EDITOR: The Goldstone festival rolls on!

Ever since Goldstone has atoned and recanted under Zionist pressure, and did all he could to undermine his own report on the Gaza massacre, Zionists of all sizes and flavours have come out of their holes, and are having a field day with the same old excuses. The leader of the pack is the old hand with helping Israel when it is in real trouble, non other than Jonathan Friedland, the lefty Guardian Zionist. One has to retort back with disgust at the article he managed to concoct in support of Israel on this occasion – after all, he is deending the murder of iover 1400 people! So what are the arguments?

1. Israel is always singled out: Why gang on Israel, when the world is full of mad dictators, who, according to JF, are ‘worse’

2. The UN is a useless organisation specialising in anti-Israel motions

3. The UN inquiry only looked into the behaviour of Israel, but not into that of Hamas

4. Hamas did not have its own inquiry, but Israel did

5. This concentration on Israel is obsessive and has a serious undertone

Now JF does not tell us in so many words why he thinks the whole world is so mad to gang up on the poor and helpless Israelis, but those who read him on a long term basis in the Guardian, remember his article more or less celebrating the fact there are so many anti-semites around in Europe… Takes no genius to work out that the world is full of antisemitism, otherwise why ingle out Israel?…

This twaddle is getting paraded in the Guardian for years, a show of tribal loyalty of the worst kind, and all this under a lefty ‘concerned’ cover. Today the paint seemed to have peeled off, and the cover much dented, showing the Zionist below…

There is hardly space here to refute JF’s silly and obsequious arguments, but just few reminders:

1. No one singles Israel out – it does so itself! The state of the ‘chosen people’ has made the indigenous population of Palestine into refugees in 1948, 1967, and many times since. No other nation has suffered 75% of its people becoming refugees over few months, and then refused entry into their own country. Despite numerous UN resolution (yeah, infers JF, but the UN must be anti-semitic, or it would not pass so many resolutions on Palestine…) Israel has refused to allow any of them back into their country and homes, even when its own High Court has so ordered!Which other country can boast of 64 years of unbroken oppression

2. Israel has broken most of the requirements of the Geneva Convention over six decades and more, moving its own Jewish population into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, building illegal settlements, confiscating land, and oppressing the population under siege which the Convention forces them to care for and protect. Jonathan Friedland seems to either think this OK, or to roughshod and hope we all forget it.

3. Israel has occupied and held illegally territories of Four Arab nations for decades, breaking all records. Unless one wishes to go back to the days of the Third Reich during the Second World War, Israel holds the record unchallenged! It destroyed Beyrut and South Lebanon so many times, and killed so many people, that keeping track has become impossible. It also amanged to totally disregard all UN resolutions – the same ones Jonathan Friedland is so worked up about. Israel has been the most committed and systematic law breaker since the second World War, producing nuclear, biological and chmeical armaments against all traeties, refusing to join the War Crimes legislation (like the US). Need we go on?

So who is singling whom out?

4. Hamas needs an inquiry? Fo what? To discover Israel has moved into Gaza with all its mighty army, killed almost 1500 Palestinians, a third of them children, and suffered 13 dead, 4 of which it dispatched itself? For discovering this, you do not need an inquiry, you need a radio, or computer with internet connection, or a library with some newspapers… Has Hamas moved into Israel? Can it at all fight Israel seriously, or cause real harm?

5. One-sided inquiry? This is like saying: let us look into both sides and their behaviour – the Wehrmacht in September 1939 moving into the Poland, and the Polish forces behaviour defending their country, in order to work out who is right here. Excellent.

6. If the concentration on Israel is obsessive indeed, and unjustified, why does Joanthan Friedland not come out and say so? That would be at least honest, rather than inferring it slyly. Well, he does not do so, as even he knows such a false claim will invalidate his arguments altogether. Is there another single country which gets more support – financial, political, military, diplomatic – from the most powerful nations on earth? Describing Israel again as the victim is disgustingly insincere, but so normalised by Zionism, that most people tend to believe in it until they read the papers. Israel – the victim?!

