I have been reading the United Nation's "Goldstone Report", which is officially titled HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. It is much in the news these days, along with the recent inaugural conference of J-Street, the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobbying organization in Washington, DC. I want as much as possible to respond to the actual report, and not simply to news reports about it.
You can read the full Goldstone Report here.
The Goldstone Report has become caught up in a tangle of accusations about bias. So let me reveal my own biases: Israel is a Jewish state committed to democracy and human rights, and entitled to defend itself. The only just solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and the only solution that will protect Israel in the long run, will be a two-state solution — Israel and Palestine.
I like to think that these two "biases" to some degree balance each other, and enable me to process the Goldstone Report in a fair way. I'm not going to say that Israel can never be wrong. I'm also not going to say that all critics of Israel hate Israel.
It has taken me a long time to write this post; I've had to go over my words several times. I wondered if I should delete this whole thing and not bother to publish it or to speak about it. I am trying very hard as I write to be restrained — I think people know that's my natural inclination! But I'm finding it very difficult not to be terribly disappointed by the report. I have read a good deal of it carefully and paged through all of it.
Here are some things that trouble me. I'm going to mention them, and I guess my audience are people still getting oriented to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I doubt there's anything new to be learned here if you've been thinking about it already. (I have previously posted what I hope is a fair overview of the conflict in maps.)
- On the United Nations' own website, one story about the report is headlined "Endorsing Gaza war report, UN Human Rights Council condemns Israel." The report investigated both Israeli and Hamas actions in Gaza during the winter conflict, but the UNHRC targets its condemnation against Israel.
- The report contains a section on the historical context of the Gaza operation, which begins with the occupation of Palestinian territories in the 1967 war. It mentions the fact that before 1967, Gaza was administered by Egypt, without mentioning that the UN had twenty-years earlier passed a resolution that Arab areas such as Gaza and the West Bank should constitute an independent Palestinian state.
- The story the report tells about the history of Gaza since 1967 attributes every derailing of the peace process after the 1993 Oslo agreement to Israeli actions, without reference to any acts by the Palestinians. So for instance, Yitzchak Rabin's assassination by an Israeli and Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza (!) are described as key blows to the peace process.
- Hamas is first mentioned in the historical summary not with reference to its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, but in connection with its decision to recognize the Palestinian Authority and participate in Palestinian politics. Israel is generally characterized in detail for its disregard of Palestinian life and rights. The Palestinian armed groups are characterized as resisting occupation, but their stated goal of eliminating Israel is not mentioned.
I'm trying to write this not as a kvetch, the same-old Jewish reaction, but with disappointment. While there is much detail about specific incidents, and specific deaths, the report reads primarily as an assessment of the Israel's entire relationship with the Palestinains and an indictment of Israel's occupation as a series of crimes.
The writers of the report hold Israel entirely to blame for the conflict, out of a desire to occupy land and deny the humanity of Palestinians. They state their belief that since Israel has superior military technology with pinpoint control of firing, civilian casualties and suffering were part of "deliberate planning and policy decisions." They state that any UN member state could investigate and prosecute Israeli (but not Palestinians) for war crimes committed during the Gaza war last winter.
If the goal is to promote accountability for immoral acts by Israeli soldiers, this is a horrible way to go about it. If the Goldstone Report is the jumping-off point for anything, those who move ahead are signing on to a picture of Israel as a country intent on maximizing the suffering of other people and repressing its own citizens when they dissent. What country would accept the findings of such a report as the basis for its own investigations?
If people like me react this way — think of what the report evokes in those who think they could never trust the U.N. or Arabs under any circumstances. For people who have no sympathy at all for Israel, the report is a detailed rationale for its elimination as a criminal state.
I can live with the fact that there are people who regard Israel this way, and I doubt there is anything I can do about it. But when the United Nations takes this position, it becomes a party to the suffering of Palestinians by adding to the toxic diplomatic environment.
In the Goldstone Report are detailed allegations of deliberate acts of killing and violence by Israeli soldiers against innocent civilians. By the 1990s, most Israelis had come to believe that holding the terrorities was requiring actions by young Israeli soldiers, by Jewish soldiers, that would undermine the ethical character of Israel. That's why most Israelis seek an end to the occupation for "selfish" reasons, for reasons of Israel's own interest, as well as for reasons of human rights.
I'm aware as an American Jew that I am implicated too. To reduce our own cognitive and emotional dissonance, we supporters of Israel end up defending things that we would criticize if other countries did them. But contrary to the Goldstone Report, Israel has vibrant groups continuing to raise these questions and investigate. Israel's government is in its own debate about whether and how to investigate and analyze the conduct of the war in Gaza.
All three major Israeli political parties are on record as supporting a Palestinian state. There is a basic choice facing the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership, which is whether to negotiate the establishment of this state or to continue to impugn Israel's basic legitimacy because of its specific actions. Which choice shows true solidarity with the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza? I ask that not as a gotcha, but as a real question. Hopefully, I'm showing both of my biases — for Israel, and for a two-state resolution.
Now I too am verging into broader political statements. So here again is the Goldstone Report and you can form your own impressions.
Leave a Reply