President Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Not surprisingly there was a lot of negative reaction on the right, but many on the left also felt that the award was premature, and given more for “not being George W. Bush” then for any particular substantive change in American policy. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, I do believe that the best way to counter the impression that our President does not deserve the prestige the Nobel Peace prize bestows is to take actions going forward which promote peace and oppose war and the crimes which invariably accompany it. So I have a suggestion for Mr. Obama.
Please don’t work with Israel’s government to suppress consideration by the UN’s Human Rights Council of the Goldstone Report on war crimes committed by both Hamas and Israel’s military in the recent conflict in Gaza. Show the world that it doesn’t matter to America who is responsible for war crimes, either our purported enemies, or one of our oldest allies in the Middle East because we as a country should condemn all war time atrocities regardless of our relationship to the parties involved.
What is the Goldstone Report? Funny you should ask:
(cont.)
Compiled by a four-member international fact-finding mission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, the report covered war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, the 22-day Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip in December-January during which an estimated 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died. The report recommends that Israel and the Gaza authorities investigate alleged war crimes and, should that not happen within six months, that the UN Security Council should pursue prosecutions.
So, what precisely did the Goldstone Report find was deserving of further investigation by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority regarding the conflict in Gaza, with potential prosecutions by the UN Security Council to follow should the parties resist doing what any civilized nation should do? Quite a lot actually:
C. Facts investigated by the Mission, factual and legal findings.
The Occupied Palestinian Territory: the Gaza Strip.
1. The blockade.
27. The Mission focused (chap. V) on the process of economic and political isolation imposed
by Israel on the Gaza Strip, generally referred to as a blockade. […]28. The Mission holds the view that Israel continues to be duty-bound under the Fourth
Geneva Convention and to the full extent of the means available to it to ensure the supply of
foodstuff, medical and hospital items and other goods to meet the humanitarian needs of the
population of the Gaza Strip without qualification.2. Overview of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip and casualties.
29. Israel deployed its navy, air force and army in the operation it codenamed “Operation Cast
Lead”. […]30. Statistics about Palestinians who lost their lives during the military operations vary. Based
on extensive field research, non-governmental organizations place the overall number of persons
killed between 1,387 and 1,417. The Gaza authorities report 1,444 fatalities. The Government of
Israel provides a figure of 1,166. The data provided by non-governmental sources on the
percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent and raise very serious
concerns about the way Israel conducted the military operations in Gaza.31. According to the Government of Israel, during the military operations there were four
Israeli fatalities in southern Israel, of whom three were civilians and one a soldier. They were
killed by rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups. In addition, nine Israeli soldiers
were killed during the fighting inside the Gaza strip, four of whom as a result of friendly fire.3. Attacks by Israeli forces on government buildings and persons
of the Gaza authorities, including police.32. The Israeli armed forces launched numerous attacks against buildings and persons of the
Gaza authorities. […] Statements by Israeli Government and armed forces representatives justified the attacks arguing that political and administrative institutions in Gaza are part of the “Hamas terrorist infrastructure”. The Mission rejects this position. It finds that there is no evidence that the Legislative Council building and the Gaza main prison made an effective contribution to military action. On the information available to it, the Mission finds that the attacks on these buildings constituted deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law whereby attacks must be strictly limited to military objectives. These facts further indicate the commission of the grave breach of extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. .33. The Mission examined the attacks against six police facilities, four of them during the first
minutes of the military operations on 27 December 2008, resulting in the death of 99 policemen
and nine members of the public. Overall, the approximately 240 policemen killed by Israeli
forces constitute more than one sixth of the Palestinian casualties. […]34. […] The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited
among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a
civilian law-enforcement agency. […] The Mission accepts that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life […] and therefore violated international humanitarian law.4. Obligation on Palestinian armed groups in Gaza to take feasible precautions to
protect the civilian population and civilian objects.35. […]On the basis of the information gathered, the Mission found that Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations and launched rockets from urban areas. It may be that the Palestinian combatants did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population. The Mission found no evidence, however, to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.
36. […]The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital
facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military
activities or that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes.
