Amid the controversy surrounding the 525-page Goldstone report issued last fall, which was met with mixed reactions by international leaders, UCLA organizations sponsored a three-part lecture series to present different views on the report.
Daniel Taub, principal deputy legal adviser of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was the final speaker at the event, which was held at the law school on Feb. 8. He described Israel’s stance on the submission of the Goldstone reports, which recorded human rights violations on both Israeli and Palestinian sides during the siege of Gaza in December of 2008. The Goldstone fact-finding mission was met with mixed reactions by international leaders.
The previous lectures in the series were led, respectively, by Sarah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch; and David Kaye, UCLA Law School professor and executive director of the International Human Rights Program.
Whitson and Kaye took two different perspectives on the war in Gaza: Whitson covered human rights violations exposed by the Goldstone report, whereas Kaye covered international law breaches and put the report within the context of the law.
The series titled The Goldstone Report and International Law: Three Perspectives was co-sponsored by UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA Israel Studies Program and UCLA School of Law International Human Rights Program and UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies.
The final segment of the series conveyed the Israeli stance on the contentious report, whose official response was released last month.
“The function of the lecture is to inform about the position of the speaker and create dialogue,” said UCLA professor of law Neil Netanel. “People have preconceived ideas of Israel, and as can be said of many things portrayed in the press, people have a very superficial standing. … This allows people to go more in depth on the topic, which is the ultimate function of the university.”
Taub’s comments focused mainly on justifying the Israeli action in the operation on Gaza by providing a context from the Israeli perspective. Taub did not reach the specificities of the Goldstone report until late in the lecture.
The primary point of disagreement was the report’s claimed imbalanced approach to its fact-finding mission in Gaza, Taub said. Israel did not choose to cooperate or participate in the Goldstone fact-finding mission.
“(The problem of the report was) its refusal to recognize the complexities of armed conflict,” Taub said.
At the start of the lecture, a large group of students and community members were organized in the quad behind the law school in protest of the lack of Palestinian representation in the series. Some were also positioned at the front of the law school with handmade signs protesting the lack of a Palestinian voice.
“We’ve organized a peaceful protest to allow a safe space for Palestinian voices to be heard,” said Rana Sharif, a doctorate student in women’s studies.
The function of the opposing discussion was primarily to allow the Palestinian perspective to be heard and to create an open dialogue, not only on the Goldstone report, but on other issues relating to the Palestinian situation and the consequent lack of direct representation as well, Sharif said.
The community contributors and students discussed the absence of a Palestinian oral history in the talks and the prevalence of a solely filtered representation by secondary sources, Sharif said.
The protest was organized by a coalition of student groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine, its law students chapter and USC counterpart.
Midway through the presentation, about 10 protesters who had been seated in the front row of the hall stood up, faced the audience with their backs towards Taub and unzipped their jackets, exposing “Turn your back on war crimes” signs attached to their shirts. They also applied duct tape over their mouths.
The protestors were threatened by audience members and two police officers, who were already positioned at the front of the hall. After being threatened with arrest, the protesters left and joined the counter discussion outside.
Taub continued his presentation despite the interruption without further incident.