Partial Acquittal

After Richard Goldstone's mea culpa, it's up to human rights organizations to remind Israel that it's not off the hook.

BY URI ZAKI | APRIL 6, 2011

Once widely vilified, Justice Richard Goldstone has been exonerated in the eyes of most Israelis since his Washington Post retraction of much of his investigation into war crimes committed by Israel during Operation Cast Lead, its 2008-2009 war with Gaza. Indeed, the judge has now received an invitation to visit Israel from one of the most reactionary members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet, Eli Yishai -- who, during Operation Cast Lead, said Gaza should be destroyed.

But right-wing Israelis are not finished interrogating the supposed perfidy of their accusers. Increasingly, their spotlight is trained on the human rights community, including Israeli organizations that they believe cooperated with the U.N. fact-finding mission headed by Goldstone. But however emboldened the Israeli government may feel, the human rights community should not shirk the confrontation. Indeed, this is an opportunity to reassert the importance of our work, both in the context of the Goldstone process and now, two years later.

For example, my organization, B'Tselem, has been criticized for cooperating from the start with Goldstone's U.N. fact-finding mission. We did indeed press Israel to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission, even after the government made the regrettable decision to boycott the investigation. We did so believing that the U.N. process held promise for the fairest, most comprehensive assessment of the events in Gaza. In the absence of the government's endorsement, we provided the commission with our own documentation of the conflict and worked to get Israelis to testify independently. And when the Goldstone Report was released, we leveraged it to try to promote domestic Israeli processes of accountability, though we only had limited success.

None of this is to say we agreed in full with the Goldstone Report -- on the contrary. B'Tselem adopted a nuanced approach, refusing to line up alongside those who rejected the report as biased and anti-Israeli, as well as those who wholeheartedly endorsed it as proof of Israeli war crimes. At the time, B'Tselem stated that some of the report's conclusions were not sufficiently supported by the facts presented, drawing attention to precisely the point Goldstone now wishes to retract: the allegation of an intentional Israeli policy directed at killing civilians. In addition, we voiced concern that the Goldstone fact-finding mission judged Israel's conduct according to stricter standards and with a lower burden of proof when compared with its approach toward Hamas.

Goldstone's latest statement is a much shorter document than the original 575-page report. Yet it also warrants a critical reading as it leaves many more questions unanswered than it resolves.

Indeed, he now clears Israel of the unfounded accusations of crimes against humanity and the deliberate policy of targeting civilians. But his new approach, hailed by Israeli officials as a complete retraction, is limited to a small number of issues, however important they may be. Israel has not been absolved of the report's other conclusions, including those regarding the use of prohibited weapons, the lack of protection to civilians, the obstruction of medical care, and the use of Palestinians as human shields.

Curiously, in his op-ed Goldstone praised Israel for fulfilling his recommendation that it launch its own investigations into its conduct in the war. But that claim doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. Although Israel opened 52 criminal investigations, only three led to indictments, and more than two years after the offensive, the status of the remaining cases is unclear. Meanwhile, the broader issues of policy that have raised legal concerns -- the choice of weapons, the open-fire regulations that accompanied the troops on their way to Gaza, the damage to civilian infrastructure, and the like -- have been left unaddressed by the Israeli government. Still unexplained is the fact that close to half of those killed in Gaza -- at least 758 people according to B'Tselem's painstaking documentation -- were uninvolved civilians. Were all these deaths regretful collateral damage? Or were they the result of disproportionate force and lack of appropriate caution by Israel? Israel's military is still stranded in the vast gray area between "the most moral army in the world" (as many Israeli spokespeople put it) and perpetrators of "crimes against humanity."

Goldstone, unfortunately, has removed himself as a participant from these debates. But B'Tselem and other human rights organizations will not let up so easily. Goldstone's retraction does not obviate Israel of all blame. And ignoring the remaining issues serves neither Israel's interests nor those of Cast Lead's victims. Dealing honestly with the still-unanswered questions is both a crucial exercise in addressing the past and the only way to build a better future.

 

Uri Zaki is the director of B'Tselem USA.

JBROCKLE

3:10 AM ET

April 7, 2011

Good stuff.

Very impressed by a well balanced article.

I have been quietly amused by commentators who have now lined up to criticise Goldstone, having been very keen on him not so long ago they now believe him to be a villain with no credibility. (I'm looking at you Al Jazeera guest writers!)

