This is the first of at least three posts tonight that will deal with the Goldstone - Gold debate I just saw at Brandeis. The first one is my liveblog notes of the debate. The second will include video of the entire debate, which is being uploaded to YouTube as I am typing this. The third one will be my general comments about the debate.
I am going to post my raw notes of the debate in the interest of getting them up quickly, and then I will go back and add links, so if you see something you don't understand, hang in there. Here we go:
I was hoping to liveblog this debate, but my wireless is acting up again and so I am typing into a Word document as things go along, and hopefully will find a way to upload later.
Security was much less tight than I thought it would be. I entered through an entrance that was neither ‘ticketed’ nor ‘general admission.’ They asked for an ID, I showed them a photo ID and told them I was ‘media.’ They asked what media, I said I was a blogger. The police officer asked for the name of my blog, and I was in. I’m sitting upstairs in the media section, but there are a lot of people here who are clearly not media. The funny thing is that it says “no cameras or cell phones” and as soon as you walk in there is a whole row of television cameras filming the entire event.
For those wondering about Mr. Sussman (the gentleman from SDS whose email I published at the beginning of the week, and which was cited by Caroline Glick in her Friday column) and his ilk, I have been told that the university has threatened to severely sanction anyone who disrupts this event.
I just noticed that there’s a cameraman from Israeli Channel 10 filming next to me…. Well, I didn’t get interviewed.
I’m sitting next to a Reuters correspondent and just ran into an old friend whose daughter is here covering for JPost. The friend said that the line to get in wrapped around the building twice.
Brandeis’ President Reinharz is giving an introduction about how the university seeks truth and how they have always hosted people on both sides. Goldstone will speak first, Gold second. He says that there is substantial agreement on the underlying principles involved in the Goldstone report.
The event is being streamed all over the world.
Reinharz makes the connection between Israel’s fight with Hamas and America’s fight with terrorists who melt into the civilian populations. Brandeis students and faculty will get priority in questions. He asks for civility during the speeches.
Daniel Terrace is introducing Goldstone. Professor Ilan Trohn is hosting the event with him. This is not a debate. But the format of the event is ‘illumination, not confrontation.’ Terrace will moderate the question and answer session at the end and then the speakers will give closing comments. This event is part of a continuing conversation on campus, and Professor Terrace asks again for civility.
Most important development in international law in the last two decades is development of protections for the world’s most vulnerable people. He talks about Goldstone’s background. Goldstone is a familiar figure at Brandeis. Goldstone gets a standing ovation from about five rather vocal older people in the second row.
Goldstone says he’s grateful to Dore Gold for agreeing to participate. He says that it’s to Israel’s credit that it’s concerned about many of the accusations in the Gaza report. Israel is a democracy that is committed to human rights. He says that the same cannot be said about Gaza (note – he does not refer to Hamas). He hopes to avoid the ‘personal attacks’ and then launches into a rant about all the personal attacks against him resulting from the Gaza report.
Four core and fundamental issues:
Human Rights Council’s record: Unfortunately, some members are human rights offenders and they impact the HRC’s record as an arbiter of human rights. He decries the disproportionate focus on Israel and notes that Kofi Annan also complained of the disproportionate focus on Israel. He notes that at the Council’s most recent session in Geneva they adopted resolutions relating to other countries but regrettably refused to investigate war crimes in Sri Lanka. He believes US sitting on HRC is a positive step.
His mandate: He says that the mandate he accepted was not biased against Israel. The original mandate was biased against Israel. As you all know, the mandate was never legally changed. He’s telling the story of the ‘new mandate.’ The Nigerian ambassador to the HRC asked him how he would word an even-handed mandate. Goldstone wrote out the mandate and the Nigerian ambassador – President of the HRC – asked him to accept that mandate. He said that it was the first even-handed HRC mandate in the Middle East. He quotes from the mandate he wrote. It is limited to 27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009 whether before during or after. He says that he hoped Israel would go along with the mandate, and that HRC adopted the ‘whole report,’ including that Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He complains that they were not allowed to visit southern Israel and they were not allowed to go to the ‘West Bank’ either. He said he spoke to the Israeli ambassador to the HRC, but the response was that the ambassador had no authority to meet with him and that the Israeli government was not prepared to cooperate with the HRC mission. He referred to the mandate. Goldstone responded that was not his mandate. He said that two months later he got a response to his letters to the Prime Minister and to his request for reconsideration in which it was said that there would be no cooperation. He cites an article from Haaretz October 28 citing Yitzchak (Isaac) Herzog saying that not cooperating with Goldstone was a mistake.
What the mandate included: Violations of human rights and humanitarian law (what used to be called the laws of war). He says that Israel has the right to protect its citizens under international law and that it has the duty to do so. The mandate did not call on them to evaluate the right to use military force, but whether the manner in which it was used was consistent with international humanitarian law. He said that they conducted 50 phone calls with witnesses in southern Israel in addition to the interviews they conducted in Geneva. The rocket attacks terrorized women and children every day of their lives. He refers to militants who fired rockets who committed serious war crimes.
It’s not a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and did not use criminal evidence standards. He said that the journalist from the Forward misunderstood him. He called for independent investigations in Israel and in Gaza.
He refers to the Dahiye doctrine explained by Gabi Eisenkot in 2006, who said that disproportionate force would be applied to any quarter from which rockets were being filed on Israel. He claims that’s a war crime. He cites Eli Yishai on January 6, 2009 saying that all of Gaza should be destroyed and homes should be razed to the ground. Goldstone claims that doctrine was applied in Operation Cast Lead. 5000 homes were destroyed. He notes high civilian death toll and huge number of homes destroyed. He complains of attacks on Gaza infrastructure – 200 factories. He lists flour mill, water supply, etc.
