Ever since the Gaza war, the Israelis have been accused of war crimes there: 1,400 Palestinians were killed during the onslaught, 900 of them civilians, 300 of these women and children. Until now, however, it has been just that — accusations, albeit with damning evidence, in some cases provided by Israelis soldiers themselves, bitter at what they were ordered to do. That has now changed with a 118-page report by Amnesty International. It has made detailed, case-by-case investigations into the war, accusing the Israelis and Hamas of war crimes. The report calls for those responsible to be arrested and brought to trial in the courts of countries that exercise international jurisdiction and for an immediate end to the supplies of arms to Israel and Hamas.
So, what is going to be done? Will there be justice for the victims in Gaza? Will the truth come out? Will the perpetrators be punished? Will there be compensation and guarantees that this never happens again? That looks unlikely. First of all, before taking any action, the international community is going to await the outcome of the official UN inquiry into the war set up by the UN Human Rights Council in January and headed by South African judge and war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone.
But even if individual states decide to act on their own prior to that, the number that are willing to exercise international jurisdiction in cases where their own nationals have not been involved is extremely limited — and becoming even more so. Spain, to date the most active in applying universal jurisdiction, is about to stop it. The law that allows Spanish courts to try crimes committed by anyone, anywhere in the world, is being revoked. It is because Spain does not want to get into a row with Israel — not over the Gaza war, rather the assassination there of Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh in 2002; a Spanish judge had announced he would investigate it. It is depressing: Spain’s valor for justice was fine when it came to Chileans, for Tibetans, for Argentineans; but for Palestinians, it is a justice too far. It is the Palestinians’ experience of officialdom the world over, and for over 60 years.
No one is holding their breath, either, about the official UN inquiry — not just because Goldstone’s ability to gather information has been limited (his team was in Gaza for just four days early last month and has not been allowed at all into Israel to talk to Israelis). There are more insidious reasons. The UNRWA report on Israeli attacks on its property and personnel during the Gaza war, published in May, provides a depressing precedent. Reduced from a hard-hitting 184 pages to just to 27, there have been widespread accusations that it was watered down to meet political objections.
There is every likelihood the same will happen again because if the Goldstone inquiry agrees with Amnesty International that there have been war crimes, there will have to be a UN response. The pressure on the Security Council to refer the war to the International Criminal Court in The Hague — the only legal avenue the UN can take — would be immense.
For President Obama, even with his commitment to justice in the Middle East, that might be a step too far. He will do everything to avoid it.
Iraq is for the Iraqis
The Los Angeles Times in its editorial yesterday commented on the US invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Excerpts:
As the United States prepared to invade Iraq in 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell famously warned that “if you break it, you own it.” In many ways, the US did break Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein’s quarter-century regime without ensuring that a stable government would take its place. That ushered in a bloody, six-year occupation that cost the lives of more than 4,300 US troops and nearly $700 billion. Americans will always bear responsibility for this misbegotten war of choice, but now, at last, the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities marks the beginning of the country’s return to its rightful owners — Iraqis.
It is a changed Iraq, but whether it will become a better country remains to be seen. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by Saddam’s government. But the war that removed Saddam from power took tens of thousands more lives and displaced an estimated four million people from ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. Today, under the predominantly Shiite government of elected Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, Iraq still is riven by the violence of sectarian power struggles. Even in a relatively peaceful month, hundreds of Iraqis are killed in bombings and gunbattles; on Tuesday, the first day without US combat troops, a car bomb in the city of Kirkuk killed at least 33 people and wounded 90. The threat of civil war hovers on Iraq's heat-rippled horizon.
Although US combat troops have been moving to bases for months, Iraqis sang and set off fireworks to celebrate an end to foreign tanks in their streets and uninvited soldiers in their homes. Some Americans will remain as trainers and advisers, but President Obama has committed to withdrawing all combat troops by 2011. This page opposed the invasion of Iraq, then supported a surge of US troops to stabilize the country and allow our forces to leave. Now it is time to close this shameful chapter.
Iraq's future depends on a political reconciliation that six years of experience tells us can only be accomplished by Iraqis. The United States can encourage a diverse, democratic leadership, but it cannot mandate or impose such a government. The US has a moral obligation to help professionalize the Iraqi military and build up the country's civilian institutions. But now it is up to Iraqis to decide whether they want to hold free and fair elections and to pass a law to share the country's oil wealth equitably among its communities. There is plenty of resentment and fear to fuel continued violence and revenge. Or, the once-repressed people of Iraq can opt for peaceful coexistence and stability. Although we broke it, they own it now.