I have similar feelings towards those who denounced his report when it came out, and now believe they are completely vindicated in doing so. Both sides are being disingenuous.

I never really believed that the IDF had an explicit policy of targeting civilians, which would be the requirement for actual war crimes. However, that doesn't mean I don't think they have a great deal to answer for; rather than intentional targeting I suspect an attitude of disregard for Palestinian lives and a determination to 'get' Hamas was the cause of such high (unacceptably high) civilian casualties - I'm not sure this makes their position hugely more tenable morally (though obviously it does to an extent), but it does mean there weren't war crimes per se. Israel does still have a great deal to answer for, but so does Hamas.

 

AGRICOLA

10:11 AM ET

April 7, 2011

Good stuff indeed

Your level headedness is unusual for commentors on this website and for followers of the Israeli-Arab conflict...

I'm impressed.

 

ZORRO

2:57 PM ET

April 7, 2011

Actually...

... the rules of war says (as I understand it) that you should weight the possible collateral damages against the value of the target.
I.E. trying to kill 1 hostile in a crowd with a 2000 lbs bomb would probably be a war crime.
If there were any Israeli war crimes I would say they would fall into that category.

 

AVILLA

5:10 AM ET

April 8, 2011

Fair enough.

This article seems fair to me. I still don't understand why Goldstone was vilified as much as he was--he was sent in to report on the data handed to him, Israel refused to give him any of their data and thus, obviously, the report was skewed. If anyone should be blamed for this, surely Israel itself should be. It's as if they were accused of murder and then refused to come to court. Not really the judge's fault for throwing down a guilty verdict under those circumstances, is it?

However, I am curious as to what prompted this sudden retraction (in WaPo, no less). It's nearly a year and a half after Cast Lead. Not much has changed since mid-2009--why now? I don't recall any serious investigations by Israel regarding, uh, anything about Cast Lead as of late.

 

GAHGEER

9:31 AM ET

April 8, 2011

The writer is basically asking why Goldstone didn't do more

Well Goldstone op-ed is an op-ed; his personal opinion and doesn't change anything.

As for the writer's question about the public attention after the op-ed, well, I think the public is now looking at the report of the independent experts' committee, which debunked Goldstone's claim that Israel had no intentionality, even before the op-ed's publication.

Israel's intentionality was voiced in an interview with a security official in the intelligence review Janes. Then, this security official said that Israel was applying the lessons learnt in the failed adventure with Hezbollah in 2006. "We wanted to show that Israel is really CRAZY" by enforcing suppressive fire, and creating as much as damage as possible so that they don't think of attacking us again.

In line with this, forget the Samouni family house, forget the attack on UN schools, forget the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas. Look at the attacks on commercial facilities that were based in eastern Gaza Strip (an empty land that at that time was not used for launching rockets by Hamas which was driven back into the cities).

Israel was applying a new way of war called "the Dahiya doctrine", whereby, instead of following its usual method of targeting areas from where rockets are launched, Israel is targeting the whole country and holding it responsible - this includes the country's infrastructure, economic centres, communication centres and civil buildings.

Look at Israeli officials' statements on Hezbollah after 2006. They all reflect this doctrine "if Hezbollah does anything, then we will hold all of Lebanon responsible". They simply practiced in Gaza what they will do in Lebanon in the next war, and this my friends, cannot be refuted by either professor Bill or Goldstone himself.

and perhaps before Israel's next war, it will think twice about boycotting a UN investigation mission.

 

GAHGEER

10:13 AM ET

April 8, 2011

Your analogies make me laugh

Dude you're comparing US-Germany with Hamas-Israel.

Man, check Amira Hass's reports on this war and she'll tell you it wasn't a war. It was an attack by the biggest military force in the Middle East against a group of rag-tag fighters.

 

GAHGEER

10:23 AM ET

April 8, 2011

It's also funny

that a Hasbarat is recognizing the legitimacy of Hamas government's election - LOL Man be careful Abi Foxman doesn't read that.

Israel and the US administration refused to acknowledge the results of the 2006 elections.

You can't abandon this non-recognition when the time comes to use white phosphporous against them.

 

GAHGEER

1:39 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Anti-semitic bla bla

They refused to deal with the party winning the elections i.e the refuse to recognize the elections result. Put it the way you like, Mr Abu Ghrayb. Hamas doesn't represent the Palestinians of Gaza. Unless, Mr Haditha, thinks from his Iraq experience that Iraqi civilians are responsible for the crimes of Saddam Hussein.

Israel better watch out for the UN in the next war - that's the least one could advise them.

 

GAHGEER

7:04 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Mishal should feel happy abouthis praise coming from an American

Hamas's mandate expired on 25 January 2010 - this is for your Pal elections update - therefore it doesn't represents anybody except for its members.

Israel's forces go on their wanton killing business as usual whether Hamas was or wasn't in power.

Today the IDF killed 14 Palestinians including a child and a woman in the Gaza Strip - an achievement by the "moral" bully of the region.

Obviously this came after they got their new fatwa from Sheikh Richard Al-Goldstone, whereby the innocent Palestinians they kill - no matter how many - are collateral damage.

 

GAHGEER

3:24 AM ET

April 12, 2011

Someone in the military? welcome back butcher of Fallujah

You're saying in every post that you're in the military and that that justifies use of massive power against civilians and makes you a good judge. Do you really think that having a nickname with the world rifle makes you a military strategist?

And speaking of military strategies, one could see the massive failures of the USA in Iraq prior to the Surge, particularly because the US military followed your prescribed recipe - to get one terrorist, it's fair to kill 20 civilians. I've seen many of arguments fall to pieces after driving over an IED on Live Leak videos.

The Surge only worked when protecting the civilians under occupation became the top priority.

Your personal attacks against me don't differentiate you from the hasbarats we see here all the time, so keep barking, because your military brain doesn't have much choice.

Finally, go and read Goldstone's report, see how Israel targeted civilians and civilian structures that had nothing to do with combat and were at least 2 miles far from combat zones.

Then go and read Janes's report on Israel's offensive, in which a senior Israeli army commander says that Operation Cast Lead was meant to show that Israel was "crazy". and indeed Israel proved it.

 

ARIRAM

2:29 PM ET

April 15, 2011

Read the Geneva Convention

The Hamas locates its arms and fighters among civilians and uses them as human shields. Zaki should read the Geneva convention, Part III, Section I, Article 28, which says: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." This means that when the Hamas combatants fire their weapons and hide among civilians, using them as human shields, they are not immune from attack. Also, if civilians get hurt, the responsibility lies with those who hide among civilians and endanger their lives.
In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars there are plenty of civilian casualties, but it does not mean that the US intentionally targets civilians.
Operation cast-lead was fully justified and may have to be repeated in view of the renewed rocket fire at Israel.

 

REM686

1:15 PM ET

May 6, 2011

Partial Acquittal

After Richard Goldstone's mea culpa, it's up to human rights organizations to remind Israel that it's not off the hook. Wetpopgun, "All he was saying was that the numbers of those killed do not determine who is right or wrong. " You are so right. Some of us however find the IDF's indifference to the deaths of hundreds of innocent women and children disquieting. I never really believed that the IDF had an explicit policy of targeting civilians, which would be the requirement for actual war crimes. medical billers However, that doesn't mean I don't think they have a great deal to answer for; rather than intentional targeting I suspect an attitude of disregard for Palestinian lives and a determination to 'get' Hamas was the cause of such high (unacceptably high) civilian casualties - I'm not sure this makes their position hugely more tenable morally (though obviously it does to an extent), but it does mean there weren't war crimes per se. Israel does still have a great deal to answer for, but so does Hamas.

 

REM686

1:17 PM ET

May 6, 2011

Fair enough

This article seems fair to me. I still don't understand why Goldstone was vilified as much as he was--he was sent in to report on the data handed to him, Israel refused to give him any of their data and thus, obviously, the report was skewed. If anyone should be blamed for this, surely Israel itself should be. It's as if they were accused of murder and then refused to come to court. Not really the judge's fault for throwing down a guilty verdict under those circumstances, is it? tax help Look at Israeli officials' statements on Hezbollah after 2006. They all reflect this doctrine "if Hezbollah does anything, then we will hold all of Lebanon responsible". They simply practiced in Gaza what they will do in Lebanon in the next war, and this my friends, cannot be refuted by either professor Bill or Goldstone himself.