Israel Refuses to Cooperate With UN Human Rights Inquiry
The Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip produced various allegations of human rights abuses on the part of the IDF and naturally there are counter-allegations against Hamas. The UN Human Rights Council decided, sensibly, to do an investigation into these allegations. And they decided, cleverly, to ask South African judge Richard Goldstone to head it up. Goldstone is highly credible, widely respected, an expert on international humanitarian law. And he’s Jewish, so it would be hard to label any criticisms he might make of Israeli conduct as motivated by antisemitism.
Unfortunately, Mark Goldberg reports that Israel has decided not to cooperate with the investigation.
I think this is a serious mistake. As Mark says, it’s only going to lead outside observers to the conclusion that Israel feels it has something to hide. The IDF leadership and Israeli politicians have loudly proclaimed that IDF conduct was of sterling-pure morality. But in the real world, the way you know an organization takes an issue seriously is that they make a serious effort at monitoring. If the IDF were really “the most moral in the world” it would be eager to participate in this sort of exercise, not just to clear its name but because the way you achieve moral conduct is precisely by rigorously investigating allegations of misconduct. By trying to shout down or block out efforts to inquiry, all the Israeli government is doing is signaling both to outsiders and to insiders that they don’t genuinely take these concerns seriously.
59 Responses to “Israel Refuses to Cooperate With UN Human Rights Inquiry”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Israeli exceptionalism is just the same as American exceptionalism. We can’t do bad things because we’re good and they’re evil.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Gee the anti-semitic UN “Human Rights” (har har) Council appoints someone to investigate Israel? I wonder what the result would be? Let’s take a wild guess.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Man, if the Israeli government isn’t careful, this may lead to a sternly worded press release from the UN on how this is completely unhelpful, or maybe even another General Assembly resolution. They better watch out.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I wonder what the result would be? Let’s take a wild guess.
My guess would be a report that summarizes the findings and conclusions of the investigation.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Goldstone is highly credible
Oh, and this is a joke. By definition, anyone who would agree to represent an anti-Semitic institution like the UN “Human Rights” Council in an investigation of Israel is not credible.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Yeah, Al, if only Goldstone had your record of judgment.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
My guess would be a report that summarizes the findings and conclusions of the investigation.
True. Of course, you leave unsaid that “the findings and the conclusions of the investigation” would simply be to reiterate the anti-Semitic preferences of the body that made the appointment.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
. And he’s Jewish, so it would be hard to label any criticisms he might make of Israeli conduct as motivated by antisemitism.
Sometimes you have to nut up, push through, and win ugly, Yglesias. He’s still an anti-semite!
April 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Of course, you leave unsaid that “the findings and the conclusions of the investigation” would simply be to reiterate the anti-Semitic preferences of the body that made the appointment.
Do you have any reason to believe Goldstone is dishonest?
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Of course, the UN appointed a commission to investigate possible human rights violations by the government of Syrian dictator Hafaz Assad in the events that took place in the City of Hama in 1982 and took 15 times as many lives as did the IDF activities in Gaza. Oh wait.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Isrealis are nazis.
Let’s have some Nuremburg justice for the leaders of Israel. I’d love to see Bibi hanged by the neck until dead. Hell, I’d drag Sharon off his veggie bed to swing.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I think this is a serious mistake. As Mark says, it’s only going to lead outside observers to the conclusion that Israel feels it has something to hide.
It’s only a mistake if they actually do have nothing important to hide. If they have something to hide then they have little incentive to cooperate with the investigation. (Why help supply parts of the rope with which they will be hung?) I assume Israel does have much to hide. Thus, Israel’s refusal to cooperate is likely rational.
The investigation will uncover many crimes, but only be able to assemble a partial account. Israel will then be able to say, “This account is highly partial, and is missing our side of the story.” The fact that the missing side of the story is missing through Israel’s own choice will not matter, either to Israel’s defenders or its critics. The effect it will have on more neutral observers remains to be seen.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
What the Israelis take seriously is trying to make the Palestinians lose as much of their homeland as possible and for them to agree to that outcome.
Theodor Herzl, “The Jewish State”, 1896
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, “The Iron Wall”, 1923
April 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I’m not sure the UN could have avoided doing something along these lines, but the moment it was announced it was so patently ridiculous that it was obvious. What did anyone think would happen? Full Israeli cooperation? Okay, and if not, what would force or entice them to?
