UN Gaza probe – Israel needs to participate
Many of the arguments in the public domain about foreign policy, are predicated around why this policy was undertaken. This is but one dimension of the foreign policy debate and ignores more practical concerns. What was done, can have an equal or greater impact as to why. If one but considers the US torture policies under the Bush-Cheney Administration, regardless of justification, it is the actual policy being implemented that has lasting impact. In relation these policies as applied in Guantanamo, for example, I can easily and fully comprehend why the actions were taken there, what troubles me is what was done. The same is equally as true in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I can comprehend why Hamas fires rockets at Israel. I may even have sympathy, however I cannot support what they do. The same is equally true in relation to Israel. I can understand why they attacked Gaza, what troubles me is what they did, and the way they did it. The fact that they refuse to cooperate in an investigation of the issue is an error. It assumes that why the action was undertaken supersedes what was done, and that is a very slippery moral slope indeed.
The United Nations says a team of independent experts mandated to probe alleged war crimes in Israel and Gaza will leave for the Middle East over the weekend.
UN spokesman Rolando Gomez says the mission led by veteran prosecutor Richard Goldstone is expected to start its work next week.
Gomez told reporters in Geneva Friday that Goldstone has repeatedly asked the Israeli government to cooperate with his mission.
Israel said Friday that it will not cooperate with a United Nations team appointed to investigate alleged war crimes committed during its 22-day offensive in Gaza.
“This committee has been instructed to find Israel guilty no matter what and there is no point in cooperating with such a masquerade,” said Foreign Ministry Spokesman Yigal Palmo
UN probe of Gaza war to begin next week – Haaretz – Israel News.
Much of the defense for Israel’s actions that one sees in the debate, is based on supporting the why – it was in response to the rockets, we had to stop the rockets and so forth. I understand that, the logic is not a challenge. What I have concerns over is the ‘what’ and ‘how much’. Further, whether you are a supporter of Israel or in opposition, the policies as undertaken were ineffective to further either side’s agenda. In pursuing a blunt military response to asymmetrical non-state insurgents, civilian casualties are a given. No matter how careful the prosecuting state, children, women and non-combatants are by default going to get caught in the cross-fire. There is also the debate about disproportionate use of force. Some claim this is a fallacious argument as modern warfare is by definition disproportionate. There are others that claim the use of the word disproportionate implies that Israel’s military response was acceptable, not just heavy-handed. Again, this leans more to the side of the why, rather than dealing with the real issue which is the what can be done. and so doesn’t address any potential for resolution
What Israel did in the Gaza was also ineffective in terms of achievement of objectives. Their military action did not, and in fact could not, remove the Hamas threat. The root cause of the conflict has not been addressed, and has, perhaps, even been exacerbated by the Israeli actions. The Israeli militaryaction may have motivated its political base, which many cynics believe was the agenda behind the attacks, however, it has also hardened anti-Israeli opinion in many regions around the world. Israel did not ‘win’ the war in the Gaza, any more than Hamas did. It was a mutual loss that resulted in deaths and injuries that will, quite probably, lead to further deaths as each side harden in intransigence.
It is necessary to separate the why and the what, because it makes it much less complex to search for a solution. The Indian Foreign Minister, Mukherjee, made a point of importance in a recent interview in relation to India-Pakistan tensions. He said, ‘We cannot change our neighbor. They will always be there, as we will always be here. What we have to work on is the relationship. We cannot affect the geographic proximity.’ I do not always (or often, to be frank) agree with what Mukherjee says, but in this simple homespun statement cuts to the nub of the problem, and there are learning here for both the Israelis and the Palestine people. Neither is going away. Neither has anywhere else to go. Violence and killing is not achieving, and can’t achieve, the objectives that either wants. Now having understood the why’s of the conundrum , what both sides need to focus on is what can they do to reach resolution, and an investigation showing excesses or breach of international law is a critical step in that direction.
