We have read in the papers that the report by Justice Richard Goldstone on the Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was released a few days ago. The report has concluded that in the fighting that ensued in the months of November and December, both sides have killed numerous people and are accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As regards Israel, the report states,
“In its findings on Israel’s conduct, the report noted that the ruinous siege on Gaza, imposed long before the invasion, collectively punished its residents in violation of international law. During the attack, Israeli troops killed civilians without justification, wantonly destroyed civilian infrastructure and private homes, and used weapons illegally. Israeli troops targeted and destroyed Gaza’s last functioning flour mill. Israeli armored bulldozers razed the chicken farm that provided 10% of Gaza’s eggs, burying 31,000 chickens in rubble. Israeli gunners bombed a raw sewage lagoon, releasing 200,000 cubic meters of filth into neighboring farmland. Repeated pinpoint strikes on a water well complex destroyed all of its essential machinery.”
The world order has sprung into action with each country having an opinion on the report. Israel and the United States (obviously siding Israel) have called the report biased and stated that it overwhelmingly focused on Israel’s actions. Even hamas say so. However, the neutralists say that the report seems to bring out the true picture of the situation in Palestine.
The implications of the Report may be graver than they seem at present. There is a possibility that the conflict goes beyond two nations itself and enters a new realm of international law; in this case I am speaking of the International Criminal Court. Even though Israel is not a member to the Rome Statue, the ICC may have jurisdiction if the United Nations refers the matter to the prosecutor. In fact, the Goldstone report recommended that if Israel did not within six months launch fully independent investigations into the “serious violations” of international law it alleges, then the country should face International Criminal Court proceedings.
Be it noted that a case can also be independently investigated by the Prosecutor when using their proprio motu powers under Article 15 (only for a state party though). The Goldstone report would likely be used as supporting material as part of any investigation initiated under this section,
“The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.”
However, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo is not ruling out options to prosecute Israel or Israeli authorities. Investigations have begun on behalf of the ICC. In an interview here she said that that since one of the Israeli legal advisers involved in the alleged conflict and commission of war crimes was South African, the ICC could gain jurisdiction through that route as well. South Africa ratified the Rome Statute on Nov. 27, 2000.
ICC prosecuted countries which are not its members, such as Sudan. Really, the US should be more wary of Goldstone’s report than Israel because under such law as he lays down, a lot of American soldiers would be regarded as war criminals.
Here is an interesting rebuttal from Israeli analysts http://samsonblinded.org/blog/goldstone-report-the-rebuttal.htm
just some clarifications:
- ICC does not prosecute countries, it prosecutes individuals that are high enough in the chain of command to be able to command atrocities being committed
to Alex:
-due to previous explanation… there is no fear that ordinary american soldiers would be prosecuted…. but their commanders might have been IF the US were a state party and was UNABLE or UNWILLING to prosecute them
and
- in the Sudan case, the prosecution was not started proprio motu, it was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council in its role as the supreme authority for the keeping of international peace and security, whose resolutions must be obeyed
- there is also no fear that the US would be referred to the ICC by the SC since the US is one of the P5 members with the power of veto and i severely doubt it would not excercise it in that case