On the basis of its own investigations and the statements by United Nations officials, the Mission
excludes that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from United Nations
facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations. The Mission cannot, however,
discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups were active in the vicinity of such United
Nations facilities and hospitals. While the conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of
itself, constitute a violation of international law, Palestinian armed groups, where they launched
attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of
Gaza to danger.5. Obligation on Israel to take feasible precautions to protect the civilian
population and civilian objects in Gaza.37. […]The Mission acknowledges the significant efforts made by Israel to issue warnings through telephone calls, leaflets and radio broadcasts, and accepts that in some cases, particularly when the warnings were sufficiently specific, they encouraged residents to leave an area and get out of harm’s way. However, the Mission also notes factors that significantly undermined the effectiveness of the warnings issued. These include the lack of specificity and thus credibility of many pre-recorded phone messages and leaflets. The credibility of instructions to move to city centres for safety was also diminished by the fact that the city centres themselves had been the subject of intense attacks during the air phase of the military operations. The Mission also examined the practice of dropping lighter explosives on roofs (so-called roof knocking). It concludes that this technique is not effective as a warning and constitutes a form of attack against the civilians inhabiting the building. Finally, the Mission stresses that the fact that a warning was issued does not relieve commanders and their subordinates of taking all other feasible measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants.
38. […] On 15 January 2009, the field office compound of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Gaza City came under shelling with high explosive and white phosphorous munitions. The Mission notes that the attack was extremely dangerous, as the compound offered shelter to between 600 and 700 civilians and contained a huge fuel depot. The Israeli armed forces continued their attack over several hours despite having been fully alerted to the risks they created. The Mission concludes that the Israeli armed forces violated the requirement under customary international law to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and method of attack with a view to avoiding and in any event minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
39. The Mission also finds that, on the same day, the Israeli armed forces directly and
intentionally attacked al-Quds hospital in Gaza City and the adjacent ambulance depot with
white phosphorous shells. The attack caused fires which took a whole day to extinguish and
caused panic among the sick and wounded who had to be evacuated. The Mission finds that no
warning was given at any point of an imminent strike. On the basis of its investigation, the
Mission rejects the allegation that fire was directed at the Israeli armed forces from within the
hospital.40. The Mission also examined the intense artillery attacks, again including white phosphorous
munitions, on al-Wafa hospital in eastern Gaza City, a facility for patients receiving long-term
care and suffering from particularly serious injuries. On the basis of the information gathered,
the Mission found a violation of the prohibition of attacks on civilian hospitals in both cases. The
Mission also highlights that the warnings given by leaflets and pre-recorded phone messages in
the case of al-Wafa hospital demonstrate the complete ineffectiveness of certain kinds of routine
and generic warnings.6. Indiscriminate attacks by Israeli forces resulting in the loss
of life and injury to civilians.41. The Mission examined the mortar shelling of al-Fakhura junction in Jabaliyah next to a
UNRWA school, which, at the time, was sheltering more than 1,300 people (chap. X). The
Israeli armed forces launched at least four mortar shells. One landed in the courtyard of a family
home, killing 11 people assembled there. Three other shells landed on al-Fakhura Street, killing
at least a further 24 people and injuring as many as 40. The Mission examined in detail
statements by Israeli Government representatives alleging that the attack was launched in
response to a mortar attack from an armed Palestinian group. While the Mission does not
exclude that this may have been the case, it considers the credibility of Israel’s position damaged
by the series of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the statements
justifying the attack. .42 […] The firing of at least four mortar shells to attempt to kill a small number of specified individuals in a setting where large numbers of civilians were going about their daily business and 1,368 people were sheltering nearby cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought. The Mission thus considers the attack to have been indiscriminate, in violation of international law, and to have violated the right to life of the Palestinian civilians killed in these incidents.
