Like sharks entering a cove teeming with frenzied fish, loathers of Zion have opened their jaws wide and then, with delight, gripped their prey. For them, the Goldstone report is delectable, albeit it merely whets but does not satisfy their appetite. It confirms what they have known all along, that Israel is a criminal state, that its probationary period is long since over, that the time for its total isolation has come and the time for its collapse draws near.
There is no cure for these; their frenzy is beyond repair. Neither concessions nor logic, neither rhetoric nor policy, will quiet it. Whether their malady originates in antisemitism or in some other mad fervor hardly matters. It endures.
But what of the very many others, friends though not necessarily lovers of Zion? Even among the 25 (out of 47) members of the U.N. Human Rights Council that voted to forward the Goldstone report (technically, the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict), there are a significant number for whom antipathy to Israel is not a foregone conclusion. (One thinks immediately of China, India, Russia, Brazil and Argentina.) They may have read the Goldstone document carefully, may even have read Israel’s own interim report as well. Some may be sympathetic to Israel’s argument that it went out of its way to avoid civilian casualties but that circumstances in Gaza were the major causes of the unintended casualties; they may agree that Israel’s ferocious attacks on Gaza’s infrastructure were reasonable, given the provocation. Most of these nations cast the vote they did for a variety of political, and economic, reasons, very distant from the substantive issues raised in the reports. They are not enemies of Israel, and it would be unfortunate in the extreme to lump them together with the sharks.
The urgent question that now confronts Israel is what to do about the decision to forward the Goldstone report to the U.N. Security Council. One can respond as Prime Minister Netanyahu has, either haughtily by saying, “We’re going to see to it that it’s vetoed” or with bluster, repeatedly asserting that there can either be a Goldstone report or a peace process, but that there cannot be both. Or, perhaps, as Tzipi Livni (remember her — foreign minister at the time of Gaza and head of the Kadima party?) has with a full-throated defense of Israel’s actions in Gaza. One can adopt the posture of Ari Shavit, one of Israel’s most prominent journalists, who opines that “the problem isn’t just Goldstone. The problem is the Goldstoners… [who] are not driven by an honest attempt to divide the land, create peace and establish universal justice that would apply to all nations. They are driven by a deep need to isolate Israel, condemn it and destroy it.”
All these responses miss the mark. The Goldstone report, with all its flaws, is a serious document that will haunt Israel for years to come. Its assertion that the death — no, call it the murder — of civilians was part of Israel’s intention is obviously inflammatory, and will inflame. But even without the particular outrage that assertion begets among Israel’s defenders, the detailed descriptions of Israeli excesses in specific situations are sufficient to give pause to all but the “Israel can do no wrong” crowd.
There is only one way to mitigate the damage. It is a way now reportedly proposed by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Ministry of Justice. It is, in fact, a safety line handed to Israel by Judge Goldstone himself. Goldstone, who seems awkwardly entangled in the aftermath of the report, has now said, and more than once, that if only Israel will accept the key recommendation of the report, the issue will fade from the international agenda.
The recommendation? That Israel appoint its own independent body to conduct a thorough investigation of the Gaza war. Israel has, after all, an impressive tradition of independent commissions of inquiry. Why not this time?
“Why not this time?” is not a rhetorical question. If Israel refuses to appoint such a commission, its refusal will not be seen as an assertion of sovereignty; it will be seen as a cover-up, the suspect in a crime refusing to provide a sample of his DNA. But if it does appoint such a commission, even if the commission finds Goldstone riddled with error, one may anticipate that many heads will roll. All those dead in Gaza — somewhere between 1,100 and 1,400 Gazans — may not have been “murdered,” but they are quite dead, and among them are some dozens of children under the age of 6 (the precise number is under dispute). At what point does “collateral damage” morph into something more sinister — say, for example, recklessness?
Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, now returned from a lavish junket to Paris, wants to be sure that any investigation not derogate from the IDF’s authority to investigate itself. Goldstone, and, presumably, the rest of us should insist, for Israel’s sake, that there be a full-scale and unimpeachably independent commission of inquiry.
Every Israeli wished every war they fought was so well organized, so well prepared for and so very effective. The Gaza OP was brilliantly executed that is made one so very proud and secure to be a Jew in this world. Thanks to contributions at every level of the IDF so few Israelis were added to the list of Israeli war dead that now hovers around 25,000, to quote an Israeli general still "not so much for a whole country" but very dear to Jews who have lost so many. Thank you to George Bush, Israels best friend ever. Blue and White.
