Goldstone’s Regrets: Part Two

by Daniel E. Levenson, ALM

April 16, 2011

As I continue to read through the Goldstone report, it occurs to me that part of the problem with it is that the commission decided it could not investigate events relating to Operation Cast Lead without taking into account a wide range of other events which did not occur during the period of open hostilities between Hamas and Israel in the winter of 2008. I know that events do not occur in a vacuum, and it is understandable that any individual or group tasked with investigating an armed conflict in the region would want to take into consideration preceding and concurrent events relating to the war itself. That being said, it is clear that this particular commission took for itself the goal of taking into consideration and exploring nearly every facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it is clear that the mission was severely displeased by their lack of access to Israel and the West Bank, something which they offer as justification for their limited ability to fully assess the actions of Israel during the war or the impact on Israeli citizens by the events of the war. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily proof of bias, but their decision to release, what is essentially an incomplete report which portrays Israel in a negative light, does give the first part of this document an anti-Israel sensibility. The claims the commission makes are further undermined, in my opinion, by their decision to expand the scope of inquiry to include practically all military, political and diplomatic factors since 1967. Such a move makes it hard to take the conclusions of this document seriously, given the incredible breadth and depth of information it purports to take into account.

Credibility, in terms of facts and information within the report, is also strained. Statements within this report which give a gloss of doubt to certain things which should be taken as facts, for example, can be found within it. One relevant example can be found in a footnote on page 47 of the report, in which Justice Goldstone, writing of the site of the Temple Mount and Al-Akhsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem  states, “It is also believed to be the location of the two ancient Jewish temples.” Statements such as this strain the credibility of the report – it is no more debatable, for example, that a Jewish Temple stood on this site, than it is that the White House is located in Washington DC. In addition, Justice Goldstone writes about the separation barrier without apparent concern for the dangers Israel was facing which necessitated its construction or for giving even a hint of the context which required its construction. And here we have the crux of the problem: this is a report, which at one point explicitly states that it is not meant to be exhaustive, and then goes on to describe how events as diverse as the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, the death of Yasser Arafat and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, are all not only germane, but vital to, any discussion of the 2008 Gaza war.

The report then moves into focusing on more specific aspects of the war in Gaza itself, but even here the tendency seems to be to shine a light on the purported incidents of Israeli war crimes and violations of the 4th Geneva Convention by Israel, while asserting time and again that while Palestinian groups may have done some things which were wrong, that there is not sufficient evidence to assert this as fact. The end result is that the Palestinian militants are given something of a pass, while Israel remains bumbling at best and malicious at worst (and most often).

Justice Goldstone also spends a good deal of time assessing the warning campaign that Israel carried out in an attempt to prevent the unnecessary deaths of Palestinian civilians and while here some of his critiques may be valid. The assertion for example, that in the context of hostilities, that civilians in a house may not be able to tell the difference between small explosives dropped on buildings as a warning and a regular attack, is reasonable. What stands out to me, however, is that while Israel was dropping leaflets and making phone calls ahead of its attack on Gaza in order to warn the civilian population there, that Hamas not only doesn’t warn civilians, but purposely targets them, something which the report fails to note. And when it comes to targeting, Justice Goldstone does not hesitate to suggest that Israel purposely targeted hospitals, regardless of whether or not there was truth to the Israeli claim that militants had been using such places to attack from.

There is no denying that the reports of Palestinian civilian casualties are disturbing to read – the injuries and loss of life are heart-breaking – but when the report is read with a critical eye it is apparent that the enumeration of such casualties is not meant merely to serve notice of the cruelty of warfare, but to Israel and Israeli actions with a broad brush which effectively paints the IDF as a malevolent and inhuman force, immune to the sufferings of the Palestinian people caught in the crossfire between themselves and Hamas. While I admit I am only about a fourth of the way through the entire report, another thing which strikes me is the detailed reporting offered on individual incidents in which the IDF is claimed to have wantonly killed innocent civilians through callous or careless actions, while there is little mention of Hamas attacks against either IDF soldiers or Israeli civilians. Moral calculus is of course dangerous and presents a rhetorical slippery slope, but from what I have read so far, the Goldstone Report should be seen as a deeply flawed and incomplete document, one which the United Nations should not accept.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson/The New Bew Vilna Review 2011.