The big Israel/Palestine news of the week is Richard Goldstone’s op-ed in the Washington Post on Sunday (4/3/11). The short version you pick up from the media is that Goldstone has “retracted” his UN-sponsored report on war crimes during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead war in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
The “retraction” language is fairly common—as in the New York Times headline (4/4/11),”Israel Grapples With Retraction on UN Report.”
But is there any real retraction?
Goldstone, a retired South African judge, chaired a four-person fact-finding commission investigating crimes committed by both sides. As he explains in his Post column, the Israelis refused to cooperate, which obviously affected the report’s findings:
The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.
Goldstone writes that he now believes that “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.” He sides with a follow-up report from the UN, which credits Israel for launching some investigations of their Gaza war—though he added:
I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.
At CounterPunch, Jonathan Cook notes (4/5/11):
Israel would certainly like observers to interpret Goldstone’s latest comments as an exoneration. In reality, however, he offered far less consolation to Israel than its supporters claim.
The report’s original accusation that Israeli soldiers committed war crimes still stands, as does criticism of Israel’s use of unconventional weapons such as white phosphorus, the destruction of property on a massive scale and the taking of civilians as human shields.
Cook adds that some observers see this as a mostly misdirected debate over intentionality—whether Israeli forces meant to kill civilians, or merely disregarded the fact that their actions would kill civilians. As Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch put it at the Guardian (4/5/11):
Goldstone has not retreated from the report’s allegation that Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war. These attacks included Israel’s indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus in densely populated areas, and its massive and deliberate destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure without a lawful military reason. This misconduct was so widespread and systematic that it clearly reflected Israeli policy.
Roth also tweeted some criticism of the New YorkTimes‘ coverage:
NYTimes wrong on Goldstone oped. He said intentional killing wasn’t policy. No retraction on indiscriminate warfare.
And:
NYT wrong again. Goldstone says Israel didn’t intend to kill but its policy was still crime of indiscriminate warfare
So what has happened then? Goldstone—who has been under tremendous pressure to distance himself from the report that bears his name—now says that there may have been cases where the Israeli military was not behaving with intent to kill civilians. Left unchallenged is the fact that many civilians were actually killed in attacks where little was done to prevent such killing.
But those details may not matter, if Richard Cohen’s column in the Washington Post today (4/5/11) is any indication. Cohen writes that it was “shocking” that “Israel was accused of deliberately targeting civilians during its brutal 2008–09 war with Hamas.” But now comes vindication:
Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent—the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision.
The report focused on Israeli actions that were “either reckless, disproportionate or deliberate.” There is nothing to suggest that most of the report’s findings are in serious dispute. But to Cohen, it’s now all “the usual fog of war.” Cohen also claims:
As Goldstone acknowledges, Israel has looked into every charge of war crimes—incident by incident. Some soldiers have indeed been punished because some awful things happened.
It is not clear where Goldstone says or implies this in his brief op-ed. As Roth and other writers have pointed out, the Israeli investigations have yielded few indictments.
Cohen closes by writing:
Those who gleefully embraced the Goldstone report have to ask themselves why. They may hate the answer.
One might assume that he’s suggesting antisemitism on the part of Goldstone’s “gleeful” champions. Ironically in a piece admonishing those who rush to judgment, Cohen recalls that
a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.
As I noted before, there is plenty of speculation that a Palestinian committed those murders—but no evidence to date to that effect. Apparently speculation is enough for Richard Cohen. He should ask himself why. He may hate the answer.
“universally thought” to be Palestinians is complete bollocks, even considering only the Israeli press; the most widespread theory is that is was a Thai worker.
There are unanswered questions here as to what motivated this â┚¬Ã…“retractionâ┚¬Ã‚Â, but it’s clear it has no bearing on the essential facts of these crimes, isn’t it?
Anyone ignorantly following this in the â┚¬Ã…“mainstreamâ┚¬Ã‚ media will likely come to a different conclusion, of course.
That’s why they call it â┚¬Ã…“the power of the pressâ┚¬Ã‚Â.
Great article, Mr. Hart. This is the kind of media analysis that takes guts. It deserves a wide audience. Also thanks for the link to “Goldstone’s shameful U-turn” in Electronic Intifada.
Just an important point which was mentioned but not emphasized in your article. The “Goldstone Report” wasn’t just Goldstone, it was a commission with the backing of the UN. Even if we assume Goldstone had a change of heart, it doesn’t mean the commission did.
As this comes on the back on intense pressure on Goldstone in Israel and elsewhere, one would have to take his “exoneration” with a grain of salt.