Reciprocal insanity? JMK: The number of Israeli war dead is slightly under 11,000. And just as you inflate that figure, you inflate when you say "every Israeli." That you believe the Gaza war makes "one so very proud and secure to be a Jew in this world" is -- well, about as addled as Mr. Bildtazadeh saying "We Swedes," rather than saying, more accurately, "we ill-informed Swedes, who love conspiracy theories, especially with Jewish villains."
Rest easy, friends. Our world is a strange and often disconcerting place, but JMK and CB are not (yet) representative of anything save the kind of loonies the blogosphere attracts.
So I mistakenly and unintentionally inflated war dead (11,000 is plenty bad, the General I quoted did use 20,000 a few years back)but the figures you use do not include civilian deaths (?) from thousands (both successful and prevented)of Arab terrorist attacks nor do they include any mention that wounded maimed casualties are four to five times as high as the death totals. As for my use of all and every maybe you could also correct my spelling. I do stand by the well justified Gaza OP's military success (thousands of rockets are not justification)and you don't have any right to refer to me negatively. It is you who really don't get it. Where do you think this hatred for Israel comes from, Arabs, Muslims find in Israel's existence an intense dishonor to Islam and believe completely righteous in their cause to inflict any and all harm on Israel hence wars and terror and suicide bombing (remember those). To Islamists and their supporters Israel is an illegal entity, and as an illegal entity has no rights, and if Israel has no right to exist, it is illegal for it to defend itself, under any justification. That is the situation.
Mr. Fein, a few simple but fundamental questions which I think Goldstone and you both dance around and make assumptions about which you do not fully articulate.
Is war justified? When?
Should a nation do its best to destroy an enemies military capacities or just stop them for a short while?
Talking of "criminal state" assumes that there are real international laws in the same way as there are national laws and criminals. Unfortunately, international laws are really treaties, and reflect the powers that be in the international community, despite attempts to make-believe they are otherwise by calling them laws and having so-called courts and so forth.
Normally, countries are allowed self defence. However, when an illegimiate entity parades as a country, "self-defence" becomes a war crime. Every day that israel exists on stolen Palestinian land is a war crime. Even Jews like Goldstone recognize this
eli,
After World War II, international lawyers -- prominently including Jews -- created a body of laws and treaties to prevent these human rights abuses from happening again.
These are the international laws. They are enforced, like any other laws, when the powerful nations agree to enforce them. It's not perfect justice, but it's better than nothing, and political leaders today know that if they commit war crimes it's possible they will be tried and convicted in the Hague.
These international laws also set some rules on when law is justified. In particular, war has to be proportional to military necessity, and it must not harm civilians unnecessarily.
So that's your answer.
I don't know what a "criminal state" is, but if you search the Goldstone report for "white flag", you will find many cases of IDF soldiers indiscriminately killing Palestinians when there was no military necessity. One of the worst is the killing of the Rabbo children, 3 and 5. This is murder even under Israeli law.
B'Tselem and Amnesty International have reported many cases like this, and to my knowledge the IDF has never prosecuted Jewish soldiers, no matter how strong the evidence.
Under international law, the international courts will not act against criminals who are prosecuted in their own country (which effectively eliminates their jurisdiction over relatively law-abiding countries like the U.S.). However, if the country doesn't prosecute its own citizens by certain deadlines, the international courts can start their own prosecution.
So if Israel starts bona fide investigations, they can preempt international prosecutions. If Israel ignores the Goldstone report, other countries will be free to prosecute Israelis for crimes against humanity, if they fall into their jurisdiction -- as they did with Augusto Pinochet.
Leonard Fein is recommending that Israel finally take these human rights charges seriously and conduct a good faith investigation. This would require them to prosecute IDF soldiers who were guilty of murder.
Since Israel has refused for decades to investigate many similar charges by B'Tselem and Amnesty International, I don't share his optimism. But it would be the right thing to do, it would comply with international law, and it would get Israel out of the mess it is in of world condemnation.
When Goldstone decided to hold public, televised hearings (Goldstone, 22), he made a travesty of the entire "fact finding" mission. Witnesses who had information hurtful to Hamas, and who might have felt inclined to be honest if interviewed a secure and confidential setting, were forced to choose between publicly:
a. telling the truth and risking their own lives/health and those of their families, or
b. lying or omitting information hurtful to Hamas or helpful to Israel.
