Det är säkert inte så många som läst Goldstone rapporten om Gaza kriget. Moshe Halbertal har läst den ca 600 sidor långa rapporten och skrivit en artikel där han förklarar varför rapporten är så misslyckad.
Moshe Halbertal har varit med och skrivit de etiska reglerna för Israels armé, han verkar veta vad han skriver om.
Goldstone rapporten kommer kanske redan denhär veckan att debatteras i FN:s säkerhetsråd. Om du vill veta vad den handlar om, läs Moshe Halbertals mycket innehållsrika artikel.
The Goldstone Illusion
What the U.N. report gets wrong about Gaza--and war.
- The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair. It offers no help in sorting out the real issues.
-Let us begin with a sense of the moral stakes. Since the early 1990s, the nature of the military conflict facing Israel has been dramatically shifting. What was mainly a clash between states and armies has turned into a clash between a state and paramilitary terror organizations, Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. This new form of struggle is now called “asymmetrical war.” It is defined by an attempt on the part of those groups to erase two basic features of war: the front and the uniform. Hamas militants fight without military uniforms, in ordinary and undistinguishing civilian garb, taking shelter among their own civilian population; and they attack Israeli civilians wherever they are, intentionally and indiscriminately. During the Gaza operation, for example, some Hamas militants embedded in the civilian population did not carry weapons while moving from one position to another. Arms and ammunition had been pre-positioned for them and stored in different houses.
-The honest reader of these sections cannot avoid the impression that their objective is to prepare a general indictment of Israel as a predatory state that is geared toward violating human rights all the time. It will naturally follow from such a premise that the Gaza operation was yet another instance of Israel’s general wicked behavior. These long sections are the weakest, the most biased, and the most outrageous in this long document. They are nothing if not political. In Goldstone’s account of the history that led to the war, for example, Hamas is basically described as a legitimate party that had the bad luck to clash with Israel. The bloody history of the movement--which, since the beginning of the Oslo accords, was determined to do everything in its power, including the massacre of civilians, to defeat the peace process--is not mentioned.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar