For goodness sake. Given Justice Goldstone's admits that his "findings" are known to be capable of being disproved and given that his "commission" chose to ignore evidence which would have disproved them, why did they ever get into a report which, having the UN's imprimatur, is adopted by any government and by any media title that chooses to, irrespective of the facts? Oh, I know, just politics. Goldstone has plenty to be embarrassed about, having created something with similar perceived authoritativeness and potential as the "Protocols". And, given where the "commission's" remit came from and the commission members' track records, the outcome was predictable. Brown and Sarkozy should not be building on it. They should be rejecting the findings as a matter of moral principle.

His financing came from New York to be made PM. (who were the financiers???) And was it not one of his cabinet ministers who said:" We MUST have war in Europe, It is the only way to convince european Jews to immigrate to Palestine".

Its interesting to note in the article- “pillars of humanitarianism” include Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ghana, Bahrain, Qatar, Cuba, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Senegal, Pakistan and of course Saudi Arabia. We all know these countries are known to have human rights issues of their own...yet here they are at the vanguard , assailing Israel. ...and now Goldstone ...having second thoughts..not so resolute. "Goldstone acknowledged that the report is limited and if it were presented in “a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." Goldstone belatedly added that he himself "wouldn't consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved." This whole affair is a sham. It is a disgrace.

Ophir Falk wrote: "Public norms and laws changed, and with the end of WWII, the international community rewrote the laws of war. In an attempt to protect civilians, the Geneva Conventions and subsequent protocols categorized people in conflict as combatants or non-combatants, with the latter designated as immune to attack....." This new categorization is not fitting for WWII, in a struggle between civilatiion and Nazi savagery; the very same struggle in which Israel is engaged. When the US and the British again face a similar struggle in the future, the US and England will not hesitate to repeat the lessons of WWII. They will kill enemy civilians indiscriminately, make no mistake about it. The US and the British are not carefully distinguishing beween combatants and non-combatants in Afghanistan. Every week or so we read that scores of civilians have been slaughtered in this or that military action or bombing. Don't be fooled by pious pretentions. War is not pretty. The notion that civilians like those in Nazi Germany or Gaza are wholly innocent is a questionable assertion.

Here's a little Winston Churchill quote about how he felt about the Jews. This dates sometime just after the Russian Revolution probably no later than 1925. Read, enjoy and discuss. “Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world. The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilisation. And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.”

And Mr Goldstone was elevated to the SA Bench in old SA

There is no reason that pali civilians should not be killed while our civilians and the civilians in every war from thousands of years ago till today are killed. No reason at all for them not to suffer the consequences of the evil regime they elected. Let them try to rid themselves of the terrorist groups and not use terrorism against Israel. If not, then the next time there will be a lot more palis dead.

After all the facts appeared of bombing in WW11, certainly Churchill and Bomber Harris(cheif of RAF) who flattened Dresden were war criminals but he might be a hero to some sect of the British poulation and if the Nazis were war criminals justice should be applied to all, few new historians in UK are thinking in that line. But any establishment is easily can fool and brainwash people to think otherwise espicially if they win wars. History eventually becomes questionable and look at facts as they are. Was flattening Dresden justiifiable, it had no military purpose and resulted in killing a lot of women and children, Israelis should ask themselves the very same questions to search for their soul and humanity..

ywes,if he dared to bomb a german town with many civilians,among them some PaLestinians recruited by the Germans

He divided allotted Israel in to Jordan and Israel, then again divided Israel in to Palestine and Israel! He is a real criminal. Sue him and Britain.