Now read the vile article itself, if you have not yet done so:

Where’s the Goldstone report into Sri Lanka, Congo, Darfur – or Britain?: The Guardian

The Arab spring proves that Israel is not even the biggest issue in the Middle East – yet it gets all the attention
Jonathan Friedland
If you want a glimpse of the anger and heartache caused by the Goldstone report into the Gaza conflict of 2008-9, you could do worse than take a trip to the National Theatre. There a new and absorbing play, The Holy Rosenbergs, imagines the rift in a British Jewish family sparked by the daughter’s work as a lawyer for a Goldstone-like inquiry into Israeli conduct in Gaza. It is the eve of her brother’s funeral, and the local rabbi urges her to stay away: if she attends, pro-Israel activists will demonstrate at the cemetery.

If that sounds a stretch, think again. A year ago, Richard Goldstone – the eminent judge who had headed a UN fact-finding mission to Gaza – was told by key players in the South African Jewish community that he should not come to the synagogue where his grandson was due to have his bar mitzvah: if Goldstone showed his face, the 13 year-old’s big day would be disrupted by protests.

In the end, the row was resolved, but that is about the only part of the Goldstone saga that was: the rest remains fiercely contested, for reasons which point to a much larger story than simply the tale of one man and his report.

That particular battle has been reignited by the op-ed piece the judge wrote last week in the Washington Post “reconsidering” his own report and withdrawing what had been his most devastating finding. Goldstone wrote that the latest evidence “indicate[s] that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy”.

The import of that sentence can hardly be exaggerated. His original suggestion that Israel had been guilty of “wilful killings” of “protected persons” had been received as the most damning indictment possible, an international mark of Cain on Israel’s forehead. Anti-Israel activists had seized on it; many Israel supporters branded Goldstone a traitor, ignoring his own description of himself as a proud Zionist.

Now the two camps are strapping on their rhetorical armour all over again. Israel advocates are savouring the Goldstone semi-retraction as sweet vindication, believing the entire report can now be trashed; Israel’s opponents are looking for those unwithdrawn charges that still have to be answered. One side revels in Goldstone’s bald declaration that “Hamas has done nothing” to follow the report’s key recommendation – which was for both Israel and Hamas to investigate the charges against them. The other notes the gravity of the outstanding claims and the fact that Israel’s own investigations, while numbering 400, have led to all too few prosecutions.

None of this will bring back the more than 700 noncombatants, many of them children, who were killed in Gaza during those appalling winter weeks. Nor will it end the argument chiefly because, as many have noted, Goldstone was never going to be a cool, legal process but a burningly political one. That was baked in from the start, in a way that points to that wider and deeper problem.

For who was it that commissioned Goldstone and his team to look into Gaza? It was the UN Human Rights Council. That sounds like an eminently respectable body – until you look at its record. A 2010 analysis showed that very nearly half of all the resolutions it had passed related to Israel: 32 out of 67. And guess which country is the only one to be under permanent review, on the agenda for every single meeting? Israel. There is only one rapporteur whose mandate never expires. No, it’s not the person charged with probing Belarus, North Korea or Saudi Arabia, despite the hideous human rights records of those nations. It is Israel. The UNHRC, whose predecessor body was once, laughably, chaired by Libya, had originally asked Goldstone to probe just one side of the Gaza war: it was only the judge’s own insistence that he investigate Hamas too that widened his remit. No wonder Goldstone says now of the body he served that its “history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted”.

We can laugh at an organisation so potty it would put a murderous tyrant like Muammar Gaddafi in charge of monitoring human rights around the globe. But in its belief that no country in the world behaves worse or matters more, a belief expressed by the sheer volume of attention it pays to Israel, it reflects a view that is alarmingly widespread.

Many respectable folks have spent decades insisting that the “core issue” in the Middle East, if not the world, is the Israel-Palestine conflict – that it is the “running sore” whose eventual healing will heal the wider region and beyond.

That was always gold-plated nonsense, but now the Arab spring has come along to prove it. Now the world can see that the peoples of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain have troubles aplenty that have nothing to do with Israel. There could be peace between Israelis and Palestinians tomorrow, but it wouldn’t relieve those in Damascus or Manama or Sana’a from the yoke of tyranny. For them, Israel is not “the heart of the matter”, as the cliche always insisted it was. The heart of the matter are the regimes who have oppressed them day in, day out, for 40 years or more.

