Ma’an News Agency, Palestine
Sept 19 2009
UM-Shmum, UM-Boom – Uri Avnery
Published yesterday (updated) 19/09/2009 21:59 Justice Richard
Goldstone
[MaanImages]Is there no limit to the wiles of those dastardly
anti-Semites?
Now they have decided to slander the Jews with another blood
libel. Not the old accusation of slaughtering Christian children to
use their blood for baking Passover matzoth, as in the past, but of
the mass slaughter of women and children in Gaza.
And who did they put at the head of the commission which was charged
with this task? Neither a British Holocaust-denier nor a German
neo-Nazi, nor even an Iranian fanatic, but of all people a Jewish
judge who bears the very Jewish name of Goldstone (originally
Goldstein, of course). And not just a Jew with a Jewish name, but a
Zionist, whose daughter, Nicole, is an enthusiastic Zionist who once
`made Aliyah’ and speaks fluent Hebrew. And not just a Jewish Zionist,
but a South African who opposed apartheid and was appointed to the
country’s Constitutional Court when that system was abolished.
All this in order to defame the most moral army in the world, fresh
from waging the most just war in history!
Richard Goldstone is not the only Jew manipulated by the world-wide
anti-Semitic conspiracy. Throughout the three weeks of the Gaza War,
more than 10 thousand Israelis demonstrated against it again and
again. They were photographed carrying signs saying `End the massacre
in Gaza’, `Stop the war crimes” `Israel commits war crimes’, `Bombing
civilians is a war crime’. They chanted in unison: `Olmert, Olmert, it
is true ` They’re waiting in The Hague for you!’
Who would have believed that there are so many anti-Semites in
Israel?!
The official Israeli reaction to the Goldstone report would have been
amusing, if the matter had not been so grave.
Except for the `usual suspects’ (Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and their
ilk), the condemnation of the report was unanimous, total and extreme,
from Shimon Peres, that advocate of every abomination, down to the
last scribbler in the newspapers.
Nobody, but nobody, dealt with the subject itself. Nobody examined the
detailed conclusions. With such an anti-Semitic smear, there is no
need for that. Actually, there is no need to read the report at all.
The public, in all its diversity, stood up like one person, in order
to rebuff the plot, as it has learned to do in the thousand years of
pogroms, Spanish inquisition and Holocaust. A siege mentality, the
ghetto mentality.
The instinctive reaction in such a situation is denial. It’s just not
true. It never happened. It’s all a pack of lies.
By itself, that is a natural reaction. When a human being is faced
with a situation which he cannot handle, denial is the first
refuge. If things did not happen, there is no need to cope. Basically,
there is no difference between the deniers of the Armenian genocide,
the deniers of the annihilation of the Native Americans and the
deniers of the atrocities of all wars.
>From this point of view, it can be said that denial is almost
`normal’. But with us it has been developed into an art form.
We have a special method: when something happens that we don’t want to
confront, we direct the spotlight to one specific detail, something
completely marginal, and begin to insist on it, debate it, examine it
from all angles as if it were a matter of life and death.
Take the Yom Kippur war. It broke out because for six years, beginning
with the 1967 war, Israel had cruised like a Ship of Fools,
intoxicated with victory songs, victory albums and the belief in the
invincibility of the Israeli army. Golda Meir treated the Arab world
with open contempt and rebuffed the peace overtures of Anwar
Sadat. The result: more than 2000 young Israelis killed, and who knows
how many Egyptians and Syrians.
And what was furiously debated? The `Omission.’ `Why were the reserves
not called up in time? Why were the tanks not moved in advance?’
Menachem Begin thundered in the Knesset, and about this, books and
articles galore were written and a blue-ribbon judicial board of
inquiry deliberated.
The First Lebanon War was a political blunder and a military
failure. It lasted 18 years, gave birth to Hizbullah and established
it as a regional force. And what was discussed? Whether Ariel Sharon
had deceived Begin and was responsible for his illness and eventual
death.
The Second Lebanon War was a disgrace from beginning to end, a
superfluous war that caused massive destruction, wholesale slaughter
and the flight of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from
their homes, without achieving an Israeli victory. And what was our
debate about? For what was a commission of inquiry appointed? About
the way the decision to start the war was taken. Was there an
appropriate process of decision making? Was there orderly staff work?
About the Gaza War, there was no debate at all, because everything was
perfectly alright. A brilliant campaign. Marvelous political and
military leadership. True, we did not convince the Gaza Strip
population to overthrow their leaders; true, we did not succeed in
freeing the captured soldier Gilad Shalit; true, the whole world
condemned us ` but we killed a lot of Arabs, destroyed their
environment and taught them a lesson they will not forget.
Now, a profound debate on the Goldstone report is going on. Not about
its content, God forbid. What’s there to discus? But about the one
point that is really important: was our government right in deciding
to boycott the commission? Perhaps it would have been better to take
part in the deliberations? Did our Foreign Office act as foolishly as
it usually does? (Our Ministry of Defense, of course, never behaves
foolishly.) Tens of thousands of words about this world-shaking
question were poured out from the newspapers, the radio and TV, with
every self-respecting commentator weighing in.
