GENEVA, Oct. 21 – The German law professor heading the U.N. committee to enforce the Goldstone Report has a history of comparing Israeli actions with the “barbarism” and “inferno” of World War II, and should be removed for lack of impartiality by the U.N. Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said a report submitted by UN Watch today to the world body’s Geneva office. Click here for summary and full report.

In his September 27 report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Christian Tomuschat, a professor emeritus at Humoldt University, faulted Israel for failing to investigate allegations of war crimes by the country’s senior leadership, specifically naming Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who was foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas. The Tomuschat Committee will report to the council again in March 2011.

However, according to “Goldstone II,” the 29-page report by UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitor of the world body, Tomuschat’s credibility is severely impaired by his prior legal work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat, which Tomuschat said he “could not recall,” and by a series of public statements and writings that show his lack of impartiality on the Arab-Israel conflict.

Based on newly-translated materials, the report reveals that in German academic essays published in 2006 and 2007 on the Lebanon war, Tomuschat associated the military practices of the Jewish state with the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.” Israel, wrote Tomuschat, “overruns a country like a steamroller,” and “butchers everything in its way.” Accusing Israel of classifying civilian targets as military, Tomuschat said its actions could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II.”

Tomuschat also said that “the observer gets the impression that the Israeli armed forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges.” This concept is most famously associated with Goebbels’ 1943 “Total War” speech delivered under a giant banner.

Other key findings from the report:

•   In a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of “state terrorism,” a charge he repeated in a 2007 interview, in which he added that killing terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be “absolutely illegal under international law.”

•   Prior to heading the U.N. inquiry to assess Israel’s system of investigations, Tomsuchat had already made up his mind, saying in 2002 that Israel ordered the “systematic commission of war crimes,” and that “in such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.”

·   When a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel.

The post Report: German Professor Heading U.N.’s ‘Goldstone II’ Committee Accused Israel of World War II ‘Barbarism’, Removal Urged appeared first on UN Watch.

Prior to Chairing U.N. Probe, Christian Tomuschat Said
Israel Was “State Terrorist” Unwilling to Investigate

GENEVA, Oct. 21 – The German law professor heading the U.N. committee to enforce the Goldstone Report has a history of comparing Israeli actions with the “barbarism” and “inferno” of World War II, and should be removed for lack of impartiality by the U.N. Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said a report submitted by UN Watch today to the world body’s Geneva office. Click here for summary and full report.

In his September 27 report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Christian Tomuschat, a professor emeritus at Humoldt University, faulted Israel for failing to investigate allegations of war crimes by the country’s senior leadership, specifically naming Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who was foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas. The Tomuschat Committee will report to the council again in March 2011.

However, according to “Goldstone II,” the 29-page report by UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitor of the world body, Tomuschat’s credibility is severely impaired by his prior legal work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat, which Tomuschat said he “could not recall,” and by a series of public statements and writings that show his lack of impartiality on the Arab-Israel conflict.

Based on newly-translated materials, the report reveals that in German academic essays published in 2006 and 2007 on the Lebanon war, Tomuschat associated the military practices of the Jewish state with the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.” Israel, wrote Tomuschat, “overruns a country like a steamroller,” and “butchers everything in its way.” Accusing Israel of classifying civilian targets as military, Tomuschat said its actions could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II.”

Tomuschat also said that “the observer gets the impression that the Israeli armed forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges.” This concept is most famously associated with Goebbels’ 1943 “Total War” speech delivered under a giant banner.

Other key findings from the report:

•   In a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of “state terrorism,” a charge he repeated in a 2007 interview, in which he added that killing terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be “absolutely illegal under international law.”

•   Prior to heading the U.N. inquiry to assess Israel’s system of investigations, Tomsuchat had already made up his mind, saying in 2002 that Israel ordered the “systematic commission of war crimes,” and that “in such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.”

•   When a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel.

Click here for Executive Summary and Full Report

The post Report: German Professor Heading U.N.’s ‘Goldstone II’ Committee Accused Israel of World War II ‘Barbarism’, Removal Urged appeared first on UN Watch.