Yet it is not the suffering of these hundreds of millions of Arabs which has attracted the sympathy of the UN Human Rights Council. Nor has it stirred the compassion of left-leaning liberal types who pride themselves on thei r care for the oppressed. Few places get them excited the way Israel does.

So in 2009 Sri Lanka could kill between 7,000 and 20,000 civilians, displacing 300,000 more in its bombardment of the Tamils at about the same time as the Gaza conflict – but you will search in vain for the Goldstone report into Sri Lankan war crimes. Nor will you find Caryl Churchill writing a play called Seven Sri Lankan Children – asking what exactly is it in the Sri Lankan mentality that allows them to be so brutal.

There is no Goldstone or Churchill to probe the 4 million deaths in the Congo, the slaughtered in Darfur or the murdered in the Ivory Coast, let alone the civilian deaths inflicted by the US and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one is proposing an academic boycott of those nations or any of the other serial violators of human rights. Tellingly, two members of the four-person board of the LSE’s Middle East Centre are firm advocates of cutting all scholarly ties to Israel – but were only too happy for the college to receive £1.5m from the Gaddafi family.

Many will say that there is indeed a double standard – but it benefits Israel, routinely protected by a US veto at the UN unavailable to those weaker states deemed hostile. That may be true of the most powerful western governments. But when it comes to the academic, cultural and, yes, the media sphere, the bias often works the other way around.

To be clear, this is not to deny that there is a desperately serious problem in Israel-Palestine. There is, and Israelis and Palestinians need it to be solved. I fully understand why Jews and Palestinians regard their conflict as the central issue in the universe. But for the rest of the world to see it that way – the way those who despatched Judge Goldstone saw it – makes no sense at all.

EDITOR: But the Guardian Editorial itself disagrees with Friedland!

Very unusually, the Guardian Editorial is refusing to tow the line which is dictated by Friedland! Unheard of. They must all be anti-semites…

Goldstone report: the unanswered questions: The Guardian Editorial

Indiscriminate warfare, as opposed to deliberate killing, was undoubtedly Israel’s state policy

It is difficult, in this digital world of instant claim and rebuttal, to say that you were wrong. But Richard Goldstone’s retraction of one of the claims of the report that he chaired – that Israel targeted civilians in the war on Gaza as a matter of policy – is one such instance. Mr Goldstone deserves credit for honesty. It is another matter altogether to decide whether all the other claims of a 575-page report are now invalidated. The Goldstone report was a fact-finding mission, not a judicial inquiry. It was not a document of verdict, but put forward evidence for further investigation. So which facts caused Mr Goldstone to retract? Three, principally: that the shelling of a home in which 22 members of one family died was the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image; that the officer was still under investigation; and that Israel has since investigated over 400 allegations of operational misconduct. Had he known then what he knows now, he concludes, the report would have been very different.

Two of the three other members of the mission disagree with their former chairman’s change of heart. Hina Jilani, who served on a similar fact-finding mission on Darfur, said that nothing changed the substance of the original report, and Desmond Travers, an expert on international criminal investigations, still feels the tenor of the report stands “in its entirety”. Mr Goldstone has parted company with the other members of his mission. It is therefore worth returning to the original report. The retracted allegation refers to the attack which killed 22 members of the Samouni family, who, following instructions from Israeli soldiers, were sheltering in a house in Zeitoun. But there are 35 other incidents that Goldstone’s team investigated. It found seven cases where civilians were shot leaving their homes waving white flags; a direct and intentional attack on a hospital which may amount to a war crime; numerous incidents where ambulances were prevented from attending to the severely injured; nine attacks on civilian infrastructure with no military significance, such as flour mills, chickens farms, sewage works and water wells – all part of a campaign to deprive civilians of basic necessities. The key paragraph of the report states: “The Mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility.” On the Samouni killings it states that even if it amounted to an operational error and the mission concludes that a mistake was made, “state responsibility of Israel for an internationally wrongful act” would remain. All of this still stands, as does the charge that Hamas’s rockets deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

Clear to one side the superheated flak of the debate today. It arises from Israel’s current international isolation, of which the Gaza operation formed only a part. It is now said that the Goldstone report became the cornerstone of a campaign to delegitimise Israel. None of this is relevant to what happened in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, events which led to the deaths of 1,396 Palestinians, 763 of whom, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, were not taking part in hostilities when they were killed. The report did not in fact claim that Israel set out deliberately to murder civilians. It said that Operation Cast Lead was “deliberately disproportionate” and intended to “punish, humiliate and terrorise”. That charge stands unanswered. Indiscriminate warfare, as opposed to deliberate killing, was undoubtedly state policy. Shooting the messenger is always easier than dealing with the message itself. This time, the messenger had the grace to shoot himself. It does not change what happened in Gaza, nor what will happen the next time war breaks out.

 

Goldstone’s Gaza report stands, UN insists: The Guardian

Judge’s informal remarks ‘do not invalidate findings’, says colleague on fact-finding mission into Israeli attack on Gaza

Richard Goldstone on a 2009 visit to a house destroyed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza. Photograph: Ashraf Amra/AP
The UN has roundly rebuffed remarks by the South African judge Richard Goldstone that cast doubt on the report into the Gaza war that bears his name, causing rifts within the UN and furious debate across the Middle East.

In the first public sign of a split within the four-person committee that compiled the report into the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, the Pakistani human rights lawyer Hina Jilani has openly contradicted Goldstone’s comments. In an interview with the Middle East Monitor, she said that the UN report still stood.

“No process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a suspect move. The UN cannot allow impunity to remain, and will have to act if it wants to remain a credible international governing body,” she said.

Jilani sat with Goldstone on the fact-finding mission that looked into allegations of war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week war. The other two members of the committee, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, could not be reached for comment.

Goldstone made his remarks in an article in the Washington Post in which he said that he regretted aspects of the report that he chaired, including the suggestion that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians. Had he been aware of evidence that had since come to light, he wrote, “the Goldstone report would have been a different document”.

In a further indication of his U-turn, the Israeli paper, Yediot Ahronot, said the judge planned to press for his report to be nullified.

The report, published in September 2009, found that Israelis involved in the Gaza war should face “individual criminal responsibility” for potential war crimes. Some 1,400 Palestinians died, at least 50% of whom were civilians, and 13 Israelis.

But the inquiry was carried out without Israeli co-operation, and information uncovered by Israel’s own investigations since then had changed his understanding of events, Goldstone said.

Though the judge’s comments have rekindled the heated debate that followed the Gaza war, they are unlikely to lead to any immediate action on the part of the UN. Cedric Sapey, spokesman for the UN human rights council that commissioned the report, said: “The UN will not revoke a report on the basis of an article in a newspaper. The views Mr Goldstone expressed are his own personal views.”

A move to change or withdraw the report would either require a formal written complaint from Goldstone, backed unanimously by his three fellow authors, or a vote by the UN general assembly or the human rights council, Sapey said.

Israel has leapt on the Goldstone article, arguing it proves that the original UN report was flawed. The interior minister, Eli Yishai, said he had contacted Goldstone to thank him. “As a Jew, he understands well the story of the Jewish people’s suffering,” he told Israeli army radio.

An Israeli official said the government would now try to get a re-evaluation of the report as well as “asking our legal experts to see how it affects the legal harassment” of Israeli politicians and officers, particularly in the UK.

Goldstone’s article comes at a particularly sensitive time for Israel. The human rights council has recommended the UN general assembly passes the Gaza report to the security council with the aim of referring both Israel and Hamas to the international criminal court for alleged war crimes. Any such move would almost certainly be blocked by the US, Israel’s main ally, which has the power of veto, though a referral could still prove politically damaging.

The Palestinian ministry of foreign affairs said Goldstone’s intervention was immaterial. “The Goldstone Report remains a valid and important document highlighting the need for a full and genuine investigation. Nothing in Justice Goldstone’s personal comments changes the essential need to provide the victims of the assault on the Gaza Strip with access to justice.”

Khalil Shiqaqi, a Palestinian political scientist, said it was clear that no one had read exactly what Judge Goldstone had written. “The Israelis think that Goldstone has overturned what was written in his report and the Palestinians have taken their cue from them. What he has actually done is slightly modified his controversial view that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians. Very few people among the international community or non-governmentable bodies said the same thing.

“If he retracted one thing, there was much he did not retract, such as Israel’s deliberate destruction of houses in the Gaza Strip.”

Mer-Khamis and binational resistance movement: Haaretz

Through his life and his body, Juliano Mer-Khamis embodied the possibility of a binational resistance movement.
By Amira Hass
Those who knew Juliano Mer-Khamis, the Nazareth-born actor and director who was shot in Jenin on Monday, will have to be the ones to write about him; all that the rest of us can do is write about the milestones in his life.

Juliano was lucky. He was born Palestinian and Jewish, Jewish and Palestinian. This angry man was beset by conflicting yet complementary identities. He was the long shadow of an imagined binational community from the 1950s. Like a Peter Pan who refuses to grow up, Juliano embodied the potential of a shared life (ta’ayush in Arabic ) while striving for equality. The son of a Jewish mother and a Palestinian father, he was born to two cultures, and chose to live in both. He saw no need to explain.

My guess is that Juliano wasn’t entertaining illusions; sustaining blows from all sides, the potential of ta’ayush shrank. Ta’ayush is the sane vision, but the chance that it will be realized is increasingly slim. There are some who fantasize about the days of the Messiah to avoid thinking about the days before the next disaster strikes. Juliano’s was the offspring of a fantasy of ta’ayush. His birth was the outcome of a fantasy of ta’ayush, and his death is a disaster.

Juliano was angry. His rage was the kind that only a Jew like him, who was born on the left and craved equality until the end, can allow himself to express as a way of life. Palestinians must conquer the anger, mellow it; they must tame it, repress it, sublimate it. That’s the only way to stay both alive and sane (without getting arrested, wounded or killed ) under the conditions of physical and non-physical violence dictated by Israel.

Oy, this coarse violence, which reeks of rationalism and supremacy and pretends to be enlightened. It is found in every detail of life, moment by moment, from cradle to grave. It is found from a expropriation order and an accompanying map to the firing hole of a watchtower; from the Interior Ministry expelling Palestinian Jerusalemites from their home town to the blocking of return to the Galilee village of Bir’im; from the racist responses of Jewish youth in opinion polls to the drone that homed in on children playing on the roof in Gaza. The violence is always there, from the Jerusalem municipal taxes despite the ruined roads and uncollected garbage to the security cameras in the Jewish neighborhood/Crusader shtetl in Silwan; from the lush green of a settlement to the Palestinian cistern destroyed by an Israeli bulldozer; from the permits granted to individual ranches in the Negev to the incrimination of Bedouin as “infiltrators.” In short, from the Jewish to the democratic.

This violence has so many different angles that it can drive you mad. Juliano was lucky to be an artist, and madness was one of his paintbrushes. Through the theater he founded in Jenin, Juliano allowed himself to criticize repressive aspects of Palestinian society. One would guess he did so as a left-winger, as an actor committed to the artist’s oath of truthfulness, and as a Palestinian. Let’s hope that the killer will be found, and then we’ll know if a Palestinian artist was killed because of his courage to live in a way that disrupts the order, or if a Jewish artist was killed because he gave himself permission to overtly criticize a society that is not his, according to some, or if a left-winger was killed because he was disrupting the norm. Or perhaps all three together. Even if he was killed for some other reason, Juliano was still an artist and a Palestinian, a left-winger and a Jew.

Now that the prospect of the sane vision of ta’ayush is small, what is left? The path. This is the option of a binational resistance movement, which wants to topple the Gadhafi-like, Mubarak-like, Assad-like rule of one people over another.

There are some who insist on fantasizing about a binational movement as a historic necessity, as a logical antithesis to the ideology of the demographic separation that has become the bible of the Oslo process. The truth must be said: In the meantime, most of those who harbor such a fantasy are Jewish. Thus do we soften the contradiction between love for the people and the place on the one hand and the abhorrence of the enlightened violence on the other.

Through his life and his body, Juliano Mer-Khamis embodied the possibility of a binational resistance movement. The killer, whatever his motive, was aiming for the body. In his death, Juliano has bequeathed us the possible.

 

EDITOR: An intriguing personal story behind the journalist Lia Tarachansky

Lia Tarachansky, a Canadian journalist from Ottawa, has been reporting for over a year now from Israel and the Occupied Territories for The Real News Network. Concentrating on the political economy of the occupation, and doing in-depth reports, her tone and style differ greatly from the standard western journalist run of the mill. In this personal interview with Paul Jay from TRNN, she tells us that she has grown up in West Bank settlement, after emigrating to Israel from the USSR. This is a fascinating interview with someone who has crossed the lines, and is reporting the conflict with courage and deep insight. Important to watch.

On Reporting from Palestine and Israel: TRNN

Interview with journalist, Lia Tarachansky about how she went from growing up in an Israeli settlement to reporting on the Middle East for The Real News

Paul Jay interviews Lia Tarachansky, The Real News Middle East correspondent. Tarachansky covers the political economy of the occupation, while also focusing on international law and its applicability to the conflict. Having grown up in an Israeli settlement in the heart of the occupied West Bank, Tarachansky speaks about how denial of narrative fuels a conflict where the two peoples, the Israelis and Palestinians, become further segregated, physically, socially, and psychologically.

Bio
Lia Tarachanskyis an Israeli-Canadian journalist with The Real News Network covering the Middle East. She is also currently working on her first documentary, Seven Deadly Myths, a Journeyman Pictures co-production.

MAD ISRAELIS section

EDITOR: One does not know whether to laugh or cry…

The war criminal Peres speaks in support of justice, and of war criminals, naturally… This is the flip side of the Jonathan Friedland argument – now that the UK Parliament has decided that Israeli war criminals are immune from prosecution, why not withdraw the very accusations of war crimes?

Peres to ask UN chief to cancel Goldstone report, sources say: Haaretz

The council has said it will continue to treat the report as a legitimate working document; Israel itself does not believe the UN will cancel the report, seeing it more likely that the General Assembly will adopt a new resolution concluding that an earlier resolution adopting the report is no longer valid.

President Shimon Peres will ask United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to nullify Judge Richard Goldstone’s damning report on the Gaza war in light of the author’s expression of regret regarding some of his claims, sources told Haaretz on Wednesday.

Peres has held talks with a number of senior U.S. officials including President Barack Obama over the course of his visit, and is scheduled to meet with Ban on Friday.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post last week, Goldstone backtracking on his accusation that Israel had targeted during Operation Cast Lead two years ago.

Despite Peres’ expected request, however, Foreign Ministry sources said earlier this week that Israel would most probably be unable to bring about the cancellation of the report.

In the best of circumstances, say Foreign Ministry sources, it might be possible for the UN General Assembly to adopt a new resolution concluding that an earlier resolution, passed a year ago, which fully adopted the Goldstone Report, is no longer valid.

Following calls to rescind the report, the council has said it will continue to treat the report as a legitimate working document. Spokesman Cedric Sapey told the AP on Monday that Goldstone would have to submit a formal request for the report to be withdrawn. Goldstone himself said Tuesday he did not plan to seek nullification of the report.

Last month, a majority of the council’s 47 members voted to pass the report up to the General Assembly, recommending the powerful UN Security Council be asked to submit it to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court.

Such a move is unlikely to pass the Security Council, where Israel’s strongest ally, the United States, has veto power. But the mere suggestion of bringing war crimes charges has infuriated Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded that the entire report be annulled and assigned National Security Adviser Ya’akov Amidror to set up a joint team of staff from the Foreign, Defense and Justice ministries with the task of formulating political and legal recommendations following Goldstone’s article.

Netanyahu said that “we will try to undo some of the damage caused,” and that it was his goal “to see the report canceled.”

Foreign Ministry sources however said that in the best of circumstances, it might be possible for the UN General Assembly to adopt a new resolution concluding that an earlier resolution, passed a year ago, which fully adopted the Goldstone Report, is no longer valid.