Richard Goldstone confuses International Law

October 28, 2009 § 2 Comments

While Richard Goldstone deserves credit for publishing a fair report about Israel’s war crime during its assault on Gaza — especially in light of the storm of vilification that he has had to weather — one need not be so swayed as to exempt his claims from scrutiny. There are serious problems with his interpretation of International law, and far from being too critical of Israel, he is too generous. In this interview he makes the tendentious claim that jus in bello, that is conduct during war, is unrelated to jus ad bellum, the justness of the war. He in fact goes so far as to claim that ‘it was a given’ that Israel had a right to attack Gaza. He makes this claim despite stating before hand that it wasn’t his remit to investigate jus ad bellum. This is therefore an astonishing statement to make for someone even remotely familiar with international law. Before one can consider jus in bello, the conditions for jus ad bello need to be satisfied. That is to say that before you investigate conduct you have to make sure that the war was just. And if this wasn’t the case — and it wasn’t — then Israel is responsible for launching a war of aggression, the ‘supreme crime’ in international law. This also means that Israel bears the responsibility even for the violations of human rights carried out by Hamas because the supreme crime carries within it the accumulated evil of all that follows. For more on this, see my detailed argument in this earlier article.

Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi talks to Judge Richard Goldstone about the investigation into the Gaza war. He travelled to the United Nations in New York to find out if the war on Gaza has transformed Richard Goldstone from a sober jurist into a man on a mission to discredit Israel on an international stage.

About these ads

§ 2 Responses to Richard Goldstone confuses International Law

  • Uri says:

    Now, now. If you accept 5 or 6 of Israel’s assumptions, Israel had the right to respond in self-defense. E.g. that it was not occupying Gaza, that Hamas violated the ceasefire, that Israel had no available diplomatic options, that the rocket fire amounted to more than a border incident, and that Israel’s response was defensive in nature.

    BTW Israel is not just responsible for the results of the massacre as the aggressor, but also as the occupier. Israel had the duty to protect and defend the residents of Gaza from harm, which arguably entails that it had the duty to attack itself.

  • [...] Richard Goldstone confuses International Law 2009 October 28 by kanan48 Via: Pluse. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Richard Goldstone confuses International Law at P U L S E.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,510 other followers

%d bloggers like this: