The DISH

Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use

Vol. 12 Issue 38…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…September 20, 2009

 

 

Bit of History

Richard J. Goldstone



Born in South Africa on the October 26, 1938, Richard J. Goldstone graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand with a BA LLB cum laude in 1962. Goldstone practiced as an Advocate at the Johannesburg Bar until 1976, when he was appointed Senior Counsel. In 1980, Goldstone was appointed Judge of the Transvaal Supreme Court. From 1985 to 2000, Goldstone was President of the National Institute of Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO). He also chaired the Bradlow Foundation, a charitable educational trust, and headed the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA).


From July 1994 to October 2003, Goldstone served as a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. A committed human rights activist, (1991 to 1994), he chaired the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, which came to be known as the Goldstone Commission. From August 15, 1994 to September 1996, Goldstone served as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

 

He was a member of the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA) which was established in 1997 to identify Nazi war criminals who had emigrated to Argentina, and transferred victim assets (Nazi gold) there.

 

During 1998, he chaired a high level group of international experts meeting in Valencia, Spain that drafted a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities for the Director General of UNESCO (the Valencia Declaration). From 1999 to December 2001, Goldstone chaired the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo. In 2001, he was appointed chairman of the International Task Force on Terrorism

 

In April 2004, Goldstone was appointed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Independent International Committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, to investigate the Iraq Oil for Food program.

 

From 2004 through 2008, in addition to his teaching appointments, Goldstone was the chair of the Advisory Committee to the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation, an initiative of the Salzburg Global Seminar. In 2008, the Institute became an independent entity, with Goldstone as its chairman. He also continues as a member of the board of directors of the Salzburg Global Seminar.

 

Goldstone serves on the Board of Directors of several nonprofit organizations that promote justice, including Physicians for Human Rights, the International Center for Transitional Justice, the South African Legal Services Foundation, the Brandeis University Center for Ethics, Justice, and Public Life, Human Rights Watch, and the Center for Economic and Social Rights. He is a trustee of Hebrew University and Link-SA, a charity which funds the tertiary education of poor South Africans.

 

In 2004, Goldstone was a Global Visiting Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and the William Hughes Mulligan Visiting Professor at Fordham Law School. He was the Henry Shattuck Visiting Professor Law at Harvard Law School in 2005.

 

Goldstone is a Woodrow Wilson Visiting Scholar in Political Science at Washington & Jefferson College. He was named the 2007 Weissberg Distinguished Professor of International Studies at Beloit College, in Beloit, Wisconsin.

 

Goldstone taught at Harvard University in the Spring 2007 semester. In Fall 2007 he was the William Hughes Mulligan Professor of International Law at Fordham University School of Law, and holds that position again in Fall 2009. Fordham Law presented him with a Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, in 2007, the highest honor the school can bestow.

 

Goldstone is the recipient of numerous awards, including the MacArthur Award for International Justice, the International Human Rights Award of the American Bar Association and the Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights. He holds honorary degrees and is an honorary fellow at a number of renowned colleges and universities. In 2009, Goldstone became the first person to be named The Hague Peace Philosopher, which is part of the new Spinoza Fellowship program run by the city of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS), Radio Netherlands, and the Hague Campus of the University of Leiden. He is an honorary member of the Association of the Bar of New York, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a fellow of the Center for International Affairs of Harvard University.


Goldstone has authored numerous articles on international humanitarian law and written forewords to several books, including "Martha Minow's Beyond Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide" and "Mass Violence and War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg", which examines the political and legal influence those trials have had on contemporary war crime proceedings. He is the author of For Humanity: Reflections of a War Crimes Investigator (2001).

 

On the 3 April 2009, Goldstone was named to head the independent United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War, which was established by Resolution S-9/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

 

A South African Jew, Goldstone is married and has two daughters and four grandsons. According to his daughter Nicole, Goldstone "is a Zionist and loves Israel." (Sources: www.un.org, http://en.wikipedia.org and http://untreaty.un.org.

 

 




Goldstone's Views Shaped by Holocaust

By John Burl Smith



I think the truth is always helpful. If the truth makes all sides that little bit uncomfortable, that's not a bad thing.