7. Deliberate attacks against the civilian population.
43. The Mission investigated 11 incidents in which the Israeli armed forces launched direct
attacks against civilians with lethal outcome (chap. XI). The facts in all bar one of the attacks
indicate no justifiable military objective. The first two are attacks on houses in the al-Samouni
neighbourhood south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house in which Palestinian civilians had been forced to assemble by the Israeli armed forces. The following group of seven
incidents concern the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to
a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the
Israeli forces to do so. The facts gathered by the Mission indicate that all the attacks occurred
under circumstances in which the Israeli armed forces were in control of the area and had
previously entered into contact with or had at least observed the persons they subsequently
attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status. In the majority of these
incidents, the consequences of the Israeli attacks against civilians were aggravated by their
subsequent refusal to allow the evacuation of the wounded or to permit access to ambulances.44. These incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli armed forces moving into
Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population. The
Mission found strong corroboration of this trend in the testimonies of Israeli soldiers collected in
two publications it reviewed.45. The Mission further examined an incident in which a mosque was targeted with a missile
during early evening prayers, resulting in the death of 15 people, and an attack with flechette
munitions on a crowd of family and neighbours at a condolence tent, killing five. The Mission
finds that both attacks constitute intentional attacks against the civilian population and civilian
objects.46. From the facts ascertained in all the above cases, the Mission finds that the conduct of the
Israeli armed forces constitutes grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of
wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and, as such, give rise to
individual criminal responsibility. It also finds that the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of
Palestinian civilians is a violation of the right to life.47. The last incident concerns the bombing of a house resulting in the killing of 22 family
members. Israel’s position in this case is that there was an “operational error” and that the
intended target was a neighbouring house storing weapons. On the basis of its investigation, the
Mission expresses significant doubts about the Israeli authorities’ account of the incident. The
Mission concludes that, if a mistake was indeed made, there could not be said to be a case of
wilful killing. State responsibility of Israel for an internationally wrongful act would, however,
remain.8. The use of certain weapons
48. Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white
phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission […] finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas. Moreover, doctors who treated
patients with white phosphorous wounds spoke about the severity and sometimes untreatable
nature of the burns caused by the substance. The Mission believes that serious consideration
should be given to banning the use of white phosphorous in built-up areas. As to flechettes, the
Mission notes that they are an area weapon incapable of discriminating between objectives after
detonation. They are, therefore, particularly unsuitable for use in urban settings where there is
reason to believe civilians may be present.49. While the Mission is not in a position to state with certainty that so-called dense inert
metal explosive (DIME) munitions were used by the Israeli armed forces, it did receive reports
from Palestinian and foreign doctors who had operated in Gaza during the military operations of
a high percentage of patients with injuries compatible with their impact. DIME weapons and
weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently
stands, but do raise specific health concerns. […]9. Attacks on the foundations of civilian life in Gaza: destruction
of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations,
sewage treatment plants and housing.50. The Mission investigated several incidents involving the destruction of industrial
infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing (chap.
XIII). […]52. The Israeli armed forces also carried out a strike against a wall of one of the raw sewage
lagoons of the Gaza wastewater treatment plant, which caused the outflow of more than 200,000
cubic metres of raw sewage onto neighbouring farmland. The circumstances of the strike suggest
that it was deliberate and premeditated. […] It found no grounds to suggest that there was any
military advantage to be had by hitting the wells and noted that there was no suggestion that
Palestinian armed groups had used the wells for any purpose. Considering that the right to
drinking water is part of the right to adequate food, the Mission makes the same legal findings as
in the case of the el-Bader flour mill. […]53. During its visits to the Gaza Strip, the Mission witnessed the extent of the destruction of
residential housing caused by air strikes, mortar and artillery shelling, missile strikes, the
operation of bulldozers and demolition charges. […] The conduct of the Israeli armed forces in this respect violated the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and amounted to the grave breach of “extensive destruction… of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”. The Israeli armed forces furthermore violated the right to adequate housing of the families concerned.54. […]The facts ascertained by the Mission indicate that there was a deliberate and systematic policy on the part of the Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites and water installations. .
10. The use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.
55. The Mission investigated four incidents in which the Israeli armed forces coerced
Palestinian civilian men at gunpoint to take part in house searches during the military operations
(chap. XIV). […] The Mission concludes that this practice amounts to the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and is therefore prohibited by international humanitarian law. It puts the right to life of the civilians at risk in an arbitrary and unlawful manner and constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment. The use of human shields also is a war crime. The Palestinian men used as human shields were questioned under threat of death or injury to extract information about Hamas, Palestinian combatants and tunnels. This constitutes a further violation of international humanitarian law.11. Deprivation of liberty: Gazans detained during the Israeli military
operations of 27 December 2008 to 18 January 200956. During the military operations, the Israeli armed forces rounded up large numbers of
civilians and detained them in houses and open spaces in Gaza and, in the case of many
Palestinian men, also took them to detention facilities in Israel. In the cases investigated by the
Mission, the facts gathered indicate that none of the civilians was armed or posed any apparent
threat to the Israeli soldiers. […].57. From the facts gathered, the Mission finds that numerous violations of international
humanitarian law and human rights law were committed in the context of these detentions.
