Why Palmer did so much better than Goldstone
Gerald Steinberg and Gidon Shaviv explain why the Palmer Commission report is so much less biased than the Goldstone Report. Aside from the obvious (panel makeup and mandate), they come up with this. Finally and most importantly, the methodology and sources which the two commissions relied upon were entirely different. The Palmer report, as per its mandate, was based mainly on reports submitted by the governments of Israel and Turkey. As a result, the analysis was informed by numerous details and a credible summary of the events. Where the Palmer Commission could not fully reconcile or verify the submissions, they modestly acknowledged this fact.At least in the case of Israel's report, that's because the Israeli report was an official government commission of inquiry which did not rely on NGO's - the IDF sent witnesses to the civilian Terkel Commission. There was much discussion at the time about who should be sent and whether anyone should be sent at all from the IDF. By contrast, after Operation Cast Lead, the government refused to set up a non-military investigation at all.
The Goldstone Report however, relied heavily on submissions from highly politicized, mainly pro-Palestinian NGOs. The claims and so-called eyewitness testimony, quoting Palestinians whose allegations could not be verified, resulted in highly dubious conclusions. Highly distorted NGO analyses of international law were also reflected in the controversial interpretations of law in the Goldstone report. The weight given to such suspect sources is evidenced by over 500 references to NGOs in Goldstone’s publication, while Palmer cited NGOs in three places, without accepting their claims.
We have a great military justice system, but to the rest of the world, the IDF investigating the IDF isn't always going to pass a smell test. Perhaps, if a commission is made up of non-military people whose credentials are unquestioned, like the Terkel Commission, such a commission is not a bad idea.
UPDATE 3:30 PM
I've corrected the last paragraph to make clear that I meant that the Terkel Commission was not a bad idea for Israel.
Labels: Goldstone Report, Palmer Commission, Terkel Committee
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:25 PM
1 Comments:
"Perhaps, if a commission is made up of non-military people whose credentials are unquestioned, such a commission is not a bad idea."
Are you talking about the Turkel commission here, or the Palmer panel?
I can't believe that if there had been an impartial person with real military experience on the Palmer panel, they could not have concluded that the IDF used excessive force, or that the deaths and injuries of 'activists' were inexplicable.
Palmer et al. seem to have forgotten that after the THIRD helicopter of commandos arrived - when there were about 35 able-bodied IDF, it still took more than 20 minutes for them to take the bridge. That indicates the extent of the resistance they met.
The word test doesn't come up until after I submit without one. Annoying.
Post a Comment
<< Home