Unemployment in Gaza at 60% and 90% of people live on less than $1 per day. He cites Isaac Herzog again criticizing cabinet ministers’ remarks during the war as giving Goldstone ammunition. He cites comments again by Eli Yishai and Chaim Ramon [which were cited by Herzog. CiJ]. He says that response must be proportionate and up to now Israel accepted that.
Methodology: Relied on what they saw and were told. He complains that they were not informed of the Israeli government’s views.
As long as people are being treated without dignity there will be no peace.
He finishes. There was polite applause. Same people who stood up before applaud more vigorously.
Professor Ilan Tohrn introduces Dore Gold.
This is the first time that an Israeli of Ambassador Gold’s stature responds to any member of the Goldstone Commission. Israel argues that the official mandate was never rescinded by the HRC even if Goldstone objected to it. Canada, Japan and EU voted against the resolution. The number of states opposing the report has grown. He cites House resolution casting the report as biased 344-36. Condemnation of report is not narrowly based. The 575-page report emphasizes Israel and its bulk is about Israel.
Goldstone Report is the most comprehensive and damaging against Israel. There is nothing like it about Hamas or Palestinian society. Ambassador Gold has to explain why so many Israelis find this report so objectionable. He says that Gold must address the accuracy of the facts collected by the fact-finding mission and whether there are any facts it does not include. What alterations would Gold suggest and what suggestions would he offer. He asks the audience to extend the same attentiveness and courtesy that they extended to Goldstone.
Several people toward the back give a standing ovation. They just dimmed the lights – I’m not sure why. [Subsequently, I found out why: Gold was using slides and video for his presentation. CiJ].
Gold says the report is the most serious indictment of the State of Israel bearing the UN’s seal since the UN General Assembly adopted the Zionism is racism resolution from 1975. (There’s now a screen up with pictures of Gaza during the war – so far just one picture but let’s see if Dore’s going to show movies). Report delegitimizes Israel. He cites the weapons ship that was stopped on Wednesday morning with thousands of rockets. The UNHRC or any major UN body will not point out Iran’s constant involvement in human rights violations or war crimes against the State of Israel.
The IDF is not what appears in this report. The Israeli army for generations is taught to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. He cites the 35 who captured an Arab shepherd and released him (Students with signs are standing the front rows on the other side. They’re all dressed in black. I can’t see what the signs. Dore Gold addresses the interruption and says that the US fought a war seven years ago for freedom of speech and discussion). The IDF tells the story that even though the 35 were killed, but orders to kill civilians must be disobeyed. He talks about the Jenin refugee camp where there was house to house combat to minimize civilian casualties and 23 Israeli soldiers died. (There’s a slide presentation going along with this). Hamas used Shifa Hospital as a command and control center and Israel refused to attack it.
For that reason, the UN Gaza report has been condemned across the political spectrum in Israel. The commission inferred ill will where it was not warranted while Hamas – a terror organization – is almost protected throughout the text. Hamas appears as ‘Palestinian armed groups’ throughout the report. Moussa Abu Marzouk concluded – correctly – that the report acquits Hamas almost entirely. The report omits the fact that Cast Lead was a war of self-defense (applause). He quotes paragraph 18 of the report.
He cites Christine Chinkin’s letter to the Times of London on January 11, 2009 and quotes from the letter. The report claims Israel tried to punish Gaza from electing Hamas (paragraph 1884). He shows video of Kassam attack in Sderot.
By 2008, terror had spread as far away as Be’er Sheva. Shows direct hit on school in Be’er Sheva (picture). By 2008, nearly one million Israelis were under the reach of Hamas rocket fire. Israel withdrew from Gaza and rocket fire increased by 500% from 2005 to 2006. Hamas declared it was ending the quiet on December 19, 2008. There is no question of who committed aggression against whom. Israel went to war on December 27, 2008 to bring a halt to the rocket fire.
Report’s problem is the repeated claim that Israel deliberately killed Palestinian civilians. He puts up a slide with quotes from report. How do they reach these conclusions? Three ways:
Those ways were deliberate attacks against civilians, scope of destruction, attacks on public buildings. He puts up a military map of northern Gaza City of Hamas’ military positions embedded purposely inside civilian populations – shows red dots with white dots inside them, which were rocket launching sites. What would you do if your population was facing repeated rocket attacks for eight years and enemy has embedded its military capability within the civilian population? Your choices: indiscriminate attacks like Russia did in Chechniya, give up or try to separate Palestinian civilians from military capability. Israel chose the third means. They said that they would hit any house that stored rockets, but sent multiple warnings to the civilian population. They entered into radio transmissions, leaflets were dropped, and then there was an attempt to directly contact families through cell phones or home phones. He put up a message in Arabic with an English translation.
How do we know that they received those warnings? Here’s a Hamas TV clip and how Hamas tried to keep the civilians among the military. (I haven’t seen these before – this is impressive). He said that the Goldstone Report wanted proof that the Palestinians were forced to be human shields – that’s an impossible standard to meet. He shows the famous video that I have of Fathi Hamad telling a rally that they must act as human shields and how they desire death. There’s no separation between Hamas and the ‘armed elements’ that fight Israel. He talked about Israel redirecting missiles while putting up a slide about the Palestinian police station strike.
Does this sound like a country that engages in deliberate attacks against a civilian population? How can this be seen as consistent with the principle charge of the Gaza report that Israel deliberately attacked Palestinian civilians? The report views Palestinian policemen as non-combatants. But he shows that some of the Palestinian policemen were involved with al-Qaeda and another was involved with the murder of Americans in 2003.
He shows a Hamas map that shows that roughly 20% of the houses in northern Gaza City were booby-trapped. In some areas there were secondary explosions caused by Hamas.
He says that the report claimed that no mosques had weapons in them. He cites Travers from the commission in Harpers’ Magazine claiming that there was no evidence that mosques were used for munitions. Travers claims that this is a result of the idea that Islam is a violent religion. But he shows a video of a mosque with anti-aircraft missiles. He mentions Fallujah and the mosque attacked by Hamas that was full of Salafists.
Some of the sources that the report used felt the report went too far. He cites Jessica Montrell [of B'Tselem. CiJ] at HuffPo, “Breaking the Silence” which says that there were briefings by commanders to avoid civilian causalities, and finally he notes the reluctance of witnesses in Gaza to speak who seemed to be afraid of reprisals.
Gold concludes by putting Richard Kemp’s speech from the HRC meeting last month. Gold was excellent. There is a lot of applause and lots of people standing. I’m shocked at how many people were standing and applauding.
They are taking questions. President Reinharz throws out initial question. He asks about the 36 incidents that the mission investigated and asks Goldstone to give a sense of one or two of the incidents that make the most compelling case and why. Now there are three questions from the audience. First question is a student asking Ambassador Gold why the Israeli government has refused to launch an internal investigation, don’t Israelis deserve to know the truth. Second question, asks Ambassador Gold to address the question of disproportionate response and to look at the situation on its own without comparisons. The third question asks Judge Goldstone how this report can be considered fair and unbiased when Christine Chinkin was on the panel and was not removed from the investigation. All the questioners were students.
Justice Goldstone talks about what led them to the conclusion that civilians were intentionally attacked. He says that they chose the incidents – they were not given to them by Hamas. The one attack that affected him was the attack on the mosque in Gaza City during a service with over 300 people attending by a missile from IDF forces that killed 21 people and injured many more. He said that there were no secondary explosions, but even if there was, there is no permission under law to shoot at a mosque during services – it should have been done in the middle of the night when no one was there. The other example he cites was the demolition of the American school in Gaza City. He doesn’t understand why it was chosen – it was the center of anti-Hamas activity. He says there is no explanation for ordering a compound attacked with white phosphorus. He complains why the whole food infrastructure of Gaza was destroyed. If that isn’t collective punishment, what is?
Regarding Professor Chinkin, he says that everyone saw what was going on by watching al-Jazeera. He said that an occupying power cannot act in self-defense. He says that it didn’t matter – Israel could take military or police action to defend its population and that the letter added that Hamas had committed war crimes.
The microphone passes to Dore Gold who explains that in the Israeli military justice system does not allow any soldier, event etc. to escape investigation, and if the military advocate general won’t investigate, the attorney general can investigate and so can the Israeli Supreme Court. He has full confidence in the Israeli legal system. Of the 36 incidents, the IDF has never heard of 12 of them and is investigating them today. He doesn’t believe we need a new special investigation because of this report.
Gold discusses the al-Maqadmah mosque (the one Goldstone cited) and says that Israel did not attack the mosque. But how do we reconstruct a reality that is no longer with us? Do we know who was in the mosque? The web sites of Hamas tell us who was killed. But he believes that there are other possible outcomes that can be investigated through Arab websites. Israel didn’t attack that mosque.
He says proportionality is a legal doctrine and suggests that Goldstone explain it.
Goldstone complains that nine months after the allegations, the IDF is still investigating itself behind closed doors. So far there is only one conviction for the theft of a credit card and says that’s demeaning of the victims of Gaza (mild applause). He says that they found remnants of Israeli ammunition in the mosque.
Three more questions (all the questions are downstairs so I can’t ask). First question is for Justice Goldstone: If they had no access to the Israeli side, how could the report be unbiased and given that, why did they go ahead with the report? Second question is from a ‘Palestinian’ student who has a sign and is complaining that that the ‘Palestinian’ perspective is not being presented. So she asks Justice Goldstone how he feels since she feels disrespected in his name. Justice Goldstone said it’s not his question – it’s a question for the organizers. Third question is for Justice Goldstone and asks him to speak about conditions in Gaza both before the invasion and since.
Justice Goldstone says that he was saddened that they did not get Israel’s cooperation and asks why the information shown by Ambassador Gold was not shown to them during the investigation. He complains about Israelis having to be brought to Geneva and to Amman, Jordan to meet with the Commission. Goldstone says he would have liked to see a ‘Palestinian’ representative. This draws wild applause from the protest crowd. He talks about how he so feared being in Gaza. He said he feared being kidnapped and that Israelis would rejoice. He says that the people in Gaza were similar to the people in Israel, that they were warm etc. He talks about the conditions in Gaza and how people cannot rebuild their homes.
Dore Gold responds that there is no question that there was enormous damage in Gaza. But why doesn’t Hamas appear as a responsible party for what happened? (Applause). The report relates to ‘armed groups.’ Which armed groups? The report almost grants legitimacy to Hamas. He says that to invite the ‘Palestinians’ you’d have to decide whom to invite – Hamas or Fatah. He asks who started the war, who launched rockets, who booby-trapped homes. This war would never have happened if rockets were not fired at the State of Israel. Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 and had no desire to go back there. He says that huge amounts of goods and services running between Egypt and Gaza (mild applause). Why should Israel open its borders when it’s being pelted by rockets every other day? The report would have real credibility if it treated Israel fairly and if it pinned the blame on the leadership of Hamas who created this tragedy for the ‘Palestinian’ people.
There are three final questions. First is an Israeli PhD student. He asks Justice Goldstone: How would you suggest to states to respond to terrorist threats in the future and how would you suggest that Israel engage with Hamas? A second student question asks Justice Goldstone and asks about the Israelis who suffered from rockets for eight years, and wasn’t that collective punishment and where was your voice then? Third question is another student who asks Justice Goldstone what he would have considered a proportionate response to the rocket attacks on Sderot.
About the rules of war – proportionality has nothing to do with comparing what one side uses and what the other side uses. Rather it’s doing things in the way that causes the least possible casualties. Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip and it has a military wing. He said that they got an unsatisfactory response from Hamas. They asked Hamas from where the rockets were fired and were told that Hamas didn’t know because it’s from the military wing. They gave the same answer regarding Gilad Shalit. How to deal with that would make a good politics paper.
He says that we should read Chapter 24 of the report regarding the collective punishment of the people of southern Israel.
What is a proportionate response? He suggests commando operations but that costs lives. A proportionate response would be to bomb the places where Israeli intelligence has information that rockets and ammunition are being stored and if there is collateral damage, as long as it’s proportionate to the military aim, it would not be a war crime. But you can’t use anti-personnel weapons – that’s disproportionate.
Dore Gold responds that one of the central elements of our disagreement is how to treat Hamas. Do you recognize Hamas as legitimate or do you say that it’s a terror organization? In Afghanistan, the US decided to take down the Taliban regime. They set a principle that you cannot allow a terrorist regime to give sanctuary to terrorist organizations that attack civilians and commit war crimes. Hamas’ hosting terrorism and the report does not deal with it by referring to armed groups.
Summing up, Dore Gold. He brings comments back to UN and UNHRC. It’s no secret that they systematically mistreat the State of Israel. What are the rights of a minority state in the international system that repeatedly faces the majority in the UN? The UN will be judged on how it treats minorities. Israel is not in a position to be protected in the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council and that is a good enough reason for the State of Israel not to cooperate with this investigation (applause) and to leave the investigation in the hands of Israel’s military and civilian justice systems.
Justice Goldstone believes that Israel because of its isolation should have cooperated with an even-handed mandate. He questions whether the report has been condemned by all spectrums of Israeli society. He’s gotten lots of emails that say otherwise. He asks why the Israeli government made public overtures to the British and Dutch governments from financing Breaking the Silence. Finally, he still hopes that over Barak’s objections there will still be an ‘open investigation.’ He thanks Brandeis for living up to its reputation of speaking the truth.
I just want to remind all of you that I am in Boston, and that's why even though it is already the Sabbath in Israel, I am still able to post.
The people who got me into the debate last night were the people from One Jerusalem and I thank them for getting me in (and for committing to getting me in within minutes after word of the debate went out). They also facilitated my being able to post my summary of the debate last night; I went back to the One Jerusalem representative's hotel room to post while he uploaded video of the debate. That video may be found here, but I also have permission to embed it.
There are four videos. The first one is short, the other three are longer. Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the second one. This is Goldstone's presentation. Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the third one. This is Dore Gold's response. By the way, the time limit on their presentations was 20 minutes each and they both went over (Gold by a lot after - as I understand it - cutting a lot of his presentation) Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the fourth and final one, the Q&A session. Let's go to the videotape.
How well did Dore Gold do? I believe that the fact that after the first round, most of the questions were critical questions for Richard Goldstone is one indication of how well Gold's presentation went over. They said they would give preference to Brandeis students and they stuck to that (at least everyone who asked questions claimed to be a Brandeis student), so there were no 'professional' questioners, except for possibly one doctoral student. Obviously, I have no way of knowing how many people went in with open minds and how many went in with their minds made up. The fact that most of the questions were critical questions directed at Goldstone says a lot to me.
The most important point that Gold got across was that there was an awful lot of exculpatory evidence out there that Goldstone never even reviewed. Goldstone kept complaining that there was so much damage and how Israel 'must' have targeted homes, and Gold put up that map showing how 20% of the homes in northern Gaza City were booby trapped (something we heard during the war - recall the story of Aharon Karov). At the end of Gold's presentation, it was nearly impossible for anyone to believe that Goldstone had reviewed all of the evidence, and that the report was fair. If nothing else, Goldstone would have had to review the Israeli evidence for there to be any chance of the report being fair.
I want to emphasize again how pleasantly surprised I was by the crowd at Brandeis. Having viewed and blogged Ehud Olmert being shouted down in Chicago and San Francisco, I feared that the same thing would happen to Dore Gold at Brandeis. Frankly, I was surprised when the students stood up with the signs that they were not thrown out. But that was really the last disruption.
By the way, there was a picture of the three students standing in the second row on the right side last night (the same row from which someone commented here) in Friday morning's Boston Globe. One of them is named Lisa Hanania (she was also the woman who asked why no 'Palestinian' representatives were there), which just happens to be the same last name as the well-known 'Palestinian' comedian Ray Hanania. I assume they are related but she is apparently not his daughter (which was my first thought), since he lives in Chicago and has for many years while she grew up in... Tel Aviv. I found this blog post from a year ago that gives some background about her:
Perhaps the most interesting report was by Lisa Hanania, an Israeli Palestinian from Jaffa, who was educated in Tel Aviv. Hanania's comments on her Palestinian identity provide, I believe, a glimpse to what is in store for Israel, should a two-state solution be implemented. Hanania came to this trip as a Palestinian, though she did not grow up in the occupied territories, not even in the group of Palestinian town in the Galilee. She grew up in Tel Aviv. One should ask what will be the next stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after a two-state solution is implemented along the 1967 lines. What will be the reaction and what will such a change evoke in Palestinians with an Israeli identity.
The assumption that they will simply continue to accept their status as a minority in a Jewish state is no longer tenable, in my view. Hanania's self defined weak Palestinian identity is emblematic of how Palestinians wish to be perceived. Jaffa Palestinians with full rights of citizenship do not serve the Palestinian cause, so they are not presented as such. Palestinians should remain in the public image as being all disenfranchised. Once this changes, and Palestinians have rights within an independent state, this cannot but have affect on other forms of Palestinian identity.
Another sign for this was Hanania's insistence to name Hebron by its Arab name, Khalill (I think that's a wrong transliteration of the Arabic, but that's how it appeared in the report). I have no problem with Hebron being called Khalil in Arabic, Jerusalem being called Al-Quds, etc. But these are their Arabic names, and the report was written in English, and the English name derives from its biblical origin – Hebron. I would not expect a Frenchman to say England instead of Angleterre, when speaking in French. At the same time, if an Englishman writes a report in French, I expect him to write Londres, not London. Insisting on the Arabic within an English paper, is not only a sign of insecurity, it is also a way to fabricate history in the most Orwellian manner.