A Report by UN Watch Submitted to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, 21 October 2010 Click here for full document EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.N. Human Rights Council’s newly-renewed committee to enforce the Goldstone Report, headed by German law professor Christian Tomuschat, has declared Israel to be in breach of a duty to investigate “those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw ‘Operation Cast Lead’,” and the “serious allegations” that “officials at the highest levels were complicit in violations.” Specifically, the committee cited the name of Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who served as foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas. As soon as the Tomuschat Committee released its first report in September 2010, Palestinian organizations, echoed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, called for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and prosecutors worldwide, to intervene. This latest U.N.-inspired “lawfare” campaign recalls last year’s successful effort by pro-Palestinian activists in Britain to obtain a court-ordered arrest warrant, on charges of war crimes, against Ms. Livni, who has since avoided traveling to Britain. While the Tomuschat Report emphasized the principles of independence and impartiality as applicable to investigations, there are serious questions as to whether Professor Tomuschat’s membership on the panel conforms with those same principles, as required by the standards applicable to U.N. experts. To determine these fundamental procedural aspects of the Tomuschat Committee, the present report examined Professor Tomuschat’s legal advocacy work, academic publications, and other public statements concerning the Middle East conflict. Regarding a U.N. expert’s obligation to be independent, the report found credible evidence that Professor Tomuschat performed legal advocacy work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat. It was reported that he and four other international jurists advised Mr. Arafat in 1996 on how the PLO should make its case before the U.N. and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Brief for Arafat Professor Tomuschat’s claim that he “could not recall” whether his legal brief was done for Yasser Arafat was found to be not credible. Moreover, despite later opportunities to recollect the facts, and to contest the evidence during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate, and again at a U.N. press conference, Professor Tomuschat declined to do so. Accordingly, the evidence gives rise to serious questions concerning the independence of Professor Tomuschat and his committee, and, consequently, the credibility of his report. Regarding a U.N. expert’s obligation to be impartial, the report found—from the past decade alone—more than 25 examples of statements by Professor Tomuschat that exhibited an unbalanced approach toward Israel, and, in notable instances, undisguised hostility. The mandate of the Tomuschat Committee, as recently renewed, is to monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side concerning the allegations in the Goldstone Report, including the independence, effectiveness, and genuineness of these investigations and their conformity with international standards. Decided in 2002 that Israel’s Legal System Was Hopeless Astonishingly, eight years before Tomuschat undertook to objectively and impartially perform this examination, he had already made up his mind about Israel’s system for investigations. In discussing Israel and its alleged ordering of the “systematic commission of war crimes,” he concluded that “[i]n such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system of the State concerned [i.e., Israel] will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.” Impartiality requires that an investigator be free of any commitment to a particular outcome. Given that Tomuschat had stated, in stark and unequivocal terms, his commitment to a particular outcome—that Israel’s judicial system offers “little hope” of effective investigation or punishment of alleged violations—his impartiality on the principal question addressed by his committee are severely compromised. Compared Israeli Actions to World War II Barbarism One of the most peculiar and troubling findings of the report is that, on several occasions, Professor Tomuschat associated Israeli military actions not to contemporary and similar actions by American, British or NATO troops, which have resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather to the barbarism of World War II: ·        In a 2007 essay on the previous year’s Lebanon war, Tomuschat compared Israel’s actions to the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.” ·        In a further comment on Israel, he wrote that its alleged practice of classifying targets as military even if they “only remotely serve to benefit one war party” could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II, when in many cases both sides acted according to the principle that the means justify the end.” ·        In 2006, Tomuschat wrote that “the observer gets the impression that the Israeli Armed Forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges.” This concept was made most famous by Goebbels’ 1943 Total War speech. In 2007, Tomuschat again accused Israel of actions that were “close to total war, which does not take into consideration any protection needs of the civilian population.” And in an essay from earlier this year, Tomuschat wrote that Israel’s actions are “a recipe for total war.” Israel is “State Terrorist” An additional theme that emerges from Tomuschat’s statements is Israel as a state terrorist—morally indistinguishable from, and equally blameworthy as, those who deliberately target Israeli civilians with suicide bombs. For example, in a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of “state terrorism,” of the “systematic” commission of “war crimes,” and of “crimes against humanity.” Such states, in his view, “deserve the same blame as those targeted by them.” In a 2007 interview, Tomuschat equated Israel’s targeting of Hamas terrorist leader Ahmed Yassin with terrorism itself, saying that “Targeted killings are as reckless as terrorist attacks.” Asked if this meant “state terrorism,” Tomuschat said that “It very much leads in this direction.” Tomuschat adopts an extreme position toward counter-terrorism in general. He has argued that the targeted killing of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be “absolutely illegal under international law.” Moreover, he argues that a country targeted by terrorism needs to “discover [its] own shortcomings,” “analyze its own conduct,” and “ask itself searchingly whether it has made mistakes which have given and give rise to frustration, hatred and despair.” The only way to cure terrorism, argues Tomuschat, is for countries to show that they are “seriously committed to world-wide welfare goals without any distinction as to race, colour or religion.” It is telling that when a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Christian Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel. Other examples of Tomuschat’s statements on Israel include: ·        Israel is bombing “entire families”; ·        Arab nations rightly feel that Israel receives “far better treatment”; ·        Israel targets U.N. peacekeepers; ·        Israel seeks “to reduce humanitarian law to irrelevance”; ·        Israel’s policy is to “bomb a country out into a lunar landscape”; ·        Israel’s peace concessions are a cynical plan for “dominance.” Tomuschat’s Response At the 27 September 2010 debate of the U.N. Human Rights Council, UN Watch raised several of these points in an interactive dialogue with Professor Tomuschat, and distributed an advance copy of this report to the press. The Reuters news agency concluded that Tomuschat’s reply to UN Watch was non-responsive to the issues raised, and, at a press conference, asked him once again to address the questions. In response, Tomuschat attempted to defend his statements as nothing more than legitimate academic writings that criticized targeted killings, and as being unrelated to the Goldstone Report. At the same time, Tomuschat revealed that he had shared his doubts with U.N. authorities in Geneva about whether to accept the position; that he offered to step down from the committee, presumably at some later point after having assumed the chairmanship, if they felt he was biased; but that the U.N. authorities in Geneva, which would be the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, saw no reason for it. Tomuschat insisted that his writings were “not in any way the offspring of some kind of prejudice.” Moreover, his opposition to targeted killings was only his “personal view.” The report finds that Tomuschat’s attempted rebuttal misrepresented the prejudicial nature, degree and extent of his statements and actions, and failed to establish their conformity with his obligation to be independent and impartial. Conclusion and Recommendations In conclusion, this report finds that Professor Tomuschat’s extensive record of prejudicial actions and statements gives rise to actual bias, or the perception of bias. Accordingly, the report recommends that he immediately recuse himself from the committee, which was just given a renewed mandate from the Human Rights Council and asked to report back at its March 2011 session. In the event that Professor Tomuschat refuses to recuse himself, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay should disqualify him from the panel. In addition, she should clarify her process for selecting Professor Tomuschat, and explain why her office rejected his prior offer to step down. Finally, in light of calls for intervention by the ICC prosecutor, UN Watch recommends that the credibility of the Tomuschat Report be weighed in light of his lack of impartiality and independence. This should also be recognized by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and by the Chatham House group of international legal experts that addressed similar procedural deficiencies in the Goldstone Report. Click here for full document  Videos UN Watch Challenges Tomuschat in U.N. Human Rights Council Tomuschat Responds to Reuters Follow-Up to UN Watch Questions

