Clear message to Israel

Musa Keilani

South African jurist Richard Goldstone has challenged the White House to justify its charge that the Goldstone report accusing Israel and Hamasof war crimes in the December-January Israeli aggression on Gaza Strip was flawed.

Regardless of how the Obama administration responds to the challenge, we in this part of the world know well that the Goldstone report is objective and accurate. It concluded that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the conflict.

It might not be right to agree that Hamas could also be accused of war crimes. The world knows that the Palestinian group is exercising the universal right of the occupied to wage resistance against the occupier and its rocket attacks could not be considered as war crimes. Furthermore, the world saw how Israel went about its systematic slaughter of the Gazans and destruction of infrastructure with a view to worsening the suffering of the people living in the coastal strip under its choking blockade. It used banned weapons against the Gazans and bombed schools and other civilian installations.

Indeed, the international community witnessed the Israeli war crimes and the Goldstone report does not need any defence. However, the Obama administration found it fit to describe the report as unfair and flawed, without, however, being able to support its contention. That is what prompted Goldstone to issue the challenge.

“I have yet to hear from the Obama administration what the flaws in the report that they have identified are,” Goldstone told Al Jazeera television on Thursday.

“I would be happy to respond to them, if and when I know what they are,” added the jurist, whose mission included Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Hina Kilani, a lawyer of the supreme court of Pakistan and former special representative of the U.N. secretary general on Human Rights Defenders, and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish armed forces and member of the board of directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

“The Obama administration joined our recommendation calling for full and good-faith investigations, both in Israel and in Gaza, but said that the report was flawed,” said Goldstone.

One should not overlook that 25 of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 47 members voted for a resolution endorsing the report last week.Voting against were six others, including the United States, while 16 either abstained or did not vote.

Predictably, Israel rejected the report as biased and the Obama administrationsaid it would support Israel’s efforts to prevent a U.N. Security Council debate on the report.

The report recommended that the findings be referred to the International Criminal Court prosecutor in The Hague, if Israel and Hamas fail to conduct credible investigations within six months.

Well, the report prompted Israel to launch its moves, but not for any investigation into how its military handled the war on Gaza but to open what it calls “intelligence files documenting the incriminating evidence against hundreds of Hamas officials and naming names”.

Israel argues that while Hamas members travel the world “without fear of legal action against them, Israeli soldiers and officers never know when or where a war crimes charge may be slapped against them.”

Israel could not be expected to adopt any other position, but the world would have expected the Obama administration to adopt a fair stand. One would have also thought that the Obama administration would be true to its declaration that it had reversed the policy of its predecessors and was ready to cooperate with the U.N. to solve world problems.

Indeed, while criticising the Goldstone report, Washington also called on the Israeli government to investigate further into war crimes in Gaza Strip during its assault on the area. That is in line with the Goldstone report’s recommendation that Israel and Hamas conduct such an investigation.

According to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Washington had “very serious concerns about many of the recommendations” in the report. She highlighted “the mandate that was given (to the Goldstone Commission) by the Human Rights Council” came before the US joined the council, “which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable”.

Rice overlooks the fact that Goldstone had refused to accept the mandate until he was assured that it included looking into possible crimes committed by all parties in the conflict. She now finds herself facing the prospect of having to defend Israel in a possible Security Council debate where she knows well she would not be able to defend the indefensible.

The way the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood up to U.S. pressure over Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is no doubt an eye opener to the reality that no U.S. administration will be able to apply real pressure on Israel.

But even now, it is not too late for Obama to correct himself. He could ask Rice to abstain from voting in the Security Council on the Goldstone report. It would be the clearest message yet that Israel can no longer count on an automatic U.S. veto on its behalf.

* Published in Jordan's JORDAN TIMES on October 25, 2009.