In other words, even if we give the 'Palestinians' a Judenrein (Jewless) state, the Lisa Hanania's of the world aren't going to be happy and aren't going to end their conflict with us.
One other comment (for now). Goldstone kept harping on the comments made by Eli Yishai and Chaim Ramon that were cited by Yitzchak (Isaac) Herzog in Haaretz. Yishai and Ramon are fools for making those comments. The next time, keep your mouths shut and do what has to be done. This is not the first time Ramon has made stupid comments.
In the "hand wringing" category, we have Haim Ramon. I have to be honest up front: Haim Ramon is one of my least favorite Israeli politicians. This goes back to an infamous Nightline appearance in November 1995 (in the aftermath of the Rabin assassination), in which he said the following regarding those who opposed the Oslo Accords:
"Maybe we can reach a consensus on some issues. But at the end of the dialogue, if we will not reach an agreement, we must agree on the one most important principle -- that the majority will decide, a democratic majority, and everybody, everybody, will respect it. And that those that are not going to respect it, from now on, will be crushed."
I don't know whether Ramon's understanding of minority rights in a democracy has improved since 1995. Somehow, I doubt it has. But since then, I have regarded Ramon as a fascist.
And you know what, I was probably right. But unfortunately, so long as he is a member of the government (which he isn't now but was in January), Israel can no more disavow Chaim Ramon than Hamas can disavow FathiHamad. So the next time we have to teach the government ministers to keep their mouths shut. And yes, that includes Yitzchak Herzog - no sense in airing our dirty laundry in public when there are people who will take advantage of it.
For those who arrived directly at this post, my liveblog of the debate is here and my first comments from immediately after the debate are here.
Richard Goldstone v. Dore Gold, the slides and videos
In my liveblog of the Richard Goldstone v. Dore Gold debate, I mentioned some slides and videos that former Ambassador Gold put up on a screen in the auditorium. You can now view those slides and videos here.
The entire presentation is really worth viewing, but I wanted to show you this map of Northern Gaza. Each red circle with a white star inside is a rocket launching site (Dore had this up on a huge screen so that the audience could see). Note how the rocket launching sites are in the middle of civilian areas.
And Goldstone wondered why there were civilian casualties given the preciseness of Israel's weapons.
Liveblog: Thin Ice – Criticism vs. Loyalty in Israel-Diaspora Relations
I mentioned that I was attending the President's conference here in Jerusalem. I am currently attending a session entitled Thin Ice – Criticism vs. Loyalty in Israel-Diaspora Relations. You can go here to see biographies of the panelists. Moderator is Shmuel Rosner, and panelists are Jeremy Ben Ami, Danny Dayan, Eric Yoffie, Fania Oz-Sulzberger and Diana Pinto.
Rosner introduces everyone. Ben Ami is the first speaker and immediately goes to how we talk about Israeli-'Palestinian' relations. Ben Ami rejects the notion that we are not loyal to those that they criticize, saying that loyal friends give criticism and advice (yes, but not in public). He rejects the notion that criticizing the government does not demonstrate disloyalty. He argues for wider doors (what a shock). He says it's a mistake for the government not to meet with organizations that disagree with it. He criticizes the hearings held in the Knesset on J Street. Ben Ami cites Peres warnings about no peace process and calls him 'captain of our ship' (but no one elected Peres). He claims that his opponents are trying to distract attention from a conversation about the path that Israel is on through discussions about loyalty.
Danny Dayan says that he was invited to balance Jeremy Ben Ami. Dayan wants to discuss boundaries of Jewish solidarity tent. 50-60 years ago you had the anti-Zionist bundt which was anti-Zionist but part of the Jewish solidarity tent. Today that's inconceivable. Today the boundaries are set by the litmus test of at least not being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. Neturei Karta and BDS are both outside the solidarity tent.
Does calling yourself pro-Israel make you part of the Jewish solidarity tent? Dayan argues that lobbying your government (i.e. US) not to veto an anti-Israel Security Council resolution makes you anti-Israel. An organization that endorses politicians who criticize Israel and are neutral about Hamas is not pro-Israel. You can imagine the rest - I can't believe Dayan is sitting next to Ben Ami.....
At the end Dayan says he wasn't talking about a specific organization, but it's clear that he was.
Being outside the Jewish solidarity tent is not as bad as attempting to infiltrate the Jewish solidarity tent. Ouch.
Rosner skips Yoffie and goes on to Oz-Sulzberger. Oz-Sulzberger says we have to be careful not to be hijacked by enemies of Israel. Please respect our differences of opinion and don't push us out. People who voice moderate, left-of-center Zionist opinions - Meretz to Kadima spectrum - are shunned by their Jewish congregation members. (Third sentence got much less applause than first). There should be no problem in lovingly critiquing our government. She applauds Facebook Judaism. She thinks this is good for the Jewish future.
Diana Pinto is next. She believes that we ought to be able to say what we think about Israel. She says there is more than one diaspora. There are Israelis who live abroad because they feel that their values are not being recognized in Israel. And then there are other Israelis abroad who are more loyal to Israel without carrying an Israeli passport and are making sure that moderate leftwing positions are frightening. (Dayan is looking more and more like a token on this panel, isn't he?).
Most of the debate about Israel-diaspora relations takes place in America. Pinto lives in Europe. God and ethnicity are absolute taboos in postwar Europe.
Eric Yoffie says that there are multiple Jewish diasporas. We are the most variegated people on earth. Supporting governments unconditionally is a mistake. Even Jewish governments are imperfect human creations. Only an anti-Semite can believe that Israel has always had the leadership it deserves. Neither right nor left believes it must unconditionally support Israeli governments - right didn't support some governments and left didn't support others. The story of the diaspora is the story of passionate particularism. We have to accept and support diversity.
But there have to be red lines. If it means everything, it means nothing. Diaspora communities entitled to say that there are some views that are outside the tent and government of Israel is entitled to set its own standards. He includes BDS and questioning every act of self-defense by Israel as being outside the camp. He says that supporting policies that prevent Israel from ever being Jewish and democratic also puts you outside the camp. Then he adds state of Israel action that delegitimizes reform and conservative Judaism.
Shmuel Rosner now asking short questions. He asks Ben Ami whether there is a difference between giving advice and lobbying foreign governments. Can you apply political pressure to Israel? Ben Ami says the question is relative and loaded and says he wants to answer a different question. He says that Jewish Americans have the right to express their opinion regarding American foreign policy. Obviously question directed at J Street and he says that J Street doesn't lobby US about pressuring Israel - he says that they lobby for a two-state solution. He ducked the question.
Asks Danny Dayan the same question. Dayan reads J Street attempt to lobby US government not to veto the Security Council resolution in February. Dayan addresses Yoffie's words and says that the reform movement was anti-Zionist and came in to the Zionist tent, but Ben Ami, on the other hand, knows that Dayan refuses to boycott J Street, but says he is having second thoughts over whether he should have met with J Street congressional delegation two weeks ago. He quotes Betty McCollum who justified rockets from Gaza and was endorsed by J Street, which undermines Israel's interests. He gets lots of applause for that.
Ben Ami responds that what's undermining the state of Israel is the settlement enterprise. Gets much less applause. He sees settlement enterprise as a threat. Dayan asks when J Street last did something that was just pro-Israel. Ben Ami says that they do it every time. Ben Ami claims that they lobbied for the Iran sanctions (that's a lie). Dayan reads J Street statement from Ben Ami and Trita Parsi, and Ben Ami claims it's being read out of context.
Rosner says that he couldn't say this wasn't predictable and moves on to a question to Oz-Sulzberger. She says that everything we say is being tweeted as we speak. Indeed. We need to be aware of that. She says brush up your English and don't play into anti-Israel hands.
Pinto says that we are too quick to reject criticism as anti-Semitism when it comes from non-Jews. She says that we have to play for the middle terrain.
Eric Joffie says we need to reach young people on campuses and we are not reaching them with arguments about black or white, in or out. He says that our young people want to hear us make the case for Israel in a loving, compelling way.
He opens the floor for questions. Asks that we keep questions short.
First question asks whether J Street lobbied against condemning Palestinian school books. Ben Ami says no.
President of Australian Zionist federation asks about BDS limited to 'West Bank.' Does J Street distinguish that from other BDS. Says he sees no distinction and says that J Street is opposed to 'West Bank only' BDS (that's a surprise).
President of J Street's Brandeis branch asks Danny Dayan how he justifies what he does in light of kids who are falling out of Judaism because they're turned off by Judaism and 'settlements.' Dayan says that they should come to Israel and see the country with their own eyes. He says that their next delegation should not take its members to see people who work full time to defame Israel. He says that he would not put people outside the tent just because they oppose 'settlements.'
Bizarre - Dayan says that the problem is that Jeremy Ben Ami is such a nice guy. He says that he felt solidarity with him the first time he met him. But no more.
Rosner asks Dayan how he would engage young Jews in diaspora communities with Israeli policies (and I'm sitting and thinking that Challah Hu Akhbar should be here for this). Dayan says that we have to fight ignorance and that he agrees with every word of Rabbi Yoffie. Dayan says that he is all in favor of opening reform communities in settlements - just come. But like Rabbi Yoffie said, you can't cross the red lines.
South African Zionist Federation delegate raises Goldstone. Asks Ben Ami why J Street went all out to introduce Goldstone to US Congress. Adds quick anecdote. They asked Goldstone whether he believed the Israeli government was responsible for war crimes and Goldstone said no.
Ben Ami responds that the Washington Times is an ideological newspaper and that they didn't try to introduce Goldstone to Congress. Funny - that's not what Colette Avital said.
Rosner asks for questions that aren't for Ben Ami. Lots of discussion about how to involve young people.
Last question: Nationalism is out of favor with young people and Zionism is Jewish political nationalism so settlement policies not what's turning off youth. Pinto responds that human rights and other international references aren't wrong and can't assume they're just a code word for Israel bashing and new anti-Semitism. Says we had better revise our notions. Can't throw principles away with misused realities behind them or we paint ourselves into ethnic corner.
Danny Dayan says that at the next conference we need to ask what the limits are of Israeli criticism of the diaspora - we have been avoiding that question for 60 years.
Joffie says bring young people to Israel because Israel sells itself.
End of panel. Have to find a place to charge laptop.
Liveblog - De-legitimization: Who is at Fault? Us or Them?
This is a liveblog of a panel discussion called De-legitimization: Who is at Fault? Us or Them? You can find details of the panelists here.
Abe Foxman will give the first opening remarks. Why us? Why are we treated differently from all other peoples and nations? Dwelling on question of who is to blame does not serve us well. Trying to find someone to blame distracts us from the true nature of the dilemma. He proposes to focus on what Israel has been dealing with since its creation as a Jewish state: Arab rejection. 1947, 1948, Arab boycott, 1967, and then three more subtle versions: two-state solution without end of conflict, keeping alive demand for right of return (which scuttles chance for successful negotiations) and unilateral declaration of Palestinian state, one sure outcome of which would be continued conflict. Cites Abu Mazen's recent NY Times op-ed. Until Palestinians give signs that they are ready to accept Israel and end conflict, we should view delegitimization as the same sheep in old clothing. It's a rejection of the basic Jewish existence in its own homeland. They don't deserve all the attention we are giving them.
Irwin Cotler says that what's new here is not the delegitimization but the laundering of delegitimization such as the rubrics of human rights, and anti-racism, which make delegitimization seem like it represents all that is good. They have reframed the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that paints us as the villain for denying the Palestinians self-determination. If you posit Israel as the violator of human rights it becomes the anti-Christ of our times. Palestinianism has become a poster child for human rights. The delegitimization has been mainstreamed by the elites. And then there's the juxtaposition of the end of the Cold War and the movement into Durban I.
At every given moment there is a resolution or similar emanating from the United Nations or one of its forums. These forums are attended by diplomats, media, etc. which creates a critical mass of exposure to delegitimization. These decisions read like legal judgments. The focus is to say that Israel is doing something illegal, which is why they focus on the settlements.
They use international law as cover - known as lawfare. This is the war of delegitimization under international law. Example: universal jurisdiction.
Delegitimization under human rights rubric. E.g Goldstone.
Delegitimization under anti-racism rubric - call Israel an apartheid or Nazi state.
He says we have to turn this paradigm around and make it clear that its radical Islam and tyrannies like Syria that are the real source of apartheid.
Malcolm Hoenlein starts out "I agree." He wonders whether at the other side's conferences they also ask whether they are at fault or whether we are at fault. He says we have to stop thinking about ourselves as grasshoppers (quotes last week's Torah portion). The threat is because Israel is and not because Israel has done something wrong. What Israel represents and the values of the Jewish people are what threaten the delegitimizers. This issue and how we counter this will affect us for generations.
He does not believe this is like the 1930's but there are a lot of signs that raise questions about us. This is like a tumor that grows quietly - it's a cancerous process. What matters is what we do and not what our enemies do. We should not tolerate this. The attack is against the Jewish people and not just against the Jewish state. It's time for us to step back and not question whether it's our responsibility. This is a modern blood libel and Hitler's lies spread much more quickly today than they did in the 1930's. We saw the blueprint for this at Durban I. You can trace this back and see everything from there. Globalization has made this far more complex. There is no place you can go to get justice. This involves every sector of our society.
They're trying to deny us our roots and our right to be in the Jewish state. They take away our past to take away our future. They want to intimidate us and we see kids on campus afraid to let anyone know they're Jews. Incitement cannot be ignored. There's nothing worse than Jews who don't get it, who put their heads in the sands and deny reality. 70 years ago they knew but did not want to know. We can't pretend not to know.
It's time for Jews and supporters of Israel to go on the offense. You can't win a game by just playing defense.
We won't be judged by acts of our enemies but by silence of our friends.
Miri Eisin wants to talk about 40 and under crowd and what they've seen for the last 25 years. She wants to talk about the words because the images they have seen of Israel for the last 25 years is what gives the delegitimizers their strongest point. An image is worth 1,000 words. For 25 years IDF has been shown negatively. From mid-May to mid-June Israel has been framed via the delegitimizer's eyes. Does Israel have right to open fire against those who breach its borders? The framing of the debate here is only negative for the last 25 years and it's always about the military and whether they have the right to defend Israel. Whenever Israel is in the news in the world, it's only through the conflict (please don't tell me she's going toward the rebranding Israel thing).
Media image of Israel is part of delegtimizers' strength.
The debate is happening on social media for all the young people. You have to get Israel into your comfort zone. That's where people want to be - numbers count. How many of us are in that world? For the 25-year olds you have to be on one side or the other. We can't afford to have people who don't care. When we open our eyes and start working, we have to step into the 40-and-unders' social media. The last six months have impacted the exact world that we're talking about now and have to talk about it on their terms. The images and words will define us 5-10 years from now.
Peter Goldsmith says we have to look at this from the question of what to do about it. But it's up to us Jews and not Israel's supporters. Two main points: Ability and willingness of Israelis and Jews to engage is important. For example, Goldstone's retraction. What if the report would have been different? Was there sufficient reason not to engage. Goldsmith says that we have to be prepared to engage with those issues. We need to go out and confront the people who are attacking us. It's not just Israel's supporters - it's right-minded people more generally. So Goldsmith thinks it's good that Israel investigated the flotilla and didn't just close the fortress walls.
Michael Herzog says that we are not and should not be asking whether we are at fault. He distinguishes between delegitimization and legitimate criticism. Second, Israeli government sending lawyers to international forums to engage.
I went off this for a while - partly to conserve my battery. At the moment, they're talking about changing the words with which we frame the issues. Miri Eisin says we shouldn't call it delegitimization. Malcolm Hoenlein says to call settlements communities (and Eisin gives him a funny look - why?). Foxman says to stop giving them all the attention.
Someone in the audience (Ken Bialkin - could not see him from here but I've been on business deals with him) suggests we should fight the resolution for a 'Palestinian state' just like Foxman's father tore up the Zionism is racism resolution in the UN (I think it was Foxman's father - not sure on that).
Another person in the audience says we're looking for victim status and accuses panel of evading issue (yes, she's Israeli). Surreal. Audience murmuring.
Foxman says we're not spooked by prospect of UN vote. Cotler says that heart of BDS movement is academia and that's where it has to be targeted.
Battery ran out so must close this. Will tweet via cell phone if anything big comes up.
Liveblog: Bloggers' conference at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
I'm attending a bloggers' conference (invitation only) at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a think tank headed up by Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's former ambassador to the UN.
The first speaker is Dan Diker, who is giving us an introduction to the JCPA's activities. Their aim is to be a one-stop shop for people who are commenting on Israel. They create the perspective and provide us with materials to describe what underlies the region. They have spent the last seven years looking at the legal foundations of the myth that the 'occupation' is what is preventing peace in the Middle East (I picked up a treasure trove of materials that they put out on the table for us).
34 years ago, Shimon Peres asked David Elazar z"l (of blessed memory) to found this center because Elazar was an expert on Federalism - which is still on the table as a solution to the 'Palestinian' issue today.
Diker and Pinhas Inbari have published a paper analyzing Salam Fayyad's two-year plan for 'Palestinian statehood.' Fayyad himself was handing out the paper to journalists! Why? He felt it was objective enough that he felt it was the Israeli response even though he didn't agree with it (there's a picture of this in the Christian Science Monitor). The 'Palestinian' strategy is to leave Israel as a spectator as it engages in trying to force the 1949 border on Israel. What governs our relations right now? Alan Baker says that if the PA goes unilateral, it would violate international law and destroy the Oslo Accords. Fox News did a blog on this. Baker was one of the people who negotiated Oslo.
