Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Goldstone Commission, which has just reported in Geneva, probably will not be discussed much by this parliament, reflecting its lack of credibility and the fact that the Australian government, I am sure, does not take it seriously. The mandate of this regrettable commission, investigating the divisive problem of the Middle East, has been troubled from the beginning. All of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan, refused to be associated with the UN Human Rights Council mandate for this commission because it was so biased. Distinguished individuals such as former Irish president Mary Robinson refused invitations to head the commission since it was guided not by human rights but by politics. In fact, her statement said:

I absolutely condemn what Hamas does. And that also should be a subject of inquiry—

that is, the war that took place in the Middle East at the beginning of this year. She continued:

And unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel had done, and I don’t think that’s a human rights approach. We need an inquiry to look at the violations of international humanitarian law by—potential violations by all sides.

That would be much fairer than the kangaroo court that, regrettably, has been established by this commission.

There is good old Australian racetrack terminology that describes the Goldstone commission: this is a racehorse sired out of malice, out of a mare named Hypocrisy. I want to cite some of the background of the incredible one-sidedness of the UN report that, regrettably, has been brought down by Justice Goldstone’s commission in Geneva. The mandate set by the Human Rights Council, run by such luminaries as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya et cetera pursuing it, was:

… to investigate all violations of International Human Rights Law and … 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 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 …

Now, the point about that immediately leaps out from the above is that it sets a framework where only the military action in Gaza, not what preceded it, can be investigated. As a humanitarian and as a supporter of human rights, I would not mind if a fair-minded Human Rights Council from the United Nations investigated that conflict. But you must look at what preceded the Israel army’s action in Gaza. The 8,000 rockets that landed on Israeli southern cities would be the subject as well of any investigation by a genuine humanitarian—any fair-minded person, any fair-minded United Nations organisation. The Goldstone commission is even more curious since UN Resolution S-9/1, which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission, said the Human Rights Council:

… decides to dispatch an urgent, independent … fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law … by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people … particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.

One can understand why the Israelis, given the fact that nothing on their side was to be looked at and only what was happening in Gaza was to be looked at, would not cooperate with the mandate at all. What a very curious humanitarian commission that examines only one side. Most claims were unverifiable, made by various NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, which recently approached me to broaden their activities in Australia. Regrettably, I could not pursue their request, since Human Rights Watch have been soliciting fundraising efforts in Saudi Arabia—an extraordinary thing for a humanitarian organisation to do, given that country’s record on religious freedom, the rights of women et cetera. It is disgraceful that Human Rights Watch apparently decided to solicit funds from Saudi zillionaires on the basis of their highly critical views of the Israeli position.

Let me speak some truth about power here. The resolution to the problems in the Middle East will come when people have considerations for all sides. President Obama will soon gather together the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister of Israel, with the purpose of reviving the talks and reaching a two-state solution. We all know this has been the Australian position since partition; this has been the just position from the beginning. That is where justice will come from, not from this one-sided report which will only set back prospects of political settlement. (Time expired)

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Question agreed to.