Judge Richard Goldstone, the head of the United Nations commission investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity has spoke in many forums regarding this subject. Following charges by his committee that Israel committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip during its offensive there last winter, he has given several interviews. Goldstone, who is Jewish and has strong ties to Israel, is proud of his Jewish identity and links it firmly to his human rights concerns. A president emeritus of World ORT, an international Jewish vocational training organization that maintains some of its biggest projects in Israel, he also serves on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's board of governors. Goldstone, one of the world's leading war crime investigators, has previously prosecuted war crimes in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia and has steadfastly defended the work of his commission calling its findings open-minded and impartial.

 

Interviewed just four days before the report's release, Goldstone was unapologetic about his decision to take up the job. "I was driven particularly because I thought the outcome might, in a small way, assist the peace process. I really thought I was one person who could achieve an even-handed mission." So with truth and openness as his goal, Goldstone hopes his report will contribute towards the rebuilding of a Middle East peace process.

 

Goldstone believes this process is very important because: "We live in a world today where there is accountability for war crimes. This is a very new situation. There should be no impunity for international crimes that are committed. It's very important that justice should be done. I believe bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust. You see the Holocaust has shaped legal protocol on war, because it was the worst war crime in history. Contrary to their behavior today, Israel was one of the first countries to support the formation of a permanent court of law for crimes against humanity - a proposal that came up following the successful performance of the special tribunals on Bosnia. However, that changed after Egypt insisted at the Rome conference that the mandate of this permanent court include occupied territories. This prompted Israel to join the six other countries that voted against the formation of the International Court of Justice, including the United States, China and Libya.

 

How did this come about? "The perception of war crimes against humanity should resonate differently to Jewish ears, in light of how the Holocaust shaped conventions relevant to the subject. As a jurist, I viewed the Holocaust as a unique occurrence because of how it affected judicial protocol on war, as well as international and humanitarian judicial approaches. Laws, which were in place before the Holocaust, were not equipped to deal with crimes on such a scale and therefore a new definition was needed. These crimes were so great they went beyond their direct victims or countries in which they were perpetrated, to harm humanity as a whole -- thus they were labeled crimes against humanity. This definition meant that perpetrators were to be prosecuted anywhere, by any country.

 

This rationale constituted the basis for the concept of universal jurisdiction being applied by some countries where Israel Defense Forces officers are charged for alleged violations during their command in the West Bank and Gaza," Goldstone said. "The formative event for the universal jurisdiction concept was developed by Israel to justify putting the high-ranking Nazi officer Adolf Eichman on trial in 1961. Also, the international tribunals that judged Serbian war criminals for their actions in Bosnia, and the establishment of tribunals to review the actions of perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide - in which I served as chief prosecutor - also relied on lessons drawn from the Holocaust."


Goldstone feels that had a similar court existed to look into the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia in the '70s or Saddam Hussein's acts against Iraqi Kurds, the world would be in a better position to deal with events in Gaza and Afghanistan. Adding emphasis for relying on the Holocaust Goldstone said, "The first time such tribunals were set up were for Bosnia, because this was the first time after the Holocaust that such occurrences happened in 'Europe's backyard.' The war in Bosnia led to the formation of tribunals on crimes against humanity because European men with 'blue eyes and light skin' again carried out actions similar to the Holocaust."


Goldstone offered this evaluation, "I perhaps naively and certainly over optimistically thought that Israel would grab this opportunity of having a UN mission with an even-handed mandate to look into all allegations, including the Israeli allegations. I was extremely disappointed they didn't see it that way. It was the Israeli refusal to co-operate that made me think of having public hearings. I thought, 'We can get Israelis to come and talk to us in Geneva.' The idea became public hearings in Gaza and in Geneva, which worked out quite well."