Churchill was an alcoholic and suffered from severe bipolar mental illness (he referred to his bouts of depression as his "black dog"). He did some unscrupulous things in the Middle East with respect to carving up Jewish land. He had some peculiar ideas about international Jewish cabals and conspiracies, which made him, in some ways, no better than Hitler (may his name be cursed throughout etermity) and in a certain respect, far worse. But a war criminal? No. At least not in the sense the article implies, but I will get to that in a bit. The fact of the matter is that the incessant carpet bombing of Germany helped to bring about a swift end to the war. The civilian death toll was high, even unconsionable, but -- hey -- the Germans got EXACTLY what they voted for. War is not clean and antiseptic, and civilian deaths are the rule, not the exception. Here is why I think Churchill was a war criminal. He delayed, and delayed, and delayed yet again the Allied invasion of Europe. Why? There is some historical evidence to suggest, from Churchill's diary and letters, that he was well aware that Germany had lost the war, essentially by late 1943. Churchill was thinking ahead -- oil had been discovered in Mesopotamia in 1920, and the British ruled that part of the world. He knew full well what was happening to the Jews of Europe. He also knew that any Jewish survivors would want entry into Palestine and statehood. He knew that the Arabs were loath to allow this, which is why Britain put an end to Jewish emigration to Palestine in 1937. This had the effect of sealing Jews in Europe -- no place to go -- and effectively signed their death warrants. Churchill delayed the invasion as long as he could in order to give the Nazis enough time to slaughter as many Jews as humanly possible so as to minimize the number of Jews who might survive and who would in all likelihood demand the right to emigrate to Palestine. Pretty effective ploy. And that is why Churchill is a war criminal. He rolled the dice on human lives in order to secure a steady flow of oil to Britain. His actions in ordering intensive carpet bombing of Germany was not a war crime. His tacit compliance in the attempted extermination of the Jews is what made him a war criminal. Of course, it all backfired. Palestine was the first jewel to fall off the crown of British imperialism, closely followed by Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, India, New Zealand. Singapore and Malaysia. By the early 1960s, Britain lost pretty much all the rest of its colonial holdings. But it was the Jews that kicked the chair out from underneath Great Britain, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.

speech from 1920 entitled, by the way, "Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle for the soul of the Jewish People". What Churchill inlcuded in that speech was: "Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion."

It seems very simplistic and almost certainly wrong to claim that it was the practical anihilation of European cities considered German strongholds that was "a decisive factor in the eventual victory of the allied forces," rather than that it was the destruction of strategic areas with-in or around those cities that had the major effect. By todays standards the bombing of these civilian areas "to destroy the morale of the enemy," particularly given the Nazi's bombing of civilian areas of British cities in 1940-41 had already had the opposite effect (of strengthening British morale) seem to me unarguably to be war crimes. I as a Brit have no problem with Winston Churchill being considered a war criminal, and hope with time a more honest assessment of our own history will come to dominate.

On the comparison of Hamas' actions with the Blitz: this surely requires a whole lot more than a rocket to bomb count! If the damage caused by Hamas' was in any way comensurate with that caused by the Nazi's air assaults on London and other British cities during WWII, Israel would have the sympathy it seems to expect when this is not the case. If Hamas did have the ability to affect Blitz scale death and destruction on Israel, my guess is that the whole IP conflict would have reached a far more equitable solution than anything Israel looks willing to accept with the current power balance a long time ago. If we are however going to reduce this to a tit for tat projectile count, it does seem only fair that we should look at airborne ordinance that has come the other way: from Israel into Gaza. Israeli mortars fired into Gaza from Israel between Aug 2005 and November 2006: 15,000. Israeli airstrikes in the same period: over 250. Rockets/Mortars fired by Palestinian militant groups (some Hamas) in the same period: over 1,700 (an Israeli figure, so presumably far less than 15,000) So over 9 years all Palestinian militant groups have failed to fire as many rockets & mortars into Israel than the number of more destructive projectiles that Israel fired into Gaza in a year and three months! These figures are from the Goldstone report so people may not like to trust them, however, Given the damage they do to the "8,000 rockets legitimates 'Cast Lead'" argument, and the seeming total absence of criticism of them that I have come across amongst the Goldstone reports detractors--they have all read the report haven't they?--I think it is fair to consider them accurate. Personally I am happy to see the Goldstone report condemning war crimes as war crimes--whoever commits them.