Civilians, including women and children, were detained in degrading conditions, deprived of
food, water and access to sanitary facilities, and exposed to the elements in January without any
shelter. The men were handcuffed, blindfolded and repeatedly made to strip, sometimes naked, at
different stages of their detention..58. In the al-Atatra area in north-western Gaza, Israeli troops had dug out sandpits in which
Palestinian men, women and children were detained. Israeli tanks and artillery positions were
located inside the sandpits and around them and fired from next to the detainees. .59. The Palestinian men who were taken to detention facilities in Israel were subjected to
degrading conditions of detention, harsh interrogation, beatings and other physical and mental
abuse. […]60. In addition to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and violation of due process rights, the cases
of the detained Palestinian civilians highlight a common thread of the interaction between Israeli
soldiers and Palestinian civilians which also emerged clearly in many cases discussed elsewhere
in the report: continuous and systematic abuse, outrages on personal dignity, humiliating and
degrading treatment contrary to fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and
human rights law. The Mission concludes that this treatment constitutes the infliction of a
collective penalty on these civilians and amounts to measures of intimidation and terror. Such
acts are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and constitute a war crime.12. Objectives and strategy of Israel’s military operations in Gaza
61. The Mission reviewed available information on the planning of the Israeli military operations in Gaza, on the advanced military technology available to the Israeli armed forces and on their training in international humanitarian law (chap. XVI). […] Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.
62. The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with
previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the
Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the
causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to
civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it
witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely
what was put into practice.63. In the framing of Israeli military objectives with regard to the Gaza operations, the
concept of Hamas’ “supporting infrastructure” is particularly worrying as it appears to transform
civilians and civilian objects into legitimate targets. Statements by Israeli political and military
leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza indicate that the Israeli military
conception of what was necessary in a war with Hamas viewed disproportionate destruction and
creating maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve not
only military but also political goals.64. Statements by Israeli leaders to the effect that the destruction of civilian objects would be
justified as a response to rocket attacks (“destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired”) indicate the
possibility of resorting to reprisals. The Mission is of the view that reprisals against civilians in
armed hostilities are contrary to international humanitarian law.13. The impact of the military operations and of the blockade
on the people of Gaza and their human rights65. The Mission examined the combined impact of the military operations and of the blockade on the Gaza population and its enjoyment of human rights. The economy, employment opportunities and family livelihoods were already severely affected by the blockade when the
Israeli offensive began. […]66. In this precarious situation, the military operations destroyed a substantial part of the
economic infrastructure. […] The continuation of the blockade impedes the reconstruction of the
economic infrastructure that was destroyed.67. The razing of farmland and the destruction of greenhouses are expected to further worsen
food insecurity despite the increased quantities of food items allowed into Gaza since the
beginning of the military operations. Dependence on food assistance increases. Levels of
stunting and thinness in children and of anaemia prevalence in children and pregnant women
were worrying even before the military operations. The hardship caused by the extensive
destruction of shelter […] and the resulting displacement particularly affects children and women. The destruction of water and sanitation infrastructure […] aggravated the pre-existing situation. Even before the military operations, 80 per cent of the water supplied in Gaza did not meet the World Health Organization’s standards for drinking water. The discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater into the sea is a further health hazard worsened by the military operations.68. The military operations and resulting casualties subjected the beleaguered Gaza health
sector to additional strain. Hospitals and ambulances were targeted by Israeli attacks. […]
While the exact number of people who will suffer permanent disabilities is still unknown, the Mission understands that many persons who sustained traumatic injuries during the conflict still face the risk of permanent disability owing to complications and inadequate follow-up and physical rehabilitation.69. The number of persons suffering from mental health problems is also bound to increase.
The Mission investigated a number of incidents in which adults and children witnessed the
killing of loved ones. Doctors of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme gave
information to the Mission on psychosomatic disorders […]. They also told the Mission that 20 per cent of children in the Gaza Strip suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders.70. Children’s psychological learning difficulties are compounded by the impact of the
blockade and the military operations on the education infrastructure. […].
72. The Mission acknowledges that the supply of humanitarian goods, particularly foodstuffs,
allowed into Gaza by Israel temporarily increased during the military operations. The level of
goods allowed into Gaza before the military operations was, however, insufficient to meet the
needs of the population even before hostilities started, and has again decreased since the end of
the military operations. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission believes that Israel has
violated its obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital objects,
food and clothing (article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Mission also finds that
Israel violated specific obligations which it has as the occupying Power and which are spelled
out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as the duty to maintain medical and hospital
establishments and services and to agree to relief schemes if the occupied territory is not well
supplied.73. The Mission also concludes that in the destruction by the Israeli armed forces of private
residential houses, water wells, water tanks, agricultural land and greenhouses there was a
specific purpose of denying sustenance to the population of the Gaza Strip. […] The Mission, moreover, finds violations of specific human rights provisions protecting children, particularly those who are victims of armed conflict, women and the disabled.74. The conditions of life in Gaza, resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces
and the declared policies of the Government of Israel – as they were presented by its authorized
and legitimate representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the
military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the
people of the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.75. […] From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have
been committed.
