And what is the reason prior to Hamas?
Home 
Pro & Con Critics GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE
Pro & Con Critics GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE
| GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE |
 |
 |
GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART ONE: A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCEBy Richard Landes * The first part of this two-part article explores the pervasive flaws that mar the UNHRC's "Gaza Fact-Finding Mission Report." It focuses on an interlocking combination of problems: 1) its failure to investigate seriously the problem of Hamas embedding its war effort in the midst of civilians in order to draw Israeli fire and then accuse Israel of war crimes; 2) its astonishing credulity concerning all Palestinian claims, contrasted with a corresponding skepticism of all Israeli claims; 3) its harsh judgments on Israelis for war crimes (i.e., deliberate targeting of civilians), contrasted with its resolute agnosticism concerning Hamas intentions. The result is that Goldstone actually participates in Hamas' strategy and encourages the sacrificing of their own civilians. INTRODUCTION[1] In response to the Israeli attack on Gaza, Operation Cast Lead (December 27-January 18, 2009), several major NGOs and public figures called for an investigation. On April 3, 2009, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed a “Fact-Finding Mission.†The mission was made up of four members, including Hina Jilani, Desmond Travers, Christine Chinkin, and at its head, Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Supreme Court and distinguished international jurist. On the basis of the animus of the founding organization (UNHRC) and the pervasive bias of the members of the team, Israel refused to cooperate with what some observers called “a kangaroo court.â€[2] In May 2009, the mission met in Geneva. It later made two visits to Gaza (from June 1-5, 2009 and June 26-July 1, 2009), held further hearings in Geneva (in early July 2009), and eventually presented its findings to the UNHRC (first draft, 575 pages, September 15, 2009; final draft, 430 pages, September 25, 2009).
FLAWED REPORT THROUGHOUTIt is difficult to specify what is wrong with the Goldstone Report since its failures are so pervasive. This article will highlight four fundamental errors of this report, all of which compounded each other and literally inverted the understanding of its readers as to what happened during Operation Cast Lead.[12] These include: Failure to investigate Hamas’s use of civilian shields 2) Credulity of Palestinian sources 3) Systematic attribution of malevolent intention to Israeli forces and studied agnosticism about Palestinian intentions 4) Exceptionally judgmental conclusions for admittedly inadequate evidence. After going over each of these items, the article reviews some of the reasons for these pervasive failures, both in terms of the previous research on what happened during Operation Cast Lead (journalism, NGO reports) and in terms of the cognitive failures that underlie this style of reporting. Failure to Investigate Hamas (Civilian Shields, Suppression of Dissent, Provocation) The first and most critical failure of the Goldstone Report comes from what it did not do: investigate Hamas. Despite Goldstone’s insistence that he investigated both sides, where Hamas is concerned, he focused on two fairly obvious issues and ignored the most problematic and consequential. On the one hand, the report looks into the rocketing of Israeli civilians and calls that a war crime, possibly a crime against humanity, and it looks at Hamas treatment of Fatah during the conflict, which it condemns for its brutality. Yet the commission falls silent on the subject of how armed factions (including Hamas) treated their own civilians.
¶35. The Mission found no evidence [emphasis added], 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. ¶36. The Mission did not find any evidence [emphasis added] to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities or that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes. The use of the expressions “no evidence†and “not any evidence†are curious here. As will be shown, there is extensive evidence for such actions, which even the report itself offers the attentive reader. What the report really means here is that they did not hear any testimony to the effect that Hamas acted in this fashion. Of course, as any lawyer could explain, there are two possible reasons for a lack of testimony: 1) there is nothing to talk about and 2) the witnesses are intimidated.
