Zabla it ain’t

There’s a concept in Jewish law of “zeh borer lo echad” or “each one chooses one.” In Hebrew, the term is shortened to its acronym, “zabla.” When two litigants have a court case requiring three judges, each litigant chooses a judge and the two judges then choose a third judge to hear the case.

The UN seems to have adopted a similar approach in the makeup of the flotilla inquiry.

The panel will be led by a former New Zealand prime minister, Geoffrey Palmer, with the departing president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, as his deputy. Israel and Turkey are expected to nominate one member each within the coming days. Its report is due by next February.

This is contrast to the UN “Human Rights” Council that has initiated its own inquiry.

“The mandate of the probe violates due process and objectivity by presuming Israeli guilt from the outset,” said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. “It’s another example of what former UN rights chief Mary Robinson recently described as the unfortunate and regrettable practice by the council to adopt resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics.”[See Note 1]

According to Neuer, “by declaring Israel guilty before any facts were even collected, the resolution taints the mission with prejudicial bias, and contravenes the UN’s own Declaration on Fact Finding, which requires objectivity and impartiality.”

“It speaks volumes that Khaled Mashaal, the leader of the Hamas terrorist group, asked for this probe–literally for the council to create ‘another Goldstone report’–while the Palestinian Authority actually opposed it,” said Neuer.

Ha’aretz offers an analysis of the UN’s flotilla probe, With UN flotilla probe, Ban ki-Moon is trying to stay relevant.

One would have thought that if he wanted to be relevant, the Secretary General could have taken up knitting, but Daled Amos) supposes that the only crises in the world are caused by Israel.

For some reason Israel has agreed to participate in the UN’s probe. Like Solomonia, I can’t see any good coming of this. The Washington Post reports,

An Israeli official said Israel’s decision to participate was driven in large part by its desire to repair ties with Turkey, an important Israeli ally in the Middle East. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

A statement issued by the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Turkey hoped the results of the inquiry would “help entrench the culture of respect for international law and prevent the recurrence of similar violations.”

The Israeli navy’s dramatic attempt to intercept the Turkish ship carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip turned deadly after Israeli commandos faced resistance from some activists.

The reporter must be kidding. “[F]aced resistance?” They were attacked and shot at and injured before they fired back.

The New York Times reports:

Israel had been adamant that it would not accept any international investigation into the May 31 raid, and the panel seemed to fulfill its conditions. The Israeli government stressed the idea that the panel would merely review the results that the government had already produced. Indeed, while the United Nations referred to it as a “panel of inquiry,” the official Israeli government statement mentioned only a “panel” that would “receive reports on the Israeli investigation.”

“Israel has nothing to hide,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. “The opposite is true. It is in the national interest of the state of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light.”

Turkey emphasized that the importance was to get the panel in place and then see where it led. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the panel should operate according to the demands of the Security Council for a credible and transparent investigation.

“We hope the results of this investigation would make important contributions to the establishment of respect in international law, help prevention of similar violations, as much as they would assist building tranquility and peace,” the statement said.

Turkey is not interested in seeing where the inquiry, would lead. Read the Turkish statement. Its goal is to prevent “similar violations.” In other words, “similar Israeli violations.” Turkey’s goal is to convict Israel.

Unsurprisingly, the editors of the New York Times support Israel’s decision.

After resisting cooperation with the United Nations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel showed good sense when he said Monday that “Israel has nothing to hide” and that it is in Israel’s “national interest to ensure that the factual truth about the entire flotilla incident is revealed to the whole world.” Turkey also welcomed the investigation and promised to cooperate.

This is a leap of faith for Israel, whose enemies have sometimes used the United Nations as an anti-Israel cudgel. The four-member panel will include Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand; the outgoing president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe; and an Israeli and a Turk, who must be of high caliber and committed to an honest outcome.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that the panel’s mandate is sufficiently broad enough to fulfill the Security Council’s June 1 call for a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.”

“[S]ometimes use the United Nations as an anti-Israel cudgel?!?” What understatement. Who knew that they had a sense of humor? Of course the problem isn’t the mandate. Videos taken – some by the terrorists on the Mavi Marmara – and accounts given, show that the soldiers were attacked and that they didn’t use firearms until they were endangered. Surely the editors on the New York Times are aware of this; if they’re not they shouldn’t be commenting on the news.

Israel Matzav thinks that Netanyahu agreed to the probe for American diplomatic support.

Was the price for Obama backing Netanyahu on direct talks with the ‘Palestinians’? If so, it was way, way too high.

JoshuaPundit writes about the risk Netanyahu is taking:

Netanyahu probably went along went along with this because he felt that he had more to gain than to lose in terms of American good will. That was a mistake of historic proportions.

What he has done, for the first time ever, is to subject the actions of the armed forces of a democratic state under attack by a terrorist entity to the jurisdiction of the UN.

I don’t buy that the reason agreed to cooperate with the UN inquiry is to mend fences with Turkey. Turkey under its current government is allied with Iran. That’s not going to change.

The most likely reason, from what I can tell is that Netanyahu seeks to shortcircuit the UNHRC inquiry. We’ll see if he’s successful, and how high the price is.

Finally, after President Obama’s positive meeting with Netanyahu, he has now done two things to hurt Israel. One has been to raise the diplomatic stature of the Palestinian Authority. The second was that the administration appears to have been the player that pushed Israeli participation. At some point Netanyahu really has to say “no” to the President and accept the fallout of finally defying him.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel, Turkey, United Nations and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Zabla it ain’t

  1. Bella Center says:

    One of the problems of the Goldstone Report was that Israel’s lack of cooperation meant that there was no counterweight to the lies of the other participants and this refusal was also used to further malign Israel. Perhaps by cooperating with this inquiry at least no one would be able to claim that, once again, Israel thinks it is above the law.

  2. Tom Frank says:

    “At some point Netanyahu really has to say “no” to the President and accept the fallout of finally defying him.”

    I’m thinking November 3rd?

Comments are closed.