume of it would stick or wear people down.
David Bernstein says:
C.C., if he’s referring to that incident, he’s seriously confused. First, where are the “so many” Irish soldiers, “killed by Israelis,” indeed, “taken out and deliberately shot” by Israelis? Also, the timeline is wrong, because he claims that Ireland was pro-Israel through the early 90s, but only after Israel murdered all these Irish soldiers did this change.
February 10, 2010, 1:56 pmLiberty Reader says:
Well, Orca, you still haven’t told us which of Travers’ claims I referenced above you find convincing. Don’t change the subject, do tell.
February 10, 2010, 1:57 pmthirdeblue says:
Regardless of the validity or baselessness of the claims put forth by Travers, I’ve spent the last half an hour reading up on the history of UNIFIL. Interesting stuff. It must be some sort of bizarre Tower of Babel where there are nearly 15,000 troops from almost 30 different countries.
February 10, 2010, 2:02 pmorca says:
I believe 47 Irish soldiers have died while trying to keep the peace between Lebanon and Israel.
February 10, 2010, 2:08 pmDavid Bernstein says:
But Hezbollah did kidnap three Irish soldiers.
February 10, 2010, 2:10 pmLiberty Reader says:
I believe 47 Irish soldiers have died while trying to keep the peace between Lebanon and Israel.Could be, but that’s not the same as Israel taking out and shooting Irish soldiers.
February 10, 2010, 2:15 pmChristopher Cooke says:
DB: the one I linked to was not the only incident. E.g., here is another one, in 1999, involving IDF shelling of UNIFIL that resulted in the death of an Irish soldier. See story
My point is that with such past incidents, I don’t see how you call him a nutter (it is unclear which ones he is referring to).
I agree he is biased, given his comments.
February 10, 2010, 2:35 pmDavid Bernstein says:
CC, I’m still not seeing anything about Irish soldiers being “taken out and shot” by Israelis.
February 10, 2010, 2:39 pmDavid McCourt says:
DB, I think the Goldstone Report is biased nonsense, and I think I am as pro-Israel as one can be. Israel’s actions in legitimate self-defense are unfairly judged by a different standard than that applied to their attackers.
That being said, I do believe that positions occupied by UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon were sometimes targeted by Israeli Defense Forces. Part of this is understandable; Hezbollah often operated in the same areas, and the UN forces would often get caught in the middle — they really should not have been there at all. But I also believe that on occasion Israel either deliberately targeted UN forces, or targeted areas in conscious disregard for the presence of the UN forces. No, not “taking soldiers out and shooting them.” But a brush-back pitch thrown by an artillery battery can be pretty messy.
Of course, Hezbollah did worse: mining roads that peacekeepers travelled on, and kidnapping and killing peacekeepers. But some significant portion of the 300 or so peacekeeper fatalities are not attributable to Hezbollah, but to the IDF. Perhaps perfectly justifiably so. If the peacekeepeers were acting as unwilling or unwitting human shields for Hezbollah, who is to blame for their deaths, Israel, or the UN and the governments who sent them there?
But despite all the political wackiness this Irish ex-colonel is spouting, his hostility to the IDF probably came naturally, by seeing his soldiers killed or wounded in southern Lebanon. This is another reason, apart from the obvious ones of political viewpoint, temperament, etc., why Col. Travers should never have been selected for this job — if the UN had intended it to be anything but a hatchet job, that is. As it is, the UN not only doesn’t mind it being a hatchet job, they don’t mind it openly appearing to be a hatchet job.
February 10, 2010, 2:42 pmorca says:
The OP quotes the propagandists who put together this lame smear attempt on the colonel as saying he said Israeli soldiers had “taken out and deliberately shot” Irish soldiers.
The cololnel actually said they were “taken out deliberately and shot.”
Not really the same thing. I mean, if you put something in quotes, you’re expected to get the quote right. Unless you don’t think anyone’s going to read your propaganda closely.
Plus, I think we all remember when the Israelis killed those U.N. observers during their glorious victory in Lebanon a few years back. Israel is still apologizing to China for accidentally shelling their soldier’s brightly marked U.N. post for 6 hours before firing a missile into it…
February 10, 2010, 2:46 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Orca, your interpretation would render his sentence redundant. Or is he saying that Israel deliberately “took out” (killed) Irish soldiers, and then shot at the bodies for fun?