Stepping into such a volatile situation and accepting such a controversial position, Goldstone harkened back to his decision in 1980 to accept the racist South African government's offer of a judicial appointment, which he characterize as, "The most difficult of my career. The government back then occasionally appointed liberals as judges in order to 'make good its boast of having an independent judiciary.' The danger of lending legitimacy to an immoral system by serving was very real. But ultimately, the hope of liberals that the legal system could be expanded from within to effect social change was vindicated." One of Goldstone's rulings effectively ended South Africa's policy of racially-segregated neighborhoods. (Sources: www.haaretz.com, www.businessday.co.za, www.spectator.co.uk and http://gimmetruth.wordpress.com)





Israel Guilty of War Crimes

By John Burl Smith



Israel struck a civilian population that remains under its control, it didn't fulfill its obligation to distinguish between civilians and militants and used military force disproportionate with the tangible threat to its own civilians. Air Force drones and helicopters fired deadly missiles at civilians, many of them children; the Tank Corps and Navy shelled civilian neighborhoods with weapons not designed for precision strikes; soldiers received orders to fire on rescue crews; others fired on civilians carrying white flags; and others killed people in or near their homes. Troops used Gazans as human shields, soldiers detained civilians in abusive conditions, the army used white phosphorus shells in dense civilian areas and, on the eve of withdrawing, destroyed wide residential, industrial and agricultural areas.


The United Nations fact-finding mission into Israel's Gaza offensive, Cast Lead, last December 27 thru January 18, 2009 describes Israel as perpetrating war crimes - a police state which persecutes minorities - and said the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may be guilty of war crimes also. However, the 575-page report, which was released ahead of its presentation to the U.N. Human Rights Council later this month, reserved its most serious condemnation for Israel's policies towards the Palestinians of Gaza. It characterized Israel's invasion of Gaza as "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate, and terrorise a civilian population." The report outlined what it believed were "grave breaches" of the fourth Geneva Convention, including willful killing and torture.

 

The commission specifies a number of government officials whose actions contributed to the mayhem. First, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon erred in 2005 in not seeing the Gaza disengagement to its conclusion by asking the international community for recognition that the occupation of Gaza had ended. A significant portion of the crimes for which Israel is now blamed stemmed from its humanitarian responsibility for the residents of the Gaza Strip.

 

Second, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak (prime and defense ministers respectively) erred in ignoring the Gazan population's suffering, and in allowing the death and destruction the IDF perpetrated during the Gaza campaign. Lengthening the operation and choosing to send in ground forces - decisions which won widespread support among the Israeli public - wrought untold damage to Israel's international image, and bolstered the legitimacy of Hamas.

 

Third, the mission report said, Israel should pay compensation to Palestinians who suffered losses or damages as a result of any unlawful actions by the military. The mission believed the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population. It found seven incidents where civilians were shot while leaving their homes trying to run for safety, waving white flags and sometimes even following Israeli instructions, as well as the targeting of a mosque at prayer time, killing 15 people, were seen as war crimes. It cited incidents where food production facilities, drinking water installations and other such sites were attacked, raising the specter of "crimes against humanity." It also condemned the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip, which it deemed "collective punishment" that was part of a "systematic policy" to isolate the coastal territory.

 

Fourth, none of the defenses given in Israeli media after the Gaza operation - that the IDF is "the most moral army in the world," that "striking civilian-populated areas was necessary and proportional" were offered by Israel before the commission. Israel decided to question the investigators' legitimacy and not cooperate with commission chair Richard Goldstone and his team. By not appearing before the commission, a university student in Britain or Spain will perceive Israel's silence as an admission of guilt.


Fifth and finally, to its credit this report relied on nearly 200 interviews and over 20,000 pages of documents and photos in determining that violations of international law had been committed. Western governments may ignore this damning report, however in places where UN documents are still taken seriously -- public opinion, the media, on campuses and in think tanks -- it will now serve as the basis of criticism against Israel.

 

For instance, with the help of human rights groups casualties were set at 1,417 people including 926 civilians during Israel's offensive in the coastal enclave of 1.5 million people. The investigators identified three Israeli attacks where white phosphorus was used, (Israel claimed it was deployed as a smokescreen). These attacks were condemned as disproportionate or excessive under international law. The mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas. They said that Israel failed to take "all feasible precautions" in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. The commission also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals and adjacent ambulance depot as "direct and intentional attacks" which "may constitute war crimes." Such a damning indictment of Israel cannot be dismissed by a charge of bias. (Sources: www.washingtonpost.com, www.google.com, www.timesonline.co.uk, http://news.bbc.co.uk, www.guardian.co.uk and http://gpolya.newsvine.com)






Venue for an Artist

Will Israel Fall in Five Years?