Diker says that since Rabin's 1995 speech in the Knesset (defensible borders, united Jerusalem, Jordan Valley would stay with Israel), we've put ourselves in a tornado. Barak unmasked Arafat. Israel got about six minutes of credit. Then Israel ran out of Lebanon, withdrew from Gaza, and then went to Annapolis and offered 96%. We have to withdraw from those offers by recalibrating what Israel's rights are. The roadmap never talks about dividing Jerusalem but you have to know the language to be able to argue that. Israel has some responsibility for what has gone on.
You don't see any reference to UN Security Resolution 242 from the Obama administration. The point is that 242 has to be restored.
I asked about getting the Sharon reservations back into the roadmap discussions. Lenny Ben David (who will be speaking later) says Dov Weisglass has even dropped them from the discussion and he wrote them!
Diker says it's important to stress that 'natural growth' of 'settlements' means growth beyond the current lines. 'Settlement' building inside the 'settlement' lines is agreed to be allowed. Both Olmert and Elliot Abrams have written about this (Abrams twice). The same goes for the Bush 2004 letter. The Bush letter said 'settlement blocs' and 'defensible borders' - the latter means the Jordan Valley and the hilltops. These have to be brought back into the discussion.
Where is the Israeli government in leading the charge? Are we bloggers the reconnaissance unit? Diker sees that the government is under unprecedented attack and scheduling problems. The government doesn't have time to sit back and think through the points of reference. Diker says that bloggers' role is essential as an extension role for the government's position. You can't wait for instructions. You have to fight the war in every direction and angle and not wait for the government to lead the way.
Dore Gold just walked in. One of the JCPA interns who is here is asking about how we push for the world to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol. Dore came here in 2000. He notes that Shaul Mofaz, who was then IDF Chief of Staff, said that the Clinton Parameters in December 2000 would be harmful to Israel. It turns out that Mofaz was speaking on behalf of the IDF General Staff (Dore said that he confirmed this, but he could not tell us how). This is important because everyone thinks that the permanent status solution will look like the Clinton Parameters or Taba. But from the standpoint of Israel's security, those parameters are a disaster. In government you deal with the next problem that you're facing 20 minutes from now. So how do you deal with this? One of the things they have done in JCPA is to try to clarify Israel's security needs.
Israel has stopped voicing a mantra for its foreign policy. The 'Palestinians' continue to have theirs: To establish a 'Palestinian state' with Jerusalem as its capitol. Jewish negotiators would say "peace." But the Jewish goal is not concrete - the 'Palestinian' goal is. The defined goal is going to win over the abstract goal. This ties in with the whole notion that Israel should be voicing its view that it's entitled to defensible borders. But Israeli and American leaders have shortened those defensible borders. When Gold negotiated the Christopher letter (January 17, 1997) with Dennis Ross, they made clear that Israel would decide for itself what was a defensible border. This isn't laying out a specific map but it's a lot more than saying "I want peace." Israel's foreign policy is not solely in its own hands nor in the hands of the US government. You need a voice outside government that's thinking long term.
Gold says we have to put back the idea that Jerusalem has to remain united under Israel's sovereignty. These are positions (secure borders and united Jerusalem) that command a majority of Israelis. But if we poll American Jewry and American public opinion, we will also get overwhelming support for these ideas, but we have to put this narrative into the discussions of those who comment on foreign affairs.
Israel has a new threat too - the use of international law against the State of Israel. We can't just hope that threat will go away. JCPA tried to show Iran violated international law by threatening Israel, but neither Israel's foreign ministry nor the Bush administration was interested.
Gold is taking questions. Yisrael Medad says that the foreign ministry should meet with us regularly and Gold agrees. Gold says that there's a recognition in the government about the whole blogging world.
Gold says that he warned Ariel Sharon that the Arabs would view Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as a tangible victory. He said that Sharon had to get tangible concessions from the US if not from the 'Palestinians.' Rabin got that kind of commitment from Ford and Kissinger in 1975 before Israel withdrew from the Mitla and Gidi Passes in Sinai. That's what the Bush April 2004 letter was supposed to be about and Sharon called Gold to tell him about it once he got it.
Gold says that they sent reams of material to the Goldstone Commission and much of what he put on the screen at Brandeis had been sent to Goldstone before the report came out. They treated it as footnote material and not as material for the main analysis. The key factor to examine there is who did the staff work - they filtered what Goldstone saw.
Gold says that Israel has to keep pushing defensible borders and a united Jerusalem as interests that we can defend and that have a buoyancy in public opinion and bring them up front. He points out that Hillary Clinton has positioned the US between us and the 'Palestinians' and not on the 'Palestinian' side. We need to get that view out before the world and we have to get away from Abu Mazen's position of making the 1967 borders sacrosanct. Don't let anyone lock in the 1967 lines as a political border that has to be established.
What does a defensible border look like? We need a presentation to show that. Gold says that they are moving in the direction of preparing one.
Lenny Ben David is next up. You've seen him on this blog before as well. He worked in the Israeli embassy in the US and at AIPAC. You can find him online at http://Lennybendavid.com.
His comments are off the record, so I will stop writing for a while.
JCPA intern Phil Harbor did a Power Point presentation on how to use JCPA's materials.
Mark Amiel talked about some of JCPA's gems on its web site. I'll try to put some of these things up for you later, but for those who want to see them now, click through to the site.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
This is the first of at least three posts tonight that will deal with the Goldstone - Gold debate I just saw at Brandeis. The first one is my liveblog notes of the debate. The second will include video of the entire debate, which is being uploaded to YouTube as I am typing this. The third one will be my general comments about the debate.
