2 excellent responses to Goldstone

The Wall Street Journal – The U.N.’s Anti-Antiterror Report

After a brilliant opening analogy and laying out the sordid histories of the UN’s Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Commission – as well as some of the commission’s blind spots – the editorial nails the main issue:

The Goldstone report includes some pro forma condemnation of Hamas’s behavior, but Hamas leaders quickly endorsed the findings because they know they have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court or any other special tribunal. Hamas violates the laws of war as a matter of daily routine, not least in the murder of Palestinian dissenters. The U.N. report can only hurt a Western nation like Israel that cares about world, or at least American, opinion.

In the end the editorial brings up the more universal problem: that which applies to Israel could be applied to the United States in its war on terror.

Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren contributed an op-ed to the Boston Globe that starts with that point (though as a hypothetical). In the middle Oren makes this important point:

Despite Hamas’s cynical use of civilians as human shields, the Israel Defense Forces repeatedly called off operations deemed too dangerous to civilian populations and endangered its own troops by warning Palestinian neighborhoods of impending attacks. Yet even the most moral army can make mistakes, especially in dense urban warfare; for every Serbian soldier killed by NATO in 1999, for example, four civilians died. By comparison, more than half of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza were military. Still, Israel launched investigations into some 100 cases of alleged misconduct by its soldiers, 23 of which continue. If found guilty, as one soldier already has been, the perpetrators will be brought to justice under Israel’s internationally respected legal system.

Finally Oren returns comes to his point:

Ironically, the greatest victim of the UN report is not Israel’s ability to wage a moral war but its willingness to make an historic peace. If asked to take immense risks for peace, Israelis must be convinced of their internationally recognized right to self-defense should that peace be broken. Deprived of that right, even after being subjected to years of murderous rocket attacks, an Israeli electorate will understandably recoil from such risks.

Both are worth reading.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.