February 10, 2010, 2:51 pmYankev says:
Well, one out of three ain’t bad. Pathetic, maybe, but not bad.
February 10, 2010, 2:53 pmYankev says:
How many of them do you beleive were taken out and executed by the IDF?
February 10, 2010, 2:56 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Travers, specifically quoted approvingly by Orca: “So the obvious PR strategy by those who would defend Israel at all costs was to keep slinging mud in the hope that sooner or later the sheer volume of it would stick or wear people down.”
So, Travers reads minds, and the defenders of Israel “sling mud,” which I take to mean base, unnecessary accusations without regard to accuracy. And you’re fine with this, Orca? This sums things up nicely for you?
February 10, 2010, 2:59 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
“taken out deliberately and shot.”
“taken out and deliberately shot.”
Okay, I’ll bite. Explain the difference to me.
February 10, 2010, 3:02 pmorca says:
I do indeed interpret “take out” to mean shot, but only the colonel knows what he meant. More important is the fact that your source changed what the colonel said. Why they did that is again unknown but is does bring into question their…accuracy.
February 10, 2010, 3:03 pmDr. Weevil says:
So, do Israeli troops fire at UN troops in Lebanon just for the Hell of it? Or are Hezbollah ‘troops’ hiding behind UN troops and firing at Israeli troops from positions right next to the UN camps in Lebanon? It appears to be the latter, which is much worse than just “operat[ing] in the same areas” (David McCourt). Here’s a blog post from June 2006, with (a) quotations of UNIFIL reports saying exactly that, and (b) a picture of a Hezbollah flag flying right next to a UN flag. It appears to be Hezbollah policy to try to get UNIFIL troops killed in crossfires so they can blame Israel. If so, the policy is working. Of course, sometimes they kill UNIFIL troops themselves. No doubt that helps discourage the UN troops from forcing Hezbollah to stay further away when firing at Israel.
February 10, 2010, 3:05 pmorca says:
The first way, the colonel’s actual quote, could be interpreted as “killed and wounded.”
The second (false) quote makes it sound like the colonel is accusing the Israelis of herding unarmed men somewhere to slaughter them.
February 10, 2010, 3:14 pmChristopher Cooke says:
DB, I do not presume to be a military historian, much less an expert on the history of casualties of the Irish troops serving in UNIFIL in a very violent part of the world. Colonel Travers, unlike you or I, was part of UNIFIL, and served in Southern Lebanon, in 1987-1989, where he was kidnapped by both sides (according to the article you link). I have shown you some links that I found, by 2 minutes of searching, of IDF or DFF attacks on Irish troops, in which UNIFIL Irish troops were killed by IDF or DFF attacks during the 20 years or so they were there.
I would venture a guess that there were other such incidents, and that is what Travers is referring to. You can say he is biased, but to say he is a “nutter” when Irish troops were killed by the IDF or its allies I think stretches things too far, unless these reports that I have found are wrong or made up.
The context of his remarks is that people assume that Irish are pro-Palestinian because Israel killed some Irish peacekeepers, but so did the other sides in the conflict.
But, I agree with David McCourt, I would have selected someone else for this job because Traver’s experience probably made him unfairly biased against the IDF.
February 10, 2010, 3:17 pmDavid McCourt says:
Dr. Weevil, I do believe what Hezbollah did was worse, and I said so, and also said that Hezbollah tried to use the UNIFIL forces as “human shields.” On the other hand, there also are reports of instances where the IDF would shell UNIFIL positions when Hezbollah was not nearby. S*** happens.
DB, the Irish colonel may be talking about this incident, in April, 1980, when two Irish soldiers were captured, taken out and shot by militia members of the SLA, which was allied with and supported by Israel.
February 10, 2010, 3:20 pmhttp://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/03/18/story21966.asp
Dr. Weevil says:
Hezbollah didn’t just try to use UNIFIL forces as human shields, they succeeded. Look at the picture in the link I provided: what excuse can there possibly be for a UN military base allowing a Hezbollah flag to fly not more than ten feet outside their wire? The fact is that UNIFIL forces have allowed Hezbollah to hide behind them and fire weapons at Israel from right next to their camps. They are entirely toothless when it comes to Hezbollah, and I wonder what good they do at all.