And given an investigation without Israeli cooperation, it will be portrayed as the dreaded ‘one-sided’, and the Israelis will issue a countervailing study, and the Dershowitzes etc will go on a ragegasm at how whatever the results are are pure anti-Semitism, etc. etc., and then a number of leaders from various Arab and Muslim nations will proclaim that this has proven the evils of Zionism, etc etc…
April 15th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
. . . lead outside observers to suspect . . .
Outside observers like me, for example.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Can you name a single independent organization that actually claims that Hamas had anywhere near the “human rights violation” (in both frequency and severity) as Israel did? No independent organization in its right mind sees the Israeli occupation and these Israeli killings (well, mass murder is a less technical name) as symmetrical with anything Hamas did or is capable of. De Facto, the inquiry is only over the Israeli side because they are the ones who did the vast majority of things that need to be investigated. Please be accurate.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Al: If Israel commits war crimes, that means the rest of the world is anti-Semitic.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Dude, he leveled the entire city, it’s not like you needed Sherlock Holmes to figure out that some serious evil had gone down.
The thing is, is there any group other than the IDF that Israel would be willing to cooperate with on this kind of investigation? I suspect the answer is no.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“Watson, you can tell by the rubble that there was a city here. Also by the large sign denoting in the local language that one was entering Hama. The heat and flames indicates it was quite recent; and by the look of the stone, an ancient city at that. I would wager some sort of violent intervention, possibly by a large scale organization — a government, or army most likely. One day it will be known as the Rules of Hama, and surely certain people are destined to repeat it excitedly in various fora emanating throughout the ether.”
April 15th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I’m surprised that Larry Birnbaum-Eichmann hasn’t commented here yet. I wonder if his feeling were hurt when he was told that “moral cretin” was too kind an appellation for him?
April 15th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
GW:
You are misinformed.
Human Rights Watch for one, believes that there are credible allegations of serious violations on both sides that merit investigation.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
” it’s only going to lead outside observers to the conclusion that Israel feels it has something to hide. ”
We have a winner.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Sorry, what does the destruction of some city in Syria over 25 years ago have to do with the factual matter of Israeli war crimes in Gaza?
This is one of the most pathetic attempts at moral relativism I’ve seen recently. Figures I’d see it here.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Um, why would Israel accept such an investigation? For fun?
April 15th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@Rich in PA: because the geneva convention requires it to do so
April 15th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Two problems :
one, I’m not sure the UN has the legitimacy to conduct this investigation. The US, Isreal, etc. have done so much to undermine faith in the institution that you can see the reaction already hear in the commments. The UN has been complicit in war crimes during the Bosnian civil war, and it’s “peace” keepers have been accused of prostitution rings in Africa and elsewhere. They overlooked the war crimes in Iraq (Fallujah, etc.).
two, Isreal might have real concerns about this investigation. The WMD “monitoring” of Iraq was so filled with CIA agents that Saddam stopped complying. The idea that this investigation wouldn’t be hijacked is a real concern.
I would love to see Isreal face a very fair investigation, credible reports indicate they committed horrible attrocities on innocents and property – but in cases like these it often boils down to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Using a SA investigator is a good choice, and a Jew, but it would be better coming from the EU, perhaps, as opposed to the UN.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
black and white. this is israel’s legally-binding obligation, which it willingly agreed to when it signed the convention: as codified in Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention – it is obligated to effectively investigate and prosecute all those suspected of committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Should a state prove unable or unwilling to do so, then in accordance with the principle of universal jurisdiction, all High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to search for and prosecute persons accused of committing grave breaches, irrespective of where theses crimes occurred. There is no valid pretext, legal or otherwise, for not respecting the Conventions in their entirety.
suck on that. law is law. and facts are facts. unless israel hides them.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I think the proper designation for Goldstone is “self-hating Jew”.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Al: If Israel commits war crimes, that means the rest of the world is anti-Semitic
I’d be really shocked if he believes this. He doesn’t believe in an “anti-semitic” UN, only the most paranoid Jews in the world believe that because it’s fucking ridiculous. He’s just lawyering for whatever purpose he lawyers for here.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Charles Johnson may also believe in the deep seated well of anti-semitism at a world collective body of representatives.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Of course they don’t take these concerns seriously. On the one hand, there’s the serious business of national survival. When the government has sold the citizens on the idea that action X is a keystone to that business, it doesn’t matter if it plays in Peoria.
On the other hand is the suggestion that a goodly portion of Jewish Israelis consider Palestinians dogs with opposable thumbs, such as documented in the “Black Like Me” book …damn, the title and author for which I can’t find, where the Israeli writer dressed and wore his hair in styles typical of Palestinian day laborers, and took menial jobs. Why would you worry about gunning such people down?
April 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
It is entirely rational for Israel to do this as they clearly do have something to hide.
At some point folk will realize that the only reason for keeping on talking about the fictitious ‘two state solution’ is so that US Israel supporters can feel less guilty about their apartheid state.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Yeah I agree with what you’re saying Matt but I’m somewhat jaded on the result either way. What would happen if Israel agreed to cooperating with an investigation and people found out that Israel’s invasion was unfounded? So Israel is incredibly aggressive and mistreats the Palestinian people, so what? That’s not news.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
SteveL: Thanks for the link to Human Rights Watch. Note the last line:
“Highlighting abuses of both sides does not, and should not, imply equating the conduct of both sides,” Stork said.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Eichmann. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. This is particularly aimed at hurting me on account of my religious and ethnic background. And as such, hate speech. It’s really quite amazing what people will say under the cover of anonymity.
Anyway my recollection is that Goldstone, while Jewish, has been fairly critical of Israel. Perhaps I’m misremembering. If not, a more serious course would have been to have chosen a more neutral party. This choice doesn’t strike me as clever except in a somewhat crude propagandistic sense. And it’s also true that the UN’s “Human Rights” councils, conferences, etc., are past farce and into perversion. Which is a shame.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
No, Birnbaum-Eichmann, it’s particularly aimed at hurting you because you are in immoral monster. Whatever works. Your religious and ethnic background has nothing to do with it.
But yes, it is intentionally aimed at hurting you, that much is true.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Your argument is not to dissimilar from the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
April 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
“voice of”? STFU.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Naw, the UN hates Israel. The belt bombers will get UN sympathy.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Hey, I’ve said much worse about others on this board of indeterminate ethnicity & religion. IMO the nazi analogy is a pretty damn good one – sure Israel hasn’t gone quite as far – yet – but the kind of thinking is chillingly similar. Birnbaum in particular – in his relish to murder innocent Iranians – has earned the appellation. His sensitivity isn’t my problem. If he doesn’t want to be called a nazi, he should stop acting like one. So, in a word, fuck him.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Comrade, comrade! Vere are your papers?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Naw, the UN hates Israel. The belt bombers will get UN sympathy.
Yeah, that’s fucking brilliant. There hasn’t been a belt bomber for years if your atrophied brain hasn’t noticed, but assume there was: Why does the UN (meaning the membership of the general assembly) hate Israel? Sign off on this, the world is a racist snakepit devoted to hating Jews? Does that jibe with any of the rest of your brave PC braving bullshit?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:33 am
larry birnbaum doesn’t even know who Goldstone is, but he’s bitching. Some golden means fallacy Jew is obviously the answer. He will weigh the scales and decide that everybody sucks.
Why in the hell do these people always have Christian first names and Jewish last names? Why do I never see a nutty, American zionist who didn’t obviously come from a family that didn’t put a premium on Jewish identity?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Israel certainly deserves some investigation, but we might question whether it’s even worth it. I can see the videos of white phosphorus raining down in civilian neighborhoods. That’s pretty damn obvious. And I know damn well that Hamas will kill innocent people. So why do I need an investigation? The same thing happens everytime, and I’m old enough to know it. There are two cultures living in the same place and they hate each other. They will kill each other for all of eternity. Unless one of them deploys enough nuclear weapons to take the other out once and for all. But they will kill themselves doing it. They only question here is this: who is really suicidal? I’m guessing neither. But until then, we will have war. That is the nature of Abrahamic religions. I just wish I could be left out of all of this.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:13 am
If the IDF were really “the most moral in the world” it would be eager to participate in this sort of exercise, not just to clear its name but because the way you achieve moral conduct is precisely by rigorously investigating allegations of misconduct. By trying to shout down or block out efforts to inquiry, all the Israeli government is doing is signaling both to outsiders and to insiders that they don’t genuinely take these concerns seriously.
Not necessarily. I don’t think any credible observer will say that the UN is unbiased with regard to Israel, or, when it comes to Israel and/or the Arab bloc and it’s allies, that the UN HRC isn’t motivated primarily by politics and not concern for human rights.
I have no doubts whatsoever that regardless of what Israel did or did not do, they will be castigated in the report. I know it, you know it, they know it. They can not cooperate, and see a few pissy blog posts like this one, or cooperate, and see a tendentious report blasting them go on the record and used to beat them over the head with for years to come.
