IDEALS

JERUSALEM, (Sep. 16, 2009) IPS/GIN – The Goldstone Commission has
delivered an unremittingly scathing report on Israel’s 22-day war
against Hamas in Gaza last December and January.

But the outstanding question is what kind of action the report -
legal and political – will yield. Will it, in fact, result in any
action at all?

The 574-page report was submitted at the UN on Tuesday. Headed by
former South African Supreme Court Justice Richard Goldstone, the
Commission concludes that Israel “committed actions amounting to
war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its Gaza
offensive.

It further asks the UN Security Council to call on Israel to
conduct “appropriate investigations”. If these internal probes are
deemed not to meet international standards, then Israel’s conduct
in the Gaza war should be referred to the International Criminal
Court in The Hague. Goldstone recommends that the Security Council
act if, within six months, Israel does not carry out such an
investigation.

Devoting much less space to violations by Hamas, the report found
that the firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups also
amounted to war crimes. It calls for a similar legal process
against Hamas.

But, the report comes down especially hard on Israel, lambasting
its disproportionate use of force.

Despite the strong conclusions and recommendations of a process
that could eventually land Israel in the international dock, there
is scepticism about how far the proposals can actually go.

Israel is determined its condemnation does not go beyond the
report.

It is pulling out all the stops, political and emotional, to back
up a fierce diplomatic battle to prevent it even being put on to
the Security Council agenda, thus breaking a chain that might lead
to the ICC prosecuting Israeli officials involved in the military
campaign.

The UN Human Rights Council, which appointed Goldstone, will be
convening in Geneva for a special session on the report on Sept.
29.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held emergency
consultations on Tuesday night. “The goal is to avoid a slippery slope which would lead Israel to The Hague,” said a senior official
in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Israeli officials had anticipated condemnation, but say they were
taken aback by the “harsh tone” of the report and by “the sweeping
and unrestrained judgment.”

“Exactly what we feared occurred,” said Israel’s ambassador to the
UN, Gabriela Shalev on Israel Radio Tuesday evening. “The mandate
of the Goldstone Commission was one-sided from the outset. The
initiative to establish the commission came from the UN Human
Rights Council which is known for its routine condemnation of
Israel.”

Dismissing criticism at home that Israel should have cooperated
with the Commission (which Israel steadfastly refused to do from
the outset), deputy Israeli foreign minister Dany Ayalon, said
before traveling to New York, that had Israel worked with
Goldstone, “not one word of the report would have been altered.”
On the contrary, said Ayalon, it would only have “legitimised” the
findings.

“A prize for terrorists,” is how the Israeli Defence Ministry is
describing the report. “The comparison between those who foment
terrorism and its victims is unconscionable,” said one defence
official, requesting anonymity.

The Israel army is leaving rebuttals to politicians and diplomats.
But army spokespersons point out that the Judge Advocate’s Office
of the Israel Defence Forces provided details to the foreign
ministry of investigations into 36 specific incidents wherein
troops allegedly violated international law.

The battle between Israel and the international community is
shaping up as a battle about de-legitimisation.

On the one hand, the compilers of the report have set out to
de-legitimise the excesses of war. In Judge Goldstone’s words: “I
think we should all rejoice in living in a world today where there
is accountability for war crimes, there wasn’t until very recently,
it’s a very new situation, and it’s very important that there
should be…no impunity for international crimes that are
committed.”

On the other hand, Israel is desperately aiming to de-legitimise
the critics of what it considers a legitimate war of self-defence.

Although alarmed by the impact that the Commission’s findings could
have on Israel’s international standing, Israeli officials are
reasonably confident that its friends in the Security Council,
especially the U.S., will prevent the Goldstone recommendations
being transferred to The Hague.

Their practical worries do extend, however, to another front. Robbie Sabel, a former legal advisor at the Israeli Foreign
Ministry and now on the staff of the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, told IPS, “There is a real possibility that this could
give legitimacy to private legal initiatives in Western European
countries, like in Britain and Scandinavia, for the issuing to
Israeli officials and army officers of warrants for war crimes.”

Already, the Israeli defence establishment is understood to be
working out plans for extending legal aid to officers who may face
indictment on war crimes charges.

Israeli Human Rights groups called for Israel to carry out its own
thorough investigation, as proposed by the Commission. This was
ruled out by Israel’s UN ambassador: “I don’t think we will change
because of the report,” said Shalev. “I know the ethics of the
Israeli Defence Forces. Every complaint is being looked into,
hundreds are being looked into.”

Justice Goldstone suggested that past inquires carried out within
Israel did not meet the standards of a full and proper
investigation. “It’s tantamount to demanding that the Manhattan
police force investigate serious crime in New York and confine
itself to interviewing the murderers.”

The Human Rights Council made a point of releasing the findings on
the eve of the new General Assembly session. This, say some, adds
significance to the Goldstone call for accountability, and for a
timetable to achieve it.

The immediate outcome on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may,
however, be just more of the familiar acerbic finger-pointing and
attempts to score tactical points.

And, even the most well-intentioned moral standards sometimes put
obstacles in the way of well-intentioned peace diplomacy.

With the report emerging at a critical diplomatic juncture, the
most immediate result could, in fact, damage President Obama’s
comprehensive Middle East peace offensive.

The U.S. is strenuously engaged in meeting the stated objective of
having Israeli and Palestinian leaders meeting in a fortnight at
the General Assembly to kick off the Obama peace drive.

But with his special envoy, Senator George Mitchell, continuing
difficult talks in both Jerusalem and Ramallah towards that goal,
the U.S. President may simply find that both sides are simply
hardening their opening positions.

Israel is refusing to budge on its No to a total settlement freeze
and the Palestinians, in consequence, are refusing to join the
projected peace talks. What’s more, it’s harder than ever to
conceive that, immediately after the publication of such
condemnation of Israel, the Arab states can be expected to begin a normalisation process with Israel.