The Power of Transparency

by Rachel Liel

At first there was denial. The establishment refused to acknowledge the existence of the Goldstone Commission, refused to cooperate with it, refused to present it with information and refused to investigate the difficult events that it examined.

Then came the slander: The Commission is biased against Israel, Goldstone is an anti-Semite, a Jew who hates his nation.  Today, in light of Richard Goldstone’s latest statements (in his article published in the Washington Post), it is now clear that the harsh report against Israel was a result of the establishment’s refusal to cooperate with the Commission and the refusal to investigate its findings seriously.

In every proper democracy, when there is an incident of fighting in which civilians are victims, there is reason to investigate.  The New Israel Fund, along with Israeli human rights organizations, was a partner in the demand that the government establish an independent committee of inquiry, a step that would have prevented the establishment of the Goldstone Commission.   Human rights organizations repeatedly warned that claims of “everything is fine” and “there’s nothing to investigate,” and the insistence to deny the Commission meetings with any official Israeli representatives would only serve to blur the moral difference between Israel as a democratic state and Hamas as a terror organization, and could lead the Commission to difficult conclusions that would put Israel and Hamas in the same basket.  This is exactly what happened.  Much of the serious political damage to Israel could have been avoided or significantly reduced if the government had responded in real time to the calls of the New Israel Fund and human rights organizations.

Finally, too late and too little, the establishment began to understand that the real answer to claims of unnecessary harm to civilians is not automatic denial.  Gradually, the powers of investigation, transparency and the clarification of truth have begun to be understood. Little by little the military criminal investigation division (CID) has begun to investigate allegations and to check the possibility that perhaps negligence, intelligence failures, operational failures and moral failures caused civilian deaths. Slowly we’ve begun to believe that it is best to begin with an open discussion with the world, and not to presume that the whole world is against us and be satisfied with that.

This new policy reaped its first benefits in Goldstone’s article.  Goldstone praised the internal investigations done in Israel. The comprehensive work of human rights organizations assisted in the dozens of studies conducted by the IDF, which led to Goldstone’s retraction. Here, says Goldstone, at least official Israel investigates; what Hamas unequivocally refuses to do.  Now Goldstone and the like say that for Hamas war crimes are a policy, whereas Israel treats such events differently and does not ignore them.  Israel’s Military Advocate General and other official bodies now understand that it is in their best interest to cooperate with the human rights organizations and use the information they provide as a basis for serious investigations and clarification of the truth.

Nevertheless, it is important to note – Goldstone also warns that the investigations have been too slow and do not yet impose serious repercussions. A UN specialists’ committee upon which Goldstone’s recent statement was based also cautions that it is difficult to accept a situation where a soldier who steals a credit card is sent to jail for seven months while a soldier who is found guilty of the death of civilians is merely demoted and sent home.

The important political achievement of Goldstone’s article may be lost if in the coming months it becomes clear that the Israeli investigations that led Goldstone to change his mind are not serious and were conducted only pro-forma. Only a real change of direction towards openness, transparency, reaching conclusions and implementing them can ensure that we will receive fewer Goldstone Reports and more balanced articles. A democracy that checks itself and is transparent to its citizens and critics alike will know how to preserve its values and its position in the world over time.