August 19, 2014

23 Av 5774

 

Dear Friends,

 

Shalom.  There were many disturbing stories about conflicts in the world in last Friday's paper.  For example, there were stories about Russian separatists attacking Ukrainian forces in Luhansk; ISIS fanatics pursuing and massacring Yazidis, a previously little-known religious group now being given U.S. military and humanitarian assistance; and an Afghanistani soldier's attack that took the life of U.S. General Harold J. Greene.  

 

Those stories were worrisome.  But then I came to a positively aggravating one.  The headline read, "Israel Braces for War Crimes Inquiries on Gaza."  The story talked about an upcoming commission of inquiry to be set up by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate the possibility that Israel committed war crimes during the recent conflict in Gaza.

 

Why was this aggravating?  

 

Well, with all the conflicts swirling around the globe, with all the atrocities being perpetrated both by states and non-state actors, why the focus on Israel?  What's that all about? 

 

And why, when exploring the conduct of a war between two parties is the focus on only one of them?  As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango."  Why target Israel's role and not that of her adversary?  Doesn't that seem absurd, especially since Israel's adversary deliberately targets civilians?  

 

And how could it be that the United Nations Human Rights Council considers itself qualified to conduct a commission of inquiry?  After all, the professor who was recently appointed head of the commission once said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was his "favorite" to be in the dock at the International Criminal Court. And the commission's previous inquiry into the 2008-9 war in Gaza (the so-called "Goldstone Report," after Richard Goldstone, the head of the inquiry) was widely discredited.  In fact, the central accusation of that report, namely, that Israel intentionally targeted civilians in Gaza as a matter of policy, was subsequently retracted by Goldstone himself. 

 

Sure, there are questions about how this war was conducted.  War is ugly, and this one is no exception.  Hundreds of civilians lost their lives in Gaza.  Could Israel have achieved its military objectives without this terrible loss of life?  Even if Israel did not target civiilans, should it have taken greater care to avoid killing them?  How is it that U.N. sites were attacked, and that civilians who were sheltering there were killed? These are legitimate questions.  But war crimes? 

 

Why is the U.N. pursuing an inquiry that seems designed to be biased? It's hard not to see an underlying anti-Semitic animus. As Thomas Friedman once wrote, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."  

 

Now you can see why I found that story aggravating. 

 

Should Israel cooperate with such an inquiry?  After all, it seems clear that Israel will be damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.  Does it even matter whether Israel puts forth her side of the story?

 

Well, there are pros and cons.  (For an article that sets them forth, click here.)  I don't envy the government of Israel.  Ultimately Israel's government, taking all factors into account, will bear the responsibility and the consequences of this terribly challenging decision.  

 

On the one hand, the product of this inquiry could be a scathing report that enemies of Israel, some of whom will be represented on the commission of inquiry, will use against her.  Yet that is also likely should Israel refrain from cooperating. (Think of the Goldstone Report.)  

 

Certainly, there are national security and legal concerns that could arise if Israel were asked to reveal exactly what it did and how it made certain decisions. But security and legal concerns could also arise from a failure to cooperate.

 

Some would argue that it is demeaning for Israel to defend itself before a biased panel.  But one could also argue that there is no better place to raise the issue of bias, and that it is better to make the effort to set the record straight than to allow a biased process to unfold unimpeded. 

 

One advantage of cooperating with the inquiry is that Israel would be afforded a forum for sharing its military ethics policies.  Most of the world is unaware that the Israeli military has devoted a tremendous amount of energy to developing proper ethical guidelines for combat, and that it has procedures for dealing with violations.  Indeed, the Israeli army is not waiting for the United Nations to act on suspected violations. The I.D.F.'s Military Advocate General's Corps has already established its own committee, independent of the chain of command, to investigate certain cases in which large numbers of civilians were killed. (See here.)  It could be helpful for people see how Israel's military determines when it is appropriate to attack a military target in a heavily built-up area, and to see the risks Israel has taken upon itself -- risks that in some cases have led to the deaths of Israeli soldiers -- to minimize the loss of innocent life.  Perhaps this could lead to a better understanding of the dilemmas that Israel faces, the care it exercises to spare the innocent, and the ways in which Israel's approach to morality differs from that of Hamas. 

 

Either way, this will be a battle -- indeed, yet another battle in the same simmering conflict that has been going on all summer.  

 

As that aggravating article made clear, whether we like it or not, the U.N. will almost certainly investigate Israel's role in the recent hostilities -- and the world will be watching.  As it does, we will have a role to play. Especially at times like these, when Israel is so much in the news, we are, willy nilly, considered to be representatives of Israel, even if that isn't a role we ever aspired to -- indeed, even if we've never been to Israel!  It is vital that we remain informed and do what we can to engender greater understanding and empathy for Israel among our neighbors, co-workers and all others with whom we come in contact.  Ultimately, it's up to Israel to defend itself against its enemies, but we should do what we can to assure that Israel's perspective is understood and appreciated as much as possible. 

 

Let's hope and pray that the ceasefire on the Gaza front continues, and that the underlying issues that led to this recent eruption of the conflict are addressed in a way that furthers greater trust, understanding and mutual respect between Israelis and Palestinians and brings the dream of peace and security for both sides closer to reality.  

 

Shalom u'vrachah,

 

 

Rabbi Carl M. Perkins