Gaza: The Stain Remains on Israel's War Record
The Netanyahu government is doing everything it can to interpret a recent
Washington Post op-ed article
by Justice Richard Goldstone as vindication of Israel's conduct in the
2008-09 Gaza conflict. It is nothing of the sort.
HWR Executive Director, Kenneth Roth: "Goldstone has not retreated from the report's allegation that
Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war."
Israel's reluctance to
confront that reality finds a parallel in its refusal to date to
conduct credible investigations into the serious violations of the laws
of war that it committed in Gaza. The Goldstone article does not relieve
it of the obligation to pursue those investigations.
As is well known, Goldstone led a UN commission that issued a detailed and damning report on the
Gaza war,
finding that both Israeli and Hamas forces committed war crimes.
In his
article, Goldstone backed away from a particularly controversial charge
in the report – the allegation that Israel had an apparent high-level
policy to target civilians. He now says that information from Israeli
investigations indicates "that civilians were not intentionally targeted
as a matter of policy".
Goldstone was right to make that amendment. Human Rights Watch also
investigated some of the cases in which Israeli troops fired at and
killed Palestinian civilians. In seven cases, for example, Israeli
troops killed a total of 11 Palestinian civilians who had been waving white flags
to signal their civilian status. In six other cases, Israeli drone
operators fired on and killed a total of 29 Palestinian civilians,
including five children, even though drone technology offers the
capacity and time to determine whether the targets were combatants.
Deeply troubling as these cases were, they were too isolated for us to
conclude that the misconduct of individual soldiers reflected a wider
policy decision to target civilians.
But Goldstone has not retreated from the report's allegation that
Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war.
These attacks included Israel's indiscriminate use of heavy artillery
and white phosphorus
in densely populated areas, and its massive and deliberate destruction
of civilian buildings and infrastructure without a lawful military
reason. This misconduct was so widespread and systematic that it clearly
reflected Israeli policy.
What has Israel done to redress these violations? Mainly, it has
investigated the common soldier while leaving the top brass and
policymakers untouched. Israel's investigations look good only by
comparison with Hamas, which has done nothing at all to investigate its
war crimes. The Hamas justice minister responded to the Goldstone
article by attempting to justify deliberate rocket attacks on populated
areas of Israel as part of the "right of self-defence of the Palestinian
people" – a position wholly at odds with the laws of war.
As for Israel, a recent UN report mentioned in Goldstone's article
found that the Israeli military has examined the conduct of individual
soldiers in about 400 cases of alleged operational misconduct in Gaza.
But the report raised serious questions about the thoroughness of these
investigations. When Human Rights Watch scrutinised Israel's
investigative response, we found that military prosecutors had closed
some cases in which the evidence strongly suggested violations of the
laws of war.
To date, Israeli military prosecutors have indicted only four
soldiers and convicted three. Only one soldier has served jail time –
seven and a half months for stealing a credit card.
Most important, Israel has failed to investigate adequately the
policy-level decisions that apparently lie behind the large-scale
indiscriminate and unlawful attacks in Gaza. Those decisions are
obviously the most sensitive because they involve senior officials, not
just troops on the ground.
Part of the problem is that the military has been asked to
investigate itself – never an ideal way to arrive at the truth.
Moreover, the person leading the military investigations – Israel's
military advocate general – probably took part in the policy decisions
that should be investigated. That's why a genuinely independent
investigation is needed, as Israeli human rights groups have requested.
The Netanyahu government's eagerness to bury the Goldstone report is
understandable, but the report will live on. Even after Goldstone's
article, the report still represents a serious indictment of the way
Israel and Hamas chose to fight the war in Gaza. The open question is
whether the two sides will live up to their duty to investigate these
charges credibly and to bring violators to justice. We all know that
Hamas hasn't done what is needed. The theatrics in Jerusalem cannot hide
the fact that so far Israel hasn't either.