It is, apparently, impossible to follow the news about Israel without encountering the (in)famous Goldstone Report. The news this week has to do with Goldstone’s connections to NGOs which opposed the war in Gaza before Goldstone conducted his “fact-finding” mission. It would be impossible, and relatively useless, to go through the various problems and inconsistencies in the report; you can’t throw a stone in the blogosphere without hitting someone who has done just that.
Instead, it is worthwhile for us to examine how Goldstone’s connections with certain NGOs would end up in the news. This piece claims that the judge’s association with so-called “anti-Israel groups” proves that his report is not trustworthy. There must be some truth to this claim; if Goldstone is frolicking in the fields with organizations that preach in favor of Israel’s destruction, then maybe he is not the most qualified person to lead a human rights investigation. Furthermore, Im Tirtzu suggests that much of the evidence found in the Goldstone report comes from Israeli organizations commonly supported by the New Israel Fund.
There is no question that the collection of organizations with which Goldstone is affiliated affects his ability to do an unbiased investigation. An objective report about any armed conflict is an impossible thing to produce. One’s loyalties to either the Israeli or Palestinian cause determine how one views the history and conflict of the region; the two sides tell very different stories to defend their actions and claims to the same land.
However, some of the organizations in question are internationally recognized groups like Amnesty International. While the agenda of these NGOs may not exactly be flattering (or even fair) to Israel, the allegation that someone who supports Amnesty absolutely cannot support Israel is absurd. Intelligent people learn to take ideologies with a grain of salt; neither Amnesty’s radical positions nor an “Israel can do no wrong” attitude stand up to the test of logic.
Unfortunately, the response from center-right or right-wing groups like Im Tirtzu has been a blanket dismissal of all criticism as “slander.” This response serves a political purpose but may not help improve Israel. In a democratic system, dissent plays a central role. Where there is disagreement in a democracy, different sides of a debate should listen and internalize the arguments of opposing groups. Instead, many take the easy way out: ad hominem attacks or closed ears.
The important thing to realize is that NGOs on both sides of the political fence are working toward the common goal of a more secure and prosperous Israel. A supposedly unbiased report cannot take a significant amount of evidence from a number of politically-aligned organizations (who, not coincidentally, take their money from the same coffers). However, the report’s unreliability does not mean that we should not engage with it; instead, Israel should listen to and debate with its critics from all sides of the issue. It may be long past the time for extremists in all camps to listen more and talk less, but this is often not the way of extremism.