The purpose of a fact-finding mission is *not* to broadcast raw testimony without verification; rather, it is to determine the facts based on all sources available, including *confidential* sources, and then to report on the facts as uncovered. Its procedures must be designed to encourage truthful testimony, not to facilitate intimidation of witnesses.
Gaza is a totalitarian statelet ruled by Hamas, an organization that seized absolute power in a violent coup in 2007. Within Gaza, Hamas armed fighters and security teams operate with an iron fist, and their tactics are consistent and violent. Many Ordinary Gazans are intimidated. So... . Goldstone made witnesses testify *in public*. He placed honest witnesses in potentially mortal danger, and he made it easy for dishonest witnesses to succumb to their dishonesty.
Correction: Hamas seized power in an election. They established their violent rule when the Palestinian Authority, with the backing of the U.S. and Israel, tried to overturn that election.
Goldstone has conducted many investigations like this. He knows how to get at the facts.
From reading the report, it seemed to me that people who didn't want to testify publicly could talk to his investigators privately. Where in the report does it say otherwise?
Norman,
despite calling it international law, it is not law. There is no international sovereign, despite the pretense of the UN and of academics of all sorts, and it is sovereignty that makes law.
You mix laws and treaties, even in you initial statement. Treaties are agreements between sovereign states, and have force because the sovereign states abide by them.
Yes, there can be coalitions of sovereign states who decide to act or not to act. So we have coalitions who are willing and eager to act against Israel, such as the so-called United Nations Human Rights Council, but we have no one willing to act against the Chinese invasion and genocide in Tibet or the genocide in Sudan, to pick two of many egregious violations of "international law." This is a reflection of the power politics of international relations but not of any real law.
eli,
I'll let lawyers and legal scholars decide whether there is such a thing as "international law."
For example, Theodor Meron, the former chief counsel for the Israeli foreign ministry, believed in international law.
Here's a discussion of international law. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/International_law
The law at issue here is international humanitarian law http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/International_humanitarian_law
The lawyers seem to agree that there is such a thing as international law. Like many other laws, international law is not always followed or enforced.
And according to the Goldstone report, Israel violated international law.
It was no "safety line" Goldstone threw to Israel, as Leonard Fein states. It was a hangman's noose.
Norman, I often agree with you but this comment is way, way, off the mark "it would comply with international law, and it would get Israel out of the mess it is in of world condemnation". Making some cosmetic changes and jailing some low level zionazis will not prevent further world condemnation. The reason that israel is reaping world condemnation is that it is an illegitiate state, based upon fraudlulent history and created thru ethnic cleansing and genocide. Isrel was created with a UN vote when the UN was 51 states, now it is 192 states. The world community needs to revote on isrels legitimacy. This time, israel would get 3 votes-itself, US Micronesia
Raed,
I only know enough about international law to identify some of Israel's clear violations, such as the murders cited in the Goldstone report and the occupation of the lands beyond the Green Line.
I don't know enough about international law to know whether Israel's creation complies with international law.
Let's assume that Israel's creation was illegal and illegitimate. How do we remedy that injustice? We can move the settlers out. But I don't think we can realistically move the Israelis out of the land within the 1967 borders.
Lawyers don't always demand their complete rights under the law. Sometimes they work out a reasonable compromise that will be fair to everybody, especially if it will leave everybody better off.
The social scientist Scott Atran interviewed Israeli figures and Hamas leaders like Ghazi Hamad and Musa Abu Marzouk. Hamad and Marzouk said that their honor wasn't for sale (a point Wolfowitz didn't understand), but it would make a big difference if Israel apologized for the tragedy of 1948. Then they could begin to negotiate a solution, which would include compensation for the lands they lost, a symbolic right of return, a sharing of Jerusalem, and basically respect.
The settlers in Gaza got $100,000 to $300,000 for their homes. The Palestinians should certainly get a similar amount. It's not the same as getting their land back, but a lot of Palestinians would accept it if it were part of a sincere attempt at a fair solution.
Palestinians tell me how they still have the keys to their homes, and they feel an identity with the land. I realize that. But going to medical school or engineering school might be an acceptable alternative.
Maybe some good will come out of this if a reliable truce comes into play.Israel shouldn't demand that hamas acknowledge Israel as long as they keep the peace.A cold peace is better than a hot war.
