Israel was wrong to boycott Goldstone probe
As far as Israel is concerned, the lesson is simple: It shouldn't boycott international forums, even if they are clearly biased against it.
By Shlomo AvineriEven after Richard Goldstone retracted his statement that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in Gaza, the diplomatic and moral damage to Israel caused by the Goldstone report will not disappear, just as the Supreme Court's acquittal of Israel Kastner back in the 1950s didn't erase the terrible things said by Judge Benjamin Halevy in the district court ruling. ("He sold his soul to the devil." ) That's the power of metaphors as opposed to dry facts. As far as Israel is concerned, the lesson is simple: It shouldn't boycott international forums, even if they are clearly biased against it.
The decision not to appear before the Goldstone Commission was made after a recommendation by the Foreign Ministry. One can understand the motives, but the decision was basically mistaken. The commission's mandate was obviously biased, and the UN Human Rights Council had already proved its hostility to Israel. But the ministry's legal experts ignored the fact that contacts with the United Nations are not a legal matter in which one is allowed to expect an objective judge. Rather, they are political and public. By recommending a boycott of the commission, the ministry's lawyers caused Israel tremendous damage.
Israel should have appeared before the commission and kept it busy for weeks by calling witnesses from communities in the south of the country, who would have explained the meaning of living for years in the shadow of Qassam rockets. It should have shown films and photographs of every home that was hit, and displayed the remains of the shells and missiles that were fired into the heart of a civilian population.
Above all - and this is an aspect the diligent legal experts and experienced PR experts missed entirely - those witnesses and testimonies should have been presented not only before the commission, but before the international media that flocked to Geneva. Even before the Goldstone Commission issued its decision, for days television viewers the world over would have seen the Israelis - all of them civilians, including the Shalit family - who were the deliberate targets of Hamas terrorism.
That should have been accompanied by the appearance of a senior Israeli official who was not only familiar with the facts but also spoke fluent English and knew how to speak to the nations of the world. Because the court in Geneva was not the commission but the international television audience, into whose consciousness we should have etched the information about Hamas terror. In the absence of all that, the world saw only the photographs provided by the Palestinians and their supporters.
There is no way of knowing if that approach would have changed the Goldstone Commission's decisions, but the media and public awareness would have been filled with testimonies and pictures presenting Israel's case.
Israel made that mistake earlier when it didn't appear before the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the security fence. Here too it left the arena to the Arab side. Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak should have been sent to The Hague to present the Israeli Supreme Court's balanced and responsible view, which recognized Israel's right to proportionate self-defense. In light of these two failures we can only long for the days when Israel's representative at the United Nations, Chaim Herzog, tore to shreds in the General Assembly the decision equating Zionism with racism. These are things that are etched in the international collective memory. There have been boycotts in the past against UN institutions, but by the Arabs. The Palestinians boycotted the UN Special Committee on Palestine that recommended to the General Assembly the partition of British Mandatory Palestine. Usually the side that boycotts is also the side that loses. We can hope that this lesson will be learned: The United Nations and its institutions are political rather than legal bodies, and we must not give up the political struggle.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Shlomo, Shlomo, Shlomo, Nothing coming out of the UN or its so-called Human Rights group is ever anything but anti-Semitic. The fix was in.
I see that Jewish appologists are already repeating this mantra ad nauseam, thinking that with repetition it will become a fact.
Avineri has no idea as to the amount of resources needed to investigate all the stories Goldstone heard. The fantasy stories are even harder to investigate. The IDF has a job to do- which isn't dealing with thousands of lies. The bottom line of every UN report will always be the same.
In his usual perceptive way Shlomo Avineri has encapsulated the depth of the political, diplomatic and strategical error that was made when the powers that be decided not to appear before the Goldstone Commission at the U.N. Human Rights Council. In spite of the fact that errors in execution of the operation would have had to be addressed the public image-saving merits of such an appearance before the world arena would have by far outweighed any measure of culpability that would have been allocated to Israel during that process.
Either "irrational" or irresponsible" would fit much better.
How wise you are! To to be seen as a bone fide member the world's democracies means disgarding our status as the worlds' perpetual victims. Time to grow up ... !
