Point / Counterpoint: Richard Goldstone's phony Gaza inquiry

Counterpoint to:

Stretching the Reach of the Law
The prosecution of crimes against humanity is not an exercise in partisan score-settling. It is an assertion of the core values of civilized society. ...The elements are in place for a more just and peaceful future."
Richard Goldstone
The New York Times
June 1, 2009

In August 2002, the United States Congress passed a law airily referred to as The Hague Invasion Act. It ostensibly permits the US president to send troops into The Hague in The Netherlands to rescue any US officials or military personnel being held there for prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is not just a remnant of the Bush era; the law, officially named the American Service-Members' Protection Act, was broadly supported in Congress by both Republicans and Democrats.
 
South African jurist and fervent ICC supporter, Richard Goldstone, writing in the New York Times, states that the ICC is "the world's first permanent court to investigate and try individuals accused of committing genocide war crimes, and crimes against humanity," but that is not entirely accurate. Most of the world, including such key countries as India, Russia, China, and of course the United States, has not accepted the court's jurisdiction, and neither has Israel.
 
While the US is not opposed to the concept of international justice (quite the contrary), it is opposed to the broad and rather presumptuous statute (or mandate) of the ICC, which makes the court susceptible to political abuse and exploitation that can bring it into conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States.

For Israel, the situation is much simpler. Years of experience have led Israel to become deeply suspicious of any international forum that professes to dole out international 'justice.'

Israel is a small country with powerful enemies, and as such, is easily picked upon. As a result, Israel more readily relies on friends rather than international forums for arbitration and justice, and in some situations relies only on itself.

Goldstone;s views on international justice are diametrically opposed to the views of Israel. He is upbeat about recent events such as the ICC's first arrest warrant for a sitting head of state - President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, even though it is opposed by most African states including Goldstone's own country, South Africa. 

He believes that various international systems of justice are "working toward a new era of accountability" for atrocities and human rights violations, but the examples he lists do not include most of the heavyweights such as Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention China and Russia. If the ICC were to dare issue a warrant against a leader of any of these countries the response, would at best be indifference and at worst downright hostility. It is unclear whether the status of human rights in the world is any better today than it was one or two decades ago, and in fact it may well be worse.

The self-appointed Human Rights Watch organization, which is often accused of being infiltrated by political activists with their own agendas to promote, has included in its 2009 World Report a remarkable admission about the perverse turn human rights advocacy has taken.

Human rights opponents defend the prerogative of governments to do what they want to their people. They hide behind the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and Southern solidarity, but their real aim is to curb criticism of their own human rights abuses or those of their allies and friends.

The activities of these 'spoilers' have come to dominate intergovernmental discussions of human rights. For example, they have ended United Nations scrutiny of severe repression in Uzbekistan, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They have mounted intense challenges to criticism of the Burmese military and possible prosecution of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. And they have deeply compromised the new UN Human Rights Council.

The only exception to this campaign against country resolutions has been the spoilers' enthusiastic support for criticism of Israel for its conduct in the West Bank and Gaza and its war in Lebanon. Israel deserves criticism, but these condemnations lose much of their punch because of the spoilers', and hence the council's, reluctance to criticize anyone else."

Small wonder that so many delegations walked out of the opening session of the UN Human Rights Council's recent conference in Geneva, and many, including Israel, refused to participate at all. The conference, which was hijacked by a group of countries with some of the worst human rights records in the world (including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iran), was transformed into an anti-Israel hate fest and totally discredited the UN Human Rights Council.

This is the very same council that appointed Richard Goldstone to lead an investigative commission into "human rights and humanitarian law violations" during Israel's recent incursion into Gaza.

Israel was right in refusing to cooperate with the commission. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the Israeli government believed the commission was expected "to find Israel guilty even before the investigation begins". And as if to lend support to Palmor's statement, Goldstone proclaimed his "shock" and "extreme sadness" at what his team saw during their visit to Gaza. He also had this to offer:

It was firstly my concern for violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. We have a new growing culture of accountability. It's very important there shouldn't be impunity for the commission of these crimes and that leaders - whether political or military - should be held accountable."

By all indications, Goldstone's report, due in late August, will ignite a major assault in the campaign of lawfare and media warfare against the Jewish state. It is not just the UN's Human Rights Council that is polishing its sabers in anticipation; pencils are being sharpened at The Guardian, Israeli flags are being readied for burning by pro-Palestinian groups, and the British lecturer's union is preparing to boycott yet another university. Hopefully there is a team of experts somewhere in Israel that is gearing up for this inevitable confrontation.

As for Richard Goldstone, one cannot help but wonder what is going through his mind. We may even wonder exactly which planet Goldstone lives on when he writes: "The prosecution of crimes against humanity is not an exercise in partisan score-settling."

Because for Israel, that is precisely what it is. Even Human Rights Watch knows that.