Richard,
Hamas officials have already agreed to recognize Israel, according to Atran and others. The Arab League agreed to recognize Israel in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders.
The Israeli right-wing governments (and even the Labor governments) have spurned these offers. Israel doesn't *want* peace, because it's politically impossible for them to evacuate the settlements. By expanding the settlements, they've burned their bridges behind them. That's what they meant by "creating facts."
Hamas has engaged in many cease fires, and Israel ended them by attacking Hamas and provoking Hamas (the more militant wings) to respond with rocket attacks. That's what provoked the rocket attacks that led to the last invasion of Gaza.
Norman - You claim that "Hamas officials have already agreed to recognize Israel, according to Atran and others". Is hamas willing to recognize Israel according to Hamas? There is some room in your intellectual world to be just a bit critical of the Arab side of the conflict. I would be absolutely thrilled to read a Hamas publication in which they speak of a theoretical recognition of Israel. I would be doubly thrilled to read it in Arabic. Sadly, the Hamas has no intention of recognizing Israel. Its clear position is the ultimate defeat and destruction of Israel ("destruction" mean the annihilation of the Jewish population, not just burning down the Knesset). Your presenting Hamas "according to Atran and others" (but not according to Hamas' public positions) is an attempt to avoid placing any responsibility for the hostilities on an Arab factor. Why is that your policy?
Here's is Hamas' updated political offer: In exchange for the return of all territories captured in 1967, the removal of all settlements and the return of the 1948 refugees to their former homes in Israel - Hamas will agree to a ten-year ceasefire with Israel. Not peace, not the end of conflict - just a temporary ceasefire to be followed by a continued warfare. Perhaps you are capable of stating that this is an unreasonable position. Perhaps you are capable of admitting that you are aware that this is the Hamas position. Perhaps you are capable of admitting that you have read the Hamas Charter and that you disapprove of it. Being anti-Israel doesn't mean that one has the right to be tricky. "Hamas officials have already agreed to recognize Israel, according to Atran and others..." was disingenuous and tricky.
Raed Kami - You are a very honest man. You admit openly without any tricks that you view Israel as an illegitimate state which has no right to defend itself. In short, you are presenting a position that claims that any action taken by Israel is unreasonable and criminal. Well, in a nutshell, that's the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the Jews claim that they have the right to sovereignty in this Land, while the Arab position has always negated that claim (and negated the Jewish connection to this country).
Even if we would assume your view as correct (and we don't obviously), still you should take into account that the right of self-defence is universal. Self-defence is always legitimate. People under attack, their lives in danger, always have the right to protect their lives without having to explain why they breathe the air or why they were born or why they live at a particular address. So, you have the right to claim that Israel shouldn't exist (it's a very common position in the Arabic-speaking world), and you have the right to go to war to realize your aims - but the expectation that Israel should not defend itself is removed from reality. The claim that Israel's self-defence is illegal (because its founding was supposedly illegal) is total nonsense.
Yehuda,
You are wrong to say that "The Jews claim that they have the right to sovereignty in this Land." Jewish international lawyers know that, under international law, they only have sovereignty to the land within the 1967 borders. After 1967, Theodor Meron, the Israeli foreign ministry's legal counsel, wrote a top secret memo saying that the occupation of the land beyond the 1967 borders was unequivocally illegal, and in violation of the Geneva Convention. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html
Lawyers, and Jews who understand international law, know that Israel has the right to the land within the 1967 borders.
The only Jews who claim that they have the right to sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza are Jews who don't understand international law (or don't care about international law).
Gaza should become a city state like singapore.The arab enclaves of the west bank should also be set up as independent city states.Because lets face it the refugees aren't going home and Israel isn't going to give up total control of west bank.