Not cooperating with a biased body to produce a report with a foregone conclusion in no way signals a lack of concern for human rights. This blog post is simply a vehicle for Yglesias to spread that meme.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
And he’s Jewish, so it would be hard to label any criticisms he might make of Israeli conduct as motivated by antisemitism.
There are many jewish antisemites around and Matt should know this!
April 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Several years ago, I believe during the second intifada, but I can’t be sure, there were reports of hundreds of deaths in a Palestinian town that had been shelled by Israelis. Eventually, the UN investigated and found that the allegations were false. There were deaths, and many destroyed homes, but the allegations were wild exaggerations. I believe the investigation was by the UN HRC, though I don’t remember if this was before or after it became dominated by the worst human rights abusers.
I wish I could remember the name of the town. If anyone remembers, it would be interesting to compare that set of circumstances to these.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Could that town have been Jenin??
April 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I don’t think any credible observer will say that the UN is unbiased with regard to Israel, or, when it comes to Israel and/or the Arab bloc and it’s allies, that the UN HRC isn’t motivated primarily by politics and not concern for human rights.
I have no doubts whatsoever that regardless of what Israel did or did not do, they will be castigated in the report.
Poor, poor Israel. The whole world is out to get them, by halfheartedly trying to censure them through toothless UN resolutions that the U.S. always vetoes anyway when they’re only trying to defend themselves by using white phosphorus as a weapon in defiance of international agreements banning chemical warfare, or by stealing land and bulldozing homes in a country under occupation in defiance of UN agreements about the conduct of war, or by carving up the country it occupies into bantustans, or by blocking basic humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, or by encouraging settlers to commit whatever violent acts they choose against the Palestinians without fear of legal responsibility.
Israel is obviously the real victim here.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
This conflict has very little to do with Abrahamic religions. The religious groups on either side have only been prominent in the last 20 years or so of this conflict. Hamas is not killing Jews because they don’t accept Muhammad as the last Prophet. Jews are not killing Palestinians because they don’t beleive that the Jews are the Chosen People. They’re killing each other over land and a right to live peacefully.
This sentiment that somehow these two groups (Jews and Muslims) are intent on fighting each other for eternity because of some Isaac and Ishmael type conflict is very annoying and very American. Americans whose ancestors came to America a long time ago and have no real ties to anywhere outside of America tend to have this stupid view. The fact is you all know your govt fucks around in these regions (the Middle East) way too much and you cant do much about your govt because your whole political system is clogged up like fat people arteries.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Ed Marshall doesn’t know anything about me… but thinks he does on the basis of my first name.
Why no more suicide bombings in Israel — well, they built that wall, and re-occupied sections of the West Bank that they’d previously evacuated. It does seem that the Palestinians have (mostly) stopped trying. But that only happened after it stopped working. Which isn’t proof of a cause-and-effect relationship; but it’s awfully suggestive.
As to “relish” for murdering thousands of innocent Iranian civilians: as an American I’m more concerned with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed as a direct result of US military operations. Does this seem like moral relativism? Sorry, but everyone who isn’t a pacifist makes these calculations. If you’re not a pacifist, you’re just kidding yourself if you think that you don’t. But then that’s how someone can imagine themself to be saintly character as they spew hateful and hurtful diatribes.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Of course Zionland is not going to cooperate. Murderers don’t usually cooperate with the police.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Larry, you’re god damned psychopath who revels in the murder of innocence and cheers it on when it gets covered up.
Nothing you can say, no pretty words or well thought out post, can ever change that. If you don’t like people thinking that you’re so blinded by your ethnicity that you think Jews can do no wrong, stop asserting that Jews are perfect and the filthy arab dogs are always to blame.
Just because, unlike Al and SLC, you’re smart enough to say what you’re thinking doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t smart enough to read the subtext: Jews are always right, because Arabs are subhumans who have it comming.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Larry B, let me, in a more civilized way than Mr. voice, try to educate you in some basic moral considerations. (In fairness to you, some of your more unpalatable beliefs are widely shared in the contemporary United States.) Let me first say that people like you are, in some sense, more horrifying than monsters like SLC. Whatever you can say about him, there is no pretence; he certainly wouldn’t get offended at being called a moral cretin. But you want to have it both ways: advocate actions which will result in thousands of innocent deaths while still whining that you are being called a moral cretin. It’s unbecoming, to say the least.
