Rocky Mountain Jew

The Goldstone Report explained

Last night Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, spoke to a mixed crowd here in Zurich. By mixed, I mean half hard-core Israel can do no wrong types and half Israel can only do wrong types. For Neuer, who regularly appears in front of the UN Human Rights Council, speaking to a hostile crowd is a regular day’s work. He’s adept at answering tough questions. He’s also quite capable of stopping purported question-askers from discoursing.

But to the main point: What to make of this Goldstone Report? With Israel, the Jewish community, and its usual suspects of supporters critical of the report, it’s easy to assume that this criticism is simply a knee-jerk, defend Israel against any detractors reaction. But, according to Neuer, that’s not the case at all. While “Israel should have to answer for its conduct in the Gaza conflict,” this report, based on a fact-finding mission, is flawed from its very inception.

The mandate on which the fact-finding mission was founded is legally unsound, Neuer explains. The original mandate called for an investigation into Israel only, assuming that only one party in the Gaza conflict requires investigation. Apparantly for this very reason the UN was unable to find any takers to head up this fact finding mission. It was only after the head of the Council verbally amended the mandate, namely that all parties in the conflict would be investigated, that a team was put together. But, according to Neuer, who alongside being a human rights activist is also an attorney, the president of the Council cannot legally change a mandate. In fact, the change to the mandate is only being legally formalized now - after the submission of the report!

The composition of the fact-finding mission is also grounds for controversy. One of its members, Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, signed a statement in January, 2009 accusing Israel of war crimes. Her inclusion in the team controverts the very essence of its mission: an impartial investigation into a conflict. Any surprise that the report finds Israel guilty of war crimes?

Once again, the UN targets Israel. In this case, Israel had more support than normal. In the Human Rights Council, no Western democracy voted to accept the report - all either abstained or voted no. Major news publications that are normally very critical of Israel were in this case very critical of the report. This doesn’t mean Israel is innocent of war crimes or didn’t make any missteps during the war. It means that the vehicle entrusted with determining those issues is fundamentally - legally - flawed.

For more information on the Goldstone Report, including video links to UN Watch’s testimony on the Report at the Human Rights Council, visit www.unwatch.org/Goldstone.