Thoughts on Yom Kippur and the Goldstone report

In this period between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the rhythm of the Jewish calendar obliges us to become especially reflective and self-critical. As we try to make atonement (Kippur), we turn our attention to our own humanity, which is synonymous with our fallibility - as we are reminded by the Latin phrase, "erratum humanum est" (to err is human).

In traditional Jewish practice, our reflection on our fallibility, and our need to make atonement for it, is divided into two separate, though interrelated, spheres: The interactions that are "bein adam La-Makom" - commonly translated as "between man and God"; and those interactions which are "bein adam l'chaveiro" - between a person and other human beings.

Non-religious Jews draw on this important tradition as well, often modernizing their reflections by replacing the image of a Supreme Being with that of our "conscience" or "superego", our "inner God" or "divine self".

But regardless of one's particular religious beliefs, Yom Kippur is a crucial time for the Jewish people - individually and collectively - to own up to, and publicly admit, the errors we have made, so that we can become less imperfect human beings in the year to come.

Critically, the "Ashamnu" and "Al Chet" invocations of Yom Kippur are uttered unconditionally and without any sense of moral relativity. In our quest for spiritual and ethical improvement, we do not measure ourselves against the practices of our fellow humans, past or present: The fact that others' transgressions might seem many times more serious than our own does not exempt us from the need to atone ourselves. Nor does the atonement process dwell on the question of ‘moral equivalence'.

Similarly, our need to atone for transgressions against our fellow humans is not contingent on reciprocity. No contractual give-or-take is involved. We ask the forgiveness of those against whom we have transgressed, whether or not we have been asked to forgive the wrongs that were committed against us. There is no quid pro quo.

How far the ways of spiritual reflection sometimes seem from the practices of ‘mundane' politics and diplomacy.

On September 15, a UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, headed by former South African Judge, Richard Goldstone, submitted its 574-page report to the UN Human Rights Council. Goldstone's mandate was to, "to investigate all violations of
international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after" (page 5).

The lengthy Goldstone report accuses both Israel and Hamas of actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The report focuses primarily on Israel's actions - for two reasons: Because the vast majority of civilian casualties and destruction was on the Palestinian side, there was more that needed to be documented. And because the Government of Israel refused to cooperate with the fact-finders, and even prevented them from entering Israel, where they could have collected evidence from the Israeli side, there was less ‘Israeli material' to work with.

Israel explained its refusal to cooperate by citing the Human Rights Council's original one-sided condemnation of Israel's actions, accompanied by its one-sided call to investigate only Israel's misdeeds. This, Israel argued, made the entire fact-finding process ‘rigged'. Israel was not impressed by the fact that Goldstone, a man with strong ties to the country, agreed to lead the investigation only on condition that his team be allowed to examine the actions of both sides, including the actions that preceded Israel's air and ground campaign in Gaza.

The question that has occupied me this Yom Kippur is how to balance the spiritual and political challenges posed by the Goldstone report. Is there a ‘Jewish response' to the report - that of self-criticism and wrestling with our shortcomings - that is distinct from our ‘Zionist' response - which seeks to make sure that Israel is not singled out for blame in a conflict where the Palestinian side must bear responsibility for its share of moral and political failings?

A response driven by the Jewish principles of atonement would ignore whether or not the report was slanted against Israel; whether or not Hamas' history of terrorism is worse than Israel's misdeeds; whether or not Hamas and its members intended to make atonement for their own sins. A response driven by "Kippur" would focus exclusively on our never-ending effort to approach a level of moral ‘purity'.

The atonement principle suggests that the claims made in the Goldstone report should not be stonewalled - dismissed ad limine as biased or one-sided. It suggests that Israel first study the claims carefully and with honest self-criticism. And it suggests that Israel establish its own independent judicial commission of inquiry, as Goldstone's team has recommended and as the country has done in the past - such as the Kahan Commission that investigated the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacre in Beirut.

Many of those in the American Jewish community argue that such a "naïve" response would weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies. But should such an ethical Jewish response be regarded as antithetical to Israel's best interests in "the real world"? Perhaps not.

Decades ago, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, observed that, "The fate of Israel is dependent on its strength and its righteousness. Righteousness, not just strength, has to guide our deeds."

The Israel Defense Forces, too, ties these two values together. Its ethical guidelines cite both Jewish tradition and, "Universal moral values based on the value and dignity of human life" as key sources of the IDF's spirit. And the IDF's call for a "purity of arms" (tohar ha-neshek) makes definitive moral demands on IDF soldiers, who are expected to, "maintain their humanity even during combat ... not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and ... do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property."

Israel's willingness to make sure that these moral expectations are enforced would not be a sign of weakness. Self-criticism and atonement, after all, are not an indulgence of the transgressions of others, and certainly not an act of moral surrender. And a thorough and extensive investigation by Israel of its own actions would in no way excuse the terrible acts that have been committed repeatedly against Israeli non-combatants by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups.

If anything, a full, judicial Israeli investigation, and a commitment to make improvements based on the failings discovered, would place greater international focus on the need by Hamas and other groups to vastly improve their conduct. In adhering to an important Jewish ethical tradition, Israel would also be pressuring Palestinian society to turn away from terrorism and indiscriminate violence.