Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom is one of many books written on the needlessly long and painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Jewish scholar and son of two Holocaust survivors, Norman Finkelstein.
The so-called “defensive” operations launched by the Israeli government and its military against civilians in Gaza to supposedly “root out Hamas terrorists” is held to account by Finkelstein here, who explores Israel’s claims, along with expert findings rendered by unbiased nongovernmental commissions such as the United Nations and Amnesty International.
Published in 2018, this predates the most recent Israeli massacres in Gaza by anywhere from 5-6 years, depending on month of publication, focusing mainly on the humanitarian crises resulting from Operation Cast Lead (2008/2009) and Operation Protective Edge (2014).
The fact that Gaza is still occupied, still being terrorized at this very moment, is not only infuriating, but vehemently disconcerting when, as two reviews on this book state not only that:
”No one who ventures an opinion on Gaza… is entitled to do so without taking into account the evidence in this book,” along with the more plainly powerful assertion, ”The cumulative impact of Finkelstein’s meticulously documented 408-page chronicle is devastating, and it will leave the reader stunned that the worldwide reaction is so muted.”
One word, more than any, seems to be deployed by the general (western) public and media - at least the ones who, unbelievably so - still remain either willfully ignorant of Israel’s very obvious history of genocide, or completely oblivious. That word would be, “complicated.”
Strange, as I’ve never before seen such a straightforward issue of occupied vs. occupier, perpetrators vs. victims, the prosperous vs. desolate, continuously described as “a complicated mess” by those who have virtually no real knowledge on the subject. If people were to open their eyes and explore the issue beyond Israeli hasbara, from the side of the Palestinians, it would quickly become uncomplicated.
Operation Cast Lead, launched on December 28, 2008, was, after the dust finally settled, possibly proving to be the hope that Palestinians had dared not think too deeply about for too long, where Israel’s crimes against humanity were finally exposed to a horrified global audience, with the outrage of public opinion the only real means of stopping the illegal blockade and occupation of an oppressed population.
While the Israeli government and propaganda machine set to work blasting its critics in the United Nations and Amnesty International reports, doing their best to discredit any attempt by the neutral agencies to establish the unbiased, legitimate facts - calling anyone who spoke out against Israel’s violent methods “anti-Semitic”, “known liars”, “small-minded with no understanding of international law” - one man, however, stepped up to issue his own independent investigation.
This man would prove nearly impossible for Israel to discredit or bully into silence, the way it had done with near total success decade after decade. Why? Because the newly appointed independent investigator into Cast Lead, Richard Goldstone, was not only a distinguished jurist but a known, self-declared Zionist, who had let it be known he’d ”worked for Israel all of my adult life”, “fully supports Israel’s right to exist”, and was a ”firm believer in the absolute right of the Jewish people to have their home there.”
Unfortunately for Israel, which had time and again used ideologically-phrased criticism to destroy the credibility of individuals attempting to hold Israel accountable for its atrocious and increasingly illegal conduct (“anti-Semite”, “self-hating Jew, Holocaust denier” are some favorite go-to insults) - Goldstone had serious Jewish/Zionist bona fides which gave the government true feelings of fear and panic (as opposed to the misinformation about their “constant anxiety concerning Hamas and assaults on Israeli civilians, which was a non-issue).
Goldstone was the head of a Jewish organization which managed vocational schools in Israel, was on the board of governors for Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, and had cited the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews as the seminal inspiration for the international law and human rights movements in which he fully supported. The Zionist activism extended beyond Goldstone to his family as well - his mother was a member of the Zionist movement’s women’s branch, while his daughter, too, was an ardent Zionist who had emigrated to Israel under the Zionist agenda of resettlement.
What exactly was it that Goldstone found while investigating Israeli crimes against Palestine that made the top Israeli officials so nervous? Just some of the damning conclusions made (although I can’t emphasize enough how important it is one reads all these independent reports for oneself):
The Goldstone Report found that much of the devastation Israel inflicted during Cast Lead was premeditated. The operation was also found to be anchored in military doctrine that “views disproportionate destruction and creating maximum disruption to civilian lives as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.” It was also said to have been “designed to have inevitably dire consequences for the non-combatants in Gaza.”
Although Israel justified the attack on grounds of self-defense against Hamas rocket attacks, the Report noted a very different motive: “the primary purpose” of the Israeli blockade was to “bring about a life situation so intolerable to the civilian population that they would leave (if possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as collectively punish the civilian population.” Cast Lead itself was said to have been “aimed at punishing Gaza for its resilience, for apparent support of Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support.”
In conclusion, the Goldstone Report reasoned that the Israeli assault “constituted a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate, and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”
Goldstone’s report did not back away from detailing the very real horrors cited above, and with them, came very solid legal determinations:
The Goldstone Report found that Israel had committed numerous violations of customary and conventional international law. It also detailed a considerable list of war crimes committed by Israel, including “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment,” “willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,” “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly,” and “use of human shields.”
Further determinations were made that Israeli actions “deprived Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to courts of law and effective remedies…may justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.”
Even more profound was the Report’s refusal to limit itself strictly to Cast Lead, due to decades-long history of ill treatment by Israel to the Palestinians over the long and painful years of the occupation:
The Report condemned Israel’s fragmentation of the Palestinian people, its restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, its “institutionalized discrimination” against Palestinians in both the occupied Palestinian territories and in Israel, its violent repression of Palestinian demonstrators peacefully opposing the occupation, its wholesale detention, torture, and ill-treatment of Palestinians (including hundreds of children) and the utter lack of due process; its “silent transfer” of Palestinians in East Jerusalem in order to ethnically cleanse it; and its settlement expansion, land expropriation, and demolition of Palestinian homes and villages.