First of all, it simply isn’t true that pacifism is the only alternative to the kind of grisly “calculations” that moral cretins like yourself make. There is a large body of both law and moral reasoning that provides for rules and moral guidelines in the conduct of war while still allowing for the possibility of war under certain (essentially defensive) circumstances. It has become fashionable in the U.S. these days for these rules and strictures to be ridiculed; without setting into that debate in detail, the moral cretins who want to abandon civilized strictures on warfare at a very minimum need to acknowledge the existence of a non-pacifistic body of law, moral reasoning and belief which condemns certain practices in warfare. You may not like that alternative but it is there.
Now, of course it’s true that modern warfare can’t be conducted without some civilian casualties. But those moral/legal restrictions are designed, in large measure, to protect innocents to the extent possible. And with regard to Israel, no one is seriously claiming that Israel is upholding those moral/legal restrictions. The only REAL disagreement is over how extensive those violations are. Of course, some people want to argue that Israel shouldn’t be bound by such restrictions, but therein lies … well, I won’t offend your sensitivities with the analogy you hate so much, so let’s just say moral cretinism.
As an aside, OF COURSE other nations have behaved worse. Why anyone thinks that that has any relevance in the debate is beyond me. The logical implication of the “Assad or (pick another monster) is worse” kind of argument is that anything marginally less horrible than, say, Nazi Germany, or, if you don’t like that analogy, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, is okay. Given your (understandable) sensitivities, I really don’t think that you want to go there. (Not that you in particular rely upon that kind of argument as much as, say, resident genocide advocate SLC, but your “the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed as a direct result of US military operations” comment is a non sequiter for this reason.
As for Iran, again it’s pretty clear that attacking Iran would be a monstrous war crime and wholly immoral. Even under a purely utilitarian calculus – which would be, when applied to war, a form of moral cretinism – supporting a policy that would result in the short term in thousands of innocent deaths, and in the long term probably in hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent deaths, just to maybe, at best, result in a miniscule decrease in risk of a catastrophic consequence to Israel (and most likely the reverse, an increase in risk to Israel) – the only way you can justify that even on the dubious utilitarian grounds that you seem to favor is to value an innocent Israeli life much, much more highly than you value an innocent Iranian life. And it is that unstated but underlying assumption upon which your argument for bombing Iran necessarily rests which results in the name calling that you find so offensive.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
And really Larry B, tying in the last paragraph of my post with Soulite’s less temperate but basically fair post, it would be really, really interesting to see you try to reconcile your opinions vis a vis Israel’s actions (in Gaza and elsewhere) and, more particularly you opinions with regard to bombing Iran, with an acceptance of the dignity and worth of Arab and Iranain lives. Instead, when confronted by this type of argument you sputter indigantly and refuse to enage the arguments. I mean, I’ve seen some people TRY to grapple with trying to reconcile two such seeming opposing points of view, but never with much success, which is why most Likudniks either ignore the issue entirely, or, increasingly, use explcit dehumanizing language when discussing Palestinians/Arabs/Iranians (see, e.g., SLC. Question, are you comfortable with him as an “ally?”).
April 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Finally, if we want to talk about offensive, I find the contrast between your outrage over name calling (offensive to be sure but hardly hate speech), versus your casual endorsement of a necessarily massive, unprovoked bombing campaign against Iran that will (at a minimum) result in thousands of innocent deaths, rather offensive.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Why in the hell do these people always have Christian first names and Jewish last names? Why do I never see a nutty, American zionist who didn’t obviously come from a family that didn’t put a premium on Jewish identity?
Look, that actually is an instance of honest-to-goodness antisemitism. “These people” — Ed Marshall is mad at them because he thinks they’re both too Jewish and not Jewish enough. That’s pretty vile, guy.
I think it’s good to call out antisemitism when it appears, to distinguish it from principled criticism of Israeli policy. Name calling really does matter when it indicates that the name caller’s thinking on these issues is not particularly rational.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Yes.
I saw it was the Security Council itself, not the UN HRC that sent a delegation to investigate Jenin. The Israelis kicked and screamed about the composition of the delegation, which eventually mostly supported the Israeli version of events.
While I understand Israeli suspicion of the UN HRC, it is the delegation itself that is important, not who sends it.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
It’s time – and some people are – calling for a South African level boycott against Israel.
It should go further – there should be a blockade of Israel’s air and sea ports until it 1) cooperates with the UN investigation, 2) disarms its nuclear arsenal, and 3) agrees to come to the table with both Fatah and Hamas.
Ian: Ed is not talking about Jews when he says “these people”, he’s talking rabid right wing American Zionists who want to have it both ways – be Jewish but not “too” Jewish – except when it comes to Israel. I’ve never seen any “anti-Semitism” from Ed’s posts here.