The post GOLDSTONE II: Questions on the Impartiality of the U.N. Tomuschat Committee appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, September 27 – The U.N. chastised a non-governmental organization today after it challenged the independence and impartiality of the head of its Goldstone Report follow-up committee, noting he had performed work for Yasser Arafat and had a long record of describing Israel as a “state terrorist.”

Leon Saltiel of UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog organization, took the floor during today’s Human Rights Council debate (see statement below), after German professor Christian Tomuschat presented his panel’s new report.

In a rare reply from the dais, the chair of the council debate, Slovak Ambassador Fedor Rosocha, rejected UN Watch’s questions to Tomuschat, saying they failed to show respect to a specific member of the panel.

Tomuschat himself then responded, but without addressing the substance of UN Watch’s questions: “I would like to respond to UN Watch: I do believe in judicial settlement of disputes. It seems that UN Watch does not share this view.”

The council’s special focus on Israel resumes this afternoon with the presentation of the flotilla probe report.

  ——————————-

Statement by UN Watch
Agenda Item 7, UNHRC 15^th Session
Interactive Dialogue with Tomuschat Expert Committee
(Goldstone Report Follow-Up)
As Delivered by Leon Saltiel, 27 September 2010

Thank you, Mr. President.

Professor Tomuschat, on November 27, 2009, after the Goldstone Report was published, Chatham House convened legal experts to examine its procedural aspects. We wish to ask you similar questions concerning your report.

 Your report sets forth the duty of investigators to be independent. Paragraph 22 says that this means “being institutionally detached from those implicated in the events.”

In this regard, we call your attention to news reports that, in 1996, you helped prepare a legal brief for Yasser Arafat, in which you advised the PLO leader on how to bring his case before the UN and the ICJ.

You are quoted, in the 25 July report of the Jerusalem Post, as saying that your brief was objective; that it should not be regarded as a “blemish”; and that you “could not recall” whether this work was done on behalf of Mr. Arafat.

Professor Tomuschat, assuming that, with the passage of time, you have been able to recall your brief for Mr. Arafat and the PLO, would you not agree that this contravenes the principle of independence as defined in your own report?

Second, your report addresses the duty of impartiality-the question of whether an investigator is, or is likely to be, biased.

In this regard, the Chatham House legal experts cited the acute problem of individuals who “participate in fact-finding missions regarding conflicts on which they may have written in the past.”

UN Watch has published a report today that documents numerous examples of your use of inflammatory language and one-sided conclusions against Israel.

We note three: 

• In 2002, and again in 2007, you cited Israel as your prime example of “State terrorism.” You wrote there was “little hope” its judicial system would conduct effective investigations. Is not this preconception, going back eight years, directly relevant to today’s report?

• In 2006, when the German academic journal Friedenswarte featured two opposing views on the Israel-Hezbollah war, you presented the side opposed to Israel.

• This past year, you accused Israel of bombing “entire families” on frivolous grounds.

 Professor Tomuschat, would you not agree that these statements breach the Chatham House standard on perceived bias, and the standard of your own report?

Finally, we ask: How is it that, last month, at the same time as Hamas openly claimed credit for murdering four Israelis-an act of terror condemned by the High Commissioner-your committee was engaging with it as a serious stakeholder that might investigate its crimes against civilians?

Thank you, Mr. President.

The post UN plenary silences NGO challenge to impartiality of Goldstone Follow-Up panel appeared first on UN Watch.

Plus: Backgrounder on this Afternoon’s Flotilla Report

Geneva, September 27 – The U.N. chastised a non-governmental organization today after it challenged the independence and impartiality of the head of its Goldstone Report follow-up committee, noting he had performed work for Yasser Arafat and had a long record of describing Israel as a “state terrorist.”

Leon Saltiel of UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog organization, took the floor during today’s Human Rights Council debate (see statement below), after German professor Christian Tomuschat presented his panel’s new report.

In a rare reply from the dais, the chair of the council debate, Slovak Ambassador Fedor Rosocha, rejected UN Watch’s questions to Tomuschat, saying they failed to show respect to a specific member of the panel.

Tomuschat himself then responded, but without addressing the substance of UN Watch’s questions: “I would like to respond to UN Watch: I do believe in judicial settlement of disputes. It seems that UN Watch does not share this view.”

The council’s special focus on Israel resumes this afternoon with the presentation of the flotilla probe report. (See info at bottom.)

——————————-

Statement by UN Watch
Agenda Item 7, UNHRC 15^th Session
Interactive Dialogue with Tomuschat Expert Committee
(Goldstone Report Follow-Up)
As Delivered by Leon Saltiel, 27 September 2010

Thank you, Mr. President.

Professor Tomuschat, on November 27, 2009, after the Goldstone Report was published, Chatham House convened legal experts to examine its procedural aspects. We wish to ask you similar questions concerning your report.

Your report sets forth the duty of investigators to be independent. Paragraph 22 says that this means “being institutionally detached from those implicated in the events.”

In this regard, we call your attention to news reports that, in 1996, you helped prepare a legal brief for Yasser Arafat, in which you advised the PLO leader on how to bring his case before the UN and the ICJ.

You are quoted, in the 25 July report of the Jerusalem Post, as saying that your brief was objective; that it should not be regarded as a “blemish”; and that you “could not recall” whether this work was done on behalf of Mr. Arafat.

Professor Tomuschat, assuming that, with the passage of time, you have been able to recall your brief for Mr. Arafat and the PLO, would you not agree that this contravenes the principle of independence as defined in your own report?

Second, your report addresses the duty of impartiality—the question of whether an investigator is, or is likely to be, biased.

In this regard, the Chatham House legal experts cited the acute problem of individuals who “participate in fact-finding missions regarding conflicts on which they may have written in the past.”

UN Watch has published a report today that documents numerous examples of your use of inflammatory language and one-sided conclusions against Israel.

