Three cheers for the Washington Post

Yesterday the Washington Post editorialized in War Unchecked (h/t Prof Avi Bell):

IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.

Was that toll “disproportionate” to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?

These observations give some background for what comes next: a harsh repudiation of the Goldstone report.

A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.

But Israel refused to cooperate — and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that “disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy” by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.

The contrast between the events described in the opening two paragraphs and the reaction to Israel’s war against Hamas could not be clearer. The editorial correctly infers that Israel is being held to an impossible standard.

I could quibble with the editorial. How could the Post’s editors describe Judge Goldstone as “respected” at this point, even as they show his absolute disregard for any legal standards? And did the Post’s editors really expect anything else? After all if the investigation was about establishing international standards shouldn’t the commission have investigated NATO’s war against the Taliban or even the war against Serbia from a decade ago? Clearly the commission was convened specifically to hamstring Israel’s efforts to defend itself.

Still this shouldn’t take away from the importance of the editorial. The editorial should also serve as a rebuke to put upon NGO’s like Human Rights Watch. If they were true to their mission they wouldn’t have uncritically endorsed Goldstone. Rather Goldstone was doing their work for them; giving the imprimatur of the UN on a condemnation of Israel. What matters to HRW, is not the methods but the conclusion. If the conclusion damns Israel, it must be correct. Fortunately the editors of the Washington Post are more discerning.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.