Michael Wolraich's picture

    In Israel, the Roadmap to Peace is Not Paved with Goldstone

    By Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:44am | Politics, World Affairs

    Israel supporters rejoiced on Friday after international jurist Richard Goldstone recanted some conclusions from his investigation into Israel's military actions during the Gaza war two years ago.

    "If I had known then what I know now," Goldstone wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, "The Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

    ...

    The Israeli government and its supporters have long denounced the Goldstone Report as deeply flawed and complain that it has tarnished Israel's reputation. On Sunday, in fact, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans "to reverse and minimize the great damage that has been done by this campaign of denigration against the state of Israel."

    But while Israel's supporters and detractors alike often take the importance of the Goldstone Report for granted, it's worth considering the extent of the "great damage" done to the state of Israel since the report was released and questioning what such investigations, accusations and condemnations actually accomplish.

    Read the full article at CNN.com

    Topics: 
    Politics
    World Affairs

    Comments

    Fabulous column Genghis, nice work.

    I might try to deal with this more later.  Consider, however, that while extremists make noise about all kinds of stuff, there is a reason that Israelis have rejected the parties to the left of Kadima over the past 10 years.  They don't trust their own folks who are pushing hardest for a two-state soulution.  And, believe me, I know many of these people and they are not "extremists".  You are talking about folks (like me in the American version) who have understood the need for a two-state solution since way before it was groovy to take that position.  If Israelis can't trust their own, how do you expect Israelis to trust the international community to oversee a peace process?

    Goldstone is fodder for more than "see no evil hear no evil folks".   It perpetuates a table that is not set for the kind of trust that is necessary to attain a difficult agreement in negotiations.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:58am

    Thanks, Bruce. Why don't Israelis trust the left?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:03pm

    Because, principally, the suicide bombings associated with the Second Intifada is seen as the product of the Oslo Process.  Most Israelis feel, rightly or wrongly, that they offerred the Palestinians what is now know as the Clinton Parameters, and it just resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of Israelis (civilians who were targeted as such).  

    This is an interesting subject.  Don't forget Israelis elected Ehud Barak against Netanyahu in the late 90s, and were prepared for peace.  I remember being there for the first time in the late 90s, riding around in a jeep in the Golan, and the comments I heard were  that this will soon be returned to Syria.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:46pm

    So is it the left that they don't trust or the idea of a peace deal with the Palestinians?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 1:15pm

    No, absolutely not, but I think it's important to know what the folks on both sides of the table are thinking.  How do you change bad vibes?


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 1:20pm

    With good vibes Smile


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 1:45pm

    Mho, every single "Israel is evil incarnate" type post on the internet works against those needed vibes.One by one, all the demonization, all the little bits help when massed, add up to a powerful group psychological reaction in Israel. It results not just in digging in of heels, but more and more support for aggressive reactions to the smallest threats and more and more support for their right wingers, a vicious circle escalation.

    It's ironic because most people on the internet at least understand what trolls can do to normally reasonable people. That they can't see that as a metaphor with what's happened with Israel is a pity.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 3:31pm

    I'm definitely no Israel expert but... guy writes report, is confronted with further evidence and reconsiders what he wrote.  We should encourage that, right?  Also, we should consider discouraging violent events like the war that precipitated it, even if it was thankfully free of war crimes.  Right?


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:06pm

    Right and right destor, or shall I say, correct and correct.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:13pm

    Well sure, I commend Goldstone personally.

    As for the Israelis and Palestinians, I would note that the term "discourage" is ambiguous. Merriam-Webster: "to dissuade or attempt to dissuade from doing something."

    If we were able, then we should certainly dissuade Israelis and Palestinians from engaging in violence. But while international condemnations attempt to dissuade them, they do not actually succeed in dissuading them.

    Shorter: Discouragement does not always discourage and may even encourage.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 1:03pm

    Bomb them all!  I kid.  Though it tends to be the answer to everything.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:08pm

    I know you're all Mr.-Advance-through-compromise, but any thoughts on the effects of more unilateral moves suggested on both sides?

    The Israeli right (i.e. JPost) has a few ideas knocking around about unilateral retreat from some West Bank colonies, resettlement on the 'right' side of some designated borderliine, and handover of security roles to the PA. On the Palestinian side there is the much discussed UN membership vote coming up in September. Both strike me as positive moves, much more hopeful than yet another plan put forward by people with no power, yet another hollow gesture of "good faith". Everyone seems to know the outlines of what a negotiated agreement would look like, and it's been clear for about 10 years now. And yet no one on either side seems willing to go there. This latest plan has about 0% chance of changing that dynamic. The unilateral moves seem much more promising.


    by Obey on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:31pm

    I support the unilateral moves as well. I don't have any precise view on how to solve the conflict; I'm just for anything that decreases antipathy rather increases it. Because in my opinion, the real barrier to peace is not the status of Jerusalem or the right of return or anything that you can sit down and negotiate. It's that the Israelis and Palestinians hate and distrust each other. Therefore, any action that decreases the level of hate and distrust is positive, and any action that increases it is negative.

    As for hollow gestures, a gesture of "good faith" will always appear hollow when accompanied by other gestures of loathing and hostility.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:41pm

    Much the same situation exists in Northern Ireland. My impression was that Celtic Tiger eased some of the discord as everyone made money, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it come back again.


    by Donal on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 2:32pm

    Since it's not part of the republic, Northern Ireland may be spared the worst effects of that country's financial catastrophe. Unionist or Republican, people may finally take some common comfort in being under the British yoke.

    More than that, though, I think the average citizen has come to appreciate (and accept as a durable reality) the advantages of peace. Only the worst diehards long for a return to the troubles.

    But the Protestant majority only agreed to share the levers of power when it realized long-term demographics were not in its favor. Israelis remain in denial that the same thing is happening there; instead, they've swung right, toward total reliance on military power to prolong the status quo. With no exit strategy, it's ultimately self-defeating.


    by acanuck on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 3:43pm

    In passing, CNN put this disclaimer at the end of Genghis's column:

    The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Wolraich.

    That's a bit harsh, no? True maybe, but harsh.


    by acanuck on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 3:45pm

    The opinions expressed in that disclaimer are solely those of CNN.com


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 4:14pm

    No, in this rare case I think CNN is onto something.

    For those who prefer original sources to glosses, here's the panel of experts' followup report. It starts off pretty slow, but it's what Goldstone based his oped on:

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.24_AUV.pdf


    by acanuck on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 4:38pm

    Thing are looking less like "forget Goldstone," and more like "forget Israel and Palestine":

    http://dagblog.com/link/us-and-saudi-arabia-discuss-iran-meddling-9729


    by artappraiser on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:07pm

    Latest Comments