The Justice

Media Credit: Max Breitstein Matza Justice Richard Goldstone (second from left) spoke at the "Challenge of the UN Gaza Report" event last week.

Justice Richard Goldstone, lead author of a controversial United Nations-endorsed report on last winter's Gaza conflict, and former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold sharply disagreed at Brandeis last Thursday about the extent to which war crimes took place during the conflict between Israel and Hamas in front of an audience of over 700 attendees from Brandeis and surrounding communities, as well as online viewers.

The event marked the first time that Goldstone publicly discussed the report with a senior Israeli official. In a discussion that saw some tense moments and a brief protest, the two speakers exchanged their views on the report and answered questions from students.

The event was organized by the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life, of which Goldstone is the advisory board chair, and the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies.

The report, released Sept. 25, alleges that both the Israeli and the Palestinian parties in the conflict committed war crimes. It calls on both sides to establish independent domestic commissions to look into the accusations or otherwise possibly face prosecution from the International Criminal Court located in The Hague. The U.N. General Assembly was deliberating over the report as the event at Brandeis took place and endorsed it later on Thursday, submitting it for further attention to the Security Council.

Goldstone defended the report, stating that the mandate under which the Gaza fact-finding mission was working was evenhanded toward both sides in the conflict, while Gold criticized the report as an unfair indictment of the Israeli military and Israeli society.

Goldstone stated that the report would not constitute evidence in a court of law, which is why independent investigations were necessary. Furthermore, he said that "our mandate did not evaluate the right to use military force," emphasizing repeatedly that "Israel has the right under international law to not only to protect its citizens, it has a clear duty to do so." The mission's aim instead was to evaluate whether "the manner in which force was used was consistent with humanitarian law [and] law of armed conflict."

Continued...

Page 1 of 5 next >

Article Tools