UN investigation into Israeli attack will be meaningless if it is ignored

Tel Aviv must not be allowed to ignore the findings of the flotilla inquiry in the way it dismissed

After a 12-hour emergency meeting, the UN Security Council has issued a statement formally condemning Israel's assault today on a convoy of aid ships heading for Gaza.

It calls for an inquiry:

The Security Council took note of the statement of the UN Secretary General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

It is certainly true that the events must be unravelled, amid claims from the Israel Defence Force (IDF) that protesters attacked them first. But in and of itself, this is an inadequate response, unless there are guarantees that the findings of the report will have some impact.

Recent history demonstrates this. The UN inquiry into the assault on Gaza in 2009, headed by Sir Richard Goldstone, accused both the IDF and Hamas of war crimes, and recommended that both sides must investigate their conduct; with the allegations coming before the International Criminal Court if this was not done.

Predictably, Israel dismissed the report, claiming it was biased and methodologically flawed. "The Goldstone report is a field court-martial, and its findings were prewritten," said the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netenyahu. "This is a prize for terror."

The foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was no less equivocal, saying: "The Goldstone Commission is a commission established with the aim of finding Israel guilty of crimes ahead of time."

And what have the ramifications of the investigation been? Several months after the final report was published in September 2009, a non-binding UN resolution was passed, urging that its suggestions be implemented. Since then, there's been nothing, and I wouldn't hold your breath.

It is an unfortunate fact that, when Israel has no answers, its default position is to attempt to undermine its critics as biased and anti-Israeli. This was true of Goldstone (a judge with an impeccable record of impartiality in high-level political cases -- and a practising Jew, who criticised the subsequent UN resolution for failing to hold Hamas to account). And it will almost certainly be true of whoever is chosen to lead this mission.

A UN investigation into this latest incident -- the killing of at least ten people in international waters -- will be meaningless if its findings are ignored in this way.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Tony Blair won't endorse the Labour leader - Jeremy Corbyn's fans are celebrating

The thrice-elected Prime Minister is no fan of the new Labour leader. 

Labour heavyweights usually support each other - at least in public. But the former Prime Minister Tony Blair couldn't bring himself to do so when asked on Sky News.

He dodged the question of whether the current Labour leader was the best person to lead the country, instead urging voters not to give Theresa May a "blank cheque". 

If this seems shocking, it's worth remembering that Corbyn refused to say whether he would pick "Trotskyism or Blairism" during the Labour leadership campaign. Corbyn was after all behind the Stop the War Coalition, which opposed Blair's decision to join the invasion of Iraq. 

For some Corbyn supporters, it seems that there couldn't be a greater boon than the thrice-elected PM witholding his endorsement in a critical general election. 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496