Today the New York Times reports Gaza Report Author Asks U.S. to Clarify Concerns. The article is flawed for what it gets wrong and for its failure to scrutinize any of Justice Goldstone’s self-aggrandizing claims.
What’s wrong with the first paragraph?
Richard Goldstone, the lead author of a United Nations report that found evidence of war crimes committed by Israel and Hamas during last winter’s Gaza war, challenged the Obama administration in an interview broadcast Thursday to explain what it has called serious concerns about his report.
Except as Hamas observed, the Goldstone commission did not explicitly mention that Hamas was guilty of war crimes. Besides, even if the report did mention Hamas, the mention of war crimes committed against Israel was negligible. The balance suggested in the news story was in no way reflected in the report.
The report found evidence that some Israeli soldiers had intentionally killed Palestinian civilians during the three-week conflict in violation of the laws of war. It described the Israeli military assault on Gaza as “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”
It also said there was evidence that the Palestinian militant rocket attacks on towns in southern Israel constituted war crimes.
How Goldstone could conclude that Israel’s goal was to “punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” is beyond me. That is precisely the behavior that Israel was responding too. After eight years of provocation. (h/t OyVey Blog) And especially after Israel no longer occupied Gaza. But of course, one of the flaws, of the report was to ignore the provocations of Hamas. If he really needs an Obama administration to explain that, his willful blindness is beyond belief.
As far as evidence that “rocket attacks” against Israel are war crimes, none is needed. The action is self-evidently a war crime.
“People generally don’t like to be accused of criminal activity, so it didn’t surprise me that there was criticism, even strong criticism, and it has come from both sides,” Mr. Goldstone said in the interview. “But I do regret the extremes to which some of the criticism has gone and the fact that it has been so personalized.”
He then lashed out at his detractors, saying, “I’ve no doubt, many of the critics — I would say the overwhelmingly majority of the critics — haven’t read the report. And, you know, what proves that, I think, is the level of criticism doesn’t go to the substance of the report. There still haven’t been responses to the really serious allegations that are made.”
As noted above, there wasn’t strong criticism from Hamas. Hamas loved the report. Goldstone is being disingenuous here. And of course, the “personalized” nature of the attacks has been in response to the smug self-righteousness he wraps himself in.
Enough time has elapsed since Goldstone released his report for plenty of substantive critiques to have appeared. Presumably, he is computer literate enough to do some searches and find those critiques and respond. The way Goldstone has wandered from media outlet to media outlet feigning outrage that someone would not take his word as gospel and asking others to point out the flaws in the report, positively begs for mockery.
And I take exception to his conclusion that many of his critics haven’t read the report. I have not read the whole report. I’ve read sections. And I’ve concluded that Goldstone drew his conclusions before his investigation and tailored the narrative to fit those conclusions. Frankly I’m offended that Goldstone’s been too lazy to seek out and respond to the substantive critiques that he – falsely – laments do not exist.
But the most damning critique of Goldstone, came from Goldstone himself. This is what he told the Forward.
For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.”
Goldstone himself said that he proved nothing – nothing that could stand up in court – and yet he demands that Israel take his accusations as convictions that must be disproved. That Goldstone simultaneously refuses to stand by his report and demands that it be taken seriously makes his position untenable.
Finally, let’s take read a section of the Goldstone report. (.pdf) It is the part about whether Israel provided sufficient warning to civilians to get out of harms way. And nearly every single one of Israel’s efforts were deemed insufficient.
535. While noting the statements of the significant efforts made by the Israeli armed forces to issue warnings, the sole question for the Mission to consider at this point is whether the different kinds of warnings issued can be considered as sufficiently effective in the circumstances to constitute compliance with article 57 (2) (c).
536. The Mission accepts that the warnings issued by the Israeli armed forces in some cases encouraged numbers of people to flee and get out of harm’s way in respect of the ground invasion, but this is not sufficient to consider them as generally effective.
537. The Mission considers that some of the leaflets with specific warnings, such as those that
Israel indicates were issued in Rafah and al-Shujaeiyah, may be regarded as effective. However, the Mission does not consider that general messages telling people to leave wherever they were and go to city centres, in the particular circumstances of this military campaign, meet the threshold of effectiveness.
538. The Mission regards some specific telephone calls to have provided effective warnings but treats with caution the figure of 165,000 calls made. Without sufficient information to know how many of these were specific, it cannot say to what extent such efforts might be regarded as
effective.
539. The Mission does not consider the technique of firing missiles into or on top of buildings as capable of being described as a warning, much less an effective warning. It is a dangerous practice and in essence constitutes a form of attack rather than a warning.
540. The Mission is also mindful of several incidents it has investigated where civilians were killed or otherwise harmed and met with humiliation and degrading treatment by Israeli soldiers, while fleeing from locations about which some form of warning was issued. The effectiveness of the warnings has to be assessed in the light of the overall circumstances that prevailed and the subjective view of conditions that the civilians concerned would take in deciding upon their response to the warning.
On the other hand Col. Richard Kemp a military commander with actual experience in urban combat, reviewed Israel’s procedures for warning civilians and concluded.
The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.
Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.
More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.
Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.
And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
(emphasis mine)
Faced with a choice of using their own judgments to condemn Israel, or take the word of an expert and exonerate Israel, Goldstone’s commission chose the former.
The chutzpah of this self-important man to claim that his critics have not read his report or addressed its substance is amazing. Those of us who have read it – or even parts of his report – are amazed at how flimsy his proofs are in contrast with the importance he and his allies attach to his shoddy work.
It’s almost as if he didn’t read his own report.
See this takedown of a similar Goldstone sobfest.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