[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people have developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking…. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahidin and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahidin, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: “We desire death like you desire life.â€[21]
There is no visibility of the men of the resistance in the streets of the [Gaza] strip. No one sees their known means of transportation, and even light weapons can no longer be seen with people publicly in the Gaza Strip. The resistance is totally even as its actions are felt. Anti-aircraft artillery fires on the aircraft without them knowing the location. The whereabouts of rockets launched from the heart of the strip cannot be seen or known until they're shot.... The residents of the Gaza Strip were surprised with the rockets of the resistance being fired from the heart of the cities of the Gaza Strip, without seeing how the launchers were put up, or their place, in order for deception to prevent exposure to the Israeli intelligence planes of the place of the firing of the rockets.... According to medical sources, the number of martyrs and wounded of the warriors of the Palestinian resistance are few in comparison to the number of civilian martyrs who were killed since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, except for the large number of Palestinian policemen who were martyred on the first day....[22] The significance of the mission’s avoidance of this issue, of course, becomes particularly acute when it is a question of judging whether or not Israel targeted civilians. If Hamas fired from their midst, if they tried to draw Israeli fire to kill their own civilians in order to accuse them of war crimes, then the mission is in a double bind: 1) How can they judge Israeli actions without knowing what IDF soldiers were aiming at when they fired their weapons, and 2) how can they avoid becoming the dupes of this strategy of waging war intended to maximize one’s civilian casualties for the public relations victory?
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.[23] One might expect an even-handed mission to hear out Colonel Kemp’s reasoning and explore with him the data based upon which he made these remarks, especially for the sake of gaining some comparative perspective on other armies that attempt to fight by the laws of war established by the Geneva Conventions. Yet the mission turned down Colonel Kemp’s offer to testify before it, and Goldstone explained: [T]here was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because the Report did not deal with the issues he raised 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. The Mission avoided having to do so in the incidents it decided to investigate.[24] Indeed, the mission did not consult any military experts on these issues.[25] One begins to understand why the mission found “no evidence.â€
Credulity of Palestinian Sources Defenders of the report would dismiss these critical observations by claiming that they simply tried to change the subject from the substance of the report, which--in Goldstone’s own words--focused on 36 incidents chosen “…because they seemed to be, to represent the most serious, the highest death toll, the highest injury toll. And they appear to represent situations where there was little or no military justification for what happened.â€[29]
You know, this allegation keeps being made… It is absolutely without any truth at all… Hamas didn’t follow us at all, [much less] at every stage [of the visit]. They were nowhere near any of the interviews we held, and there was just no question; there was no issue… Had they attempted in any way to do that, I would have found that objectionable and I would not have accepted it--but it just didn’t happen. Yet what makes Goldstone think that he knew who among those in attendance were Hamas or Hamas informers; what makes him think that his witnesses were as unfamiliar with the people in his courtroom as he? Indeed, the report noted that some tried to warn them about just this: “The contents seemed to imply that the originators of these anonymous calls and messages regarded those who cooperated with the Mission as potentially associated with armed groups (¶146 [sic, actually ¶148]).†This means that people were warning the mission members that the people who were working with them came from Hamas and the other martyrdom-cult militias.
The family suddenly notices the cameras, and immediately, the expression on their faces changes. “We have no food,†they say in Arabic, as one of the youngsters suggests we interview him in English about their plight… [IDF Officer] Perry points to a stack of canned goods, water bottles and other provisions. “We provided some of that and they cook and eat quite well,†he said. The Palestinians seem to understand him and one of them smiles. It’s a war--they had to try.[44] Imagine if when hearing the testimony about the soldiers killing his daughters in cold blood, Abd Rabbo had been confronted with the reports that they were killed by Israeli shells in response to Hamas fire from his compound? Would he too have backed off his story? Instead, Goldstone and his Mission colleagues “rarely if ever wonder[ed] whether Gazans regarded representations to the mission as acts of resistance.â€[45]
In no instance does the report even question, much less reject Palestinian testimony. “Credible†and “credibility†appear over 50 times in the document, consistently in favor of Palestinian testimony and in disfavor of Israeli.[47] In the some cases, as with the Maqadmah Mosque, the report dismisses Israeli evidence outright: “…taking into account the credible and reliable accounts the Mission heard from multiple [Palestinian] witnesses… strengthened in the face of the unsatisfactory and demonstrably false position of the Israeli Government.â€[48]
From the perspective of someone reading a “draft of history,†this “privileged†attitude towards Palestinian testimony--by default true--constitutes an unacceptable level of credulity. The reports epistemological pattern comes down to: “Palestinians don’t lie; Israelis often do, except for those testifying against the IDF.â€[54] In a strikingly revealing remark, one of the mission members, Hina Jilani, apparently without any sense that such an attitude called her professional credentials as a judge into question, explained the underlying approach that produced this remarkable pattern of credulity: “I think it'd be very cruel to not give credence to their voices.â€[55] No wonder no one on the mission expressed any skepticism: who wants to be considered “very cruelâ€?
