Ik geloof dat we nu ondertussen wel iedereen hebben gehad, die een commentaar heeft op de kwestie Goldstone. Het stof gaat enigszins liggen. Veel nieuwe argumenten zijn niet meer te verwachten.

De belangrijkste punten:
1. Er zijn niet voldoende nieuwe feiten bekend die maken dat het Goldstone-rapport ongeldig zou zijn: de onderzoeken die het Israëlisch leger uit laat voeren (ná het verschijnen van het Goldstone-rapport) laten zeer te wensen over, en er zijn maar heel weinig veroordelingen. Er wordt bovendien alleen gekeken naar de ‘incidenten’ en er is geen onderzoek naar de voorbereiding en de planning van de aanval op Gaza. De werkelijke verantwoordelijken worden dus niet ter verantwoording geroepen. De vraag of er oorlogsmisdaden zijn gepleegd door Israël staat nog steeds open, en het is zeer waarschijnlijk van wel, zegt o.a. John Dugard, voormalig VN-rapporteur.

2. Het ogenschijnlijk vrijpleiten van Israël is levensgevaarlijk voor Gaza. Het is bekend dat een mogelijke tweede grootschalige aanval al wordt gepland, de kans daarop is groter nu Israël opnieuw de indruk heeft dat ze overal mee wegkomen.

Rechter Goldstone zelf heeft ondertussen laten weten niet van plan te zijn om het Goldstone-rapport in te trekken, hoewel minister Eli Yishai van Binnenlandse Zaken dat heeft beweerd. Ha’aretz, hier.
Zie ook Horowitz, op de site Mondoweiss, een van de auteurs van een belangrijk kritisch boek over het Goldstone-rapport, en zeer goed op de hoogte: hier.

The Guardian had een opmerkelijk kritisch en afgewogen editorial, hier.

Professor Jerry Haber, naar eigen zeggen ‘van de rechter vleugel van extreem links’ binnen Israël probeert te begrijpen wat Goldstone bezielde. Hier.

Citaten:

As an occasional “Goldstone watcher”, I venture the following observation: the man is, and has always been, an ohev yisrael, and an ohev medinat yisrael, a lover of Jews and a lover of the State of Israel. What we see in the op-ed is what we, on the left and on the right, have been partially blind to for over the last two years. Judge Goldstone wanted justice to be served, but he also wanted the State of Israel to live up to its promise and to do its duty as a civilized, Jewish state. His relationship with one of the parties under investigation was different from the other. Judge Goldstone is a life-long Zionist, and some people opposed his appointment for that reason. He even stated that his motivation for accepting the position was due, in part, to his commitment to Israel (or words to that effect).

That answer puzzles people on the left and the right. The left needs Israel to be publicly shamed; the right needs Israel to be attacked by “traitors”. How many people remain who will stand up and criticize Israel out of a commitment to human rights and a commitment to Zionism? (Go to the J Street Convention and to Sheikh Jarrah and count: they are all “some of my best friends”.) Heck, the lefties I hang out with think progressive Zionism is an oxymoron.

As one who is on the right wing of the extreme left, I was puzzled and somewhat pained by Judge Goldstone’s op-ed, even after I read it carefully. My immediate thought was, “Oh, no, what will the hasbaraniks do with this?” and “Will this hurt the greater cause?” But that’s me, and it is not, nor was it ever, Judge Goldstone. Let’s face it; when it comes to Zionism, Judge Goldstone and I are not in the same corner.

So I cannot really be surprised by this latest round. The Richard Goldstone of the op-ed is not precisely identical with the Richard Goldstone of the Goldstone report. Folks don’t stay in the same place, especially those who have seen their lives turned upside down.

En nog eens Jerry Haber, nadat Goldstone had laten weten zijn rapport niet in te willen trekken: hier.

Hier een bericht over de manier waarop Goldstone onder druk is gezet.

But it has been the Goldstone Report’s charge that civilians were intentionally targeted as a matter of Israeli policy that has outraged Israeli officials and Jewish leaders around the world. It has led many of them to all but brand Goldstone as a traitor, an anti-Semite who has promoted a “blood libel.” Israeli leaders deem his report a threat to Israel’s existence.
“We face three major strategic challenges,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last year, “the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our citizens and Goldstone.”

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/136818/#ixzz1IpKrA1wY

Judge Goldstone has not expressed regret, apology, nor has he recanted the report. On the contrary he has “no reason to believe that any part of the report need be reconsidered at this time.”

Coalition of Women for Peace, hier, wijst op het gevaar dat de ‘vrijspraak’ door de ommezwaai van Goldstone levensgevaarlijk is voor Gaza. Aan een mogelijke operatie Cast Lead II wordt al gewerkt, nu heeft Israël het gevoel overal mee weg te komen.

Dear Justice Goldstone, we are asking you to do all that is in your power to enable the international community to hold Israeli leaders accountable. Only a serious commitment to accountability, which would end Israel’s impunity can prevent the next war. As it stands now, your statement is already used to justify and legitimize future crimes, even before the next war has started.