Reciprocal Insanity? What does that mean? Seems like a another politically loaded tendentious platitude that sounds like it might means something but does not. How effete of you! Denying Israel the right of defending themselves, do you think being defenseless is moral? To disengage from Gaza was immoral, to allow the rocket attacks to continue for so long was immoral, to be less than vigilant in safeguarding IDF soldiers immoral, not to teach Gazans a lesson immoral. What you are, is afraid to be a man or let others be men, men who protect themselves and their wives and children and parents from killers. As diasporan Jews we own nothing, when there are Dinkins in power the rule of law and its enforcement disregarded there will be more pogroms and we would be hiding like rats like the Lubovitch Hasidim. Israel is a shining example what fighting as a country with an army can bring and the (laughable and pathetic) diaspora a shining example what comes from weakness, stupidity and rationalization (read Aaron Appelfeld). Six Million is not a badge of honor that has the side benefit of eliciting sympathy but a disgrace to the very concept of a Jewish people. That 500,000 Jews served during WWII honorable, that they serving for the Allies did nothing for Six Million Jews is obvious, they did not weaken the White Paper, did not provide for immigration to anywhere, did not bomb the gas chambers or crematoria, or support Jewish Partisans. So there were a few rallies and 300 Orthodox Rabbis marched in front of the White House once, big deal, it should have been everyday, they should have gone a hunger strike or set themselves on fire or something. It was and still is mostly about I me mine. For example how come so many Rebbes were saved and of their Hasidim, almost all were orderly murdered, they ran away? they were allowed to? Where is the honor, the self respect?
Norman - You have interpreted "in this Land" as a claim to sovereignty to the entire country. That is a misreading. Within the Land (that use to be the Mandate for Palestine) the Jews have a claim to sovereignty. That is why the State of Israel was founded. It was founded in this Land. The Palestinian position negates this claim. That is the conflict in a nutshell (as Raed would say as well).
And do you admit that your presentation of the Hamas position was "disingenuous and tricky"? You know that it was. The position of Hamas is clear: the State of Israel in any border must be destroyed. Yet, politically, you find it uncomfortable to admit that the conflict in the Middle East is not solely the fault of Israel - that there are those Palestinian forces who intend to continue the conflict against us no matter what our policy is and no matter what our border is, that Israel has implacable enemies.
Norman - Another comment about misreading. I have now read the NY Times article that you referred to in your last comment. The legal advice of Theodor Meron that was reported in the article is about the civilian settlements. You have read, strangely, that "the occupation of the land beyond the 1967 borders was unequivocally illegal". No, not true. The occupation of the territory captured in 1967 is absolutely legal. If the occupation were illegal, then the demand would be to evacuate the territories unconditionally. That is not the position of the international community. UNSC resolution 242 speaks of "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (1967)" AND the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".
In short, the end of occupation and the end of conflict go hand in hand. One is depended on the other. Your position, just like the Arab position, is that the occupation is illegal, and must be ended irregardless of the continuing state of belligerency. I understand (but reject) the Arab position, because it is clear to me where they are coming from: The founding of Israel in their eyes was illegal, so her war/occupation of land is likewise illegal. It is much less clear where you are coming from. You tell Raed that "I don't know enough about international law to know whether Israel's creation complies with international law". You don't express agreement with him, but you surely don't counter his claims either. Hamas rule of Gaza seems fine with you, you also can't bring yourself to present honestly their evil intentions vis-a-vis Israel AND you are incapapble of telling Raed that Israel is a legitimate state (all you can say is that it is unrealistic to "move the Israelis out of the land within the 1967 borders"). All in all, that's an expression of hostility towards Israel. One has the right to be hostile to whomever one pleases, but presenting oneself as a "critic" of Israel (when in truth one is hostile) is intellectual dishonesty.
Yehuda,
The settlements are illegal. Theodor Meron said so.
Meron wrote in his memo that establishing settlements in the lands conquered in 1967 would be illegal (in violation of the Geneva Convention). Meron, who now teaches international law at New York University, has confirmed that repeatedly. Even the Israelis don't seriously challenge it.
Unless you're an international lawyer, you can't interpret the meaning of those legal documents.
Gee, Norman, you do realize that your original claim was that the OCCUPATION is illegal. Here's what you wrote: "After 1967, Theodor Meron, the Israeli foreign ministry's legal counsel, wrote a top secret memo saying that the OCCUPATION of the land beyond the 1967 borders was unequivocally illegal". No, that's not true. No one has said that the occupation is illegal, and you have misread/misquoted the NY Times. I'm also suspicious that this misreading was deliberate, because you also said: "Hamas officials have already agreed to recognize Israel, according to Atran and others..." That was a disingenuous and tricky statement, meant to leave the untrue impression that Hamas is willing to make peace with Israel (although it is clear, even to you, that they are committed to Israel's destruction). Shall I now interpret your silence on this matter as an admission that indeed you have been caught being dishonest in this debate?
Readers of the Forward can do a Google search for Theodor Meron and come to their own conclusions.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.