According to Foreign Policy Magazine, the recently released batch of cables lets us see how far the US used its considerable muscle to neutralize criticism of Israel over Operation Cast Lead, the 2008-2009 ‘war’ that left 1400 Palestinians, including women and children, and 13 Israelis dead.

An initial investigation commissioned by Ban Ki-Moon and headed by Ian Martin, a top UN ‘troubleshooter’, led to a 184-page report on nine incidents in which the IDF was alleged to have fired on UN personnel and installations, including a school in which three young Palestinians were seeking shelter, and were killed.  On May 5, 2009, the UN released a 28-page summary of the report which concluded that “"reckless disregard for the lives and safety" of civilians in the operation”, citing the school incident specifically.

Martin recommended a further investigation by the UN into violations of international human rights by the Israeli military, Hamas, and other Palestinian militants.

Israel denounced the conclusions, saying their own investigations had proven these allegations false.

Enter UN Ambassador Susan Rice:  Cables indicate that she had gotten wind of the report’s findings on May 4 just before Ban was to report their findings to the media.  She phoned Ban to complain that Martin had gone beyond the scope of his group’s mandate in making a call for further inquiries. 

Cables show that at first Ban resisted her request, citing the fact that the Board of Inquiry was independent and not subject to interference.  She pressed him to write a cover letter mirroring her concerns; he eventually did, saying that he was receiving help from the Israeli delegation in the effort.  Whaaat?

At the news conference the next day, Ban openly rejected the report’s conclusion, and essentially said the matter was closed except for Israel being charged over $11 million for damage to UN facilities.  Whaaat?

Meanwhile the Goldstone group was conducting inquiries which we all know about now, including the fact that he expanded the mandate to include investigating deeds by Hamas, not just Israel; it was published on September 15, 2009.

“In a Sept. 16 meeting with Rice, Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, called the Goldstone Report, which had been released the day before, "outrageous," according to a diplomatic cable, adding that it would give Hamas a "free pass" to smuggle weapons into Gaza. Rice agreed, calling the report deeply flawed and biased. But she also saw its release as an opportunity to convince Israel to pursue a U.S.-backed peace process. She asked Ayalon to "help me help you" by embracing the peace process and highlighting Israel's capacity to hold its own troops accountable for possible misconduct. She underscored that the Goldstone Report could be more easily managed if there was positive progress on the peace process, according to the cable. She also advised Israel that it "would be helpful" if it would emphasize its own judicial process and investigations" into the matter.”

That conversation can be accepted as normal diplomatic back-and-forth on its own, but has some extra heft given the fact that the US and Israel had been privy from the beginning to secret UN documents and deliberations.

It will not play well, IMO, that the cables show that in a meeting with Avigdor Lieberman a month later, he fanned away a possible peace process, saying:

"Israel and the United States had a responsibility not to foster illusions. A comprehensive peace was impossible," said Lieberman, who "cited Cyprus as an example that Israel might emulate, claiming that no comprehensive solution was possible, but security, stability and prosperity were."

The controversial Lieberman is he of the ‘take a loyalty oath to Israel or lose your right to vote’.  He is under investigation for fraud, corruption and money-laundering, and was expected to run against Netanyahu in the next election.

But to my mind, the absolute capper was this cable, in which Rice offered a veiled and cynical threat to the President of the International Criminal Court Sang-Hyun Song, alleging that the Obama administration was edging closer to becoming a member and that, “How the ICC handles issues concerning the Goldstone Report will be perceived by many in the US as a test for the ICC, as this is a very sensitive matter.”

Wikipedia does say that “The Obama Administration has re-established a working relationship with the court and has called for continued “positive, principled engagement”.

In further developments, Palestinians have apparently found enough supporters at the UN to unilaterally declare it a state; Bibi Netanyahu indicates it will be over his dead body, and has been busy lobbying heads of state and UN Ambassadors.  Opinions vary as to whether the General Assembly can accomplish this, or it must go through the Security Council, where the US would likely veto it.

In order to forestall any momentum toward the same, Eric Cantor and John Boehner have issued Netanyahu an invitation to address a joint session of Congress, of which Bibi said, "Next month I will have the opportunity to air the main parts of our diplomatic and defense policies during my visit in the United States."  Cantor had bragged in November  that he sided with Israel over the Obama administration, especially on Iran and ratcheting up pressure on sanctions, etc.

Writing at Al Jazeera English, Richard Falk (one of my favorite ME analysts) says that Goldstone’s  partial repudiation of his group’s report has oddly breathed new life into its contents, even as the rest of his group has reaffirmed their support for the entire repot.  He mentions that the US Senate voted unanimously to call on the UN "to reflect the author's repudiation of the Goldstone report's central findings, rescind the report, and reconsider further council actions with respect to its findings" and ask Ban Ki-Moon "to do all in his power to redress the damage to Israel's reputation."

Falk agrees that the report was slanted, but in Israel’s defense; he explains fully his rationale, including Israel’s failure to allow Palestinians to leave the war zone as refugees.

From Falk:

“What is revealed by this senate initiative is the degree of partisanship now present in official Washington, which should - at the very least - lead the Palestinian Authority to seek venues for future negotiations with Israel other than those provided by the US government.”

[snip]

“History has funny ways of reversing expectations. Just as most of the world was ready to forget the allegations against Israel from the ghastly 2008-09 attacks on Gaza and move on, Richard Goldstone inadvertently wakes us all up to a remembrance of those morbid events, and in the process, does irreparable damage to his own reputation.

It is up to persons of conscience to seize this opportunity, and press hard for a more even handed approach to the application of the rule of law in world politics. There is much righteous talk these days at the UN and elsewhere about the 'responsibility to protect,' contending that the Qaddafi threats directed at Libyan civilians justified a No Fly Zone and a full-fledged military intervention from the air undertaken with UN blessings and NATO bombs and missiles. But, not even a whisper of support was provided for the still beleaguered people of Gaza with a No Fly Zone, despite a debilitating unlawful blockade that has lasted almost four years - a severe form of collective punishment that directly violates Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This blockade continues to block the entry of building materials needed in Gaza to recover from the devastation caused more than two years ago.”  (my bold)

I couldn't possibly add to Falk's sentiments..