Patterns of Judgment As might be expected from this attitude toward the testimony they heard, the report ruled consistently against the Israeli army. While this may not be surprising in the context of its political agenda, it is surprising from the point of view of its mission: fact-finding. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out, had the report restricted itself to collecting testimony and asking questions for further investigation, it could have made a valuable contribution.[59] Indeed, Goldstone admitted on a number of occasions that the evidence they compiled would not stand up in court, that the mission was not “judicial, not even quasi judicial.â€[60]
531. As regards the generic nature of some pre-recorded phone messages, the Mission finds that these lacked credibility and clarity, and generated fear and uncertainty. In substance, there is little difference between telephone messages and leaflets that are not specific. The Mission takes the view that pre-recorded messages with generic information may not be considered generally effective. This severity in judging Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties produce a hair-trigger willingness to accuse them of deliberately targeting civilians. In dealing with the bombing of the al-Maqadmah mosque, for example, a case in which the evidence and testimony are at best dubious, the report concludes decisively: 838. In the absence of any explanation as to the circumstances that led to the missile strike on al-Maqadmah mosque and taking into account the credible and reliable accounts the Mission heard from multiple witnesses, as well as the matters it could review for itself by visiting the site, the Mission concludes that the mosque was intentionally targeted by the Israeli armed forces. None of the evidence they present offers any proof of Israeli knowledge that the mosque was filled with people, that they fired with the intention of hitting the worshipers, or even that they deliberately targeted the mosque.[62]
¶452. In those instances in which Palestinian armed groups did indeed fire rockets or mortars from urban areas the question remains whether this was done with the specific intent of shielding the combatants from counter-attack. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence on this question; nor do reports from other observers provide a clear answer. ¶481. On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission is unable to form an opinion on the exact nature or the intensity [emphasis added] of their combat activities in urban residential areas that would have placed the civilian population and civilian objects at risk of attack. While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack [emphasis added].[63]
Travers: I would like to put a question to, it may not be entirely within your field, but nevertheless it’s a question that continuously comes around in my mind. We have heard testimony of great, uh, violence, seemingly un-militarily, unnecessary violence inflicted particularly on children. There have been instances of the shooting of children in front of their parents [i.e., Abd Rabbo]. As an ex-soldier I find that kind of action to be very, very strange and very unique. I would like to ask you if you have any professional insights as to what mindset or what conditioning or what training could bring around a state of behavior that would cause a soldier, a fellow human being to shoot children in front of their parents. Do you have any professional insights into that kind of behavior? Sarraj: There is a psychological process, a long-term psychological process based in the situation of dehumanization of the enemy. The Palestinian in the eyes of the Israeli soldier is not an equal human being. Sometimes this Palestinian even becomes a demon in their eyes. Therefore it is a state of demonization… This culture of demonization and dehumanization in addition to what was mentioned by, uh, my colleague, paranoia. Paranoia has two sides, the side of victimization, I am a victim of this world, the whole world is against me and on the other side, I am superior to this world and I can oppress it. This leads to what is called, uh, the, uh, arrogance of power. It is very serious is [sic] that a victim who is not treated and then is given a dangerous weapon… There we see the arrogance of power and he uses it without thinking of humanity at all. Had the mission members read the memoranda from Ostroff and Richter carefully, they might have challenged al-Sarraj about Palestinian demonization of Israelis, a pervasive phenomenon in Palestinian culture with absolutely no parallel in Israeli society. Instead Goldstone asked him if there were not a parallel [sic] phenomenon in the Arab world, to which al-Sarraj responded first by admitting it, but only as a “reaction,†then by claiming that Palestinians are better able to view Israelis as human beings, and finally by accusing the Israelis of identifying with the Nazis. No one challenged this systematic projection of Palestinian traits onto the Israelis; indeed the report highlighted in bold al-Sarraj’s remarks in their conclusion.[67]
But I have yet to hear from the Obama administration what the flaws in the report that they have identified are. I mean, I would be happy to respond to them, if and when I know what they are… I’ve no doubt, many of the critics--I would say the overwhelming 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.[76]