By Jeff Gates



Online reports of a study by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S., its key ally, Israel could fall within five years.

 

For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate U.S. media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behavior, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts transparent.

 

Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs, that too is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one-state versus two-state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama.

 

The leaders of the 9-11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the U.S.-Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial Apartheid government.

 

With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another right-wing Likud Party stalwart, it's clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced U.S. national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding "No."

 

That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the U.S. is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the U.S. diplomatic corps.


By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear "the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party." Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans "not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."


Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against Apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behavior--and clear evidence of no intent to change--activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others.


The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Absent pressure--and likely force--applied by the U.S. as the nation that has long enabled this behavior, Colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace. Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise for their readiness to surrender nuclear arms.


The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one-state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed "Jewish" (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the "Jewish state," then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years?


Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders, instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under U.N. protection and dispatch multi-national forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If Colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for "their" property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation.


Those who consider themselves "Jewish" can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold U.S. passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive. Likewise for Russia from which many "Jews" fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish.


Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence.


By withdrawing Israel's status as a legitimate "state," those Jews long appalled by the behavior of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel's nuclear arms program and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region.


Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realize that only one "state" had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the U.S. to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of Colonial Zionism.


Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the U.S. government, 9-11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, this extremism has been enabled by a series of weak U.S. presidents. For the U.S. to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise but that it also share responsibility for its behavior to date.


About Me: A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Gates' latest book is Guilt By Association-How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous works include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century.





Politics Y2K9

The Waldorf-Astoria Summit (Excerpts).
By Uri Avnery

 

No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten. Obama had demanded a freeze of all settlement activity, including East Jerusalem, as a condition for convening a tripartite summit meeting, in the wake of which accelerated peace negotiations were to start, leading to peace between two states - Israel and Palestine.

 

In the words of the ancient proverb, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Netanyahu has tripped Obama on his first step. The President of the United States has stumbled.

 

The threefold summit did indeed take place. But instead of a shining achievement for the new American administration, we witnessed a humbling demonstration of weakness. After Obama was compelled to give up his demand for a settlement freeze, the meeting no longer had any content.

 

True, Mahmoud Abbas did come, after all. He was dragged there against his will. The poor man was unable to refuse the invitation from Obama, his only support. But he will pay a heavy price for this flight: the Palestinians, and the entire Arab world, have seen his weakness. And Obama, who had started his term with a ringing speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, now looks like a broken reed.


The Israeli peace movement has been dealt another painful blow. It had pinned its hopes on the steadfastness of the American president. Obama's victory and the settlement freeze were to show the Israeli public that the refusal policy of Netanyahu was leading to disaster.


But Netanyahu has won, and in a big way. Not only did he survive, not only has he shown that he is no "sucker" (a word he uses all the time), he has proven to his people - and to the public at large - that there is nothing to fear: Obama is nothing but a paper tiger. The settlements can go on expanding without hindrance. Any negotiations that start, if they start at all, can go on until the coming of the Messiah. Nothing will come out of them. For Netanyahu, the threat of peace has passed. At least for the time being.

 

It is difficult to understand how Obama allowed himself to get into this embarrassing situation. Machiavelli taught that one should not challenge a lion unless one is able to kill him. And Netanyahu is not even a lion, just a fox.


Logic would say that Obama, before entering the fray, should have decided which instruments of pressure to employ. The arsenal is inexhaustible - from a threat by the US not to shield the Israeli government with its veto in the Security Council, to delaying the next shipment of arms. In 1992 James Baker, George Bush Sr's Secretary of State, threatened to withhold American guarantees for Israel's loans abroad. That was enough to drag even Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid conference.


It seems that Obama was either unable or unwilling to exert such pressures, even secretly, even behind the scenes. This week he allowed the American navy to conduct major joint war-games with the Israeli Air Force.

 

Some people hoped that Obama would use the Goldstone report to exert pressure on Netanyahu. Just one hint that the US might not use its veto in the Security Council would have sown panic in Jerusalem. Instead, Washington published a statement on the report, dutifully toeing the Israeli propaganda line.


True, it is hard for the US to condemn war crimes that are so similar to those committed by its own soldiers. If Israeli commanders are put on trial in The Hague, American generals may be next in line. Until now, only the losers in wars were indicted. What will the world come to if those who remain in office are also accused?


The inescapable conclusion is that Obama's defeat is the outcome of a faulty assessment of the situation. His advisors, who are considered seasoned politicians, were wrong about the forces involved.


The 2000 threefold summit meeting at Camp David was high drama. Many hopes were pinned on it, success seemed to be within reach, but in the end it collapsed, with the participants blaming each other. The 2009 Waldorf-Astoria summit was the farce.





Hood Notes

Harvesting Organs



"A Jew is entitled to extract the liver from a goy if he needs it, for the life of a Jew is more valuable than the life of a goy, likewise the life of a goy is more valuable than the life of an animal." Khabbad rabbi, Yitzhak Ginzburg

 

On August 8, 2009, a leading Swedish newspaper reported that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs. "They plunder the organs of our sons," read the headline in Sweden's largest daily newspaper, the left-leaning Aftonbladet, which devoted a double spread in its cultural section to the article.

 

The report quotes Palestinian claims that young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israel Defense Forces, and their bodies returned to the families with missing organs.  "Our sons are used as involuntary organ donors," relatives of Khaled from Nablus said to me, as did the mother of Raed from Jenin as well as the uncles of Machmod and Nafes from Gaza, who all had disappeared for a few days and returned by night, dead and autopsied," writes author Donald Boström in his report.

 

Boström's article makes a link to the recent exposure of an alleged crime syndicate in New Jersey. The syndicate includes several American rabbis, and one Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, who faces charges of conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for a transplant.

 

You could call me a 'matchmaker,' said Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, from Brooklyn, USA, in a secret recording with an FBI-agent whom he believed to be a client. Ten days later, at the end of July this year, Rosenbaum was arrested and a vast, Sopranos-like, imbroglio of money-laundering and illegal organ-trade was revealed. Rosenbaum's matchmaking had nothing to do with romance, reported the Palestinian Telegraph.


It was all about buying and selling kidneys from Israel on the black market. Rosenbaum says that he buys the kidneys for $10,000, from poor people. He then proceeds to sell the organs to desperate patients in the States for $160,000. The accusations have shaken the American transplantation business. If they are true it means that organ trafficking is documented for the first time in the US, experts tell the New Jersey Real-Time News.


On the question of how many organs he has sold Rosenbaum replies: "Quite a lot. And I have never failed," he boasts. The business has been running for quite some time. Francis Delmonici, professor of transplant surgery at Harvard and member of the National Kidney Foundation's Board of Directors, tells the same newspaper that organ-trafficking, similar to the one reported from Israel, is carried out in other places of the world as well. 5-6,000 operations a year, about ten per cent of the world's kidney transplants are carried out illegally, according to Delmonici.


Boström also cites an incident of alleged organ snatching from 1992, during the time of the first Palestinian intifada. He says that the IDF seized a young man known for throwing stones at Israeli troops in the Nablus area, who was shot in the chest, both legs, and the stomach before being taken to a military helicopter which transported him to "a place unknown to his loved ones".

 

Five nights later, Boström says, the young man's body was returned, wrapped in green hospital sheets. "The sharp sounds from the shovels were mixed with the occasional laughter from the soldiers who were joking with each other, waiting to go home. When Bilal was put into his grave, his chest was revealed and suddenly it became clear to the present what abuse he had been put through.

 

Bilal was far from the only one who was buried cut-up from his stomach to his chin and the speculations about the reason why had already started," he writes.

 

Half of the kidneys transplanted to Israelis since the beginning of the 2000s have been bought illegally from Turkey, Eastern Europe or Latin America. Israeli health authorities have full knowledge of this business but do nothing to stop it.