February 10, 2010, 3:32 pmGoldstone Report Co-Author is a Nutter? | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] original here: Goldstone Report Co-Author is a Nutter? [...]
February 10, 2010, 3:37 pmDavid Bernstein says:
That would make sense, though (a) the timeline of his remarks is still off, and (b) being taken out and shot by a Christian militia allied with Israel (I don’t think there was an SLA yet, but I’m not sure) is hardly the same as being taken and shot by Israelis. I have no doubt about the close ties between Hezbollah and Iran, but if Hezbollah killed someone, I wouldn’t say he was killed “by Iranians.”
February 10, 2010, 3:44 pmDavid McCourt says:
Dr. Weevil, you seem to be trying to pick a fight with me about Hezbollah where no difference exists. I said this: “If the peacekeepeers were acting as unwilling or unwitting human shields for Hezbollah, who is to blame for their deaths, Israel, or the UN and the governments who sent them there?” I also said “they [UNIFIL] really should not have been there at all.”
But I also believe that Israel sometimes hit UN positions when Hezbollah was not nearby, and clearly the DDF forces who took Irish prisoners out and shot them in April, 1980 were not aiming at Hezbollah.
Israel should never have withdrawn from southern Lebananon. South of the Litani is now one giant Hezbollah hornets’ nest, which Israel lacks the military capacity to reduce.
February 10, 2010, 3:50 pmneurodoc says:
Anything to suggest that Col. Travers is at least equally hostile to Hezbollah, which surely was responsible for the deaths of more of his men than was Israel? If so, where/when did he evidence that hostility? [Hezbollah and Hamas are different organizations, operating from different territories, but they share the same patrons (Iran and Syria), the same basic ideology, and the same general objectives.]
February 10, 2010, 3:56 pmChristopher Cooke says:
Neurodoc: I don’t think it accurate to equate Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas are predominantly Sunni Palestinian Arabs; Hezbollah are Shiites. They aren’t exactly friends, either, from my limited understanding.
February 10, 2010, 4:01 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Regardless of motivation, does anyone else think “Operation Cast Lead” is an absolutely awesome name for an offensive? Kinda gets the point across, doesn’t it?
February 10, 2010, 4:06 pmHarryEagar says:
‘Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups.’
Oh, so we won’t count those?
February 10, 2010, 4:40 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Anti-semitisim would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. Rockets landed on Israel in October, but Israel “broke the truce” with a raid in November? You think that the terms of the truce allowed occasional attacks on Israel? Or do you think November comes before October?
February 10, 2010, 5:04 pmDavid McCourt says:
“… likely fired by dissident groups.”
Here’s what Hamas does with “dissident groups” in Gaza (warning — graphic):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16n2tJ3o1Q
February 10, 2010, 5:12 pmSteve says:
Anti-semitisim would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. Rockets landed on Israel in October, but Israel “broke the truce” with a raid in November?
The argument is that the rockets weren’t fired by Hamas, but by some dissident group operating without the approval of Hamas, so therefore Hamas didn’t break the truce.
This may be a bad argument (I’m not sure how Israel is expected to sit there and say “oh well, this rocket doesn’t have a Hamas shipping label on it, guess there’s nothing we can do”) but I am again astounded at the facility with which people throw the charge of anti-semitism around. Taking the Palestinian side with respect to an issue of fact or opinion is not anti-semitism. Even if the position is demonstrably wrong, we call that “being wrong,” we don’t call it anti-semitism.
February 10, 2010, 5:16 pmDavid McCourt says:
When you do it, we can call it being wrong. When The Guardian does it, we call it, in the words of one of their former columnists, “vile antisemitism.”
February 10, 2010, 5:27 pmDavid McCourt says:
If you think that’s overstated, here, for example, is a political “cartoon” published in the Guardian during the 2006 hostilities:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/martinrowson/0,,1823933,00.html
February 10, 2010, 5:31 pmorca says:
Haha, is it time to break out the boilerplate accusations of anti-Semitism already? That’s always a sign of desperation. If this were a Lefty blog, racism would be the charge…
February 10, 2010, 5:37 pmEH says:
I think this is inapt. Especially in this day and age, photographs are not to be taken as “eyes.” I’d actually say that the operation of the analogy is opposite of that intended, with “Me” construed as the photograph.
