Red Hands for Hamas, Red Faces for the Left.

                                                                Jay Stoll

Almost 20 years ago, United Nations Resolution 4686 was passed. Now, usually, you wouldn't bother to trawl through the motions passed at the UN.. you would usually just pick out a couple of highlights for what the resolution would be remembered by, the crucial new guidelines, the headline takers. Yet this resolution can be seen underneath in its entirety:

"The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975."

What was resolution 3379 then? Well... it was the UN motion, that lasted for 16 years, declaring that Zionism was Racism. Arguably, its revocation on December 16th 1991 was undoubtedly the greatest Public Relations victory for Israel since the triumph of 1967.  The results can be seen, again, underneath, through little efforts to decipher how unanimous the calls for its passage were (the countries in green voted yes, those in red, no):

111 in Favour, 25 Against.

This week, the world has seen yet another hugely questionable source for the delegitimization of Israel shut down. Richard Goldstone, whose  UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza Conflict of December 08/January 09 was greeted by the 'Europeanall-knowingleftistunderallcircumstancesIsraeliswrong' with such biblical esteem, has been slammed as naive, mistaken and full of regret, by no other than the man who chaired proceedings himself, Richard Goldstone.  Here are some of the direct quotes from his article in the Washington Post:

• "The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion"
• civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy
• I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes
• We were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas.
• That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
• In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.
• Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas.
• The laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.

Ok.. so. Where do we go and what do we learn? 

First and foremost, a general point. None of the above goes any way to negating the fact that what happened in Gaza in 2008/9 was an absolute tragedy. Hundreds of women and children died, the circumstances surrounding their deaths remain as material and of equal importance as before Goldstone's revocation. This has to be said and has to be maintained, Israeli human rights abuses in the conflict, such as the use of White Phosphorous in civilian areas, cannot go unchallenged. Yet, somewhat thankfully, it seems from what Goldstone has said that Jerusalem has since co-operated, having internal investigations, similar to that of the Chilcott Inquiry into Iraq in the UK, and has gone some way to exploring new measures for warfare in such densely packed civilian areas. 

The UN needs to seriously look not only at revoking the Goldstone Report, but at a major shake-up of its Human Rights council, which up until this year had human-rights luminaries, such as Libya, determining the behaviour of countries such as Israel, deemed as free by human rights groups such as Freedom House. There is an appalling and obsessive bias against Israel. Earlier this term, I was lucky enough (sic) to join an audience with George Galloway. As i asked him whether he thought some of the claims made against Israel by the UNHRC were flawed due to its composition, he responded by telling me that "he did not know whether to laugh or cry at my suggestion". In retrospect, and especially with this U-turn by Goldstone, I see absolutely no reason but to laugh or cry at his pathetic response.

 The failure in the Goldstone report to provide an adequate assessment of what went on in Gaza is in part, borne out of the hugely incapable UN Human Rights Council, who this week chose to side-step the fact that Syrians were being mowed down in their streets and homes by their government by stating,  “Deeply concerned at the suffering of the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan due to the systematic and continuous violation of their fundamental and human rights by Israel since the Israeli military occupation of 1967.” 

Absurd doesn't begin to cover it.

For Israel, the lessons are clear. Goldstone still maintains that if Israel had co-operated fully at the time, then we could have reached fairer conclusions earlier.  Lesson to be drawn is it's better to fight Israel's cause during investigation rather than counter subsequent conclusions by the UN that have already been 

officially adopted. Israel must behave like a responsible democracy if it wants to be seen like one. By not co-operating immediately, it shot itself in the foot and allowed the pursuit of delegitimization to thrive. It surely cannot afford to do this again.

For the Palestinians, frustration and helplessness will inevitably greet this report by Goldstone. By revealing the report as flawed, there remains no substantial international investigation into the events of Cast Lead and in essence no justice truly served to the perpetuators. Commendably, Goldstone notes, Fatah launched several investigations into their treatment of Hamas members in the West Bank, yet nothing remotely similar has formulated on the other side of the country. The opinion polls emerging from the Strip are that the support for Hamas is at an all-time low. There has never been a greater time for elections and the facilitation of a cohesive Palestinian unit that could truly pursue self-determination and a state of their own.

The new statement has shown that Cast Lead and the seemingly eternal tribulations of the Middle East must be judged, not by one-tracked media reports, not by evocative personal accounts, not by a flawed UN 'Human Rights' Council, not by the apologists for Hamas (Galloway et al), but by truthful historical assessments and fair political committees that will strive hold those necessary by account, but more crucially provide the way for reconcilliation in the region. Goldstone has clearly recognized his mistakes, that is not where this saga should end.