When the interim Winograd Commission report was released in April, indicating there were failures in how the Lebanon War was conducted, I asked these questions:
What does this mean for the American Jewish connection to Israel? What do I teach my sons about where they are this summer, what they are seeing, who they are? Should they be a part of the soul-searching that goes on (at least sometimes) in Israel, or the pretending, congratulating, lining-up and bandwagon-ing that goes on here?
So let me just ask this, for my sake as a father, and for my sons’ sake as very young American Jews: will the mainstream American Jewish leadership form its own Winograd commission? Will they look at their own actions, their own decisions during that time? Will they examine their overall approach to the strategic issues of how to connect American Jews with Israel, of demanding that that connection always equal full support of the Government of Israel?
Now the Winograd report has announced it will investigate whether war crimes were committed last summer. That leaves me with so many more questions.
A few months back, as I prepared to come to Israel with my family for 3 months, the interim Winograd Commission report came out. As you may recall, the report identified a range of apparent failures during the conduct of the war with Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
The final report is due out in a couple of months, but even the interim report managed to generate a lot of attention and discussion inside Israel. Even without a final report, people demanded the Prime Minister step down; indeed, over 100,000 demonstrated in Tel Aviv calling for his ouster. His approval ratings plummeted into the single digits. Although Olmert has managed to remain in office, the reactions to Winograd were the final blow suffered by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz that led to his defeat to Ehud Barak (and Ami Ayalon, who also beat him out in the first round) in the recent Labor Party primaries.
All of this attention resulted from the report’s initial findings that there were numerous mistakes made in the decision to go to war at all, in the carrying out of the war, and in the overall preparation and state of the Israel Defense Forces.
Now, to top it off, the Winograd Commission has indicated it will investigate whether or not war crimes were committed by Israel during the war. That is, those on the Commission have actually looked at the reports of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others about the use of cluster munitions against civilians and have decided they need to investigate. An internal investigation that admits its possible war crimes were committed (with American-made weaponry, of course).
Who know what they will find? Frankly, it’s near to impossible to imagine the Commission finding that war crimes occurred. The impact and implications would be innumerable. Especially in light of the potential investigation (depending on how the State of Israel responds to the High Court’s recent ruling asking for their opinion on a commission) into the July 2002 targeted killing of Salah Shehadeh in Gaza with a one-ton bomb that left 14 innocent civilians dead.
As Ha’aretz reported, the move to investigate possible war crimes in Lebanon came from both the parents of soldiers and human rights groups:
Gal-On wrote to the Winograd panel several weeks ago to urge such an inquiry. She said she made the request after soldiers' parents - who had earlier approached Winograd independently - asked her to push for an investigation into whether there was ethical misconduct during the war.
Gal-On said that grave allegations made by human rights organizations, who accused the IDF of committing war crimes and harming Lebanese civilians, strengthened her conviction that these claims must be probed.
But what Winograd ultimately finds on the war crime question doesn’t really matter to me. What matters is that they are looking at it all and actually facing the question of "could we have committed war crimes?" Admitting that such things are even theoretically possible.
Now, I will leave it to others to comment on the implications for the kind of investigations and introspection currently underway (or not) in the United States vis-à-vis Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
What I am concerned about is the absolute silence from those incredibly loud and vocal supporters of Israel’s decision to go to war and to forego cease fire talks in the first weeks.
The whole point of Winograd is to insure, if such insurance is possible, that the mistakes made last summer don’t happen again. But the mistakes they are concerned about are primarily tactical and logistical, as well they should be. As recently reported, the IDF is facing problems of morale and reputation and retention and professionalism of a kind never before seen in its history.
And this is indeed a huge problem. For those who love and believe in the State of Israel, the army is a necessity. Repairing its ability not only to perform in battle, but also to have the people believe it can and will perform to the levels previously expected, is a must. Of course, we may also work to insure that it does so with even higher standards for its rules of engagement and overall conduct, but it is clear that the IDF must be healed. Thus I believe Winograd, regardless of its findings on war crimes, will be an important piece of the puzzle of progress here.
What I fear is the lack of progress in the U.S., whether in the government or in the mainstream Jewish community. And for that, Judge Winograd, you have to come home with me. Because we need your help.
Last year, as you will recall, the rush to support Israel’s decisions, and to fend off all criticism and questioning as near blasphemy, by the Administration, in Congress, and most of all within the mainstream of the American Jewish community could not have been quicker.
In a piece written several weeks into the war, the Forward quoted leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and Jewish Committee for Public Affairs at the end of July as saying there was "absolute unanimity" and "zero dissent" in the Jewish community that Israel was doing the right thing and should not pursue a cease fire until it was ready. We told our students that Israel was justified in all it was doing, and that they needed to get out there on campus and convince everyone they could that this was the case.
