Diplomacy is war by other means, writes Graham Usher in New York On 16 October the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted 26 to six in support of a UN report detailing evidence of war crimes committed by the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrilla fighters during the 22-day Gaza war last winter. The so-called Goldstone Report (named after its main author former South African judge Richard Goldstone) is one of the most comprehensive dossiers of human rights abuses ever compiled during Israel's 42-year occupation. It charges the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in Gaza with violating the laws of war by firing rockets into civilian areas, torturing opponents and abducting the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. But fundamentally -- and overwhelmingly -- it places blame for the Gaza carnage where it belongs. Israel's assault on Gaza was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity to work and provide for itself, and force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability," wrote Goldstone. He recommends the UN Security Council give Israel and Hamas six months to hold credible investigations into the war crimes allegations or face prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. Given the Security Council's record on forcing compliance with international law, few expect to see an Israeli general or minister or Palestinian fighter arraigned before the international dock anytime soon. But the fact that the report has reached Geneva is testimony to a popular and legal struggle that has pitted those who believe any meaningful peace must be grounded on justice and accountability against those who would suborn peace to the dictates of power. On 1 October, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to defer the Goldstone Report coming before the UNHRC for six months, and perhaps to bury it. Pressure for the trade was that allegations of war crimes against Israel would "complicate" US efforts to restart peace talks, said people close to Abbas. But the rumour in the occupied territories was that shelving the report was the price the PA leadership paid for fear that Israel might expose the complicity that certain West Bank Fatah members may have had in an onslaught that killed more than 1,400 of their people. Whatever the cause, deferral turned out to be the worst blunder of his presidency. In three weeks a protest tide swelling from Gaza to the West Bank sunk his popularity to rock bottom. In a televised address on 11 October he said he had instructed his envoys at Geneva to bring forward the UNHRC meeting so that the Goldstone Report could be approved. If Abbas was humbled, Israel was outraged. "This report encourages terrorism and endangers peace," Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset on 12 October. "I want to emphasise this. Israel will not take chances for peace if it cannot defend itself." However, Netanyahu was rattled. In the best case his government knew Goldstone could make Israel's name mud in the international arena and heighten growing calls for a boycott. In the worst, it might mean the arrest of Israeli soldiers and politicians abroad. He ordered a diplomatic blitz to get, if not a majority, then at least "reasonable countries on the right side of the vote" at Geneva, said an Israeli official in Jerusalem. It didn't work. Turkey -- once a political and military ally -- was instrumental in making Goldstone the subject of a special UNSC session on 14 October. Russia, China and India -- all emerging powers with whom Israel seeks "strategic cooperation" -- voted for the report in Geneva. And the European Union fell apart, with Italy and Netherlands voting in support of Israel and Britain and France not voting at all in deference to Abbas. The only rock in Israel's defence was the US. It called Goldstone's conclusions "unbalanced". Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, said the recommendation that Israel and Hamas could eventually be tried before the ICC was "basically unacceptable". Washington voted against the resolution in Geneva. Now that the resolution has gone through, it insists the report is "not a matter for the Security Council" but only for the UNHRC. It's easy to see why. Unlike UNHRC rulings, Security Council (SC) resolutions can be enforced. And any SC debate on them would amplify before the world's media the war crimes so meticulously researched in the report. Finally, should a majority on the UNSC be found in favour of the report the US would be compelled to use the veto, something that would not look good for the "new era" of relations the Obama administration wants to initiate with the Arab and Muslim world. Aside from immorality and illegality, the US stance on Goldstone reveals the Gordian knot at the heart of its Middle East diplomacy. On the one hand, the US wants to convince the Arabs that it can be an honest broker in their relations with Israel. On the other, it wants to reassure Israel that it remains the "unshakable" ally. Goldstone shows it cannot do both.
