House to vote on resolution to reject Goldstone report findings and recommendations
By Jeremy R. Hammond
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Nov 3, 2009, 00:24
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution calling on
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton �to oppose
unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the �Report of the
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict� in multilateral
fora.�
Headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, a former judge of the
Constitutional Court of South Africa and Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the U.N. report found
that evidence indicates both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during
Israel�s 22-day assault on the Gaza Strip, dubbed �Operation Cast Lead,� which
began on December 27, 2008.
The report recommended that allegations of war crimes by
both parties be investigated.
The current
text of the proposed Congressional resolution, H. Res. 867, contains
numerous factual inaccuracies, beginning with the assertion that the U.N.
inquiry had �pre-judged� its findings and was �one-sidedly� mandated to
�investigate all violations of international human rights law and International
Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly
in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression.�
The actual mandate adopted on April 3 was �to investigate all
violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law
that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military
operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008
and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.�
The quoted text is not from the April 3 mandate, but from U.N. General Assembly resolution S-9/1 on January 12, 2009,
which resulted in the later appointment of the mission by the U.N. Human Rights
Council (UNHRC).
Also, omitted in the draft resolution�s reproduction of the
text are the words �occupying Power� before �Israel.� Under international law,
the occupying power is in fact obligated to investigate allegations of war
crimes and violations of human rights.
The draft U.S. resolution states that the Goldstone report
�makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered
in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other
violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that
necessitated Israel�s defensive measures.�
But this criticism itself ignores the fact that even if
Israel�s military operations were justifiable as �defensive measures,� Israel
would still be legally obligated to conduct its operations in accordance with
international law, and to conduct investigations into alleged war crimes conducted
by its own forces.
The draft resolution also makes no mention of the relentless
siege of Gaza by Israel, or the fact that Hamas had been strictly observing a
cease-fire agreed to in June, only firing rockets after Israel had first
violated that truce with repeated attacks against Gazans, a continuation of the
crippling siege, and an airstrike and invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces on
November 4 that ultimately resulted in the complete breakdown of the truce.
It also makes no mention of the fact that the Goldstone
report contains a section dedicated to examining the impact of rocket and
mortar attacks by Palestinian militants on southern Israel, or that mission�s
efforts to do so were impeded by Israel�s refusal to cooperate.
The draft resolution states that the U.N. mission �included
a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of
committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on
January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel�s actions
�war crimes.��
That letter to the Sunday Times also stated, �We condemn
the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also
contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes.�
But criticism of the Goldstone report on the similar basis
that one of its members had beforehand declared Hamas guilty of war crimes is
lacking in the draft resolution.
It calls the Goldstone report�s findings �that the Israeli
military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead�
�unsubstantiated.� In fact, the 575 page report provides extensive
documentation for its findings.
The draft resolution states that �the authors of the report,
in the body of the report itself, admit that �we did not deal with the issues .
. . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas
and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers �
in the fog of war.��
This is an outright fabrication. Those words do not in fact
appear in the body of the actual report.
Those words actually come from an alleged e-mail
from Richard Goldstone in which he explained why the U.N. report did not rely
on a Colonel Kemp for its inquiry. The full text of the statement from that
e-mail, replacing the part omitted in the draft resolution, reads �we did not
deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting
military operations in civilian areas . . .� (emphasis added).
The draft resolution states that Richard Goldstone had been
quoted in the October 16 edition of the Jewish daily Forward as saying,
�If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.�
But omitted is the further context of that remark in the same article,
which added, �He recalled his work as chief prosecutor for the international
war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia in 1994. When he began working, Goldstone was
presented with a report commissioned by the U.N. Security Council based on what
he said was a fact-finding mission similar to his own in Gaza.
��We couldn�t use that report as evidence at all,� Goldstone
said. �But it was a useful roadmap for our investigators, for me as chief
prosecutor, to decide where we should investigate. And that�s the purpose of
this sort of report.�
The draft resolution asserts that the Goldstone report �in
effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense,� but offers no
supporting evidence for this.
The Goldstone report found that �While the Israeli
Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to
rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission
considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different
target: the people of Gaza as a whole.�
The draft resolution states that �the report usually
considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible,
while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it
called the �Gaza authorities,� i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas,� but offers
no examples from the report.
The report does, in fact, question the credibility of
Israeli officials. It notes in one instance that �it considers the credibility
of Israel�s position damaged by the series of inconsistencies, contradictions
and factual inaccuracies in the statements justifying the attack.�
In another example illustrating Israel�s lack of credibility,
it �acknowledges that significant efforts [were] made by Israel to issue
warnings,� but that �The credibility of instructions to move to city centres
for safety was also diminished by the fact that the city centres themselves had
been the subject of intense attacks.�
The Goldstone report also observed that �By refusing to
cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting
Israeli Government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to meet
Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet Palestinian Authority
representatives and Palestinian victims.�
The U.N. report also noted that �In establishing its
findings, the Mission sought to rely primarily and whenever possible on
information it gathered first-hand. Information produced by others, including
reports, affidavits and media reports, was used primarily as corroboration.�
The draft resolution asserts that �notwithstanding a great
body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war
crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools,
and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon
that claim.�
The �great body of evidence� is an apparent reference to
remarks from Israeli officials found to be demonstrably lacking in credibility,
which were commonly simply repeated by U.S. officials and the mainstream media.
The U.N. mission did examine �whether and to what extent the
Palestinian armed groups violated their obligation to exercise care and take
all feasible precaution to protect the civilian population in Gaza� and found
that �Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military
operations and launched rockets from urban areas.�
But it �found no evidence, however, to suggest that
Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were
being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of
the attacks.�
While there is no evidence that Hamas deliberately used
civilians as human shields, the Goldstone report �investigated four incidents
in which the Israeli armed forces coerced Palestinian civilian men at gunpoint
to take part in house searches during the military operations� and concluded
�that this practice amounts to the Use of Palestinian civilians as human
shields and is therefore prohibited by international humanitarian law.�
The draft resolution, besides calling upon the White House
and State Department to reject the Goldstone report and its recommendations,
also �reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish State of Israel, for Israel�s
security and right to self-defense, and, specifically for Israel�s right to
defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors.�
It makes no similar mention of the right of Palestinians to
security and self-defense from Israel and its U.S. sponsor.
Human rights groups, including
the Israeli organization B�Tselem, have called upon the international
community to implement its recommendation that suspected violations of
international law be investigated.
Jeremy
R. Hammond is the Editor
of Foreign Policy Journal, an online source for news, critical
analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. His articles have been
featured and cited in numerous other print and online publications around the
world. He has appeared in interviews on the GCN radio network, Talk Nation
Radio, and Press TV�s Middle East Today program.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor