Subscribe to The Jewish Standard free weekly newsletter


entries tagged with: Goldstone Report


Bibi’s Goldstone dilemma

To investigate or not?

Leslie SusserWorld
Published: 30 October 2009

Richard Goldstone, left, shown meeting on June 1 with Ghazi Hamad of Hamas at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, echoes many by saying Israel can end the international inquiry into his report on the Gaza war by establishing an independent commission. Rahim Khatib/Flash90/JTA

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing one of the most acute dilemmas since his return to power last March: How to respond to the U.N.-sponsored Goldstone report’s charges that Israel may have committed war crimes in the Gaza war last January.

Pressure is mounting to establish an independent Israeli commission of inquiry. Key international players including the United States, Britain, and France — even Richard Goldstone, the author of the U.N. report — have intimated that if Israel sets up a credible civilian inquiry, in Goldstone’s own words, it “would be the end of the matter.”

Ending the Goldstone process would constitute a considerable diplomatic gain for Israel, and several members of the Israeli government, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, are advising Netanyahu to go that route.

But Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Israel Defense Forces are strongly against such an inquiry. They argue that a civilian-led investigation could cause chaos in the army, with senior officers looking for lawyers instead of focusing on military planning and training.

On Sunday, after convening a meeting of his top advisers, senior ministers, and the top IDF brass, Netanyahu made some initial decisions.

He promised the army that whatever commission was finally decided on, no officers or soldiers would be called upon to testify. He also ordered a team of professionals under Justice Minister Yaacov Neeman to come up with a set of proposed legal, diplomatic, and public relations counterpoints to the Goldstone report as soon as possible.

On the commission of inquiry, Netanyahu seems to be leaning toward a compromise proposal by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. To keep the IDF happy, Mazuz has proposed relying on its internal probes into the allegations of war crimes, but adding credibility by establishing a committee of jurists and ex-generals to scrutinize the IDF’s work to make sure nothing was swept under the carpet.

The committee then would translate the findings into legal language to build a case against the Goldstone report in the international arena. Of the 36 specific allegations of possible war crimes by Israel outlined in the report, the IDF already has investigated 26.

Mazuz also proposes that cases in which the military police launch criminal investigations against individuals now come under the purview of the Attorney General’s office. In other words, Mazuz wants to take the IDF’s work and “civilianize” it through overarching civilian scrutiny — but without the civilian authority being able to subpoena witnesses or interrogate soldiers.

Israel, Mazuz argues, needs a credible legal mechanism as a counterweight to Goldstone.

Not all members of the government are convinced his model will be well received on the international stage. Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan of the Likud Party and Avishai Braverman and Yitzhak Herzog of Labor argue that an independent commission with a much wider mandate is necessary. Otherwise it will look as though Israel has something to hide.

They argue that no one will take seriously an investigation carried out primarily by the IDF — the very body facing charges. An independent commission with a wide mandate would be far more credible and convincing than one restricted to an evaluation of IDF findings.

Moreover, in the context of a wide-ranging, open civilian investigation, the IDF still would be able to present video footage and other evidence it has to refute the charges in the Goldstone report, and to do so on a far more appropriate stage.

There is one other argument for a civilian rather than IDF-dominated probe. A prestigious Israeli committee headed by a former justice not only would be able to close the international file on Goldstone, it would be able to present the international community with proposals for a revision of the laws of war when fighting militia groups are embedded in civilian population centers. This could make it much clearer what armies like the IDF in Gaza, or the Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq, can or cannot do against enemies using human shields in urban areas.

It also would highlight the key question ignored by the Goldstone committee: How is a modern state supposed to defend its civilians against rockets fired from inside heavily populated urban areas?

Herzog maintains that Goldstone’s most serious allegation was not aimed at the IDF but at the government of Israel: that the government actually ordered the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Gaza in a deliberate campaign to target the people of Gaza. IDF probes cannot possibly touch on the allegation, thus Herzog argues that a much wider investigation is needed to refute it.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai says all that would be necessary to show how wrongheaded Goldstone’s claim is would be to make public the logs of the cabinet meetings during the war.

Herzog agrees that it won’t take much to discredit Goldstone on this point.

“If the claim is investigated,” he said, “it will be shown to be absurd.”


The death of academic discourse


Action needed to combat campaign delegitimizing Israel


Moves on Goldstone bar mitzvah spark brouhaha

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – Talk about shul politics.

In the interest of avoiding a disruption of his grandson’s bar mitzvah, Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the Goldstone report on the 2009 Gaza war, told JTA last week that he would not attend the family simcha next month at a Johannesburg synagogue.

But in case Goldstone has any second thoughts, a leading South African Jewish group announced it is ready to protest should he show up.

“We’ll exercise our constitutional right to protest,” the chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, Avrom Krengel, told the Cape Times on Monday.

Goldstone, a respected Jewish jurist from South Africa, has been persona non grata in the pro-Israel community ever since the release of his U.N. report on the Gaza war, which found that Israel committed war crimes in its three-week war with Hamas in Gaza in 2009. Pro-Israel groups have roundly condemned the report as dangerously one-sided, and say it has helped fuel international condemnation of Israel.

Following negotiations between the Zionist federation and Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, the synagogue hosting the bar mitzvah service, Goldstone said last week that “n the interests of my grandson, I’ve decided not to attend the ceremony at the synagogue.”

Krengel stressed that Goldstone had not been barred from the bar mitzvah, but that he would not be welcomed if he chose to attend.

Krengel’s position prompted a torrent of responses from around the Jewish world. Many defended Goldstone’s right to attend the bar mitzvah even as they criticized his report on the Gaza war. (See page 16.)

U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House of Representatives Middle East subcommittee, wrote to Krengel that he was “appalled and utterly disgusted by reports that Judge Goldstone will not be able to attend the bar mitzvah of his grandson due to protest threats by Jewish groups in South Africa.”

Describing himself as “an unapologetic critic of the Goldstone report, and of Judge Richard Goldstone’s badly warped perspective on Israel’s right to defend itself,” Ackerman said there was “absolutely no justification or excuse for carrying legitimate opposition and criticism of Judge Goldstone’s (wretched) professional work into the halls of his family’s synagogue, much less the celebration of a 13- year-old Jewish boy’s ritual acceptance of responsible membership in the Jewish community.”

The World Union for Progressive Judaism sounded a similar note. In a statement, Rabbi Joel Oseran, vice president of international development, and Rabbi Malcolm Matitiani, chairman of the South Africa Association of Progressive Rabbis, expressed their dismay.

“While we stand with Israel in disputing some of the findings of the Goldstone Commission’s report, Judaism teaches that judgment and forgiveness are not ours to withhold or to give,” they said.

But Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, head of South Africa’s Beth Din, or Jewish religious court, said there were strong feelings in the synagogue against Goldstone attending. He praised the arrangement wherein Goldstone would stay away on his own volition, calling it “quite a sensible thing to avert all this unpleasantness.”

Goldstone has done “a tremendous disservice not only to Israel but to the Jewish world,” Kurtstag said. “His name is used by hostile elements in the world against Israel, and this can increase anti-Semitic waves.”

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies, the community’s representative body, said in a statement that while “certain senior Jewish communal and religious leaders were certainly involved in the discussions around the topic, in no way did they attempt to dictate to or otherwise pressurize the family into arriving at their decision.”

The statement went on, “The SAJBD strongly believes that diversity of opinion in our community needs to be tolerated and respected, whether it emanates from the left, right, or center.”

In a separate statement, the Cape Council of the Board of Deputies said it “deeply regrets that a religious milestone has been politicized and disagrees with the manner in which this matter has been handled.”



Facebook is home to a new kind of Holocaust remembrance

Anne Frank’s Facebook page looks much like any other teenage girl’s: The profile picture shows Anne leaning against a wall; her hair is tucked behind her ears; and she stares off sideways, daydreaming perhaps, a slight smirking smile lifting up the corner of her mouth.

The comments on her “wall” are typical, too.

“We share the same birthday!” and “I hate this girl.” A string of teenage commentary follows every one of the many photos that have been posted to the page. One, in which Anne is standing outside in shorts and a sunhat, elicits this remark: “she had long legs! woah! model” In response, a prepubescent boy named Ricky laments, “she did have long legs……i hate hitler.”

Whether the fact that Anne Frank has a Facebook page (one set up for “fans”) strikes you as creepy and inappropriate or as completely normal and even charming will depend largely upon your age and the number of hours you spend on a laptop each day.

But the reality is that Holocaust memorialization is moving onto social-networking sites like Facebook and presenting new opportunities for remembering the victims — and bringing a whole new set of complexities. One of the most popular and disorienting forms that this new virtual commemoration is taking is the Facebook profile. Even the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is now involved with providing information to fill out the details of some of these profile pages.

The desire to personalize the identities of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust is not new. What is novel is the combination of this desire with a platform that is premised on empowering anybody to project his or her individuality far and wide.

There’s no more successful example of this fusion than the Facebook profile page of Henio Zytomirski. A small boy who must be no more than 7 or 8 years old appears in a black-and-white photo in the box provided for a profile picture. He looks full of joyful young life. But Henio has been dead since 1942, killed in a gas chamber at the Majdanek concentration camp when he was 9. On March 25, which would have been his birthday, dozens of Facebook users wished him a happy birthday on his “wall.” As of April 12, he had 4,989 “friends.”

One element unique to Henio’s profile is that it is being used to recount a narrative of this little boy’s life. In status updates written in Polish, Henio seemingly tells his story in his own voice. On Sept. 29 of last year, for example, this entry was posted: “Winter has arrived. Every Jew must wear the Star of David with his last name. A lot has changed. German troops walk the streets. Mama says that I shouldn’t be frightened, and always that everything is just fine. Always?”

The person posting in Henio’s name — and with the knowledge of his relatives — is Piotr Buzek, a 22-year-old history student from Lublin who works at the Brama Grodzka Cultural Center. According to Facebook’s policy, profiles of people other than oneself are allowed only with permission from the profiled person or, in this case, from that individual’s family. Buzek set up Henio’s page in August 2009, and since then he has been dutifully adding “friends” and posting photos and frequent updates. The center where he works was set up to promote the multicultural heritage of Lublin and has an archive of information and material on Henio’s life. It is from this that Buzek has created his virtual identity.

Buzek doesn’t think it strange that he should be speaking in the voice of a long-deceased Holocaust victim. As he sees it, this is a way of engaging a younger generation with what he calls “our tragic history.” Focusing on Henio and in essence bringing him back to life through Facebook is his way of making the Holocaust real.

“We can’t commemorate 6 million people,” Buzek said when the Forward reached him in Lublin. “I can’t imagine this number. But I can imagine one person. This boy was one of them. I can imagine him. And if you want to feel something deeper, you should concentrate on one person. You can touch it. You can’t touch 6 million people. You can touch one.”

Henio Zytomirski’s Facebook profile got some attention for being one of the first to use the site for that purpose. More than a few people were puzzled that Facebook could become a place for memorializing.

“The thing to remember is that many of these new social-media platforms are fluid, and information posted on them is very ephemeral,” said Evgeny Morozov, a blogger and contributor for Foreign Policy magazine. “What is it about Facebook or Twitter that makes them suitable for commemoration? I can’t find anything because they are built on the opposite principle. All the most recent stuff comes first.”

Those engaged in the more traditional forms of Holocaust remembering — namely, museums and physical memorials — are mostly skeptical of this new, looser, virtual form.

David Klevan is the education manager for technology and distance learning at the Holocaust museum. He was one of the organizers of what was called an “un-conference,” a gathering last December of museum professionals partly to try to figure out how to better use new social-networking platforms in ways that don’t trivialize the content.

Klevan looks a little warily at the Facebook profile phenomenon because he worries that those posting and those reading the posts don’t have access to a full historical context. Young people respond directly and sometimes thoughtlessly to the image or words in front of them — like the photo of Anne Frank in shorts. The pieces of information presented are disconnected from a larger narrative, and in a way that does not allow for any follow-up questions or further study.

“We prefer to maintain as much of the context as possible,” Klevan said. “If people are going to learn the stories of the victims, it’s preferable that they have easy access to supporting information and also being aware of where the content is being encountered.”

But the Holocaust museum has been providing information on the individual stories of victims to a Website called, an online service that is trying to digitize historical documents and use them to create virtual memorialization projects. One of the service’s bigger endeavors is a complete online simulacrum of the Vietnam Wall Memorial, where information can be added to fill out the identities of those who died. has used the information provided by the Holocaust museum to create 600 Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims.

Unlike Henio’s profile, the Facebook pages created by are different than the pages that individuals make for themselves. But they do still have all the usual features — a profile picture and a “wall” where pictures and comments can be posted, and attempt to do the same thing: create a virtual space for the individual victim to emerge.

“Our running tagline has been, “History is biography,’ “ said Chris Willis, vice president of social media for “If we are changing the form that that biography is being presented, it is only to make it more accessible. It’s going to make it easier for people to add more information about a life, maybe even add the kind of information that will help that life seem more unique and, in the end, much more compelling.”

This story first appeared at


The U.S. is committed to Israel’s security, preventing Iranian nukes


Jimmy Carter’s not-so-dear diary


Now that Goldstone has changed his mind, what’s next?

What happens now with the Goldstone Report may well be up to Goldstone.

Richard Goldstone’s April 2 Op-Ed in the Washington Post disavowing his earlier assumption that Israel had committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during the 2009 Gaza war has left pro-Israel activists wondering: What next?

Moves already are afoot to get the United Nations to retract the U.N. Human Rights Council’s endorsement of the Goldstone report on the monthlong 2008-09 Gaza war. The Israeli government and an array of Jewish groups have issued such calls.

The problem is with the mechanics. According to the council, the next move is up to Goldstone: He must not only submit a written request to retract the report, but get the three other members of his investigatory committee to sign on as well. Goldstone, who has not talked to reporters since his Op-Ed was published, did not return a request from JTA for comment.

A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, which is accredited at the United Nations, told JTA that his organization spent most of Monday and Tuesday trying to figure out how to work around the logistics.

U.N. Human Rights Council spokesman Cedric Sapey told Israel’s daily Yediot Achronot on Monday that Goldstone’s Op-Ed represented nothing more than his personal opinion, not that of the committee. Sapey also told The Associated Press that Goldstone would have to submit a formal request signed by all committee members to withdraw the report. The committee was disbanded after the report was filed in August 2009.

Last month, the council voted to send the report to the U.N. General Assembly with the recommendation that the U.N. Security Council turn it over to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in the Hague for possible prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The question for pro-Israel organizations is how to stop that process and force the United Nations to reverse course.

Meanwhile, groups that criticized Israel’s actions in the Gaza war are saying not so fast.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote in a letter to The New York Times that the significance of Goldstone’s Op-Ed is being overblown.

“As the judge who led an investigation into the Gaza conflict, he stands by most of his report,” Roth wrote. “Mr. Goldstone has not repudiated his panel’s findings that Israel committed numerous serious violations of the laws of war.”

He concluded that “Israel must still mount a credible investigation of its overall actions in the war.”

Israeli groups that advocate for Palestinian rights echoed that call even as they welcomed Goldstone’s finding that Israel did not intentionally target civilians or commit war crimes.

Hagai El-Ad, director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, known as ACRI, said the triumphalist tone that Israelis are taking in the wake of the Op-Ed is discouraging because it’s a sign that efforts at self-examination would be put to rest.

“That’s extremely troublesome,” he said.

ACRI and B’Tselem, an Israeli group that advocates for Palestinian rights, are still pressing Israel to investigate dozens of cases involving alleged abuses by individuals cited in the Goldstone Report. Only three cases are known to have been prosecuted so far.

“This take-it-or-leave-it, this kind of bombshell Goldstone dropped both times is problematic,” said Uri Zaki, the Washington director for B’Tselem. “Our criticism when it came out was that conclusions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, were not substantiated in the report itself. Those bottom lines were problematic, and now retreating from those conclusions is problematic.”

On Tuesday, Goldstone’s Op-Ed came up in the meeting between President Obama and Israeli President Shimon Peres, who later told reporters that the Op-Ed represented something of a vindication for a position shared only by the United States and Israel — that the Goldstone Report’s original conclusions were a calumny.

“I thanked the president for standing with us on Goldstone, for being the only one to stand with us on Goldstone,” Peres said at a news conference following his meeting with Obama.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday that Washington officials read Goldstone’s Op-Ed “with great interest.”

“We’ve made clear from when the Goldstone Report was initially presented and maintained ever since that we didn’t see any evidence that the Israeli government had intentionally targeted civilians or otherwise engaged in any war crimes,” Toner told reporters. “And now that we see that Justice Goldstone has reached the same conclusion, and then also we believe that Israel has since undertaken credible internal processes to assess its own conduct of hostilities, and I think that’s something that he acknowledged as well.”

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office told The Jerusalem Post that Britain does not support a retraction of the Goldstone Report.

“Justice Goldstone has not made such a call, and he has not elaborated on his views surrounding the various other allegations contained in the report — allegations which we firmly believe require serious follow-up by the parties to the conflict,” a Foreign Office spokesman told the newspaper on Monday night.

Absent action by Goldstone, the United States holds the key to retracting the report because it is the only nation with the clout to make it happen — especially now that the Human Rights Council has referred the matter to the General Assembly, said David Michaels, B’nai B’rith’s director for United Nations and intercommunal affairs.

“It will have to come from the U.S.,” Michaels said. “I’ll leave it to the diplomats to explore the channels.”

Reversing the course of the report is critical both because its adoption in 2009 spurred forward Palestinian Authority plans to achieve recognition of statehood unilaterally, and because its conclusions threaten counterterrorism not just in Israel, but throughout the West, Michaels noted.

Meanwhile, Yediot Achronot reported Tuesday that Goldstone has accepted a personal invitation from Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai to visit Israel in July and tour its southern communities, which have been besieged by Hamas rockets. Yishai said the invitation came up when he called Goldstone to thank him for his reassessment.

JTA Wire Service


Pushed by Goldstone, Israeli army embraces new ‘smart’ warfare

Leslie SusserWorld
Published: 15 April 2011
Israeli reservists take part in an October 2010 urban warfare exercise at a base in southern Israel in which they can simulate training as if they were fighting in the Gaza Strip or west bank. Tsafrir Abayov/Flash90/JTA

JERUSALEM – Despite Israel’s rejection of the Goldstone report on the Gaza war a year and a half ago, the international criticism it engendered has led the Israel Defense Forces to make a number of significant changes in policy and doctrine.

And they’ll stay even though Richard Goldstone has recanted one of the most significant findings of his committee’s report — that Israel intentionally targeted civilians and may have perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

News Analysis

Among the changes made by the IDF were modifying the way soldiers fight in urban areas, teaching relatively low-level combat officers nuances in the laws of war, attaching humanitarian liaison officers to active forces, and making media relations a priority.

Last May, eight months after the Goldstone report was released, the IDF issued a new document defining rules of engagement in urban warfare. Although the ideas elaborated long had been standard practice, putting them down in writing was tantamount to introducing a new doctrine for fighting in built-up areas.

The document noted that during the Gaza operation, even after every effort had been made to induce civilians to evacuate areas where combat was expected — for example, by dropping fliers and making direct telephone calls to area residents — more often than not some non-combatants stayed behind.

The new doctrine requires that after efforts have been made to warn the civilian population to leave, the incoming troops first fire warning shots and give the remaining civilians a chance to leave safely. Then, to minimize casualties among civilians who nevertheless choose to stay, IDF fighters and commanders must use the most accurate weapons at their disposal and choose munitions of relatively low impact.

The IDF also has taken significant legal steps.

Officer training courses at company, battalion, and brigade levels now include a detailed study of international law, with special reference to the rules of war. The Military Advocate General’s Office and the Foreign Ministry consult regularly with foreign governments and international organizations to ensure that all IDF operations conform to accepted legal norms.

During the month-long Gaza war in the winter of 2008-09, legal advisers from the Military Advocate General’s Office served with combat forces, advising commanders in real time of what might constitute a breach of law. In January 2010, then Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi standardized this practice, instructing commanders to consult with legal advisers not only in the planning stages of military operations, but also during the actual fighting.