I find this argument to be spurious.Anyone who has had military experience will tell you that you can’t call a bullet back.You may be clear as to whom it is you are shooting at….the bullet cares not one wit.It will kill men, woman ,and children once sent on its way.The Amish say take a gun into your hand and you take a gun into your heart.Arabs and Israelis have killed innocents.The question is not whether certain Arab factions have tried to kill innocents.They have….At times it was policy.The question is has Israel taken up this policy openly,surreptitiously,or accidentally.I think investigations have proven Israel has done it. Government culpability is under closer scrutiny. Remember one fact….Israel has the power to exterminate their enemies.They have the power to forever bannish Palistinians in a type of aparthide.They are the power in that part of the world.All these things they do not undertake.If they did we would not have to even discuss it.It would be done.If the sides were reversed Israel would be driven into the sea and exterminated.Palistine would rejoice as they did on 911.Some on these blogs would say “long over due”.I believe israel must do better.But i judge them slowly.After all….it is their necks under the scimitar.Not mine….and certainly not yours.
michael e,
Just a reminder: it was Israelis who rejoiced after 9-11. But, seeing that your posts all evidence a “bizzaro world” white is black, down is up understanding of reality, I naturally don’t expect anything less than your post-factual ahistorical assertions. Regarding the ongoing violent colonization of historic Palestine, you really should at least consider who has power and who is being currently subjugated, humiliated and killed on a daily basis rather than making ridiculous statements about “Israel” being driven into the sea.
Israel holds land gained by their war in 1967 and they build on it in spite of UN resolutions which say the land is not theirs. Does anyone see that some of the Israeli policies do to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jewish people? And am I anti-Semitic by saying that the Israelis are wrong in some of what they do? For example, the idea that if you kill one of ours we kill a hundred of yours. Isn’t the Israelis the ones who started this notion? It does not seem to have stopped people from fighing back at oppressive treatment.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, and I think the Israelis are not always right, but exactly who is being oppressed here, the Israelis or the Palestinians. The Israeli territory is not walled off, but the Palestinian territory is.
I know they say the Arabs would swallow up the Jewish community if the Israelis did not be so militant, but I wonder.
They like controlling their made concentration camp
The issue that should focus all our attention rests more with how Americans are involved in this conflict; after all we supply the white phosphorus bombs, airplanes to deliver them, attack helicopters, and assorted high tech arms for delivery against a defenseless population. Most reports list almost 2,000 casualties in this lopsided conflict (fish in a rain barrow). I take no pride in the efficacy of our war hardware.
This atrocity is reminiscent of military action occurring between 1939 and 1945 in Europe and stinks of genocide similar in many respects to the Israeli incursion into Lebanon where cluster bombs were used deep into the country in massive numbers with the clear intention of murdering innocent civilians. Those bombs were also supplied by America.
Have we no sense of decency?
I hear the term” who is being oppressed”?I would answer it this way.Lets say the native American reservation lands had for 50 years launched surprise attacks against this country.Including invasion.On top of that a well orchestrated terrorist campaign that blows up school buses with relish and by design.Endless hatred and attack.Charters that call for this countries destruction.Averaging 15 hundred missiles a year dumped on our heads from native american lands.Would we then OPPRESS these reservations?Is a better phrase maybe “protecting ourselves from”?Or would the standard Lib opinion that we/they deserve whatever we get reign supreme?You are like a one trick pony
Whew! Talk about your crappy analogies…… America stole the land and forced people onto reservations. That’s already oppression. And if they fight back, that’s “terrorism?”
The mind reels.
Helen Bedd, you have it together, I think. Thanks.
Helen to that I would say every society the world has ever known has been transplanted and replaced by that that went before it. Sometimes violently,sometimes through simple blending of culture.Native Americans were one of the saddest, though explainable changes that happens whenever an advanced society meets one less so.The less advanced society is eventually transplanted.Thats why I used them.Because it is close to home.We are empathetic.We ARE native Americans- the blending is now so complete.But we would never allow the deaths of out innocents at the hands of those who would rightly or wrongly carry the flag of righteous indignation.You almost seem to be saying that terrorism(the planned attack on civilians to instill terror and destabilize a society)is the only avenue open to an angry faction without the ability or military to do more.Of course this is a 180 on what every civilized society agrees with.Yet…..I often here this framing on liberal blogs.
I still recall Bill air- head Obamas bud(he started his campaign at his house)saying he wished he could of bombed more.How deep does this corrosive cancer live in the bowels of the liberal mindset?
“You almost seem to be saying….”
Well since i didn’t say it, what’s your point?
And, it’s not like Native Americans can simply vote their “oppressors” out of office? What options are you suggesting they have?
And the idea that we’re all “Native Americans now?”
White man speak with forked tongue.