In Congress, "pro-Israel" leaders like Rep. Brad Sherman of California (a Democrat and former member of the House Human Rights Subcommittee, no less) not only backed Israel (and voted almost unanimously), they called for Israel to do more. Inflict – and suffer -- more violence and death. As Rep. Sherman wrote in the Jewish Journal in late July of 2006:
Congress rightly has condemned Hezbollah for "engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory." The House passed a resolution by a vote of 410 to 8 supporting "Israel's right to defend itself, including the right to conduct operations in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it."
...
There are some who say the Israeli reaction has been "disproportionate." It cannot be overstated that the recent outbreak of warfare was not simply a reaction to one event. The truth is that there have been five kidnapping raids and hundreds of missiles fired during six years of attacks. If anyone is going to say that Israel's reaction is disproportionate, let them say that Israel is doing too little.
That’s right. Using cluster munitions and leveling so much of Beirut and southern Lebanon, while Hizballah continued to target innocent Israelis and inflict casualties on its forces, was "doing too little."
After the war, when Human Rights Watch released its report on use of cluster munitions, the rush to condemnation in the mainstream was again quick. As he often is, first out of the gate to cry "anti Israel!" was Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.
Once again, Human Rights Watch has reached a skewed conclusion in its review of Israel's actions in an armed conflict with its neighbors. In an irrational rush to judgment, Human Rights Watch accuses Israel of indiscriminately attacking Lebanese civilians.
The report looks at Israel's military activity in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to Israel's security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, and ignoring the cynical actions of those who seek to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground, or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world.
Israel, like any country, has a right to defend itself, and does so with every effort to prevent civilian casualties that, while tragic, are unavoidable during war. It is especially difficult to minimize the harm to civilians against an enemy who purposely operates from within the midst of a civilian population in callous disregard of the consequences to those civilians.
What say you now, Mr. Foxman? Will you condemn the Winograd commission for giving validity to these reports? For listening to the Israeli parents of Israeli soldiers, who wonder whether ethical lines were crossed? Will you present "absolute unanimity" in supporting Winograd’s efforts to understand what went wrong in this war you so loudly applauded? Or, instead, should there be "zero dissent" from the notion that Israel could ever do such things?
What about you, Mr. Sherman? Will you write another article in the Jewish Journal, or give a statement on the floor of the House, and ask yourself whether you were wrong? Will you question your urge and those of your colleagues to rush to the podia of Congress and rallies around town to say you "stand with" Israel, whatever you think that may mean? What does it mean? And how does blind support for a war, and refusal to consider its end, meet your definition?
Most importantly, will you consider apologizing to the parents of those Israeli soldiers who now have to ask whether their children engaged in war crimes? Will you apologize to the families of those Israeli soldiers who were killed or injured as a result of your insistence that Israel fight on? To the families of the innocent civilians killed in Israel and Lebanon? To the people of Lebanon as a whole?
Or do you still think Israel did "too little" last summer?
In the end, as far as I can tell, there has been silence from the mainstream Jewish community about Winograd’s meaning for our own relationship to and support of Israel. This report from the American Jewish Committee summed up well the many aspects of the interim report but left out any discussion of AJC’s own vocal support of Israel’s conduct.
Don’t get me wrong. The American Jewish community and American government needed to be there last summer to help the people of Israel through its crisis. One of the main things, however, that we needed to do was to look at the reality, from the luxury of distance and safety that we enjoy. To see the real problems with the war, to focus on the impact on the Lebanese population as well, and to push for a swift and meaningful resolution for all sides.
Instead, we sat on the sidelines and cheered. And held rallies and raised money. And now that those rallies have been shown – by an official Israeli commission – to have been in support of a questionable war, a war that did not achieve its stated ends, where is our introspection? Where is our search for a way to respond to such crises in the future? Where is our insurance that we truly support the people of Israel, to help them find as true a peace as possible, rather than simply backing any and all of its decisions, wise or not?
My 5th summer here has, as they always do, taught me a lot about Israel. Like with any place, I have seen and experienced plenty of good and bad. And when you're an outsider, it's often all too easy to focus on the bad parts (as it helps you avoid your own failings). But among the best parts of Israel is its willingness to consider (to a degree, anyway) its flaws. As I was reminded in a comment to my last post, some people choose to live here, rather than be outside preachers like those of us who float in and out for a few months at a time.
And those who live here are aware they are not perfect. Along with that is the notion that they need help from friends and family.
The question is what that help should be. Sadly, I don’t think we Americans, particularly mainstream American Jews, are capable of understanding that right now. We understand only "absolute unanimity" and "zero dissent."
That is not help. That is not support. What I perceive as support may not be perfect either, but I believe, in the end, the mainstream approach is just a recipe for more pain and suffering. And, as the polls have shown over time, it's also a perfect way to create more distance between American Jews and the mainstream Jewish community.
And so, Judge Winograd, when your work is done here, please come to my home. To America. To Washington. And help us look at ourselves.
Otherwise, I fear you may correct your country's mistakes but we will not correct ours.