And to be sure, there are nutters on all sides of this issue. Why focus only on the ones with which we disagree?
February 10, 2010, 6:24 pmMaryG says:
More important is the fact that your source changed what the colonel said. Why they did that is again unknown but is does bring into question their…accuracy.
I’m sure it was an indeliberate inaccuracy though, so move along. There’s nothing to see here but a nutty Irish colonel pulling tales out of the air. David B. a truly neutral source told me it “makes sense” to think so, so please stop quoting facts and timelines to make the man seem less … nutty.
Btw, is this original post an example of an ad hominen attack? I’m always confused by namecalling without a serious attempt to understand what the namecalled intend to communicate.
Also, is there a British version of AIPAC lobbying over there? I imagine they could be influential in other countries too, and whether you see that as a good or bad thing, there’s no denying there are powerful in America at least.
February 10, 2010, 6:27 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Being wrong is not anti-semitism. Being irrationally wrong — i.e. posting an attack on Israel that’s self-refuting, like accusing Israel of breaking the truce by retaliating for an attack — is a sign of something, and anti-semitism seems like the simplest explanation.
One can argue that Israel’s November raid into Gaza was wrong. One cannot argue that the November raid into Gaza “broke a truce” when one is presenting evidence that Israel was attacked in October.
February 10, 2010, 6:57 pmED Maven says:
First, if indeed the Colonel was pissed off at the IDF because of those Irish casualties in Southern Lebanon, he had no business serving on the Goldstone committee. Period. Sounds like he was trying to settle old scores, not to render anything like an objective report. For example, we never learn from him how many of those Irish soldiers were killed by whom and under what circumstances. When you charge the taking out and deliberately shooting people, as he phrased it, you owe your audience something more specific. As you may recall, “war is hell,” so he should at least offer some details. There was enough reported from there to raise a legitimate question as to whether those neutral peacekeepers were at times de facto aiding the Hezbolla or impeding Israeli operations. If so, they placed themselves in harm’s way.
Second, I wonder how many rockets would it take to establish a casus belli right here in the good ol’ US of A, if those rockets were being fired by some radical reconquista group across the Mexican border into Chula Vista or San Diego? One? Two? Twenty-seven? Two hundred? Jes’ wonderin’.
February 10, 2010, 7:01 pmNickM says:
And then they raped the horses and rode off on the women.
Nick
February 10, 2010, 7:02 pmED Maven says:
If indeed the Colonel was pissed off at the IDF because of those Irish casualties in Southern Lebanon, he had no business serving on the Goldstone committee. Period. Sounds like he was settling old scores, not delivering a neutral report.
Second, I wonder how many rockets fired across the border would it take to establish a casus belli if those rockets were being fired by some radical reconquista group across the Mexican border into Chula Vista or San Diego. Two? Twenty? Two hundred? Two thousand? Jes’ wonderin’.
February 10, 2010, 7:09 pmED Maven says:
Pardon the duplication. It was not my doing, but some crazy computer glitch that at first converted my original post into random characters.
February 10, 2010, 7:17 pmneurodoc says:
Of practical consequence is it here that Hamas is Sunni and Hezbollah is Shia? Anything that outweighs the commonalities that I noted – “Hezbollah and Hamas are different organizations, operating from different territories, but they share the same patrons (Iran and Syria), the same basic ideology, and the same general objectives.”
February 10, 2010, 7:35 pmneurodoc says:
You think that the House of Saud, which has been allowed to chose who we appoint as our ambassador to them and holds out to those ambassadors the prospect of lucrative employment after they retire, which is such an economic powerhouse, which has so much geopolitical significance, which spends so much on defense purchases, which has been so tight with the Bushes, etc., they don’t have much “influence” here? There have been no Lebanese-Americans senators (John Sununu, George Mitchell, James Abourezk) or representatives (Ray LaHood, Nick Rahall)?
February 10, 2010, 7:55 pmYankev says:
At the risk of attempted mind reading without a license (both on my part and on his), Orca may be trying to distinguish whether the taking out was deliberate and the shooting inadvertent, or the other way around.
