|
IDI Hosts Debate on the Goldstone Report
|
Event Date(s):
10/28/2009
|
|
|
Date Published:
10/20/2009
|
Last Updated:
11/23/2009
|
|
Category:
Events
|
On Wednesday, 28 October 2009, IDI hosted a debate on the Goldstone Report at the George Shultz Roundtable, which was attended by prominent Israeli scholars and policy makers. Participants discussed some of the central issues contained within the report, including; the current state of international law, its suitability to the new threat of terrorism, and its use as a weapon against Israel; appropriate means for combating terror domestically; and Israel's international position in the wake of the report. Finally, the practical implications of the Report were called into question as the participants considered how--if at all--Israel should confront the reports findings, and whether internal inquiries should be initiated by the military, the government, or private institutions.
Below is a rapporteur's summary of the remarks of several participants**:
Participants:
Chair: Ms. Carmit Guy
Dr. Arik Carmon, President of IDI
Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, IDI Vice President
Prof. Yedidia Stern, IDI Vice President
Welfare Minister Yitzhak Herzog
Prof. Gabriella Shalev, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN
Mr. Shlomo Dror, Spokesman of the Israeli Ministry of Defense
Att. Daniel Taub, Deputy Legal Counsel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Att. Irit Kahn, former Head of International Section at MoFA
Att. Shai Nitzan, Deputy Attorney General (for special affairs)
Prof. Gerald Steinberg, Bar-Ilan University
Prof. Nathan Lerner, Inter-Disciplinary Center, Herzliya
Prof. Yaffa Zilbershatz, Bar-Ilan University
Mr. Moti Ashknazi
Ms. Limor Yehudah
Ms. Carmit Guy, Director of the George Shultz Roundtable Forum, opened the discussion by presenting the difficulties stemming from the report. She explored the potential ramifications of the damning report: sanctions against Israel, travel restrictions, etc. Ms. Guy went on to raise the principal issue of who should investigate armed operations. What efforts should Israel make to change international law in order to allow for more effective engagement in asymmetric warfare – such as in the case of a state of war against a terrorist organization?
Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Prof. Gabriella Shalev, the first presenter in the discussion, spoke of a “dark wave” of anti-Israeli sentiment overwhelming the international community. These states and organizations question not only the justice of Israeli policy, she said, but indeed the State of Israel’s right to exist at all. Ambassador Shalev stated in clear terms that the challenge is not legal in nature, but rather political. Israel's current difficulties stem not from the structures of international law, but from the political atmosphere driving its interpretation.
Israeli Welfare Minister Yitzhak Herzog expressed the opinion that while the report is inherently flawed – the wording of its mandate, its conclusions, and the very makeup of the committee itself – Israel definitely acted unwisely in its decision to snub and ignore Justice Goldstone, which led to a situation in which Israel’s version of the events were never considered. Goldstone never even saw the scars of the rockets inflicted by Hamas on the Israeli community of Sderot. Herzog commended the Ministry of Justice for preparing meticulous written arguments in support of Israel’s actions, which appear on its website. Herzog made clear that the accusations of willful intent to cause death and destruction that are leveled against the Israeli government in the report are easily and thoroughly refutable. However, since the government chose not to present any evidence in this case, the report's conclusions are largely based on the “irresponsible chatter” of overzealous ministers and high ranking officials, who do not appear to grasp that their statements are documented and filed away by Israel's enemies precisely to use against Israel. Minister Herzog reemphasized that the Israeli leadership does not fear a thorough examination of Goldstone's charges. He called for the creation of an apparatus within the Israeli foreign advocacy system to comprehensively deal with such charges and campaigns, and also supported the notion of adapting the definitions of international law to the challenges of the fight against terrorism.
IDI’s VP for Research, Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, the third speaker, opened by quoting the court room maxim that if you are wise, “you never aggravate the judge,” and criticized Israel's refusal to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission as foolish. Kremnitzer went on to say that those who voice opposition to a thorough investigation of the events of “Operation Cast Lead” create the impression that they or Israel have something to hide. Kremnitzer also agreed that the source of the criticism expressed in the Goldstone Report, and the motivation behind those embracing it, is in essence political. According to Prof. Kremnitzer, the report and the wide international support for it represent another chapter in an ongoing “reckoning with Israel since 1967.” Kremnitzer (who professed to having read the report from cover to cover twice) also criticized much of the report’s content, declaring that the chapters dealing with warfare are “outrageous,” as they lept to conclusions on the basis of very little information. The Palestinian witnesses avoided describing the fighting and said little about the Hamas militants, choosing instead to focus upon the damages and casualties. Israel did not present its side of the story, therefore the committee draws its conclusions based upon minimal and problematic information, which discredits much of its findings.
Attorney Shai Nitzan, Israel’s Deputy Attorney General for Special Affairs, added that the report attacks not only the conduct of the Israeli armed forces and the decisions of the Israeli government, but also the very integrity of Israel's legal system, which it depicts as lacking independence and credibility. Nitzan rebutted arguments made by previous speakers that a military investigation is insufficient to convince the world of Israel’s commitment to justice, claiming that an internal investigation by the military is, in fact, a prerequisite step to any governmental or external inquiry. He pointed out that the Goldstone investigation hardly brought any new facts to light, and that Israel is aware of and looking into all but two of the cases mentioned in the report. Nitzan emphasized that no country on earth can guarantee zero civilian casualties in combat operations, and that no other country engaged in warfare – NATO members included – is subject to the kind of scrutiny Israel receives, or is called upon to investigate itself in this manner.
IDI President Dr. Arye Carmon noted a trend of waning support for Israel among some of its longtime friends around the globe. He pointed out that some prominent Western countries that Israel hoped would vote against the adoption of the Goldstone Report in the General Assembly eventually chose to merely abstain.
Mr. Shlomo Dror, Spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, stressed that Israel made efforts to alleviate civilian suffering and opened humanitarian corridors into the embattled Gaza Strip even in the midst of combat.
Prof. Yafa Zilbershatz, an IDI Board Member and a Professor at Bar Ilan University, commented on the extreme lack of clarity in the applicability of current international law to the events discussed in the Goldstone Report. She expressed support both for a thorough internal investigation by Israeli authorities—which allows Israel to take a proactive, rather than defensive stance vis-à-vis international scrutiny—and for a serious Israeli effort to help shape and clarify international law to fit the realities of asymmetric warfare and terrorism.
Attorney Daniel Taub, Deputy Legal Counsel for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, opined that doubts exist as to whether a more cooperative approach on Israel’s behalf would have changed the Report’s outcome. Taub went on to cite instances in which Israel cooperated fully with international investigations or inquiries and yet its argument were summarily ignored. Taub quoted a statement by the UN Secretary General, who had said that “Israel is entitled to take any measures required to protect the lives of its civilians, so long as it has no impact on the lives of Palestinians.” This quote was presented to support Taub's claim that the outcomes of Israel’s conflicts are often predetermined.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University attacked the NGOs who were instrumental in promoting the Goldstone Report and who supplied much of the information on which it is based. He said that many used their alleged commitment to human rights in order to mask their real agenda, which is to delegitimize Israel. As an example, he cited a New York Times op-ed by Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, in which Bernstein lambasted HRW for the biased, unapologetically anti-Israeli slant that it has adopted in recent years.
**Rapporteur: Mr. Itamar Baz
Further reading
From IDI:
World Press:
English Coverage of IDI Roundtable:
|