So what anti-Semitic individual chaired the commission that produced this report? Would you believe he is a Southb African Jurist and a Jew, and highly respected by the International community? Here’s his bio from the UN’s website:
Richard J. Goldstone was born on the 26th October 1938. After graduating from the University of the Witwatersrand with a BA LLB cum laude in 1962 he practised as an Advocate at the Johannesburg Bar. In 1976 he was appointed Senior Counsel and in 1980 was made Judge of the Transvaal Supreme Court. In 1989 he was appointed Judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. From July 1994 to October 2003, he was a Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He is presently a Global Visiting Professor at NYU Law School and from August 2003 will occupy the Mulligan Chair at Fordham Law School in New York City.
From 1991 to 1994, he served as Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation which came to be known as the Goldstone Commission. He is also Chairperson of the Standing Advisory Committee of Company Law. From 15 August 1994 to September 1996 he served as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda . During 1998 he was the chairperson of a high level group of international experts which met in Valencia, Spain, and drafted a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities for the Director General of UNESCO (the Valencia Declaration). From August 1999 until December 2001he was the chairperson of the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo. In December 2001 he was appointed as the chairperson of the International Task Force on Terrorism that was established by the International Bar Association.
From 1985 to 2000, Justice Goldstone was National President of the National Institute of Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO). He is chairperson of the Bradlow Foundation, a charitable educational trust, and heads the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA).
The many awards he has received locally and internationally include the International Human Rights Award of the American Bar Association (1994) and Honorary Doctorates of Law from universities in Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa , the United Kingdom, and the United States. He is an Honorary Bencher of the Inner Temple, London, an Honorary Fellow of St Johns College, Cambridge, an Honorary Member of the Association of the Bar of New York, and a Fellow of the Weatherhead Centre for International Affairs of Harvard University. He is a Foreign Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Since 1996, he has been a regular member of the faculty of the Salzburg Seminar.
His daughter also emigrated to Israel. So why has he and the report his commission produced (which does condenmn many of practices of Hamas, which I left out because of space limitations and because the number of charges against the Israeli offensive and blockade far exceeded those alleged to have been committed by Hamas)? And why has the United States joined in the condemnation of the Goldstone Report, one which even the Times of London says in its headline “Justice Goldstone’s report nails both sides”. I think we know the answer to that question. The Obama administration is apparently unable or unwilling to cross AIPAC and Israel’s government, despite the massive evidence of war crimes committed by the Israeli government and its military forces with respect to its military operations in Gaza at the end of 2008 and earlier this year. Instead, our government sought to coerce the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas into seeking a deferment of the Report by the Human Rights Council. All this does is make the United States repeat the past mistakes of unconditionally defending Israel’s actions , a policy that has earned us little trust or good will in the Islamic world to which Obama has made it a point to reach it and engage.
Indeed,it’s hard to see how the actions of the Obama administration in this case are different in any regard than those of its predecessors, including the Bush administration. This is not the change we need in the world. Much like the refusal to investigate war crimes committed by 0emmbers of the former Bush administration this reeks of hypocrisy and a sell out of long term American interests (for it is in our interest to see a world in which International courts can indict and convict war criminals) for short term political expediency. Mr President, you can’t be awarded the Nobel peace prize and then actively work behind the scenes to allow war crimes to go unpunished. Deferring justice only increases the anuimosity of much of the world toward our country and feeds the flames of fanaticism, the same flames that blew back upon our nation and those who died on September 11th. Indeed, it dishonors them and all victims of terrorism and violence, whether carried out by criminal organizations like Al Qaeda or by sovereign nations such as Israel, and yes, the United States during the Bush years.
It’s time to start reversing that cycle, time to promote the ideals we claim to uphold, by strengthening the rule of law, both at home and on the international stage. Your administration’s actions to thwart justice and defer legal action against Israel and Hamas for what occurred in Gaza is a blot on your reputation, but more than that a serious error in judgment which will work against your efforts to rebuild our reputation in the world and make diplomacy and negotiations the principle means of settling international disputes. Do the right thing sir. Publicly endorse the findings of the Gladstone Report and stop trying to sweep it under the rug of history. For hiding the dirt of crimes against humanity never makes it go away. It just creates a breeding ground in which the seeds of further conflicts can grow.