*Prof. Richard Landes was trained as a medievalist, teaching history at Boston University. His work on both forgeries and on the role of intimidation in affecting narrative in medieval history led him to switch fields to the way the media (and academia) represent the Arab-Israeli conflict in the twenty-first century. He maintains four sites, The Center for Millennial Studies (quiescent), The Second Draft, Understanding the Goldstone Report, and he blogs at The Augean Stables. His book on millennialism: Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (Oxford University Press) will be out in December of 2010. He is also currently writing a book entitled, They're So Smart because We’re So Stupid: A Medievalist’s Guide to the 21st Century.NOTES [1] Much of the material cited in this paper is available at the Understanding the Goldstone Report (UtGR) website, http://www.goldstone.org. Many thanks to all the participants at that site (http://www.goldstonereport.org/about-us) for their help, inspiration, and hard work on this massive project. It is not sufficient to read the report carefully, but also to know the history of coverage of the incidents it depicts. The members of the site are rare cases of such thorough knowledge. As a methodological point, it should be noted at the start of this essay that the works of such watchdog groups as NGO Monitor and CAMERA are cited. Their work is often dismissed in some circles as “partisan.†This author’s experience with their work is that they are careful both to reason and cite sources scrupulously. For those readers who might be tempted to dismiss not only their work, but this author’s as well, they are urged to read these references carefully and check their sources, rather than rely on a dismissal that is at least as partisan as that with which it charges others. When compared to many of the reports Goldstone uses (e.g., below, n. 42), this author would argue that these sources are significantly more accurate. [2] Irwin Cotler, “The Goldstone Mission: Tainted to the Core,†Part I, http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418620191&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull, and Part II, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418640232&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull; Alan Dershowitz, “Double Standard Watch: The UN Kangaroo ‘Investigation’ of Israeli ‘War Crimes’,†Jerusalem Post, July 2, 2009,http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/the_un_kangaroo_investigation_of. [3] Most notably both David Landau (Haaretz), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20landau.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y, and Jessica Montell (B’tselem),http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254163545977&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull. [4] Hamas initially rejected the report’s criticism of its own actions, but rapidly changed its tune. “Hamas Welcomes Vote in Favor of Goldstone Report,†Earth Times, October 16, 2009, www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/290546,hamas-welcomes-vote-in-favor-of-goldstone-report.html. [5] See “UN Politics,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/un-politics. [6] See “Interviews,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/interviews. [7] Richard Goldstone Dore Gold “Debate,†http://www.goldstonereport.org/goldstone-debates/388-richard-goldstone-dore-gold-brandeis-qdebateq. [8] “Alan Dershowitz Challenging the Goldstone Report,†http://israelactivism.com/video/. [9] “Critics,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics. [10] “Defenders,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/defenders. [11] Daniel Corder, “The Sun-Tzu of Palestinian Resistance,†Salem News, November 20, 2009, http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november202009/israel_dc.php. [12] See Moshe Halbertal, “The Goldstone Illusion,†New Republic, November 6, 2009, http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-goldstone-illusion. [13] Lorenzo Cremonesi, “Cosל i ragazzini di Hamas ci hanno utilizzato come bersagli,†Il Corriere della Sera, January 21, 2009,http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_gennaio_21/denuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml, translation by Noa Landes,http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/28/cremonesi-article-in-english/. [14] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Clip 228, November 9, 2009, http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2288.htm. [15] The Operation in Gaza - Factual and Legal Aspects, July 29, 2009, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Operation_in_Gaza-Factual_and_Legal_Aspects.htm. [16] For a good summary of both the video evidence for Hamas’ use of human shields and the Goldstone Report’s systematic denial on the subject, see Carl in Jerusalem, “The Goldstone Commission on Human Shields,†Israel Matsav, September 15, 2009, http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/09/goldstone-commission-on-human-shields.html. [17] For the most recent example of such a case, see the case of Hamas repressing warnings about swine flu in order to assure maximum turnout at a planned rally,http://www.palpress.ps/arabic/index.php?maa=ReadStory&ChannelID=66409; comment with translation at Elder of Ziyon, http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/12/hamas-tried-to-silence-swine-flu.html. For an excellent analysis of this strategy from a military perspective, see Michael D. Snyder, “Information Strategies against a Hybrid Threat: What the Recent Experience of Israel versus Hezbollah/Hamas Tell the U.S. Army,†in Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Farquhar (ed.), Back to Basics: A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute Press, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, 2009), http://carl.army.mil/download/csipubs/farquhar.pdf, pp. 103-146. [18] ¶452. “In view of the information communicated to it and the material it was able to review, the Mission believes that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas.†[19] The term “no evidence†(and alternatives such as “did not find any evidenceâ€) appears 15 times in the report. In 13 cases, it refers to no evidence supporting accusations against Hamas (¶32, 35, 36, 449, 465, 469, 475, 480, 483, 487, 494, 495, 1953) and twice in the matter of evidence of Hamas investigating its own infractions of humanitarian law (¶1183, 1841). As a historian, this author notes that the expression “no evidence†is generally viewed by historians as a piece of dismissive rhetorical excess used to avoid mentioning evidence. There is almost never “no evidence†for most significant phenomena. [20] Cremonesi, “Cosל i ragazzini di Hamas.†[21] View video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y. [22] “‘Camouflage Hat’ Tactics of Resistance to Gaza to Mislead the Occupation Army and Its Collaborators on the Ground,†Palestine Today,http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/News-33008.html&tbb=1&usg=ALkJrhikBicq9NmZArZHadplJEQDd3u11A, translation by Shammai Fishman. The title's reference to the "camouflage hat" is a strategy to mislead both the Israelis and their Palestinian collaborators; hence they endanger their people to fool those who might inform the Israelis of their location. [23] View video at: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409. [24] Personal email from Richard Goldstone to Maurice Ostroff, posted with permission of author, http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id233.html. [25] See discussion in David Matas, “The Goldstone Report: Stone or Gold?,†http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/495-david-matas-the-goldstone-report-stone-or-gold, #9. [26] Palestinian Media Watch, http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=113 and Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), http://www.memri.org/subject/en/51.htm. [27] Richter and Ostroff memoranda, http://www.goldstonereport.org/procedural-flaws/concealed-evidence. [28] On Goldstone’s previous experience with the role of incitement to genocide, see Madeline H. Morris, “The Case of Rwanda,â€http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_6/morris.html#context and Elihu Richter, “Goldstone, Rwanda, Hamas, Iran and Incitement to Genocide,†Jerusalem Post, September 29, 2009, http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/right_of_reply_goldstone_rwanda. [29] Interview with Bill Moyers, October 23, 2009 [transcript], http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=36316; view interview at: http://www.goldstonereport.org/interviews/397-bill-moyers-interviews-goldstone-october-25-2009. [30] The Chatham House Report, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/15572_il271109summary.pdf, had “no problem†with the choice of incidents since the mission “presumably selected those incidents which were the most well-documented, where it would not have to rely on witnesses who would be unwilling to speak freely (p. 11).†[31] Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, “Blocking the Truth in Gaza,†Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), September 18, 2009, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=3086. [32] Richard Landes, “Revealing Silence at the Egyptian Border,†PajamasMedia, January 3, 2009, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/revealing-silence-at-the-gaza-egypt-border/ (for the same article with embedded videos, see http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/03/revealing-silence-at-the-egyptian-border-why-does-hamas-victimize-its-own/). For a more recent case, Hamas has blocked dozens of Gazans from coming to Israel for treatment, http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=windows-1256&langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http://www.palpress.ps/arabic/index.php%3Fmaa%3DReadStory%26ChannelID%3D66408&tbb=1&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1. [33] Richard Goldstone, For Humanity: Reflections of a War Crimes Investigator (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), chapter 3. [34] The Goldstone Report, ¶35. See also ¶148. [35] The testimony is available for viewing at the UNHRC site,http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=041. [36] ¶148. “The Mission is also concerned about anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to it or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip. The contents seemed to imply that the originators of these anonymous calls and messages regarded those who cooperated with the Mission as potentially associated with armed groups. One of the recipients conveyed to the Mission apprehensions about personal safety and a feeling of intimidation. The Mission also wishes to record that there are others who have declined to appear before it or to provide information or, having cooperated with the Mission, have asked that their names should not be disclosed, for fear of reprisal.