Ook Gideon Levy zegt iets dergelijks.

Gideon Levy, hier.

Een citaat:

Was it the two reports by Judge Mary McGowan Davis that led to your change of heart? If so, you should read them carefully. In her second report, which was published about a month ago and for some reason received no mention in Israel, the New York judge wrote that nothing indicates that Israel launched an investigation into the people who designed, planned, commanded and supervised Operation Cast Lead. So how do you know which policy lay behind the cases you investigated? And what’s this enthusiasm that seized you in light of the investigations by the Israel Defense Forces after your report?

John Dugard, hier stelt dat er helemaal niet voldoende nieuwe feiten boven tafel zijn gekomen die zouden rechtvaardigen dat Goldstone zijn rapport zou herschrijven – wat hij overigens ook niet gaat doen.

In all the reports, including the Goldstone report, there were accounts of the killings of civilians by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in a cold, calculated and deliberate manner. But the principal accusation levelled at Israel was that during its assault on Gaza, it used force indiscriminately in densely populated areas and was reckless about the foreseeable consequences of its actions, which resulted in at least 900 civilian deaths and 5,000 wounded.

In terms of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is a war crime to direct attacks intentionally against a civilian population (Article 8(2)(b)(i)). Such an intention need not be premeditated: it suffices if the person engaging in such action meant to cause the consequence of his action, or “is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events” (Article 30).

En The Guardian (hadden wij maar zo’n krant) drukte vandaag de tekst af van een rij Palestijnse mensenrechtenorganisaties aan Goldstone. Hun belangrijkste punten zijn ook al door anderen vermeld: het kan niet alleen gaan om ‘menselijke fouten’ bij een dergelijke dodelijke aanval, het rapport noemt veel meer criteria voor de schendingen van het internationale recht, Israël heeft bij zijn onderzoek geen enkele moeite gedaan om ook de slachtoffers en Palestijnse getuigen te horen, en naar blijkt wordt er door Israël zelden iemand werkelijk vervolgd, laat staan naar rato bestraft.

Hierbij integraal:

Dear Richard Goldstone

As Palestinian human rights organisations, we were surprised by your op-ed, Reconsidering the Goldstone report on Israel and war crimes. Your conclusions that “civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy‟ and that Israel has “to a significant degree‟ sufficiently self-investigated incidents potentially amounting to war crimes in Operation Cast Lead are of particular concern.

The intentional targeting of civilians, which was the central element of your op-ed, is only one among 13 headings dealing with violations of international law perpetrated by Israel during Operation Cast Lead. Even if we were to discount the intentional targeting of civilians, this would not affect the fundamental conclusions of the report. As Hina Jilani, one of the report’s co-authors, affirmed, nothing will change the substance of the original report.

In the immediate aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, a number of reports, including those conducted by the UN fact-finding mission, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, concluded that the many civilian casualties and the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure during Operation Cast Lead cannot be attributed to human error alone.

One very troubling aspect of your revised position is that your amended understanding of Operation Cast Lead is based on evidence provided by investigations published by the Israeli military. However, as confirmed by the UN-appointed committee of experts mandated to assess domestic investigations, Israel failed to conduct effective investigations into serious allegations of international crimes. Therefore, regardless of the number of investigations carried out, their outcome is what should be relevant. Unfortunately, your op-ed diverts attention from this main issue: justice for victims.

As the committee of experts affirmed, the victims of this conflict – who continue to live in difficult and unsafe conditions under an illegal blockade and without any effective remedy – have been completely neglected by Israeli investigations, which lack transparency and effectiveness. Thus far, only three cases have resulted in criminal prosecutions. Of these, one Israeli soldier was sentenced to seven and a half months in prison for stealing a credit card, whereas two other Israeli soldiers convicted of using a nine-year-old Palestinian child as a human shield did not serve a single day in prison. For the victims, these outcomes reinforce their lack of trust in domestic investigations and their sense that accountability and justice will never be achieved.

The fact-finding mission report represents a unique opportunity for victims to challenge the culture of impunity and promote adherence to international law by all the parties to this protracted conflict. Unsurprisingly, following your op-ed, Israel is calling upon the UN Human Rights Council to retract the report. Nevertheless, the grave criminal allegations outlined in the report remain unanswered by all sides. The failure of domestic investigations necessitates recourse to international justice mechanisms, including the referral by the UN security council to the international criminal court.

We, the undersigned organisations, will continue to call upon the international community of states to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law by moving this legal process forward. On behalf of the victims and survivors, we remain committed to advancing the cause of justice at the UN general assembly in September 2011 in order to finally pursue accountability for the commission of international crimes and redress for the victims.

Yours sincerely,

Addameer Prisoners’ Support and Human Rights Association

Al Dameer Association for Human Rights

Al-Haq and Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights

Badil Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights

Defence for Children International – Palestine Section

Ensan Centre for Democracy and Human Rights

Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Centre

Ramallah Centre for Human Rights Studies

Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling

The Civic Coalition for Defending the Palestinians’ Rights in Jerusalem