Re-judging Goldstone

Editorial

How will Judge Richard Goldstone be evaluated by history? As the naïve, politically correct apologist whose report formally erased the distinction between terrorists who deliberately target civilians and a democratic country protecting its citizens? Or will he be remembered as the ditherer who, after his sloppy report caused untold damage, recanted some of its most damning conclusions?

The retraction by Goldstone last week of his report’s conclusions on the 2008 Gaza War is baffling in many respects. Most importantly, he has stated what all but the most ideologically blinded already knew: Israel’s military defends its citizens and does not deliberately target civilians. Targeting civilians is what terrorists do, and Goldstone erased the boundary between terrorists and civilization when he reported that Israel intentionally killed Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead.

This cannot be overstated. Israel has been attacked relentlessly, figuratively and literally, for decades, but the Goldstone Report legitimized the worst accusations. Israel stood accused of being a terrorist state and, in a report over Goldstone’s signature with the imprimatur of the United Nations, that accusation was confirmed. Now, says the author, he was wrong.

Not satisfied with a full mea culpa, though, Goldstone blames Israel again for not cooperating with his original investigation. When the report was issued, it seemed clear that Israel’s decision had been a reasonable one: the mandate of the investigation team and some of the figures behind it seemed to predetermine the outcome, a suspicion that seemed to be confirmed when the report’s conclusions were released. And, rather than convince Israel or its allies that the investigation would have been fairer had Israel participated, this week’s events might confirm our original suspicion: the Goldstone Report set out to prove Israeli war crimes and it was Israel’s responsibility to prove otherwise.

Reactions to Goldstone’s recantation have been swift and furious. Some commentators are saying, essentially, better late than never. Others rage at the reversal and question Goldstone’s motives now as many did when the report was issued. As professor of law and Goldstone Report critic Avi Bell wrote recently in the Jerusalem Post, Goldstone’s main point is that his mission did not have contrary evidence from which to draw alternate conclusions. However, Bell writes, “this is both false and irrelevant.” Aside from “wilfully disregarding” photographic evidence, when his mission encountered a lack of evidence, “the responsible course was to admit that the mission did not know what had happened. Instead, the report repeatedly and unjustifiably presumed Israel guilty and Hamas innocent.” The substantive question now is, will this latest bizarre turn make a difference?

For those who are ideologically or pathologically predisposed to hate Israel, no amount of truth or clarification will matter. Those who can look at one of the world’s most dynamic examples of pluralism and see only apartheid will not have their mythology refuted by facts, particularly from a man whose own judgment might be considered suspect even by those who now, suddenly, find ourselves in agreement with him. This is, however, an important correction in the discourse. The entire narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is littered with falsehoods and blood libels that remain in the public realm (i.e. the Internet and the selective memories of casual observers) never fully refuted, such as the Gaza beach libel and the fate of Muhammad al-Dura.

When Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in the aftermath of the Itamar murders last month, demanded that the Palestinian Authority cease its demonization of Jews, the response from the top level of the PA was complete and total denial that such incitement takes place, despite the mountains of evidence available in the form of textbooks, Jew-hatred in popular culture and the deification of suicide bombers. In the face of all such evidence, the PA’s leadership is able, with a straight face, to deny that inarguably one of the most incendiary aspects of this conflict simply does not exist.

This seeming digression is to make the case that outright lies against Israel will be believed by those who desire to believe, even as the undeniable worst truths about the Palestinian leadership will be overlooked. So too, probably, will be the reaction to the latest development in the case of Richard Goldstone and the world’s perception of what happened in Operation Cast Lead. For those who believe Israel has no right to exist and, by obvious extension, no right to defend itself, there can be no justification for the war. What matters will be how those few who seek balance and truth assimilate this chapter in the tragic case of Israel’s battle with Hamas. Ultimately, how Goldstone is judged by history will matter little compared to the real impact his reversal might have on realpolitik, such as the likelihood that the UN General Assembly within the year will recognize Palestine as an independent state. While his initial report made a bang across the world, his reversal will probably be greeted as a whimper because people will hear what they want to hear, especially when it involves Israel.

^TOP