Sept 22, 2009

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: A big day today, the President of the United States hosting a summit with the Israel and Palestinian leaders right here in New York. Let's get right to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He's joining us.

The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, told our Fareed Zakaria the other day that he had an assurance from the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, that Israel has no intention of attacking Iran. Is that true?

NETANYAHU: Well, I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals. I think the important thing is to recognize that Iran's ambitions to acquire or develop nuclear weapons is a threat, not only to Israel, but to the entire world. Remember, this is the country that sponsored terrorism worldwide. And imagine what would happen if these terrorists had a patron that that gave them a nuclear umbrella, or, worse, actually gave them the nuclear weapon.

I think that these are catastrophic consequences. And it's the interests of the entire international community to make sure this doesn't happen.

BLITZER: So, are you willing to repeat what you have been quoted in the Israel press as saying, that "all options" for Israel are on the table right now?

NETANYAHU: I'm willing to say what President Obama has said, namely, that all options are on the table is a position we support.

BLITZER: Have you been concerned at all about the Obama administration's diplomatic initiative in trying to reach out to Iran to see if that will secure some results?

NETANYAHU: I have spoken to President Obama several times about this. And he assured me that the goal of all his activities, diplomatic and otherwise, is to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. And I think the goal is what counts. And, increasingly, I think people understand in Washington and certainly in Washington and elsewhere, in the major capitals, that the problem of Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons threatens everyone. It threatens world peace in a way that very few events could possibly threaten it.

I'm hopeful and I would like to believe that the international community understands that Iran has to be pressed strongly. There are ways of pressing this regime right now, because it's weak. It's weaker than people think. It doesn't enjoy the support of its own people.

BLITZER: How much time is there, Mr. Prime Minister?

NETANYAHU: Whatever time is there, Wolf, it's getting shorter, because Iran is moving ahead.

But this is a regime that is susceptible to pressure. It's been exposed for what it is. It tyrannizes its own people. The Iranian people detest this regime, as has been plainly evident in the recent election fraud. But, equally, I think that Iran is susceptible because its economy is susceptible. And the time for pressure is now, with or without talks.

BLITZER: Would you act unilaterally, without U.S. support?

NETANYAHU: Well, there you go again asking a hypothetical question. I would like to believe that the United States and the major powers of the world understand that this threat, that this danger threatens them as well. And you know what? From everything that I have seen and heard, speaking to President Obama, speaking to President Sarkozy this afternoon as well, speaking to many of the major leaders of the world, I stand by that assessment.

Iran is certainly a grave threat to Israel, but it's a grave threat to international peace. It's a grave threat to America and to everyone else.

BLITZER: I want to read to you some comments that the former national security adviser to then President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote the other day.

He said this. He said: "We," referring to the United States, "are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? If they fly over, you go up and confront them," Brzezinski writes. "They have the choice of turning back or not."

That's a pretty strong statement. What does it say about the current state of U.S.-Israeli relations when a former national security adviser writes something like that?

NETANYAHU: See, now you're asking me to comment on a hypothetical on a hypothetical. I'm not going to do that. But I will tell you that the state of the U.S.-Israeli relations is very good, indeed. I was very pleased with the meeting hosted by President Obama today. For months, I have been calling for such a meeting, to put aside all these preconditions, and get on with the business of talking about peace.

It's very hard to make peace unless you talk about it, although we have been improving conditions on the West Bank, and life is getting a lot better there. But we can do a lot more if we talk to each other.

So, on Iran, I have given you my answer. But, on peace, I think the possibilities are there. Let's just get on with it. Let's move. And I think that a good and firm U.S.-Israel relationship is the pivot of that peace and the pivot of security in the Middle East.

BLITZER: I want to get on and talk a little bit about the peace process. But just give me an answer, if you can, to a sensitive question that a lot of people are asking, especially friends of Israel here in the United States. Who is a better friend of Israel, the former President George W. Bush, who had a very close relationship with you, or the current president, Barack Obama?

NETANYAHU: Let me tell you something about President Obama, because I think this should be fully appreciated. He stood before the entire Muslim world. I don't know if a billion people heard him, but hundreds of millions of people in Muslim countries heard him. And he said: The bond between America and Israel is unshakeable. We are absolutely committed to Israel's security. I think that was a very important statement. And I think every president of the United States has had his contribution to Israeli- American relations and to the friendship between our countries. It is a very strong friendship, indeed. And I appreciated the president's comments in Cairo. And I appreciated his comments today, too.

BLITZER: I hear you saying you trust this president.

NETANYAHU: I think that President Obama's commitment to Israel has been expressed very loud, very clearly by him. And I think this reflects the underlying friendship between our two countries. It's very strong.