†[37] See UtGR, “Abd Rabbo,†http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study/abd-rabbo. [38] Deir Yassin was the most controversial encounter in the 1948 War of Independence/Nakba, often cited by opponents of Zionism as a terrible massacre, in which Israeli irregular troops (Etzel and Lehi) took a small village on the Western edge of Jerusalem (today Har Nof), and killed some 125 people including civilians. See Benny Morris, 1948 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 125-28. [39] "Israel and the Arabs: The 50 Year Conflict," BBC, 1998 (key clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ). In this case, the attempt at cognitive warfare failed: It triggered mass flights of frightened Arabs. [40] See, for example, the case of the “poisoning†of Jenin schoolgirls in 1983, Raphael Israeli, Poison: Modern Manifestions of a Blood Libel (Lanham, MA: Lexington Books, 2002). For an important analysis of the role of deception in Islamic warfare, see Raymond Ibrahim, “How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War,†Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2010), http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war. [41] Palestinian Human Rights Monitor (PHRMG), ““Collaborators’: New Impetus for an Old Witch Hunt,†The Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July 2001),http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2002/feb2002-9.htm. [42] Second Draft has both unedited raw footage from Palestinian cameramen working for major Western news agencies, http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=248, (including the raw footage of Talal Abu Rahmah, http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452&Itemid=251) and a selection of edited material highlighting the evidence for pervasive staging, http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=55&Itemid=189. [43] On the Gaza Beach tragedy, in which most of the Ghalia family was killed by an explosive, but the immediate accusation that it was an Israeli shell does not hold up, see the Second Draft Investigation, http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=421&Itemid=174, and the most recent revelations that the father was handling ordnance that blew up in his face, Amir Oren, “Not Really a War,†Haaretz, May 5, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052622.html. [44] Ron Ben-Yishai, “A Day with Our Troops in Gaza,†Ynet, January 9, 2009, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653238,00.html. [45] Peter Berkowitz, “Goldstone's Failure to Give Due Attention to Military Necessity,†Jerusalem Post, January 10, 2010,http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/goldstone_s_failure_to_give. [46] See each of these incidents discussed with further literature at “Case Studies,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study. [47] ¶467, 503, 551, 622, 645, 683, 723, 741, 752, 762, 768, 777, 798, 838, 922, 925, 1011, 1032, 1090, 1164, 1234, 1354, 1366, 1378. [48] ¶838f; see also: 595, 675, 831, 866. [49] This is the Maqadmah Mosque case (http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study/al-maqadmah-mosque), which Goldstone gave such prominence to in his presentation at Brandeis. For an excellent example of the kinds of questions left unanswered by the mission on this topic, see the section in Ricki Hollander’s (unanswered) “Open Letter to Goldstone,†http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study/al-maqadmah-mosque/444-excerpt-from-open-letter-to-justice-goldstone-from-camera-on-al-maqadmah-mosque. [50] Ken Silverstein, “Six Questions for Desmond Travers,†Harpers, October 29, 2009, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90006003. Hamas considered the mosque a “factory educating Jihad fighters.†See Hamas: Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, “The Mosque Is a ‘Factory Educating Jihad Fighters’--Even the Muslim Fetus Seeks Jihad,†May 5, 2009, http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_May2009.htm#b050509. On cognitive egocentrism and its contribution to misunderstanding the conflict, see Richard Landes, “Cognitive Egocentrism,†Augean Stables, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/cognitive-egocentrism/. [51] “Public hearings: Gaza City, Morning Session of 28 June 2009,†http://3.ly/OcZ. See also Martin Kramer’s analysis, “Between Goldstone and Gaza, What’s One More Zero,†December 10, 2009, http://sandbox.blog-city.com/between_goldstone_and_gaza_whats_one_more_zero.htm. [52] “The Need for a Post-War Development Strategy in the Gaza Strip,†Palestinian Federation of Industries, March 2009,http://www.pscc.ps/down/Gaza%20Industry%20Reconstruction%20and%20Development%20Report.pdf, p. 13. [53] Cf. Ҧ24: 24. The Mission’s final conclusions on the reliability of the information received were based on… verifying the sources and the methodology used in the reports and documents produced by others, cross-referencing the relevant material…†[54] See the extensive discussion of this problem in the Israeli Government’s Response to the Report, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Initial-response-goldstone-report-24-Sep-2009.htm, Section 19. [55] Haroon Saddiqi, “Looking for Accountability in the Gaza War,†The Star, October 15, 2009, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/710335. [56] In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Goldstone dismisses Israeli investigations because they are closed: “that’s hardly the sort of inquiry that’s going to satisfy victims.