As for remedies in which to hold Israel accountable for its breaches of international law, it was recommended that individual states in the international community were to,
”start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of justice.” It was also recommended that “investigations were to be launched into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law.” It was proposed that Israel pay compensation for damages caused through a UN General Assembly escrow fund. Perhaps most importantly of all, Israel was called upon to “immediately terminate” its blockade of Gaza and subsequent strangulation of Gaza’s economy, as well as to “renounce violence against Palestinian civilians, affronts to human dignity, impingement on Palestinian political life and repression of political dissent, and its restrictions on freedom of movement.”
Had the findings of this Report finally come to be accepted worldwide, its recommendations enforced, this would no doubt have finally succeeded in ending Israel’s illegal occupation, and likely even ensuring the right of return, and reestablishment of pre-1967 borders/boundaries, with much of Palestine’s stolen land at last being returned to its rightful occupants. Yet sadly, had this been the case, this review never would have needed to be written. Or it, at least, could have ended here, with a very different outcome.
Yet Israel was still desperately seeking to find a way out of the growing controversy and human rights organizations’ condemnations in accordance with the Report. Its usual mobilization of the Israel hasbara to counter the claims by the Report were only moderately successful, leaving Israel still in a very vulnerable position, unable to proceed with their erasure of Palestinian identity, as the world would certainly not have tolerated a full-scale attack at this time.
For months, this was considered one of Israel’s “top headaches.” Everything they’d worked toward was now in jeopardy. Then, suddenly, their problem completely disappeared. Goldstone himself had sent an op-ed letter to the Washington Post, recanting the allegation that Israel “had not engaged in any war crimes” during Cast Lead. This volte-face by Goldstone was evidently justified by one simple, eerily vague, brisk quote: “We know a lot more today.”
It truly doesn’t get much more into depth for the why this happened than that, aside from Goldstone adding into the Report that one of Israel’s “deliberate attacks on civilians” was, rather, a “misread drone image” which had caused the twenty-one civilian deaths. Goldstone also merely gestured to the “findings by Israeli military investigations.”
Never mind the fact that any country investigating any instances of wrongdoing on the part of its military against what it sees as enemy forces is inherently biased: ”Israel supplied almost no information on which to independently assess the evidence presented or the proceedings’ fairness. It was not known how many were complete and how many were still ongoing. Even when they resulted in criminal indictments, the investigations were almost always inaccessible to the public.”
Today, Goldstone’s recantation remains a contentious argument among scholars, the main issue being: what the hell happened? What is known is that ever since its publication, Richard Goldstone had been the object of a relentless smear campaign. Despite the campaign’s best efforts, however, it did not appear as if they would have any negative impact on his career - with many even seeing the report as a boon to Goldstone’s reputation, as he had upheld the law despite the personal cost.
It was noticeably odd, as well, then, that someone like Goldstone who internalized the norms and rules of bureaucracies and lived his life in accordance with this protocol, would break with this bureaucratic protocol by issuing the recantation bombshell without first notifying and consulting with his three colleagues who served alongside him in the mission, or anyone at the UN, for that matter. That begged the question: ”if Goldstone did not confide in them beforehand, wasn’t it because he couldn’t credibly defend, but didn’t want to be shaken from, his resolve to recant?”
In questioning Goldstone’s longtime colleague and friend, South African jurist John Dugard, about what possibly could have led to the incredible recantation, Dugard could only speculate: ”There are no new facts that exonerate Israel and that could possibly have led Goldstone to change his mind. What made him change his mind therefore remains a closely guarded secret.”
Operation Cast Lead was very much a test by the Israeli government and military to see just how far they could go in destroying Gaza without justification. The answer? After the recantation by Goldstone, as far as they wanted, evidently. This would lead the way for the brutal Operation Protective Edge.
One only needs to observe the critical comparisons found by the UN to determine whether “both sides suffered immense fear, suffering and trauma”, as they (contradictorily) reported, despite an overwhelming imbalance between the two sides:
Civilians killed in Gaza: 1,600. Civilians killed in Israel: 6. Ratio: 270:1.
Children killed in Gaza: 550. Children killed in Israel: 1. Ratio: 550:1.
Homes severely damaged/destroyed in Gaza: 18,000. Homes severely damaged/destroyed in Israel: 1. Ratio: 18,000:1.
Houses of worship damaged or destroyed in Gaza: 203. Houses of worship damaged or destroyed in Israel: 2. Ratio: 100:1.
Kindergartens damaged or destroyed in Gaza: 285. Kindergartens damaged or destroyed in Israel: 1. Ratio: 285:1.
Medical facilities damaged or destroyed in Gaza: 73. Medical facilities damaged or destroyed in Israel: 0. Ratio: 73:0.
There’s much more damning evidence in reports issued by the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc… yet it doesn’t seem worth the time to note these findings. Because while these commissions’ reports found concrete evidence of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian population, just like the Goldstone Report, they then backpedaled by stating that Israel bore no criminal responsibility. Despite the findings stating the contrary, it was concluded that Israel had conducted these operations in “pursuit of military objectives” and other obvious falsehoods.
So here we are in 2024, with an oppressed population still being punished for attempting to fight back against their occupiers. Still being punished for existing, evidently. I keep holding out hope that the Palestinians will get the justice they so rightfully deserve and need, but this hope continues to be extinguished by the continuation of the US - and all nations - of turning a blind eye, in failure to stand together, and put an end to this antiquated system of apartheid and oppression once and for all.