We note three:

• In 2002, and again in 2007, you cited Israel as your prime example of “State terrorism.” You wrote there was “little hope” its judicial system would conduct effective investigations. Is not this preconception, going back eight years, directly relevant to today’s report?

• In 2006, when the German academic journal Friedenswarte featured two opposing views on the Israel-Hezbollah war, you presented the side opposed to Israel.

• This past year, you accused Israel of bombing “entire families” on frivolous grounds.

Professor Tomuschat, would you not agree that these statements breach the Chatham House standard on perceived bias, and the standard of your own report?

Finally, we ask: How is it that, last month, at the same time as Hamas openly claimed credit for murdering four Israelis—an act of terror condemned by the High Commissioner—your committee was engaging with it as a serious stakeholder that might investigate its crimes against civilians?

Thank you, Mr. President.

——————————————————————–

BACKGROUNDER ON UNHRC FLOTILLA REPORT, TO BE PRESENTED THIS AFTERNOON

Geneva, Sept. 27 – The credibility of today’s UN Human Rights Council report on the May 31 flotilla incident is marred by a predetermined verdict, said UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.

“The mandate of the probe violated due process and objectivity by presuming Israeli guilt from the outset,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. “It’s another example of what former UN rights chief Mary Robinson recently described as the unfortunate and regrettable practice by the council to adopt resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics.” [See Note 1]

According to Neuer, “by declaring Israel guilty before any facts were even collected, the resolution tainted the mission with prejudicial bias, and contravened the UN’s own Declaration on Fact Finding, which requires objectivity and impartiality.”

“It speaks volumes that Khaled Mashaal, the leader of the Hamas terrorist group, asked for this probe—literally for the council to create ‘another Goldstone report’—while the Palestinian Authority actually opposed it,” said Neuer.

“The perception of the council’s one-sided approach and lack of credibility is so severe that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s office in New York has completely ignored this probe in seeking to establish their own.”

“Tragically, rather than contribute to defusing the Arab-Israeli conflict and bringing people together with an objective, human rights approach, the council has played a divisive role with inflammatory statements that only increase frictions,” said Neuer.

Background on Resolution HRC 14/1 Establishing the Probe:

The Resolution: Barely 48 hours after the incident, the probe was created by a June 2, 2010 council resolution, initiated by the council’s Islamic and Arab groups of states, that condemned Israel “in the strongest terms” as guilty of committing an “outrageous attack” on the flotilla. Despite video evidence already available at the time, the resolution omitted any reference to the beating of Israeli soldiers by Turkish IHH militants brandishing knives, axes and metal rods, and of their televised admissions to seeking Jihad and martyrdom.

Who Voted For It: Those countries voting in favor of the resolution included China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. The U.S., Italy and Netherlands voted against it. France, Britain, Japan, Belgium, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, South Korea, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Zambia, and Madagacar all abstained or deliberately chose to absent themselves.

Hamas Called for Probe: As the Human Rights Council was meeting for its urgent debate on the flotilla, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal demanded the creation of a probe like the council’s 2009 Goldstone Report.[2]

Addressing a crowd of masses in the Yemeni capital of Sana on June 1, Mashal accused Israel of committing serious crimes against the flotilla and urged the international community not to let the Jewish state escape punishment. Mashaal congratulated “all the countries and nations which stood by our side.”[3]

“We need a new ‘Goldstone report,’ which will condemn Israel,” said Mashaal. “In addition, (Israeli Defense Minister Ehud) Barak, (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and all the Zionist leaders must be put on trail for being war criminals.” Mashaal thanked the sail’s participants and Turkey, and called on all Arab countries to adopt a similar policy to the one taken by Ankara against Israel.[4]

Hamas has now praised the final report.

Palestinian Authority Opposed It: According to the Electronic Intifada news website, the Palestinian Authority actively sought to frustrate the Human Rights Council’s establishment of the probe, because its officials understood that it would strengthen Hamas, emboldening extremists over moderates.[5]

Notes:

[1] See Mary Robinson quote here, from Geneva’s Le Temps, Feb. 4, 2009.

[2] Roee Nahmias, “Mashal wants Goldstone report on sail,” Ynet, June 1, 2010.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

5] Asa Winstanley, “Exclusive: Leaked documents show PA undermined Turkey’s push for UN flotilla probe,” The Electronic Intifada, 22 June 2010, at https://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11350.shtml.

The post U.N. Plenary Silences Challenge to Impartiality of Goldstone Follow-Up Panel appeared first on UN Watch.