You wrote: "(Churchill) delayed, and delayed, and delayed yet again the Allied invasion of Europe. Why?" Can you be specific? What invasion(s) are you talking about in particular that he ordered delayed? Sarah: "There is some historical evidence to suggest, from Churchill's diary and letters, that he was well aware that Germany had lost the war, essentially by late 1943. "Churchill was thinking ahead -- oil had been discovered in Mesopotamia in 1920, and the British ruled that part of the world. He knew full well what was happening to the Jews of Europe. He also knew that any Jewish survivors would want entry into Palestine and statehood. He knew that the Arabs were loath to allow this, which is why Britain put an end to Jewish emigration to Palestine in 1937....." It was the 1939 MacDonald White Paper that greatly restricted or cut off Jewish immigration. What happened in 1937? Sarah: "This had the effect of sealing Jews in Europe -- no place to go -- and effectively signed their death warrants....." I agree with you, this was and is criminal but what does the murder of Six million Jews have to do with the free-flow of oil? No doubt the British cut off Jewish immigration to "Palestine" in order to appease the Arabs. Are you suggesting that had more Jews immigrated to "Palestine" the Arabs might have refused to sell oil to the British? This was Churchill's fear? And you believe this was because of two many Jim Beam Bourbon and Sodas?

In all the time, years, that Palestinians have sent rockets over into Israel, they have killed TEN Israelis. 199 out of 200 of their rockets may as well have been filled with cream puffs. Your Cast Lead operation killed 12 times that many women alone in 22 days, among the 900+ civilians killed, and I certainly trust PCHR figures over the IDF's because PCHR Gaza was right there, amid the bombing and mayhem. If you want them to stop their cream-puff rockets, stop demolishing their homes and stealing their land.

Elie Cohen,(zl) was tortured and hanged in Damascus for spying for Israel. Gazaans fight in just the clothes they are wearing for everyday purposes.Few wear army uniform .Armed resistance to the"Occupiying Enemy " deserve the same fate as spies meted out in the "Arab World".Once found guilty of this crime,these people according to International Law fall into the category of "Spies".They are lucky that they were not hanged.The destruction of their weapon facilities in tunnels,schools,hospitals,homes by the Israeli Defence forces is their good luck sign.Israel didn"t use its full capability to bring these people to the sense of realism that is observable in the "Arab World" today It would be questionable if a "Gazaan would survive today !...Mr Goldstone and Co.oserve !

The invasion via Normandy was extremely costly. An invasion via the soft underbelly of Europe (the Balkans) would have been far more prudent. It would have meant, however, that Allied forces would have reached Eastern Europe much sooner than Churchill would have liked. Quite right. Mea culpa. 1939. The British were looking beyond the War -- the ultimate outcome became quite likely once Germany opened a front to the east, and became a foregone conclusion following the end of the protracted Battle of Stalingrad on February 2, 1943. In any event, Churchill knew what was happening to the Jews, and he knew that most of the remnant remaining following Germany's surrender would want to go to Palestine. (He was correct.) He also knew that that would create much animosity against the British, who held the Mandate. (He was correct.) Churchill just wanted to ensure an uninterrupted flow of oil to Britain which, in turn, meant that the Arabs throughout the region had to be appeased. His form of appeasement was to give the Nazis as much time as possible to continue the slaughter. You will recall that he did some unscrupulous things -- didn't do them, actually -- including an outright refusal to bomb railways deporting Jews from Western Europe to the east, because he did not want the Germans to suspect that the British had broken their codes and had the Enigma encryptor. Finally, the Arabs did not sell oil to the British. The British took it themselves, and threw a few pence at King Feisal. I remind you that Iraq was one of the countries that invaded Israel in 1948. Iraq was actually a fairly big player in the Middle East. Sarcasm noted -- not terribly effective; subtlety is completely lacking -- but I suggested no such thing. Moreover, Churchill was a scotch man. Single malt.

