Showing posts with label Cast Lead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cast Lead. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

The Great Sin Of The Cast Lead Report

I am not going to bother posting this on Daily Kos as it will go nowhere. Indeed, Daily Kos posters often follow the same playbook as Ken Roth as explained in the article I am about to reference.

Take a look at what Irwin Cotler has to say about the Cast Lead Investigation:

In a word, Roth writes not like a lawyer - let alone a human rights lawyer - but as a propagandist.


And this is really it in a nutshell. The Cast Lead Report is not a legal document. It is a propoganda document that was headed by a an extremelly noble human rights lawyer specifically to give it the imprimatuer of impartiality because the architects knew that the mission was fundamentally flawed and biased.

The there is the participation of Professor Christine Chinkin who long before the investigation was announced had already publicly stated that Israel had committed war crimes. Kinda like the judge saying publicly, I know the defendant is guilty but I will look at all the evidence anyway.

19 British lawyers and academics have penned an open letter calling upon Chinkin to disqualify herself as her expression "on the merits of the issue... prior to seeing any of the evidence... give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias..."; and saying that her continued participation necessarily compromises the independence of the inquiry and its report.


But this is what really gets to me, and this is the Daily Kos playbook. Ken Roth of HRW attacks Cotler as being a pawn of the State of Israel. This is the most common play in their playbook. If you criticize bias against Israel, it is because you are a pawn of the Israelis. It is because you can't allow criticism of Israel. Never mind that Irwin Cotler is one of the greatest civil rights lawyers alive today. Nelson Mandella's lawyer, a lawyer who has represented Palestinians in front of Israeli courts, and who, until he became Justice Minister of Canada was counsel to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group.

For this is the "Human Rights" playbook. You cannot be a human rights lawyer or advocate if you ever fail to accuse Israel. And so Roth, and mis supporters, miss the key point. By engaging in such a ridiculously biased report, the report loses credibility among actual human rights lawyers. But human rights lawyers aren't the target because this is not a legal document. This is a political propoganda document inteded to continue the public relations war against Israel.

Cotler's words:

ROTH SEEKS to justify his defense of Goldstone - who deserves a better defense than this - by yet another false accusation, namely that I am "part of an intense campaign by the Israeli government and some of its uncritical supporters to smear the messenger and change the subject." Never mind that I have appeared in Israeli courts and made representations to the Israeli government on subjects ranging from the protection of Palestinian refugees to the status of Ethiopian Jews; never mind that I served as international legal counsel to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group - until I became minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada - on issues regarding human rights violations in the occupied territories and in Israel; or that I have visited Israel and Gaza more than Ken Roth has, including meeting with Palestinian government leaders and leaders of Palestinian civil society in Ramallah this past August. These are simply "inconvenient truths" that might undermine Roth's false ad hominem diatribe, which permeates his piece.

But even if his smear were true - that I am an uncritical supporter of Israel - it is beside the point. My critique of the Goldstone mission was based on the fact that it was established under the enabling authority of the UN Human Rights Council, which has systematically singled-out one member state in the international community (call it X, since for Roth accusations of war crimes against Israel seem to be a right of passage necessary to engage in international human rights discourse) while the major human rights violators have enjoyed exculpatory immunity. And it was advanced as a critique of the denial of international due process to a member state, and as an expression of concern with the work of the UN Human Rights Council and the integrity of UN missions under its authority.


I encourage you all to use this article if you are brave enough to tread in the waters at Daily Kos.

Regards,

DKW