PS
Your claim that Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’ house is a lie. [As usual]
Candidate Obama’s formal kick-off to announce his run for state senate was at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on Sept. 19, 1995. Obama was introduced by then state Sen. Alice Palmer (D-Chicago), who wanted him to replace her as she was planning a run for Congress, in a room filled with supporters at the Ramada which is located on South Lake Shore Drive.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/ayers_alone_did_not_launch_oba.html
Michael e: If you think that the white supremacist slave-owners that invaded this country and committed genocide against Native Americans, were a superior race, you need to think again. The Red Man was, spiritually speaking, far ahead of the white man and lived in harmony with his environment. If the white invasion had not happened, this country would still be a paradise. Before we invaded this land, the Native American could drink clean water out of every river, lake and stream. Try to do that now. The white man is the worst thing that happened to this world, he is a destroyer of all that is precious.
Comparing the way Israel treats those living in Gaza with the way the American government treated the indigenous Indian people does Israel no favors.
This comment: “Native Americans were one of the saddest, though explainable changes that happens whenever an advanced society meets one less so.The less advanced society is eventually transplanted,” sounds suspiciously like the rationalization the Nazis used to kill intellectuals, artists, immigrants, trade unionists, homosexuals and 6 million Jews…
Sitting Shiva…No a better comparison would be indigenous tribes and aborigines in Australia. Will they continue living as they did in a modern world?No saddly they will not. And the cause is not evil. And it is not dehumanizing(nazi Germany).It is the Jeanie in the bottle.Then we come to philosophical discussions about technological advancement and it’s effect on mankind.Once Native Americans used steel implements they wanted them.Guns as well.Horses brought in by the Spanish created the plains Indian way of life for almost 300 yrs.The “rot” set in long before land grabs and transplantation.My statement that every society has had this happen is true.It is the human migration.Israel has always held Jews going back thousands of years.The country that they built today in a desert land has afforded a different life to the nomad tribes that once crossed this small strip of land.The birth of a nation always comes with upheaval. Hopefully it recedes and people live together as the old men and their hatreds die away.
Genierae…Read more about the many Tribes that existed and how they each had their own distinct personality.Some fit the simple minded template of the noble Savage. Some were warlike and vicious to their neighbors.Some advanced ,some exceedingly primitive.Some spiritual and enlightened(as seen by todays standard).Some were God damn Evil SOBS(by todays standards)As many various languages as there were the ideals of the people that carried them.They lived mostly a short brutal life yet were very well suited to a simple woodland existance..(Old age would be 40yrs old)Recently Viking settlements have been found in this country that may even PRE_DATE the first Native Americans moving in over the northern land bridge.Or at least be co-current.Again the transmigration of humans is only slowly revealing its secrets.
Helen the blending of native Americans is almost complete.Very few pure blood NAs exist.Some reservation lands may hold a smattering.The same may be said of African Americans.WE are becoming one people.I just saw were the head of the Nazi writings fun filled bunch up in Pa allowed his DNA to be tested for racial purity.It was found to carry many classic “jewish”markers.He thought his parents to be Danish and Norwegian.Classic.
Israel’s “investigations” into its own criminal actions can only be described as whitewash. As for the “convictions” resulting from those investigations, if memory serves me right there was one six-month sentence which was commuted before the killer even set foot in jail. The rest where offense on top of injury as they consisted of shameful slaps on the wrist like community service, a couple of weeks suspension (with pay, of course), a reprimand and time out.
I wrote: “Comparing the way Israel treats those living in Gaza with the way the American government treated the indigenous Indian people does Israel no favors.”
Michael e responds “Sitting Shivaâ┚¬Ã‚¦No, a better comparison would be indigenous tribes and aborigines in Australia.”
***********
Since the white man destroyed their way of life as well, that doesn’t do Israel any favors either.
Sitting Shiva………Do you see the modern Israeli with all her technological achievements and immersion into the modern world with all that entails -as DESTROYING the BEAUTY of the desert nomad?Or of the simple jews who lived during the time of Jesus?You do follow the creed of the noble savage.I have good friends who are Amish.They believe many things we do in our modern world that CHANGE life are not for the best.I wont argue faith.We could go to the influence of Egyptian,Greek,Roman ,European,American advancements, and argue they displaced people and it would be better if they had never lived.You can see how empty that argument is-no?The history of human development is not an easy road.My comparisons were pointing to that truth.
Israel has the right to exist.The way she treats those who have tried, and are trying to destroy her is an interesting discussion to have as we sit in our easy chairs ,sharing a brandy,after a fine meal.Safe and secure.Many Americans have died (and killed our enemies) to secure that freedom.If you discern that I cut israel a break…you are right.It is not a free ride.But I am amazed that having traveling in Israel,and seeing life there that so few on these blogs understand the “flavor”of the people in that country.It is like a regurgitation of anti semitic propaganda.