Goldstone banters in Boston

It was a rare opportunity. Not only did I visit Brandeis University for the first time, but I observed two of the world’s most respected Jewish figures review the severe accusations against Israel contained in the United Nations document known as the Goldstone report.

The speakers were South African Judge Richard Goldstone himself, who headed the commission which produced the report, and Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Hundreds of students, faculty and Boston-area residents comprised the heavily Jewish crowd that listened to Goldstone and Gold on the same day as a United Nations vote on the report; by coincidence, I was vacationing in Boston.

The experience of personally witnessing these two prominent figures laying out their conflicting positions merely served to enhance my take on the Goldstone report: It is a sideshow of an appalling, senseless 61-year-old conflict that refuses to end.

The aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in late December and January has endured so many contortions that it is impossible to take the Goldstone report seriously. The United Nations Assembly voted 114-18 on Nov. 5 to call for UN Security Council action if Israel and Hamas fail to investigate alleged war crimes within three months. The United States is expected to veto further movement in the Security Council.

The report singles out Israel to account for its actions in a military strike that, overall, was necessary and justifiable. I recognize that the report charges Hamas with war crimes, but the commission’s mission was originally to investigate only Israel. Goldstone saw to it the commission probed both parties, but critics in the U.N. focused on Israel’s role and Israel responded with uneven defenses.

As for the Arabs, since when have they been concerned about deaths of their own people? They have launched countless wars that placed Arab civilians in the cross-fire, pressured their own to battle Israel and murdered Arab leaders and individuals who sought peace.

There is only one significant consequence of the Goldstone report: In pressing for action on these charges, Arab extremists admit that Israel won this round and they can’t stand it. It is another “Nakba,” the Arab world’s term describing their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are locked in gridlock over a peace settlement, and Israel must deal with a nuclear threat from Iran and potential aggression from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The UN habitually ignores human rights abuses committed by Russia, China, Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Gold and other advocates for Israel repeatedly understate Israel’s reason for invading Gaza in late December last year. Israel had every right to attack Gaza after rockets were fired into Sderot and other parts of southern Israel, which is the routine defense of Israel and its supporters. If that is all of it, I would need to agree that the attack on Gaza was, literally, a case of overkill.

However, Hamas - the force that controls Gaza - was clearly building a war machine to cause far more damage to Israel. The Israel Defense Forces had no other choice but to move in, and they were compelled to endanger civilians in order to reach Hamas troops, supplies and facilities. Israelis would sound far more reasonable and less flippant if they employed this argument.

Both Goldstone and Gold were disingenuous in some of their assertions. After cataloguing much of the destruction of Gaza, Goldstone declared: “If that isn’t collective punishment, what is?”

Well, the planned destruction of a sovereign nation - namely, Israel - might constitute “collective punishment,” a phrase beaten to death by advocates for inhabitants of Israel’s territories. Could Goldstone have discovered this term independently of this persistent mantra?

Goldstone even attributed the report’s blanket accusation that Israel intentionally targeted civilians to past statements of high-level Israeli officials who projected that attacks on Israel would instigate excessive harm to the offending country or territory.

Such a prospect deserves serious consideration, but none of their statements prove anything. It is not even direct evidence of formal policy and it is my educated guess that these comments would be inadmissable as evidence in court. Goldstone’s claim of evidence is loosely comparable to introducing a suspect’s criminal record into a trial. Maybe they allow that in South Africa, but not in American criminal courts.

The Israeli government complicated the conflict by refusing to cooperate with the investigation. No question that the UN discriminates against Israel, but Israel’s failure to participate leaves the impression that it has something to hide.

The swiftest way to antagonize a prosecutor is to stonewall him. Israel succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Any self-important prosecutor will slam the subject of his investigation if they refuse to cooperate. At Brandeis, Goldstone made a point of Israel’s obstinence. His words were civil and evenhanded, but his tone was sarcastic. Internally, Goldstone was probably boiling.

Already, anything that Israel’s defenders would say is highly suspect.

Gold’s sleep-inducing rebuttal was flawed partly because he expended too much time on details to bolster his position. That is fine for a book, as demonstrated with one he authored, “The Fight for Jerusalem,” but not a public discussion in which time is limited. He should have summarized his arguments and complemented them with brief examples.

The effectiveness of Gold’s response - in part that “Hamas deliberately embedded in the civilian population” - recedes because the Israeli government waited until after the investigation to defend itself.

We still cannot dismiss the question of whether Israel’s military committed war crimes. My educated guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the report’s accusations and Israel’s reaction.

It is possible that some commanders and soldiers at least acted recklessly, without regard for the safety of civilians. The single documented clue is that the 2006 two-front war with Lebanon and Gaza exposed severe weaknesses in military prepardness. Reservist training was inadequate and soldiers could not find weapons and other supplies. Prior to the 2006 war, terrorists breached security three times at military bases, which includes the kidnapping of Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Not so clear is whether extremists belong to the IDF who ignore policies and disregard the safety of Arab civilians. J. J. Goldberg, a respected veteran of Jewish journalism, said in a commentary in the weekly Forward that soldiers informally complain about fanatics in their ranks.

While Goldberg offers no hard evidence, this concern makes sense. There are plenty of extremists in Israel, and nearly every Israeli is required to serve in the IDF. It stands to reason that there could be an overabundance of abuse on that basis.

If the IDF is burdened with serious shortcomings, it is long overdue to clean up its act. Otherwise, the military will not only jeopardize the lives of Arab civilians but its own troops, and the world will keep demanding explanations.

One Goldstone report is one too many.