Sarah is telling the truth on all counts. It was the Peel Commission in 1937 that made the initial effort to block Jewish refugees from entering Palestine. And what do murdering 6 million Jews have to do with oil? It's just like Sarah said, though it only shows how deranged Churchill was. For him to allow Germany to murder as many Jews as possible was pointless, as you submit, but hey, he did it, didn't he? And yes, Britain deserved to see its kingdom crumble. That's what happens when G-d curses those who curse Israel. Never mind all the Jews who ever lived there, it's the land set aside by the Almighty. He will not forsake Israel to appease any foreign power. Call me a religious fanatic, but His work and His plan cannot be stopped.

-Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن)- "The "Palestinian people" does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a "Palestinian people".."

It is beyond contempt to have a JUDGE state that his findings wouldnt hold water in a court of law, and that if any of his findings turn out to be unproven, he woul not be embarrased by that fact. FACT is that by his obvious irresponsability he has done great harm to Israel and to the cause of Jewish survival by giving legitimacy to absurd claims of war crimes against a country that strugles on a daily basis, against inmoral enemies bent by their own public admission, on the destruction of Israel and the murder of its Jewish population, the least he could be, is totally ASHAMED OF WHAT HE HAS DONE, and of what he has become

The point is that the very day that Israel left Gaza in 2005, Hamas commenced firing rockets into Israel. Now despite the fact that they did not succeed in killing hundreds of Israelis does not detract from the fact that it was and is their intention to do so. They have specifically written in the Hamas charter. In fact they want to kill ALL Jews. Something you may want to take note of. Israel reacted to these rockets after 8,000 fell on its Southern cities . I wonder how the US would react in a similar circumstance for even one bomb landing in say even an empty area such as the Nevada desert. I wonder if America would not have reacted to 9/11 even if there had not been any casualties at all. What amazes me is that in spite of Israel returning all of the Sinai to Egypt, In spite of Israel leaving Lebanon and in spite of Israel removing all Jews from Gaza, you still claim that Israel is stealing their land!

The issue is with the morons that don't read it, especially that ahole Goldstone. A combatant is a combatant, uniformed or otherwise. Their acts of aggression are acts of war. If they target civilians then they are war-crimes period. Any acts to prevent a war-crime cannot be a war-crime period. Just use the laws as written, not re-written by racists and idiots.

Sarah, I should know better than to be sarcastic. Sorry. You began by stating Churchill was an alchololic or a very heavy drinker, but so was Oskar Schindler and Schindler reportedly was a womanizer, yet Schindler saved Jews from the Nazis; unlike Churchill. Nevertheless, I agree with your basic point. I just finished reading one of Churchill's biographers (William Manchester) who made the case that Winston and his wife "Clemie" were no anti-Semites by the standards of English society in their day. The Churchills did not tolerate anti-Semitic jokes in their presence and Churchill often referred to Nazi brutality against the Jews when he made his case in the Parliament for re-armament. But as you pointed out earlier, Churchill, like Chamberlain, honored the murderous White Paper which barred Jewish immigration into Mandatory "Palestine." Churchill consigned Europe's Jews to systematic murder at the hands of the Nazis, both he and president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You did not mention FDR. I hope you are not giving him a pass. Mary, I could not agree with you more about G-d cursing those who curse Israel. What else can explain what happened to this once great world empire? Do you think America is following England's terrible example?

Thank you very much. G-d bless you and yours.

The IDF did not act reasonable or moral. If they had they would have killed thousands of noncombatants. They should have not sent any warning messages. These civilians support, harbor, and feed these terrorists. If you want to lose the war, keep doing it the way you are. And to those who say Churchill was a war criminal. I say this- whose side was the Palestinians on during WWII. That's right, Hitlers. To the victors goes the spoils.