The Dangerous Bias of the United Nations Goldstone Report

March 24, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

Dore Gold is the former ambassador of Israel to the U.N. and the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.  

Last year's report by the U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza War, known more popularly as the Goldstone Report, is not going away. Originally, it was the initiative of the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, which named South African Justice Richard Goldstone to head it. It was promoted at the time by Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan—not exactly the beacons of human rights—and had no support from Western democracies. However, the number of states backing the report has been growing. And yet, it remains one of the most potent weapons in the arsenals of international terrorist organizations seeking to render ineffective the capacity of the West to engage in self-defense. 

Strictly speaking, the report was primarily directed against Israel, which was seeking to bring to a complete halt the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire by the international terrorist organization Hamas against Israeli towns and villages that had been going on for more than seven years. The Goldstone Report alleged that Israeli troops had committed "war crimes" by attacking purely civilian targets in the Gaza War. To make matters worse, the report failed to link Hamas to any violations of the laws of war, even though its continuing rocket attacks on Israeli civilians caused the Gaza War to begin with. There is only mention of anonymous "Palestinian armed groups." It is probably for that reason that the Hamas second in command in Damascus, Musa Abu Marzuq, told the Saudi satellite channel Al-Arabiya that "the report acquits Hamas almost entirely." 

Thus a report that has the stamp of the United Nations makes serious allegations about a state engaged in lawful self-defense, while letting the aggressor, an international terrorist organization, completely off the hook. Israeli President Shimon Peres understandably called the Goldstone Report "scandalous" when he met U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in Jerusalem on March 20. 

How did the Goldstone team produce such a result? It is essential to understand that its members had a very specific outlook of the nature of this kind of armed conflict that affected their conclusions. Colonel Desmond Travers of Ireland was the senior military figure on Goldstone's panel and probably its most important member after Justice Goldstone. In a wide-ranging interview in Middle East Monitor from February 2, 2010, he utterly rejects that there is something called "asymmetric warfare" in which insurgent forces are introducing civilians into the battlefield against modern armies in a way that changes the nature of warfare. He argues that these ideas are mainly coming from the United States and Israel and they are utterly wrong. This outlook directly affected what Travers and his colleagues looked for, as they gathered evidence, and how they went about the interviews that they conducted with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. 

Take, for example, the case of Muhammad Abu Askar, a longtime Hamas member who served as the director-general of the ministry of religious endowments in the Gaza government. He appeared before the Goldstone Panel arguing that his house had been "unjustly" blown up by Israel, though he admitted that he was warned in advance by the Israel Defense Forces, who telephoned him directly informing him that his home was to be targeted and he had better vacate the area. The Goldstone Report concludes that Abu Askar's home was of an "unmistakably civilian nature." If that was the case then Israel would have violated one of the basic principles of international law by failing to discriminate between military and civilian objects and personnel during wartime.

Because the U.N. actually posted on its website video clips with the questioning of Abu Askar by the Goldstone Panel, it is possible to examine how panelists reached their conclusions. They asked him detailed questions about the warning he received. They also asked about the other homes in the area. But the most pivotal question that would help them determine whether Abu Askar's house was purely civilian in nature or was a legitimate military target was not asked. No one bothered to confront him with the unpleasant but necessary question of whether Hamas munitions were being stored in his house. They might have had an inkling that this was a serious possibility if they had also inquired as to whether Abu Askar was more than a Hamas religious functionary but was actually a member of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which he was. 

In January 2010, the Israel Defense Force completed its own internal investigation of many of the incidents that appear in the Goldstone Report, including the case of Abu Askar. Israeli representatives submitted their findings to the U.N. secretary-general. It turned out that the cellar and other parts of Abu Askar's house served as a storage facility for large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, including Iranian-supplied Grad rockets that had been used against Israeli cities like Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Beersheba. Indeed, the area around the house had been used as a launch site for attacking many Israeli towns and villages. If someone in the U.N.'s research division would have bothered to check the Arabic website of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas they would have disclosed that Khaled Abu Askar, Muhammad's son, worked for the military supply unit of Hamas and provided its operatives with rockets and military equipment. 

Tags:
UN,
Israel

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

How is the security of the West contingent on the security of Israel? Because if anyone gets nabbed for human rights violations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, that sets a precedent for human rights violations by military forces fighting insurgents in other countries around the world. Mr. Gold failed to mention which specific countries with forces abroad in insurgent wars, like Afghanistan, opposed or abstained. The fact remains that the US House of Representatives voted total opposition to the report. No surprise.

If they can snag one Israel for what they consider "self-defense," then that puts US military, commanders, and civilian handlers at risk for prosecution also. That is the basis of US/Israel relations. The US will fight any condemnation of Israeli Defense Forces just to save its own ass from the same condemnation. And honestly the excuse that fair warning was given in order to flush the civilians out is a disgrace to military tactics and insurgent strategy.

An American Patriot of CO 12:27AM October 16, 2010

Richard Goldstone has openly declared that both HAMAS and the IDF were guilty of war crimes, he does not "completely let Hamas off the hook" as this article so inaccurately repeats. It suggests that the IDF and Hamas both committed acts that exhibited a failure to distinguish between military targets and civilian population. The damning aspect of the report lies in the matter of degree - that is, that Israel (despire its claims otherwise) engaged in the deliberate targeting of schools, civilian groups, ambulances (29 destroyed in total, many carrying recently wounded civilians) and hospitals. These are indefensible tactics. The IDF also used white phosphorous, a stark example is Al Qudz hospital, all of which was supplied by the U.S. government. THe problem is thus that both sides committed war crimes, but the U.S. supports UNILATERALLY one side in this conflict and has failed to acknowledge the veracity of ANY of the claims regarding IDF behavior.

US News should aspire to a higher standard and I am positive that Dore Gold has not read the original report, an honest prerequisite for writing such an article.

Don't believe me?

It is available in full at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

Sherief of KS 11:00PM March 26, 2010

Of course, the right of Jews to be there is the core of the Arab-Israeli dispute. One might think that after more than 3,000 years of continuous occupation of “the occupied territories” with Jerusalem as their capitol for about 1,000 of those years, the Jews do in fact have the right to be there. However, if Jonathan Ford of CA does not think so, he should state the numerous criteria that legitimize HIS occupation, and I will test the Jews’ claim to Israel against them.

James M. Price of VA 8:44PM March 26, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

advertisement