Far removed from the headline-grabbing recessionary gloom, a diplomatic storm is brewing in the corridors of power. A report published by Richard Goldstone, an internationally respected jurist has put Israel back in the spotlight. The report details Israel’s conduct in the Gaza strip during the short but bloody war that ensued last November, and it doesn’t make for pretty reading. The report concludes that Israel had “committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity.”
The report further advises that Israel should be given six months to pursue a full and independent enquiry into what happened in Gaza, and if this is not done, the Report recommends that the case be referred to the International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes.
Given the serious allegations this report makes and its potential consequences, it’s no surprise that Israel has moved quickly to defend itself. The Israeli’s argue they were acting in self defence and their offensive must be seen as a legitimate response against Hamas rocket attacks into Southern Israel. The American House of Representatives approved a motion condemning the report as “deeply flawed,” and yet it was approved at a general assembly of the UN. How are we to interpret and reconcile these conflicting views and motions from the International political community? A close analysis of the Goldstone report goes some way to explaining the natural political consequences that acceptance or rejection of this report entails.
The Goldstone report highlights some serious questions about the ethics of the Israeli army during this war. It is forced to the conclusion that Israel’s offensive was a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civil population.” There are disturbing accounts of Palestinians being used as human shields, civilians waving white flags being butchered down and indiscriminate bombing of civilian centres. The Goldstone report does not shy away from exposing Israel’s actions in Gaza, and reporting the uncomfortable facts. 5, 500 Gazans wounded, 1,300 dead, over half of them civilians. It’s estimated over 4,000 homes were destroyed, 21,000 badly damaged and over 100,000 people left homeless. When faced with the cold hard facts of their slaughter of the Gazan population, the Israeli government remain defiant.
They assert that they have a duty to protect their people against rocket attacks from Hamas, however, even a cursory look at events leading up to ‘Operation Cast Lead’ raise serious question marks over this justification. In June 2008 Israel and Hamas agreed a ceasefire and rocket attacks into Israel fell from hundreds per month to single digits at the beginning of July. Evidently Hamas was striving for a peaceful way out of this conflict, the few rockets being fired coming from dissident elements. Israel concedes that before it broke the ceasefire on November the 4th 2008, Hamas had not fired a single rocket and though they considered repeated Hamas offers to renew the ceasefire, it rejected them, preferring invasion. If Israel’s actions thus cannot be justified properly on the basis of protecting their citizens, are we left with the conclusion that Israel’s actions were a class of a macho-chauvinistic display of power? If for the moment, however, we accept Israel’s justification, the more morally pressing question arises, what price does Israel put on life? Israel inflicted vastly more civilian damage in three weeks than Hamas did in three years.
Article 53 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention states,
“Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” Evidently actions such as the bombing of a UN hospital prove that the Israeli army didn’t even pretend to pay lip service to this obligation, however, Professor Lubin of Georgetown University uses this to question the value Israel places on a human life. To do this, he considers the killing of Nazar Rhyann. Rhyann was a senior Hamas leader, and thus appears a lawful target under the Geneva Convention. His death however, included the death of his wife, eleven children and whoever else was around at the time. Is that level of death proportionate compared to the value of the military objective achieved as the convention requires? Israel would claim yes. The rest of us are left to reach our own conclusions.
The question thus arises in light of this damming evidence, how can America and their Nato allies persist in their support for Israel and their condemnation of the Goldstone report? A hint may be seen in a comment made by Lt. Col. Benjamin, a legal adviser to Israel during the occupation, “To adopt the Goldstone report would have very dramatic consequences, not only for us, but also for any democratic country fighting a terrorist army with substantial military force but hiding in a civilian population.” This simple comment is evidence of Israel on the offensive; a barbed warning to all states participating in the ‘war on terror.’
The barely hidden human rights scandal at Guantanamo Bay and the travesty in Gaza are unfortunate by products of the honourable cause of spreading democracy and winning the war on terror. The sanctity of human life now lies second to political progress and policy,
as evidenced by the UK’s indefensible decision to place trade links and political harmony with Israel over the difficult but ultimately right decision to decry these actions as crimes against humanity that we in the Western hemisphere simply cannot defend.
The Goldstone report has been heavily criticised by the US and Israel for being unhelpful to the peace process. All reasonable people should treat this justification with derision.
No political goal should be allowed to run roughshod over basic and fundamental human rights and the value of human life. There can be no peace without accountability.Individuals have long memories and the Palestinian people have a memory that will last for generations to come, they will not forget this tragedy in the interests of political expediency, and neither should we. The US may well be able to veto the Goldstone Report at the UN Security Council, but it is submitted that this continued impunity, and not justice and accountability, are the greater long term threats to peace.