To prevent possible loss of military focus, however, Ashkenazi ordered that the legal advisers be sent to divisional headquarters rather than battalions or brigades, as is common in some other Western armies.

Another step the IDF has taken to help minimize civilian casualties and humanitarian distress on the other side is to attach humanitarian liaison officers to troops in the field. The officers come from a pool set up by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, or COGAT, and are in regular contact with the Palestinian Authority in the west bank and international aid organizations in Gaza.

Their task in the event of hostilities is to help coordinate humanitarian needs on the Palestinian side and to point out locations of sensitive facilities like hospitals, schools, and U.N. aid centers to ensure that they are not mistakenly targeted. Such officers were assigned during the Gaza war on an ad hoc basis and, according to the IDF, proved very effective.

As a result, Ashkenazi decided in February 2010 to refine and institutionalize the system.

The most radical change in IDF thinking since Goldstone has been in the realm of media relations. Now there is a firm consensus in the army that the way military actions are perceived is at least as important as their physical impact.

Brig.-Gen. Avi Benayahu, the Israeli army’s outgoing spokesman, is fond of quoting the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s dictum that whereas public relations once was supplemental to battle, now battle is supplemental to PR.

More than ever, IDF generals agree, all operations must be planned with media, legal, and international legitimacy aspects in mind. To instill more media savvy, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office routinely sends its mobile communications’ school unit from one combat unit to the next teaching officers to get their messages across in 20-second sound bites. More important, trained media officers are now attached to combat units.

This means that in future combat situations, commanders will have legal, humanitarian, and media advice on tap.

Not everyone is happy with the changes. Some say it will make it difficult for the Israeli army to operate in combat situations and won’t prevent the next Goldstone report because, they say, war is always ugly, brutal, and destructive.

Nevertheless, it seems that in the post-Goldstone era, with Israel under severe international scrutiny, the IDF is determined to do all it can to uphold the strictest standards of international law.

Moreover, the IDF is collaborating with some of the human rights organizations critical of its actions to make sure that cases of alleged IDF misconduct are handled appropriately. Last July, the military advocate general, Avichai Mendelblit, singled out B’Tselem, which monitors Israeli actions against Palestinians, for thanks.

“Between the military and various human rights organizations, there is constant dialogue,” IDF spokesman Capt. Barak Raz told the Forward newspaper last year.

Another sugn of the IDF’s heightened legal sensitivity came earlier this month, when the Israeli army notified the Supreme Court that any Palestinian civilian deaths in the west bank caused by the IDF in non-combat situations will now automatically spark a criminal investigation.

Under the old policy, the army first conducted a fact-finding field inquiry to decide whether to open a criminal file, laying itself open to charges that the “fact-finding” often was simply a ruse to block criminal proceedings. Now such criminal investigations will be mandatory.

In what American military strategist Edward Luttwak has dubbed “the post-heroic era,” the IDF finds itself hampered by two major constraints: care not to conduct operations that might incur international censure or operations that could lead to heavy Israeli military casualties.

Sometimes the two principles are at odds, as when Israeli ground forces used heavy fire in the Gaza war to avoid casualties, and in so doing put Palestinian civilian lives at risk. But often they are complementary, as in the IDF’s reluctance to commit ground troops unless absolutely necessary.

Part of the solution to the post-Goldstone dilemma lies in technology: for example, using super-accurate munitions that can pinpoint terrorist targets, pilotless planes that can identify and attack would-be rocket launchers, and active defense systems like the Iron Dome — anti-missile batteries that last week downed several Grad rockets launched from Gaza. The system simultaneously located their launch points, enabling immediate attacks on the militiamen firing them.

These capabilities enabled Israel to cool the latest Gaza flare-up without incurring international opprobrium or risking soldiers’ lives.

In other words, the Goldstone report and its international ramifications have pushed the IDF into a process of self-examination resulting in a new doctrine of “fighting smart” from operational, legal, humanitarian, and media points of view.

JTA Wire Service

Page 1 of 1 pages
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31