Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Goldstone Report and the allegations against Israel

By Sharene Hambur - posted Friday, 23 October 2009


The council has been widely criticised both within the UN and externally, including by Secretaries-General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. On November 29, 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson has expressed regret for what she called the council's practice of "adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics".

As outlined by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General Gal, the new UNHRC has passed more than 25 resolutions about Israel: more than all of the resolutions devoted to other countries, combined. Out of the nine UNHRC special sessions devoted to specific countries, five have been dedicated to the state of Israel and four to the rest of the world; that is to the 191 nations on earth.

Advertisement

Not surprisingly, Israel declined to participate in Goldstone’s investigation in an official capacity, although it did not stand in the way of its citizens affected directly by thousands of Hamas rocket attacks. Noam Bedein of the Sderot Media Centre who was in Melbourne just a few months ago speaking on the effect of rocket attacks on Sderot’s children and Dr Mirela Siderer from Ashkelon, disfigured after a rocket attack on her clinic, both testified to the investigation.

The “fact-finding” continued from Geneva to the Gaza Strip, where Goldstone conducted public hearings in Gaza. Given Hamas’ brutal and violent rule, these kangaroo courts were a set-up. For any Gazan to publicly speak out against Hamas shooting rockets from their house or child’s school, as was evidenced daily during Operation Cast Lead, would most certainly result in death. Witnesses could not be expected to be able to speak freely and the process could only bring one outcome: total and utter condemnation of Israel. The total lack of impartiality in the resulting Goldstone Report was most evident in its pages: of the 575 pages of the report just a few were about Hamas attacks on Israel. Such limited reference to Hamas terrorism has tainted the entire report and its process.

Dr Siderer, who travelled to Geneva following the reports release, publicly challenged Richard Goldstone for ignoring her testimony.

Palestinan President Mahmoud Abbas originally agreed that time was needed to examine the report and that it should be revisited in March 2010. When Abbas recently u-turned on sending the report to the UN Human Right Council for yet another anti-Israel resolution, it was only for political reasons - pressure from inside his own Fatah party and Hamas.

Yesterday Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu signalled the need to change the laws of war, to deal with the “expansion of terrorism in the world”. The Goldstone report and the subsequent resolution to the UN effectively disempowers nations from defending their own citizens in the face of ongoing terrorist attacks.

The Goldstone Report failed in two critical ways: it legitimised and rewarded a terrorist regime, while undermining chances to kick-start peace negotiations, most recently the fledgling tripartite meetings between United States President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Advertisement

How can Israel possibly be expected to move forward in these circumstances?

Fair-minded and rational individuals, indeed all democratic nations, should be more than alarmed at the consequences of the UNHRC endorsement. The UNHRC resolution undermines and endangers Israel’s very basic right to defend its citizens from terror. The ramifications will be global. The international community should now be carefully considering what this means for other western nations defending their citizens from terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Terrorists cannot be afforded the right to self-defence. Anything less is an absolute human rights failure.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Sharene Hambur is Acting President of the Zionist Council of Victoria and its Honorary Secretary. She is also Vice President of The Union for Progressive Judaism and a councillor of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy