Does the Goldstone Mission Report give a green light to terrorism?

As a human being, I’m disappointed with the findings of the Goldstone mission’s report that I read through last night. My disappointment doesn’t come from its comments or recommendations, which were no surprise and were a foregone conclusion, given the UNHRC resolution commissioning the so-called “fact-finding mission” along with the presence of Prof. Christine Chinkin, a signator to a letter in the Sunday Times condemning Operation Cast Lead for committing war crimes as early as January 11, 2009—a time when the operation was in full swing and there were few, if any, reliable reports. If nothing else, this letter with her signature on it should have disqualified her as an objective investigator.

No, my disappointment is much more far-reaching than the immediate implications of the report’s conclusions—conclusions that support my earlier opinion that the Geneva Conventions are outdated and in dire need of review. My disappointment is in the longer-term implications for any country that attempts to wage a war against terror now or in the future.

If we read between the lines of the Goldstone mission report, any and all countries waging a war on terror, now or in the future, will be shackled by the threat of legal action while terrorist organizations will be given a free pass—exactly the point of my opinion on the Geneva Conventions.

Imagine that a country—any country—is attacked by terrorists and unable to protect its citizens for fear of legal repercussions. Other than the “minor” fact that this is a direct contravention of UN Charter Article 51, it’s also a direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What “right to life and liberty” does anyone have if any group decides to attack a country, terrorizing and murdering civilians while the targeted nation has no means to protect its citizens without finding itself accused of war crimes?

I wonder if the members of the Goldstone Mission considered these implications. I also look askance at Justice Goldstone; as a judge he certainly should know that two of the main points for consideration in any criminal case are MOTIVE and INTENT.

Intent, Motive, Means and Opportunity—these are the four basic factors that define guilt for a crime. The report’s studious avoidance of the motive for Israel’s operation against Hamas in Gaza and its [deliberate?] misjudgment of the intent, the wishy-washy comments on Hamas actions along with the statement that Hamas is not a national entity (and therefore can not be indicted in the International Court of Justice), combine as a precedent to give any and all terrorist groups a green light for whatever depredations they may choose to inflict on their target with complete legal impunity and without restraint while rendering the targeted country impotent to reply.

For anyone who hasn’t read the report, you can find a copy of it here.

It’s my belief that the Goldstone Report is a dangerous precedent for any country that intends to fight terrorism and protect its own citizens—unless, of course, it’s applied only to Israel and to no other country.