February 10, 2010, 8:12 pmMaryG says:
Whether the house of Saud has influence in choosing their ambassadors, or whether Americans have elected Lebanese-American public servants has no bearing on the accuracy of the colonel’s observation that Jewish lobbyists have [strongly] influenced British foreign policy in the Middle East.
February 10, 2010, 8:13 pmYankev says:
Or entertained and murdered.
February 10, 2010, 8:13 pmMaryG says:
Second, I wonder how many rockets fired across the border would it take to establish a casus belli if those rockets were being fired by some radical reconquista group across the Mexican border into Chula Vista or San Diego
I’m guessing … more than two, in the month preceding.
America is a bit more secure — for whatever reason — in her current relations with her neighbors.
It’s why we don’t go bulldozing the family homes of criminals, for example. Or hold people without trials. Or assasinate enemies instead of arresting and trying them. Or take property without legal proceedings. (kudos to the Israeli courts who often later demand justice, declaring such takings unconstitutional).
Or overreact, should splinter groups fire missles across our border. Then again, after 9-11 and the Iraq invasion, maybe the terrorists have got us playing scared and overreacting too — they’re crushing us financially for our overreactions. And with so little!
February 10, 2010, 8:18 pmYankev says:
Yes, but they are getting their justly deserved comeuppance, given that anti-Semitic attacks in Britain are at a record high. And England has always been such a friendly place toward Jews, so its reasonable to think that a Jewish lobby would have lots of influence there now.
February 10, 2010, 8:20 pmChris Travers says:
My grandfather was an immigrant from England (well, technically India, but that’s a long story).
I wonder if Desmond is some sort of long-lost cousin. I will have to look him up!
What I do find interesting though is the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been characterized as being similar to the Northern Ireland conflict. PIRA folks tend to be extremely pro-Palestinian and unionists tend to be somewhat bluntly pro-Israel. This probably had a lot to do with positions relative to the UK government. Given that the Republic of Ireland tended to be politically (if tacitly) in support of the Provos, it wouldn’t surprise me if the general sympathies there, combined with Ireland’s own experience at terrorist revolution in the 1920′s is what is really at issue.
I would be cautious about jumping up and down about Antisemitism without looking into broader issues.
February 10, 2010, 8:39 pmChristopher Cooke says:
Chris: the IRA used to do contract work for the PLO and was allied with them in the 1970s, I believe. Sort of a “terrorist for hire” scenario. The PLO and/or other Palestinian groups were also tied to ETA (in Spain), the Baader-Meinhof group (the West German group), and people like Carlos the Jackal. All were funded by the Soviets, East Germans and/or Cubans, in the good old days of the Cold War, and sold arms to each other, so some of these historic ties might explain modern sympathies. But, you are also noting how the left, especially in Europe, tends to see the Palestinians as “freedom fighters” while the right sees them as “terrorists.”
My guess on the Colonel is that his experience in UNIFIL, in Southern Lebanon, probably soured him on the IDF or, at the very least, made him very skeptical of their assertions (note how he readily disregards photos, etc.) I am not sure it is fair to equate that “bias from experience” viewpoint with anti-semitism.
Neurodoc: I think your post re Hamas and Hezbollah was trying to make the point, how come the Colonel was not biased against Hamas, given his experience with Hezbollah. I think the answer is that they are distinct organizations, with different religious affiliations and largely different aims (they do share a hatred of Israel) and the Colonel doesn’t hold a grudge against the one just because the other was mean to him or his troops. You see them as similar, but he may not. I presume your answer is: he is antisemitic, and that blinds him to hating Hamas when his experience shows he should. I would suggest there could be another reason.
Everyone would agree that the conflict in Lebanon was particularly bloody and horrific. Remember the massacres in the Palestinian camps by the Lebanese christian militias? The attack on the US Marines in Beirut? The list goes on and on.
It does not surprise me that someone who was stationed there, in the middle of such a vicious conflict, and whose troops were attacked by both sides, would not have warm and fuzzy feelings towards one of the armed forces who shot at or shelled his side two decades earlier, or would be inclined to believe civilians who claim that the same armed forces treated them harshly and without justification.