You know, I walk on the streets of well, New York, yes, but also the Midwest and every part of the United States. I have been in every part of it. I will tell you, it's heartwarming, because I see this tremendous, tremendous effusion of friendship towards Israel as a sister democracy, yes, often embattled by these dark forces of terrorism that embattle all of us.

And I think Israel has a terrific friend in America and the American people. And I want the American people to know that they have a terrific friend in Israel. In the Middle East, you don't have that many friends, but we're definitely right at the top of the list.

BLITZER: In the first eight months of his administration, he's repeatedly appealed to you to freeze all settlement activity, and you have declined that request. Did anything change today?

NETANYAHU: I think what is important is that we're moving on to talk peace. And I hope to make peace.

Any time we have encountered an Arab leader who wanted to make peace, we made peace. Anwar Sadat came. Menachem Begin of the Likud made peace. The late King Hussein came. Yitzhak Rabin of Labor made peace. I'm telling you that, if Mr. Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, genuinely steps forward and says, we recognize the state of Israel, we're willing to make peace with the Jewish state, just that, the Jewish state, and it will be a peace of the recognition and security, then my government will make peace. I'm no exception, because the people of Israel want peace. And I think people understand that now.

As to the question of settlements, I think that raising this condition, something that hasn't happened in 15 years of Israeli- Palestinian dialogue - nobody put this precondition - this is just costing us a great deal of time.

The issue of settlements has to be discussed at the end or in the context within these negotiations, not before. It has to be resolved. And we're prepared to look into this issue, as into other issues. But we have to talk in order to talk about it. That's obvious. And yet we haven't. For six months, we have been waiting to talk about talks. I say let's put that aside. Let's just get on with it and start the peace process again.

BLITZER: We're hearing from U.S. officials and Palestinian officials that the president gave them, the Palestinians, a commitment that, once the negotiations resume, they would resume where they left off, including such sensitive issues as the future of Jerusalem, allowing Jerusalem - at least part of it - to be under Palestinian control. Is that even available to you? Is that even open to you, that Jerusalem could be a subject for these negotiations?

NETANYAHU: Well, you asked me two questions in that question.

The first is, will the talks continue where they left off? Well, there were no agreements. I mean, the previous government spoke for three years, but came to no agreements. And we were elected with a clear mandate to provide peace and security. And, of course, we will do that.

We will take into account the 15 years of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, but we will be committed to the mandate that we received. And that mandate seeks to arrive at a better future for all of us. That is a future of peace for our children and for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, and, for that matter, any Arab party in the Middle East. We're prepared to begin negotiations immediately or go anywhere.

BLITZER: Are you ready to talk about Jerusalem?

NETANYAHU: We have certain views about Jerusalem. I think the fact that it's been united under Israeli sovereignty has ensured that, for the last four decades, all major faiths, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, all monotheistic faiths, have enjoyed the great freedom of worship and access to their religious sites, something that hasn't happened before since the rise of the three monotheistic religions.

It's only under Israeli sovereignty that this city has been open to all religions. Jerusalem for us is our eternal capital. We don't want to redivide it and see a Berlin Wall in the center of it. So, obviously, that's our position.

The Palestinians will raise their point of view. And that's clear. But we will talk about these things, but my position is well-known.

BLITZER: You know this United Nations commission, which just came back with a scathing report suggesting that Israel, your military, committed war crimes or something close to that, crimes against humanity, perhaps, even, during the fighting in Gaza. And I know you strongly disagree, but I want you to react to that United Nations report.

NETANYAHU: Now you're being a diplomat. I strongly disagree? I think this is preposterous. It's absurd. Israel was rocketed, pummeled for eight years by thousands of rockets that came from Gaza. We vacated all of Gaza, hoping that this thing would stop, and they fired not one rocket, but thousands of rockets, after we left Gaza.

So, what's a country to do? I mean, what would you do if thousands of rockets fell on - Where are you talking from, Wolf, Washington, right? - Washington, D.C., or any part of the United States? You know what the United States would do.

BLITZER: The argument, though, Mr. Prime Minister, in this U.N. report is that you overreacted, and, in the process, you killed a lot of civilians.

NETANYAHU: We overreacted, did we? Well, let me tell you, after a million or so of our people were under rocket fire, progressively larger and larger circles of rockets falling on our cities, we did what every reasonable country would do. We tried to get at the rocketeers, those terrorists firing those missiles and rockets who placed themselves, embedded themselves in homes and schools and mosques, and you name it.

And we tried to target these people. We even sent them SMS text messages, telling the Palestinian civilians, please get out of harm's way, cellular phones, you name it. So, we did everything possible to minimize the loss of innocent civilian lives.

And yet the Hamas actually was committing a double war crime, firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians. That's a double war crime. They're the ones who sort of get a free bill out of this biased U.N. report, and Israel, that is defending itself, is accused.

BLITZER: All right.

NETANYAHU: So, the terrorists are exonerated. The victims are accused. That's an upside-down world. And I think this does grievous harm to the battle against terrorism, because the terrorists are basically being told, you get a free ride. All you have to do is fire at a democracy from built-up areas, from residential quarters, and you will get a clean bill of health. And I think it does a great disservice to peace, too, because we're asked to take risks for peace. The international community says, if you take risks for peace, we will support your right of self- defense. And yet we did just that. We vacated Gaza in the hopes that this would advance peace. And when we're rocketed with thousands of rockets and missiles from the places we vacated, people say Israel is the war criminal.

BLITZER: All right.

NETANYAHU: Come on. I mean, this is absurd.

BLITZER: If there is a trial at the International Court and the accusation is that Israel committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Gaza, will you cooperate with that?

NETANYAHU: Well, the question is, will any serious country cooperate with it?

I took note of the fact that the leading democracies that were in this U.N. commission, they opposed this. They were against this mandate, because it looked like a kangaroo court in the first place, where Israel was basically hanged, drawn, and quartered morally and given an unfair trial to boot right at the start of these proceedings.

I think this is wrong. But understand this. It's not only we who will be damaged. It's you, too. I mean, American pilots, NATO pilots, let alone Russia and other countries that are fighting terrorists, are going to be put on the dock, too, because it's said that you cannot fight terrorists.

It means that all the terrorists have to do is put themselves in a residential quarter, and they receive immunity. And that's not something that any country fighting terrorism can accept. And I don't think you can accept it either.

BLITZER: Did you reach out to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and reassure them that that that was a lie?

NETANYAHU: Well, we immediately denied it. And, yes, we did reach out to them, of course.

BLITZER: Did you personally call them?

NETANYAHU: I didn't personally call them, but I had my aides communicate this to the White House as quickly as we could.

BLITZER: All right, let's move ahead and take and look and see where the situation goes from here. You have now met with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Are there going to be more direct meetings with you and the Palestinian leader without the United States in the room?

NETANYAHU: I hope so. And I think we should.

I said to Mr. Abbas today, listen, we're old hands. We have had many meetings in the past when I was prime minister during my first tenure, and I met him. And I respect him. And I think there is a lot we can do together.

Look, you know, we have lifted all these roadblocks in the West Bank, checkpoints. I've opened the Allenby Bridge on the Jordan River to allow the inflow of goods into the West Bank. So life is getting better. The IMF is talking about a seven percent growth rate in the West Bank.

And guess what, Wolf? I think we can top that. This is what we're doing. I mean we're easing those restrictions and opening up passage, even though there's a certain security risk involved, because I think that prosperity is good for peace. I don't think it's a substitute for a political peace, but I think it really enables it because young Palestinians see there is a future there. I mean, they have jobs. There are investments. There are buildings sprouting out in Palestinian cities like Ramallah and Jenin and not missiles, as in Gaza, but, you know, high rises, apartment blocks, office buildings.

This is what I'd like to see. I'd like to see this dynamic of peace, prosperity and security. And if we meet, then we could get a lot more of this going and that's good for us. It's good for the Palestinians. It's good for peace.

BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, a year from now, will there be an agreement, a peace treaty, if you will, between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

NETANYAHU: Well, I I don't want to set a timetable on it or a stopwatch, but the sooner we get going, the sooner we'll get an agreement. If there is a willingness on the part of the Palestinians to remove the main obstacle to peace. And the main obstacle to peace is the persistent refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state - the nation state of the Jewish people.

There are non-Jews living there and they have equal rights. The Arab citizens of Israel vote in the Knesset. They're represented in every form of life and have political rights - equal political rights. But Israel is the state, the nation state of the Jewish people. And I think if we're asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people, then the least we expect from the Palestinians is to come right out and say yes, you know, it's over. Yes, we accept the State of Israel.

BLITZER: But if the Palestinians do that, Mr. Prime Minister, are you ready to bite the bullet and make the tough concessions that have to be made? And everybody seems to know what the final agreement is going to look like. Are you ready to make those territorial concessions and go back, sort of, close to the '67 line?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think we need to make sure that Israel can defend itself and defend the peace. Because even if the Palestinian leaders make that simple statement that they so far haven't made, that they recognize the Jewish state - and I think that's imperative for peace - it may take a long time for this to be internalized by the Palestinian people that have been subjected repeatedly to very harmful propaganda against Israel.

So we have to make sure that we can defend ourselves, that we don't have these Palestinian territories become the sites for the launching of thousands of missiles and rockets, which is exactly what happened to us from the other areas we vacated.

We need a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That's the winning formula for peace.

Now, look, any time Israel was faced with an Arab leader that genuinely wanted peace, whether Anwar Sadat or the late King Hussein, Israel made peace. And if President Abbas takes this forceful step, deciding that he wants to be a Sadat and not an Arafat, then he will find in me a partner for peace. And believe me, the Israeli people are yearning, praying, hoping that we have such a Palestinian partner on the other side.