At a 2003 conference, it was shown that Israel is the only western country with a medical profession that doesn't condemn the illegal organ trade. Israel takes no legal measures against doctors participating in the illegal business - on the contrary, chief medical officers of Israel's big hospitals are involved in most of the illegal transplants, according to Dagens Nyheter (December 5, 2003).


In the summer of 1992, Ehud Olmert, then minister of health, tried to address the issue of organ shortage by launching a big campaign aimed at having the Israeli public register for post mortem organ donation. Half a million pamphlets were spread in local newspapers.


Ehud Olmert himself was the first person to sign up. A couple of weeks later the Jerusalem Post reported that the campaign was a success. No fewer than 35,000 people had signed up.


Prior to the campaign it would have been 500 in a normal month. In the same article, however, Judy Siegel, the reporter, wrote that the gap between supply and demand was still large. 500 people were in line for a kidney transplant, but only 124 transplants could be performed. Of 45 people in need of a new liver, only three could be operated on in Israel. (Source: www.tripolipost.com)






Mailbox: E-Mails, Faxes and Phone Calls



Email www.presstv.ir ...Egypt calls for international supervision of Israel's nuclear program as the pressure mounts on Tel Aviv to account for its controversial activities. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, in a letter to all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), asked the council to enforce the observation, Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Wednesday. Aboul Gheit mentioned that Tel Aviv has been refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), adding that "Israel's nuclear capabilities cannot evade world attention." The appeal came after the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a landmark resolution on Thursday urging Israel to open its entire nuclear program to IAEA inspection and join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Egypt and other members of the Arab League upheld the decision which had been fiercely opposed by the US and its Western allies. Tel Aviv reacted strongly by claiming it faced 'hostility' on the part of its neighbors and insisted that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution." Aboul Gheit also urged the UNSC to develop a timeframe for a nuclear-free Middle East. Since 1958, when it began building its Dimona plutonium and uranium processing facility, Israel has reportedly manufactured scores of nuclear warheads earning reputation as the sole owner of such hardware in the Middle East. Former US president Jimmy Carter, aerial footage and decades of recurrent reporting have attested to the existence of the armament. The IAEA resolution had likewise warned of 'Israeli nuclear capabilities.'

 

Email news@ihr.org ...Hollywood denounces "boycott Israel" call made at Toronto International Film Festival...Hollywood fights back against anti-Israeli sentiment…Ad denounces boycott demands made at Toronto International Film Festival...By Tina Daunt...Left, right or center, there's two things nearly everybody in Hollywood agrees on: There's no disease that can't be cured by raising enough money and the state of Israel deserves unabashed support. These days, sympathy for Israel puts the American entertainment industry at odds with much of the European film and academic communities. In those circles, vehement criticism of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and boycotts of Israeli scholars and artists have become almost fashionable. (In cinematic London, Hamas militants are the new baby seals.) Hollywood has mostly shrugged all this off, until this week, when it decided that an outbreak of anti-Israeli agitation in Toronto was bringing things a little too close to home. Canadian documentary filmmaker John Greyson pulled his latest movie from this week's Toronto International Film Festival because he said the event's sister-city relationship with Tel Aviv was an implicit endorsement of "the smiling face of Israeli apartheid."

 

Email www.conspiracyplanet.com...The Hidden Truth about Israel Kidney Theft Ring...By Joseph Cannon...Where do the kidneys come from? I'm talking about the kidneys offered by an "organist" named Izzy Rosenbaum. The FBI scooped him up in a corruption probe that focused on pay-offs to New Jersey pols (nothing surprising about that) and money laundering by prominent rabbis: The probe also uncovered Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn, who is accused of conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for a transplant. According to the complaint, Rosenbaum said he had been brokering sale of kidneys for 10 years. "His business was to entice vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $10,000 which he would turn around and sell for $160,000," said Marra. Marra is a US attorney involved with the case. News accounts like the one quoted above have led the public to believe that the "donors" were both willing and compensated, and that this operation was purely private. But good evidence indicates that the matter is far, far more troubling. The kidneys were "donated" at gunpoint by unwilling victims.