February 10, 2010, 9:34 pmorca says:
From the Colonel’s interview:
After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1987, which left South Lebanon devastated, Colonel Travers volunteered to travel to the region to take up the position of Military Observer. He and his family moved to Northern Israel, where they lived for two years and which he found to be a wonderful experience.
February 10, 2010, 9:42 pmChristopher Cooke says:
yes he says that, just as Goldstone said he is a Zionist. Probably because they are attempting to defuse the criticism that they are anti-Israel in light of the allegations of their report. I am not saying their report is true or false, just that they are smart enough to know that they would face this criticism.
February 10, 2010, 10:00 pmChris Travers says:
Christopher Cooke:
I understand that the PIRA is tied to many other terrorist organizations. I am thinking more of the culture and worldview of the PIRA supporters, however.
One thing that struck me from listening to a lot of contemporary Irish political music regarding the Troubles is the way the conflict is typically framed. Typically you see comparisons to a wide range of conflicts including:
1) Socialist revolutions in Nicaragua
2) The struggle against Apartheid in South Africa
3) The Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation
4) The struggle for more women’s rights in Afghanistan
The UK government is compared to:
1) the Polish communists
2) The Israelis
3) The radical Islamists
4) Banana-republic governments of Latin America
It is easy to jump up and say “but that’s just antisemitism” but I am not sure that’s right. I think instead what you have is a consistent message about the struggle against the British, that this is a struggle by an oppressed minority for social justice and every manifestation of this archetype they can find they lump together.
This propaganda structure exists in the Republic just as in Northern Ireland. Remember that Ireland got their independence through a very successful terrorist revolution in the aftermath of WWI, so republican Ireland itself is not going to be very unconditionally opposed to terrorism from a cultural perspective either.
It’s hard to look at the success of the (original) IRA in freeing most of Ireland from British rule and then condemn terrorists.
February 10, 2010, 10:21 pmorca says:
Sounds like the colonel could care less about his critics…they are proving to be quite impotent against his report.
February 10, 2010, 10:39 pmneurodoc says:
You wondered whether “Jewish lobbyists” had as much influence in Britain as you imagined AIPAC has here, so I thought to say something about competing and conflicting inputs to the political process here. Whether or not to join the colonel in his bigotry as it relates to Jews in this country, Britain, Israel, or wherever, including everywhere, is your choice.
February 10, 2010, 11:52 pmneurodoc says:
Do those Irish you have in mind also remember and still celebrate their links to Nazi Germany? But I take your point that along with some terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, those Irish may not hate Jews on the same racialist basis as do true “antisemites,” but they hate the Jewish state, including both its Jewish inhabitants and supporters, for political reasons, so taxonomically perhaps they should be filed under “anti-zionist” rather than “antisemite,” if a distinction is to be made.
Personally, I’m more of a “lumper” than a “splitter” here, and not so much into the taxonomic issues. I don’t think those who are targeted care too much about the largely theoretical distinction either, that is whether the terrorists and their sympathizers are animated in some or no part by the Nazi-like antisemitism that emanates from the Muslim world, including the Palestinians, who churn it out ceaselessly. While distinguishing those Irish as true “anti-zionists” rather than true “antisemites,” though, you show that whether the hatred is primarily or originally religious/racial, or political, or a combination of both, they all come together.
February 11, 2010, 12:26 amneurodoc says:
If Colonel Travers’ bias is accounted for by his experiences in Lebanon (“bias from experience”), then why did the experience did not leave him hugely skeptical about Hamas and its claims that it does not hide behind civilians and intentionally put them in harms way? Surely it isn’t because Hamas is a Suni movement, whereas Hezbollah is a Shia one, since that distinction and a good many other possible ones are so inconsequential in this context. One must be willfully deaf and blind to miss how much alike Hamas and Hezbollah operate in how they go about making war on Israel, and I would expect someone with Colonel Travers’ experience of this conflict not to be at all credulous where Hamas is concerned, whatever his feelings towards Israel and the IDF.
February 11, 2010, 12:40 amorca says:
The colonel simply stated he found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as shields during the Israeli invasion of Gaza.
February 11, 2010, 12:50 amneurodoc says:
First, thanks for outing yourself and leaving no doubt as to your political views.