BLITZER: Prime Minister Netanyahu, thanks very much for joining us.

< top >

September 16, 2009 3:43 PM
By Alan M. Dershowitz
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Richard Goldstone—the primary author of a one-sided United Nation’s attack on Israeli actions during the Gaza war—has now become a full fledged member of the international bash-Israel chorus. His name will forever be linked in infamy with such distorters of history and truth as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Jimmy Carter. The so-called report commissioned by the notorious United Nations Human Rights Council and issued under his name is so filled with lies, distortions and blood libels that it could have been drafted by Hamas extremists. Wait, in effect, it actually was!

One member of the group is an Hamas lackey who before being appointed as an "objective" judge had already reached the conclusion—without conducting any investigation or hearing any evidence—that Israel’s military actions “amount to aggression, not self defense” and that “the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law.” So much for objectivity. Many human rights experts urged her to recuse herself because of her prejudgment, but she was on a mission on behalf of her “client”—Hamas. And she did a good job as an advocate! But as a judge, she employed an Alice-In-Wonderland conception of justice: verdict first, trial to support the verdict later.

Other members were accompanied on their investigations in Gaza by actual Hamas activists who showed them only what they wanted them to see. The group was eager to find or manufacture “evidence” to support what the Human Rights Council itself had directed them to find, namely that Israel committed “grave violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip.” This conclusion too was reached before any investigation. No wonder so many prominent human rights experts, including Mary Robinson, refused to participate in this mockery of human rights, declaring that it was “guided not by human rights, but by politics.” No wonder so many nations that are dedicated to human rights—such as Switzerland, Canada, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands—refused to go along with the politically-motivated witch hunt. They should also refuse to accept the politically motivated, entirely pre-ordained conclusions of the biased report.

As I wrote before the “Kangaroo Court investigation” began:

“The UN Human Rights Council is a scandal. [It has] a long history of singling out Israel for condemnation and of ignoring real human rights abusers by the world's worst offenders, several of which dominate the Human Rights Council and it predecessor.

As Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky recently noted: "The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined.... The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel, the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt.”

The very idea of the UN Council conducting an "independent" or objective investigation of Israel is preposterous.

A careful reading of the official media summary—the widely quoted press release—of the report itself reveals the bias of its members and discredits the entire enterprise.

The summary never criticizes Hamas. It downplays the rockets deliberately fired by Hamas at Israeli civilian targets in Sderot and other towns and cities, blaming them on generic “Palestinian armed groups.” It faults Israel more than Hamas for using human shields. It cites the admission of Hamas leader Fathi Hammad, who boasted that:

“For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed humans shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: “We desire death like you desire life.””

But it concluded that “it does not consider [this admission] to constitute evidence…” It ignored videos, which constitute hard evidence, that clearly show Palestinian terrorists firing rockets from civilian areas, including schools. This was part of a pattern of ignoring evidence that undercut its pre-determined conclusions and exaggerating—sometimes manufacturing—evidence that supported it.

The lowest blow and the worst canard contained in this lie-laden report is that the Israeli judicial system is incapable of conducting investigations and bringing about compliance with international law. It claims that the Israeli judicial system “has major structural flaws that make the system inconsistent with international standards,” and that “there is little potential for accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law through domestic institutions in Israel.” This is a direct attack on the Israeli Supreme Court by a lawyer who knows full well that there is no country in the world that has a judicial system that demands more accountability than the Israeli system does. There is no judicial system in the world—not in the United States, not in Great Britain, not in South Africa, not in France—that takes more seriously its responsibility to bring its military into compliance with international law. The long term President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Professor Aharon Barak, opened the Supreme Court of Israel to all claims of law violation. Cases that would be rejected by the courts of other nations have been pursued by the Israeli Supreme Court. This part of this infamous report has literally turned black to white and white to black. It has condemned the most responsive judicial system in the world, without even bothering to compare it to other systems. In doing so, they have made a mockery of international human rights and turned into a weapon that targets only Israel.

Another Orwellian “newspeak” conclusion is that “the international community has been largely silent” about alleged Israeli abuses in the Gaza and the West Bank. Didn’t the investigators even read the reports of the Human Rights Council, as well as so many other organizations of the international community, that obsess over Israeli imperfections, to the exclusion of other real human rights abusers? No country in the world has been subjected to more criticism than Israel. Yet on Planet Goldstone “the international community has been largely silent” about Israel. This statement could only have been written by a variation of the three monkeys with hands covering their eyes and ears, but not their mouths or pens.

After reading these perverse falsities, I fully expected the report to end by parroting the Swedish tabloid that accused Israeli soldiers of killing Palestinian children in order to sell their organs. Shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

Every serious student of human rights should be appalled at this anti-human rights and highly politicized report. Judge Richard Goldstone should be ashamed of himself. In an apparent effort to curry favor with the international anti-Israel establishment, and perhaps with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, he has abandoned all principles of objectivity and neutral human rights. He no longer deserves the mantle of a human rights advocate. He has done more to destroy the credibility and objectivity of human rights than any credible human rights personage in modern times.

In addition to presiding over a biased and bigoted report, Goldstone has been two-faced. In an op ed published by the New York Times following release of the report, he is far more critical of Hamas than he was in the report itself. The Times article was intended for an American audience, so he went out of his way to create the false impression that the report was balanced in its allocation of blame.

If the methodology and conclusions of this infamous report were ever applied generally to democracies seeking to combat terrorists who hid behind civilians—as in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq—it would constitute a great victory for terrorism and a defeat for democracy. But not to worry. The report is not intended to establish general principles of international law, applicable to all nations. It is directed at one nation and one nation only: the Jew among nations—Israel. For shame.

< top >

How could Goldstone's commission rely on such questionable testimony?

By Barry Rubin

The United Nations-sponsored Goldstone report, created for the purpose of bashing Israel over the Gaza war with phony claims of “war crimes,” is possibly the most inaccurate document ever produced by that organization.

In fact, several commission members declared the defendant guilty before being selected; sections of the report echoed previous ones by groups known for their bias; virtually all the data included are unverified claims by politically committed Palestinians who view Israel as an enemy to be destroyed; and scores of specific items can be shown to be false.

For example, the report accepts the claims of Palestinian groups regarding civilians killed despite the fact that detailed studies show many of those so listed were Hamas gunmen according to these groups' own publications. Similarly, the report claims attacks were not against military targets when Hamas has published obituaries of its soldiers killed in said targets.

The report also repeats claims that a mortar shelling near a school in Jabalya was aimed at the school, this despite a Globe and Mail correspondent's published findings that reports of shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate, and the fact that Israeli spokespeople asserted that their forces had only returned fire from gunmen in the vicinity of the school. As in other cases, the blame belongs to Hamas, which used the school and civilians as human shields for its soldiers there.

Imagine a war in which one side (Hamas) openly declares it will wipe out the other (Israel). Imagine that this regime officially refers to its enemies (Jews) as sub-humans responsible for everything evil in history. Imagine this regime is effectively a dictatorship, punishing anyone who contradicts its positions.

Now, imagine an outside group combining the naive and sympathizers, which in effect says: Tell us how evil and terrible your enemy (i.e., would-be victim) is. We will write it all down and use it to isolate, demonize and punish them. What do you expect the result will be?

That is what has happened. Witnesses made propaganda against Israel; the UN collated, endorsed, and broadcast it.

Consider the testimony of the most moderate Palestinian witness, Dr. Iyyad El-Sarraj, a Gaza psychologist. He claimed that Israeli soldiers view Palestinians as demons, are never restrained and kill children or fathers in front of their children; that Israelis build statues to honour those who kill Palestinians; that a Jewish settlement mayor told him he wanted to make Palestinian workers there “put signs on their shoulders,” the equivalent of the yellow star Nazis made Jews wear; and that Israelis identify with Nazis.

Justice Richard Goldstone and the commission challenged none of this. In fact, the only grain of truth proves the opposite: When some settlers built a monument to a Jewish terrorist, the army tore it down.

Anyone who heard this testimony – and there was much worse – should conclude that such individuals are so intent on furthering their cause that they make up things and are unreliable witnesses. Instead, the commission based its findings on such information.

Aside from a campaign to put sanctions on Israel, what is the report's effect?

First, damage to the cause of peace.

• If Israelis are such monsters, why should Arabs or Palestinians make peace with them?
• If Israel is being portrayed as evil, why shouldn't the Palestinian side do nothing and wait for the world to force Israel to give up everything, even to help destroy it?

Second, it encourages repression, war and real war crimes.

• If Hamas's strategy of attacking Israel makes Israel hated and isolated, why not continue doing so?
• If Hamas can use civilians as human shields and hospitals, mosques and schools as fortresses, then gain political victory by having the enemy branded as a war criminal for attacking them, it will continue doing so and others will copy the practice.
• If Hamas can repress its people, teach anti-Semitism, and encourage terrorism daily while being granted victim status by the world, it will even intensify this behaviour.

This report is a disaster for human rights and peace.

Barry Rubin is director of the Israeli-based Global Research in International Affairs Center.

< top >

by Alan M. Dershowitz
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

There are many things wrong with the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in order to punish the people of Gaza.

First, its primary conclusions are entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact. Second, it defames one of the most moral military forces in the world, along with one of the most responsive legal systems and one of the freest nations in the world when it comes to dissent. Third, it destroys the credibility of “international human rights,” and proves that this honorable concept has been hijacked for political purposes directed primarily against one nation—Israel.

But fourth, and most important, it has set back prospects of peace by making it far more difficult for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. When Israel was considering its withdrawal from Gaza, some critics predicted that the transfer of Israeli troops out of this dangerous area would encourage terrorists to fire rockets at Israeli civilians who live in close proximity to the Gaza Strip. Those who favored the withdrawal argued that if Palestinian terrorists were to fire rockets from the unoccupied Gaza, Israel would have a perfect right to do whatever it took militarily to stop its civilians from being targeted by enemy rockets. They pointed out that every country has the right to self defense under the United Nations Charter and under the rules of international law. (I favored the withdrawal, as did many liberal supporters of Israel and believed that Israel had the military capacity to respond to any rocket attacks.)

As soon as the Israeli army left the Gaza Strip, Hamas decided to launch rocket attacks on Israeli civilian targets. The Hamas website proudly proclaimed, “The Zionist Army is afraid that the Palestinians will increase the range of the new rockets, placing the towns and villages in the [Zionist] entity in danger.” These Hamas rocket attacks increased over the years until more than a million Israelis were within range. Thousands were traumatized, dozens were injured and several were killed by the thousands of anti-personnel rockets that targeted children, women and other civilians. As candidate Barak Obama said when he went to visit Sderot, the town most devastated by these unprovoked Hamas war crimes:

“The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if…If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israel to do the same thing.” - US President Barak Obama

Israel protested these rocket attacks to the United Nations, but to no avail. They increased in frequency and range.

The citizens of Israel, especially those in range of the attacks, demanded that their army protect them and not wait until a rocket hit a school bus filled with children or a nursery. Since most of the rockets were fired while children were on route to or just beginning their classes, the risk of a cataclysmic tragedy were considerable. Finally after enduring years of rocket attacks, Israel decided to undertake military action to stop them.

Just before the hostilities began, Israel offered a carrot and a stick: it reopened a checkpoint to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It had closed the point of entry after the checkpoint had been targeted by Gazan rockets. (On several prior occasions, Hamas rockets had targeted Israel points of entry through which aid had been provided. It was as if Hamas was deliberately trying to manufacture a humanitarian crisis. Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, also issued a stern, final warning to Hamas that unless it stopped the rockets, there would be a full-scale military response.

This is the way Reuters reported it:

“Israel reopened border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, a day after Prime Minister warned militants there to stop firing rockets or they would pay a heavy price. Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shafts from Gaza at Israel on Friday. One accidentally struck a house in Gaza, killing two Palestinian sisters, ages 5 and 13. [T]he deliveries could ease the tensions that might have led to a military action to end the rocket attacks. Palestinian workers at the crossings said fuel had arrive for Gaza’s main power plant and about a hundred trucks loaded with grain, humanitarian aid and other goods were expected during the day.”

Finally in desperation Israel launched an attack designed to stop the rockets. It succeeded in large part though some rocket attacks have continued. Because Hamas fired its rockets from behind human shields, it was inevitable that there would be civilian casualties, despite Israeli efforts to reduce them by making hundreds of thousands of phone calls and leaflet drops warning civilians to stay out of the streets.

Goldstone’s one-sided condemnation on Israel will make it far more difficult for Israeli leaders to persuade their citizens to remove their soldiers from the West Bank. Rockets fired from the West Bank would endanger far more Israeli civilians and threaten to close the Ben Gurion Airport. Israel now knows that if it were to try to defend itself against such rockets, it would once again be condemned by the United Nations. It will now be far more difficult for Israelis who oppose a continued presence of Israeli troops on the West Bank to persuade a majority of Israelis that the army can protect them even if they leave the West Bank, without incurring the wrath of the international community.

The effect, if not the intent, of the Goldstone report will be to keep Israeli troops in the West Bank longer. President Obama was right when he said that “the first job of any nation is to protect its citizens.” The Goldstone report has made it virtually impossible for the Israeli army to protect its citizens against rocket attacks from territory that is no longer militarily occupied. It encourages Israel’s enemies to provoke Israeli self-defense measures, which they know will produce condemnation of the Jewish state. This is a great tragedy, for Israelis, for Palestinians and for all who favor a two-state solution and an end to the occupation.

< top >

Sep. 21, 2009

By JONATHAN D. HALEVI, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

On September 15, 2009, the UN investigating commission known as the Goldstone Commission published its conclusions regarding Israel's Gaza operation (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009), accusing Israel of violating both international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, and committing war crimes.

In response, the Israel Foreign Ministry issued an official statement accusing the commission of bias and one-sidedness, and of ignoring the thousands of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians which, Israel claimed, made the military operation an absolute necessity. "The one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission, and the resolution that established it, gave serious reasons for concern.... At the same time the report all but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into an arena of battle," said the ministry.

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended?

The commission never asked about Palestinian war crimes

Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN Web site provide reliable evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth. Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. They never asked about:

1. Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings.
2. Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighborhoods when IDF soldiers were operating in or near the area.
3. Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by the IDF despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area.
4. Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF units.
5. Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs.
6. Planting various types of anti-personnel and improvised anti-vehicular bombs near houses and detonating them;
7. Sniping and firing heavy machine guns at Israeli soldiers within residential areas.

None of the statements taken by the commission (as posted on the UN Web site) reported even a single instance of the presence of armed Palestinians, or of Palestinians firing rockets at Israel or shooting at IDF soldiers operating in the Gaza Strip.

There was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, which occur with the most disciplined armies. We can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire. In fact, the statements reported that throughout the entire three weeks of fighting there was no significant Palestinian resistance.

The commission did not press the witnesses in order to elicit more information and did not confront them with the reports issued by the terrorist organizations themselves, which detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. It did not adequately examine Palestinian rules of engagement - or the lack of any such rules. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity, casting doubt on their reliability.

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, and posted the questions and answers on the commission's website. The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission:

Statements from the Silawi family

Three members of the Silawi family were interviewed by the commission: Moussa al-Silawi (91, blind), Sabah al-Silawi (Moussa's wife) and Mouteeh al-Silawi, a Hamas official.

The most detailed statement was that of Mouteeh al-Silawi, deputy director of the Hamas administration's Muslim Religious Endowments Ministry for the northern Gaza Strip, who said he was giving a sermon when the mosque was attacked on January 3.

He claimed that there was no military activity in the Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque or around it during the attack. Worshipers came to the mosque seeking a safe haven on the assumption that it was a secure place. The evening and night prayers were said one after another to prevent unnecessary movement of worshipers outside the mosque. Israel committed a war crime in violation of international law by attacking civilians in a mosque, the witness said.

The commission members did not ask about armed men in the mosque, whether it was used for military purposes or incited worshipers to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel. They did not ask if there were weapons in the mosque, if armed men were operating near the mosque, whether Hamas and its Izzadin Kassam Brigades controlled the mosque and used it to recruit operatives, or the identity of the casualties and their organizational affiliation (including members of the Silawi family).

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that the casualties in this incident were terrorists and included members of the Silawi family, who were represented to the commission as innocent civilians. Among them: Ibrahim Moussa Issa al-Silawi; Omar Abd al-Hafez Moussa al-Silawi; Sayid Salah Sayid Batah; Ahmed Hamad Hassan Abu Ita; Muhamad Ibrahim al-Tanani; Rajah Nahad Rajah Ziyyada and Ahmed Assad Diyab Tabil.

Statement of Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar

Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar represented himself to the commission as the director-general of Hamas's Ministry of Muslim Religious Endowments. He said he had been detained in Israel in 1992 for belonging to Hamas.

He told the commission that his house was "unjustly" blown up by the IDF. He said he had received a telephone call warning him to evacuate the house from someone who identified himself as an IDF representative and that 20 minutes later his house was struck from the air.

Askar said a short time later the area around the Fakhura school was also bombed. The school served as a shelter for many Palestinians from Beit Lahiya, al-Salatin and al-Atatra, who regarded it as a safe haven because it was located in the middle of the refugee camp and it was flying the UNRWA flag. He said he saw three bombs hit the school region and he heard more. Two hit the house of the Diyab family, killing 11 people. Dozens of people were killed near the school and most of the casualties were children, Abu Askar said. There were no armed men in the area, as opposed to Israeli claims, he said. Two of his children, Khaled and Imad, were killed, as was his bother Raafat, all of them, according to Askar, innocent civilians.

Although Muhammad Fuoad Abu Askar admitted being a Hamas operative and having been detained by Israel, the commission did not think to ask whether he was connected with Izzadin Kassam. They did not ask him whether those killed near the school belonged to any organization or were military-terrorist operatives.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that contrary to his claims, he and his sons were directly and closely linked to Izzadin Kassam, a connection that included providing terrorists with weapons and ammunition, and that there were a number of terrorists in the Fakhura school area, including Mohammad Fuoad Abu Askar himself and Khaled Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar, Mohammad's son. Another son, Ahmed, was killed on July 7, 2006, when he tried to launch an anti-tank missile at an IDF unit, and yet another son Osama was critically wounded fighting the IDF on October 13, 2004.

Others terrorist operatives killed in the same Fakhura school incident included: Bilal Hamzah Obeid, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Raafat Abu Askar, a military-terrorist operative in the security services with the rank of warrant officer; Osama Jemal Obeid, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Iyad Jaber Aman, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Abd Muhammad Abd Qudas, a Fatah operative active in Palestinian Military Intelligence; and Atia Hassan al-Madhoun and his son, Ziyad al-Madhoun, operatives in the Brigades of National Resistance, the military-terrorist wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Statements of Wail and Salah al-Samouni

Wail and Salah al-Samouni described the shelling of Wail's house, where the extended Samouni family had sought shelter and where more than 20 people were killed.

They told the commission: At about 5:30 a.m. on January 5, Wail left the house with other men to bring wood for a fire. As soon as they left the house a helicopter filed a missile at them and then a number of missiles at the house. After the house was hit the wounded proceeded toward Salah a-Din Street and were refused medical attention by IDF soldiers. Salah claimed that the soldiers fired shots over their heads to frighten them and make them leave more quickly. They said there was no activity of armed Palestinians around the house. Salah al-Samouni said that "everyone is a farmer, I swear to Allah that everyone is a farmer," and rejected the possibility that they were armed or wanted.

The commission did not ask about the identity of the dead Palestinians and about the possibility that some of them were terrorists. It did not challenge their claim that there were no armed Palestinians in the area, despite reports by both Palestinian terrorist organizations and the IDF about exchanges of fire in the area.

In addition, the commission did not press the witness about his claim that the soldiers did not provide medical attention, in contradiction of a statement given by a female member of the family who told the NGO B'Tselem that the soldiers had given them medical aid.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that Wail and Salah al-Samouni hid important details from the commission that could shed light on the event. An examination of their statements and the statements of other members of the Samouni family to human rights organizations and published in Palestinian newspapers raises questions as to the veracity of their version of what actually happened on January 5.

Members of the family repeatedly claimed that all the people in the house were ordinary civilians. However, at least three were affiliated with Islamic Jihad. Meisa al-Samouni did not tell B'Tselem that her husband, Tawfiq Rashad Hilmi al-Samouni, who was killed on January 5, was an Islamic Jihad terrorist. She and the other members of the extended family, including Wail and Salah (who gave statements to the Goldstone Commission), never mentioned or hinted that other family members in the house at the time were Islamic Jihad operatives, among them Muhammad Ibrahim Hilmi al-Samouni and Walid Rahad Hilmi al-Samouni. A Islamic Jihad flyer noted that Muhammad and Walid al-Samouni were active in fighting against the IDF in the Zeitun neighborhood.

An Islamic Jihad poster commemorating Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni is captioned: "He [Muhammad], along with the mujaheed Walid Rashad al-Samouni, blew up the tank, causing the deaths of a number of Zionists, as admitted by the enemy, on the first night of the ground invasion during the war south of the Zeitun neighborhood."

Statement of Khaled Muhammad Abd Rabbo

Khaled Abd Rabbo reported on the deaths of two of his children on January 7, 2009. Khaled lives in Jabalya, in a four-story house. He and his family did not leave it even when the ground fighting began, he said. He claimed he saw no activity of armed Palestinians in the area.

He said that on January 7 an IDF unit entered the area around his house and positioned tanks nearby. The soldiers used a megaphone to call the residents out of the house. They came out holding a white flag, and one of the soldiers got out of a tank and shot at his children for no reason. He said two of his daughters were killed, another was seriously wounded, and his wife was also wounded.

No questions were asked by the members of the commission, not about the events, or whether there was fighting in the area, or whether there were armed Palestinians.

Contrary to the claims made by Khaled Abd Rabbo, Palestinian sources reported on armed Palestinian activity in the area near the incident and on exchanges of fire between Palestinians and the IDF.

At the time Khaled claimed his daughters were shot by IDF soldiers, four other Palestinians were killed nearby: Ibrahim Abd al-Rahim Suleiman, 19, an Izzadin Kassam operative; Shadi Issam Hamad, 33, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine operative; Muhammad Ali al-Sultan, 55, an Izzadin Kassam operative; and Ahmad Adib Faraj Juneid, 26, another Izzadin Kassam operative.

An Izzadin Kassam report reveals information about the exchange of fire between the IDF and armed Palestinians in the area where Khaled Abu Rabbo's daughters were killed, and its closeness in time to the events he reported. His version and the Izzadin Kassam Web site provided similar descriptions of the advance of IDF armored vehicles into the area at the same time.

However, Abu Rabbo did not tell the UN commission about the exchanges of fire between IDF and Izzadin Kassam. The possibility cannot be ruled out that his children were caught in the crossfire and may have been killed by Palestinians.

AS WE can see from a detailed analysis of freely accessible Palestinian sources (in Arabic), competing explanations exist that counter the claims of the Palestinians who testified before the Goldstone Commission. At the same time, questioning by the members of the commission proved to be superficial and was ill-suited to elicit the truth about events in Gaza.

Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi is the research director for the Orient Research Group and a research fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Halevi previously served as a senior adviser for political planning in the Foreign Ministry and as head of the data and information branch in the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. This article is an edited version of a Jerusalem Issues Brief for the JCPA, written in conjunction with the Global Law Forum sponsored by the Legacy Heritage Fund.

< top >