The conclusions of Capo Goldstone's report was predetermined; Israel's participation would have validated an inherently validated an invalid process. Goldstone's retraction confirms this was the correct decision. Unfortunately, the residents of Gaza are the real losers here; the IDF will have imputnity during Cast Lead II as any UN 'investigation' will be written off as a joke thanks to Golstone.
Israel decided it would rather not take part in it's own demonization. The author's suggestions, while all very valid and insightful, have been tried over and over again. The modern liberal media just doesn't care. They dismiss and/or choose not to report on evidence that runs counter to their depiction of Israel as the antagonist oppressive occupier
Quite a blunder for a philosopher, mr Avineri. So on the one hand, Goldstone's Commission was biased in advance, but on the other hand, the imprecision of its conclusions stem from Israel's refusal to take part in the investigations. Well, here we eat the cake, here it is again. The truth is that the IDF investigated itself only to the extent it didn't confirm the charges drawn in the Goldstone's report, and did it quite belatedly. Despite the flood of the comprehension-challenged pro-Israeli interpreters of Goldstone's recent "revision", the judge clearly voiced his concern over the foot-dragging and selective development of Israeli investigations. The head of Shin Beth must be rolling on the floor hearing Avineri's idea of international transparency of Israel's deeds. There's a very, very, very strong reason for this opacity, and, honestly, I'm sure Avineri would think thrice before advocating the international transparency if the real opportunity of it would be in discussion. When the practice of transparency is out of question for the tyrannical "security reasons", the advocating of transparency becomes merely an impotent flirting, the only goal of which is creation of the image of transparent, democratic society. Its power stems from its impotence. And this is what it amounts to, mr. Avineri: PRO-PA-GAN-DA.
Had Israel participated the report would have been far different. Why Netanyahu chose to act guilty instead of honestly is a question which needs to be asked.
The UN human rights council is one big joke and should ceasr to exist. Their goal is not human rights, it is to undermize israel. They are so obviously bias. 24 of 28 resolutions against israel. what about the genocide in Sudan. If the UN hu,man rights is not going to help them tell me who is? its funny how their is genocide going on but everything you read on the new now is palestinian pr.
Don't be so naive. There is a new Anti-Semitic wave around the word with the slogan: Jews go out of Palestine. (The previous slogan was-Jews go to Palestine). We are dealing with a new left movement having deep roots in Stalinism and anti-Zionism. Goldstone is one of them. We should stop talk with these people. We must undermine the tight relations between "goldstones" and the organizers" paying oil money for a lie.
You Baruch have a very very deep roots in your home village and its redneck culture, and it is very unlike you'll get rid of them by making aliyah to Israel.
I agree with you about that, and the reason is Israel and its Jewish supporters.
what nonsense.. the international court of justice is of course a legal institution.. and israel accepted this when it became a member of the un!!! like israel also accepted the right of return of the palestinian refugees before it became a member.. and we all now what happened after it became a member..
You missed Prof. Avineri's point. He never mentioned that the Goldstone commission's report was referred to the Intl. Court of Justice - because it never reached that body; what he said was: "...contacts with the United Nations are not a legal matter in which one is allowed to expect an objective judge. Rather, they are political and public".
i never said that the report was referred to the ICJ.. it obviously could not because israel and the usa were trying everything they could to prevent this from happening. by the way, war crimes are investigated by the international criminal court.. and guess who did not become a member.. israel.. i wonder why if everything what israel does is legal.. and also, the ICJ is as objective as the israeli supreme court or any other court.. fact is, israel by becoming a member of the un, acknowledged the power of the ICJ. in 2004 the ICJ made a clear statement concerning the legitimacy of the settlements. israel is not comlying..
If you read Prof. Avineri's article there is no mention of settlement policies, etc... He is solely addressing the Goldstone Commission and pointing out - correctly so - that Israel's non-compliance with the request to appear and present her case ultimately did the country more harm than good. And the Goldstone report was NOT referred to the International Criminal Court either.
Shlomo, You should run for office and save us
Diplomatic and moral damage to Israel after any event good or bad will always be negative around the world and we all know why so why break your neck trying to convince all those anti Israel suporters.
if it not were not for the political echelon,more worry about media maffia like BBC, NGO´s opinions than real issues on the ground in the Negev and its civilians suffering because gazans terrorist, and leave the warefare and strategic to real soldiers, Cast Lead would have been the operation that crippled hamas
because.................................