So why did the Israeli government boycott the commission? The real
answer is quite simple: they knew full well that the commission, any
commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach.
In fact, the commission did not say anything new. Almost all the facts
were already known: the bombing of civilian neighborhoods, the use of
flechette rounds and white phosphorus against civilian targets, the
bombing of mosques and schools, the blocking of rescue parties from
reaching the wounded, the killing of fleeing civilians carrying white
flags, the use of human shields, and more. The Israeli army did not
allow journalists near the action, but the war was amply documented by
the international media in all its details, the entire world saw it in
real time on the TV screens. The testimonies are so many and so
consistent, that any reasonable person can draw their own conclusions.
If the officers and soldiers of the Israeli army had given testimony
before the commission, it would perhaps have been impressed by their
angle, too ` the fear, the confusion, the lack of orientation ` and
the conclusions could have been somewhat less severe. But the main
thrust would not have changed. After all, the whole operation was
based on the assumption that it was possible to overthrow the Hamas
government in Gaza by causing intolerable suffering to the civilian
population. The damage to civilians was not `collateral’, whether
avoidable or unavoidable, but a central feature of the operation
itself.
Moreover, the rules of engagement were designed to achieve `zero
losses’ to our forces ` avoiding losses at any price. That was the
conclusion our army ` led by Gabi Ashkenazi ` drew from the Second
Lebanon War. The results speak for themselves: 200 dead Palestinians
for every Israeli soldier killed by the other side ` 1400:6.
Every real investigation must inevitably lead to the same conclusions
as those of the Goldstone commission. Therefore, there was no Israeli
wish for a real inquiry. The `investigations’ that did take place were
a farce. The person responsible, the Military Advocate General,
kippa-wearing brigadier Avichai Mendelblit, was in charge of this
task. He was promoted this week to the rank of major general. The
promotion and its timing speak a clear language.
So it is clear that there is no chance of the Israeli government
belatedly opening a real investigation, as demanded by Israeli peace
activists.
In order to be credible, such an investigation would have to have the
status of a State Commission of Inquiry as defined by Israeli law,
headed by a Supreme Court justice. It would have to conduct its
investigations publicly, in full view of the Israeli and international
media. It would have to invite the victims, Gaza inhabitants, to
testify together with the soldiers who took part in the war. It would
have to investigate in detail each of the accusations that appear in
the Goldstone report. It would have to check out the orders issued and
decisions made, from the Chief of Staff down to the squad level. It
would have to study the briefings of Air Force pilots and drone
operators.
This list suffices to make it clear why such an investigation will not
and cannot take place. Instead, the world-wide Israeli propaganda
machine will continue to defame the Jewish judge and the people who
appointed him.
Not all the Israeli accusations against the UN are groundless. For
example: why does the organization investigate the war crimes in Gaza
(and in former Yugoslavia and Darfur, investigations in which
Goldstone took part as chief prosecutor) and not the actions of the US
in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians in Chechnya?
But the main argument of the Israeli government is that the UN is an
anti-Semitic organization, and its Human Rights Commission is doubly
anti-Semitic.
Israel’s relations with the UN are very complex. The state was founded
on the basis of a UN resolution, and it is doubtful whether it would
have come into being at precisely that time and those circumstance had
there been no such resolution. Our Declaration of Independence is
largely based on this resolution. A year later, Israel was accepted as
a UN member in spite of the fact that it had not allowed the (then)
750 thousand Palestinian refugees to return.
But this honeymoon soured quickly. David Ben-Gurion spoke with
contempt about UM-Shmum (`Um’ is the Hebrew for `UN’, the prefix `shm’
signifies contempt). From then on to this very day, Israel has
systematically violated almost every single UN resolution that
concerned it, complaining that there was an `automatic majority’ of
Arab and communist countries stacked against it. This attitude was
reinforced when, on the eve of the 1967 war, the UN troops in Sinai
where precipitously withdrawn on the demand of Gamal
Abd-al-Nasser. And, of course, by the UN resolution (later annulled)
equating Zionism with racism.
Now this argument is raising its head again. The UN, it is being said,
is anti-Israeli, which means (of course) anti-Semitic. Everyone who
acts in the name of the UN is an Israel-hater. To hell with the UN. To
hell with the Goldstone report.
That is, however, a woefully short-sighted policy. The general public
throughout the world is hearing about the report and remembering the
pictures they saw on their TV screens during the Gaza war. The UN
enjoys much respect. In the wake of the `Molten Lead’ operation,
Israel’s standing in the world has been steadily going down, and this
report will send it down even further. This will have practical
consequences ` political, military, economic and cultural. Only a fool
` or an Avigdor Lieberman ` can ignore that.
If there is no credible Israeli investigation, there will be demands
for the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International
Criminal Court in The Hague. Barack Obama would have to decide whether
to veto such a resolution ` a move that would cause grave harm to the
US, and for which he would demand a high price from Israel.
As has been said before: UM-Shmum may turn into UM-Boom.
***Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom
peace movement. A member of the militant Zionist Irgun movement as a
teenager, Avnery served in Israel’s Knesset from 1965-74 and
1979-81. He is author of the recently revised novel, 1948: A Soldier’s
Tale – The Bloody Road to Jerusalem.
s.aspx?ID=226892