Second, was Britain itself “insecure” when it went about bulldozing homes according to its legal regime it established in the Mandate terroritories, and where the homes they destroyed those of common “criminals”? Also, since you are opposed to “assasinat(ing) enemies instead of arresting and trying them,” are you distressed that the US is through the use of drones and other means earnestly going about “assasinat(ing) enemies instead of arresting and trying them”? Would you prefer that the US accept more casualties in its efforts to defeat the terrorists or that it simply let the terrorists remain at large when it can’t “arrest() and try() them”?
February 11, 2010, 12:52 amneurodoc says:
Yes, that is what he says, and that is one of the reasons he is unbelievable. (Would he also say that in Lebanon he saw no evidence that Hezbollah used civilians and UNFIL itself as shields?)
February 11, 2010, 12:55 ameyesay says:
MaryG wrote, in response to “how many rockets fired across the border would it take to establish a casus belli if those rockets were being fired by some radical reconquista group across the Mexican border into Chula Vista or San Diego”:
I’m guessing that if two rockets were fired across the Mexico-U.S. border into Chula Vista or San Diego, and the Mexican government did not make huge efforts to apprehend the perpetrators, the United States would take significant action to prevent a third rocket.
We do hold people without trials. Have you heard of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Have you heard about Abu Ghraib, where some prisoners were tortured to death without any determination of guilt of any kind, let alone a full-blown trial with due process?
We do that, too.
The Volokh Conspiracy has frequently discussed asset forfeiture, wherein the United States government can take assets without proving that anyone is guilty of anything.
February 11, 2010, 12:56 amorca says:
So lying for Israel would prove the colonel’s neutrality?
February 11, 2010, 1:18 amiolanthe says:
I’d agree with the general characterisation of the links between the IRA and PLO and where the sympathies of Unionists vs Republicans tend to lie on the Israel/Palestine question. Interestingly though, it was not always thus. When Yitzhak Shamir was running the Stern Gang in the 1940s, he took the nom de guerre “Mikhail” in honour of Michael Collins. Don’t know if there were any formal links between the IRA and the Stern Gang/Irgun although the former’s links to the Nazis would presumably have complicated matters if there were any.
February 11, 2010, 1:41 amFC says:
Following up on iolanthe’s post, Chaim Herzog, who grew up in the Irish Free State and later joined the Haganah and Labor party, also noted the sympathy between Irish republicans and Zionists.
Of course, all this is beside the point that the Goldstone Report is obviously a slander concocted by self-serving crackpots.
February 11, 2010, 5:16 amneurodoc says:
You really are obtuse or a determined bigot, or both.
The Goldstone Report is not just an expression of disbelieve in Israel’s accounts, it is an expression of credence in Palestinian accounts, especially Hamas ones. So if Hamas is much like Hezbollah for these purposes, and I think it is very much so for the reasons given above, then one might expect someone with Travers’ experience of Hezbollah to put little credence in Hamas’ accounts. Even those without direct, first-hand experience of either Hezbollah or Hamas should be able to recognize from afar what these terrorist organizations (yes, they have their “good” sides too) are about and judge them accordingly. But when it is Israel versus either Hezbollah or Hamas, your preference is the latter.
February 11, 2010, 9:49 amMaryG says:
as you imagined AIPAC has here
AIPAC by now is an influential lobby, neurodoc. That’s an acknowledged fact, no value assessment attached.
Let’s leave it at that?
February 11, 2010, 10:02 amMaryG says:
was Britain itself “insecure” when it went about bulldozing homes according to its legal regime it established in the Mandate terroritories
Britain? I think you misunderstood: I was comparing our policies here, in America, with those example. We’re not so insecure as all that, and our justice system has proven some of our safeguards effective.
Glad to have outed myself in such a way. Take care you don’t misunderstand, and then blame me for ignorance on account of your inability to understand my point.
February 11, 2010, 10:05 amED Maven says:
For a response to Travers from the Israel News Service go to
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135961
February 11, 2010, 10:34 amorca says:
Sometimes I think you propagandists forget Israel was dumb enough to carry out their invasion in front of hundreds of neutral witnesses armed with digital cameras.
February 11, 2010, 12:12 pmAnonsters says:
Ho hum.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1148871.html
February 11, 2010, 1:09 pmYankev says:
And we are to believe that these “neutral” witnesses affiilated with Hamas, the PA, and UNWRA, conclusively documented the absence of weapons in mosques? Or photographed the IDF faking the photos that the colonel so casually dismissed?
February 11, 2010, 1:25 pmneurodoc says:
If you will acknowledge that there are many influential lobbies at work, so it is not a matter of AIPAC alone weighing in on our foreign policy in the Middle East, I will be happy to leave it there. It is when it is intimated that there is something exceptional and nefarious about Jewish groups lobbying their government that I feel the need to speak up and challenge.
February 11, 2010, 2:23 pmneurodoc says:
So you are aware that the Brits did it in Palestine and the Israelis are doing it according to the same legal regime, and you no more object to it as a response when it is the Israelis than you do when it is the Brits? And it is not about ordinary “criminals,” but about the family homes of terrorists who have carried murderous attacks on civilians, right? And you are acknowledging that the US is actively engaged in “assasinat(ing) enemies instead of arresting and trying them,” those enemies being much further from our borders than are Israel’s enemies are from its border?
“We’re not so insecure as all that,” …yes, it’s important to take into account how great, immediate and near threats to a country’s security are when assessing the responses to those threats. “…and our justice system has proven some of our safeguards effective.” You say “some” have proven effective, but you don’t specify which ones you think have proven effective, or more importantly, which ones you think are proving not so effective in the face of the terrorist threats we face. Care to say which ones have and haven’t proven themselves?
I don’t want to misunderstand your point of view, including what you have said about the US reacting irrationally to 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threat we face. So if I haven’t stated your positions correctly, please do correct me.
February 11, 2010, 2:35 pmYankev says:
It is, however, absurd to extrapolate that because AIPAC has found a receptive audience in the US, that a pro-Israel lobby in the UK would find an equally receptive audience. It is also both absurd and scurrilous to posit, as does Col. Travers, that AIPAC is a “Jewish lobby” as distinguished from a pro-Israel lobby.
February 11, 2010, 2:52 pmneurodoc says:
Point(s) taken. There are some very anti-Israel groups that incorporate “Jewish” in their names (e.g., Jewish Voices for Peace) that do what they can to try to get the US to go in a very different direction in its foreign policy where the Middle East is concerned. And there is not much reason for MaryG or others of her stripe to worry that there is too much “Jewish” influence at work in the UK.
February 11, 2010, 4:17 pmChris Travers says:
Should I invoke Godwin’s law over this?
I suppose not….. Anyway I am unaware of any ties between the Republicans and the Nazis. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me?
February 11, 2010, 5:39 pmneurodoc says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%E2%80%93_Abwehr_collaboration_in_World_War_II
February 11, 2010, 11:24 pmYankev says:
See Neurodoc’s reply. Isn’t there a proviso to Godwin’s law creating an exception when talking about actual Nazis? Another example would be the collaboration with the Nazis by the Grand Mufti yemach shmo and his followers, and by the various Baathist and Muslim Brotherhood-inspired movements in Iraq and elsewhere before and during WWII, or Syria sheltering various Nazi war criminals after the war and employing them as anti-Israel propagandaists.
February 12, 2010, 10:20 amThe Rights Times says:
The whole point of the Goldstone Report was to address humanitarian concerns as well as in violations of international, humanitarian, and human rights law. In fact, Ms. Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, distinctly says at the Special Session on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that “BOTH parties have committed and continue to commit violation of human rights law”. The two key issues were and are the situation in East Jerusalem and the continuing blockade of Gaza. The blockade itself severely undermines the rights of the people living there. You are focusing too much of who the finger is being pointed at and who is being blamed and who should be blamed. In fact, the finger, or should I say fingers, are being pointed at BOTH sides. Moreover, BOTH sides are to blame for STILL having not pursued independent investigations.
And of course (I should hope so) efforts to block the Goldstone Report have failed. It was a Fact Finding Mission, meaning the report is based on facts.
See here for my review of the Special Session: http://therightstimes.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-of-2009-human-rights-council.html
I was also at the presentation of the Goldstone Report and would be happy provide word for word responses from both sides as well as from Member States.
February 28, 2010, 6:44 pm