†See http://www.goldstonereport.org/video/265-amanpourgoldstone. [57] The “experts†at Chatham House did not deny the negative effects such a “spin-off†might have on hearing reliable testimony; instead they dismissed the importance of the testimony, since “most of the evidence heard in the hearings was irrelevant to its [the mission’s] mandate and its conclusions (p. 7).†[58] For an example of how far Israeli soldiers will go to spare civilian lives, see the highly controversial case of an Israeli intelligence officer who refused to communicate coordinates to the Air Force because, in his judgment, too many Palestinian civilians might be killed, and many of his colleagues rallied to his defense. Seehttp://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2462293,00.html and http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2462293,00.html. [59] See Dershowitz’s remarks at http://israelactivism.com/video/. [60] Gal Beckerman, “Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven’,†The Forward, October 7, 2009; interview with Christiane Amanpour. [61] See Richard Kemp, “International Law and Military Operations in Practice,†JCPA, June 18, 2009. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026. [62] See the evidence at “al-Maqadmah Mosque,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study/al-maqadmah-mosque. [63] Notes Moshe Halbertal (“The Goldstone Illusionâ€), not an author known for his sarcasm, “The reader of such a sentence might well wonder what its author means. Did Hamas militants not wear their uniforms because they were inconveniently at the laundry? What other reasons for wearing civilian clothes could they have had, if not for deliberately sheltering themselves among the civilians?†[64] CNN, January 2, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ab1hCeJ2wc; comment at Augean Stables, “Goldstone vs. Talal Abu Rahmah on Human Shields: Whom to Believe,â€http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/01/04/goldstone-vs-talal-abu-rahmah-on-hamas-human-shields-whom-to-believe/. [65] See the various articles listed in “The Goldstone Report, A Study in Duplicity,†CAMERA, November 3, 2009, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1736 (under “Falsehood: No Civilian Clothes.â€). [66] Gilead Ini, “Goldstone Commissioner Suggests Israelis Conditioned to Kill Children,†Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), September 21, 2009, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1733. [67] Goldstone asked al-Sarraj if Palestinians did anything similar (not questioning whether Israelis did do what he claims) and allowed Sarraj to write of Arab demonization of Israel as a “reaction†and then launch into a long explanation of how Israelis identify with the Nazis. The report’s concluding segment reproduces much of this exchange in its own section entitled: The Impact of Dehumanization (¶1905-10). [68] See “Legal Reasoning,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/procedural-flaws/legal-reasoning. [69] Matas, “The Goldstone Report,†#7; see the extensive discussion in Laurie Blank and Gregory Gordon, “Goldstone, Gaza and (Dis)Proportionality: Three Strikes,†Jurist: Legal News and Research, December 23, 2009, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/goldstone-gaza-and-disproportionality.php. [70] See his interview with Christiane Amanpour, http://www/goldstonereport.org/interviews/494?task=view. [71] See the Rome Statute, Article 8.2.b.iv. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm. [72] My thanks to Avi Bell and Anne Herzberg for explaining the subtleties of this legal issue. [73] See the articles in “Critics,†UtGR, http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics. [74] Ibid, Defenders, http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/defenders. [75] Silverstein, “Six Questions.†[76] Interview with al-Jazeera, October 22, 2009, http://www.goldstonereport.org/interviews/348-goldstone-interviewed-on-al-jazeera-october-22-2009, cited by Sharon Otterman, “Gaza Report Author Asks US to Clarify Concerns,â€New York Times, October 22, 2009. [77] Email to the organizers of the Fordham event. [78] Goldstone-Gold Debate, Part IV, http://www.goldstonereport.org/goldstone-debates/388-richard-goldstone-dore-gold-brandeis-qdebateq. [79] As revealed by a documentary on the Goldstone Report by Israeli Channel 1, Mabat Sheni, December 23, 2009, Daniel Reisner, former Head of the International Law Branch, the IDF Legal Division, served as an unofficial representative of the Israeli point of view and spoke for hours with the mission members. Goldstone’s use of that testimony is restricted to a single mention (¶1183-84), without any consequences for his report’s conclusions. See also the extensive dossier published by the Israeli government while the mission was preparing its report: The Operation in Gaza - Factual and Legal Aspects, July 29, 2009. [80] Ricki Hollander, “An Open Letter to Judge Goldstone,†CAMERA, November 17, 2009, response, December 7, 2009, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=76&x_article=1764. [81] See, for example, the Chatham House Report’s analysis, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/817/.
Comments (101)
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
|