Controversy is good, if it helps to promote truth and justice, and this is what we have now in relation to the 2010 “Goldstone Report” about the conduct of Israel and Hamas during the 2008-09 Gaza war.

It continues to generate fresh controversy in light of recent statements by the four members of the original fact-finding commission established by the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Now as then, the important issue is not the personality of any single commissioner or the political winds that blow through the council. Rather, the core issue that has always given the Goldstone process such importance is the quest for justice and truth by holding accountable those states or political movements that use military force against civilians in a manner that contravenes international humanitarian law.

The question of accountability is even more important these days because many other situations in the Middle East raise the question of whether those who abuse their power will also be held accountable for their actions. The winds of accountability blow throughout the region in different forms. Many Arab governments are being challenged or changed by their own people. NATO and Arab military forces are working to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power. Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his two sons are now in police detention and being investigated for corruption and abuse of power, and legal moves are under way to seek the extradition from Saudi Arabia of former Tunisian President Zein al-Abedine Ben Ali so that he can be put on trial on similar charges. Many also call for holding the U.S. and U.K. governments accountable for the ravages they unleashed with their 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Goldstone process has always been a historically important one because of two crucial elements that both remain valid today, in this and other cases where accountability is needed: It sought to bring the force of international law to bear on the conduct of warring parties whose actions brought mass suffering to civilians who were not directly involved in combat; and, it laid out a series of consecutive steps through the U.N. system that the international community should pursue to ensure that justice is done, ending up in the International Criminal Court if need be. Rarely in our generation have universal moral values, the rule of law, and legitimate implementation mechanisms for accountability come together in such a powerful way.

So it was a shock to many when the head of the commission, Judge Richard Goldstone, recently wrote in the Washington Post that he has new knowledge about Israeli behavior that would cause him to write the report differently today. His three fellow commissioners – Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers – issued a statement this week saying they stand by the original report. They noted: “We concur in our view that there is no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in any way change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict. Indeed, there is no U.N. procedure or precedent to that effect. The report of the fact-finding mission contains the conclusions made after diligent, independent and objective consideration of the information related to the events within our mandate, and careful assessment of its reliability and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions.”

Goldstone gave limited factual evidence for his change of heart on part of the original issues the report raised, and did not comment on the bulk of the issues or the implementation mechanisms that the commission recommended and the UNHRC adopted. I spoke out forcefully in support of both the Goldstone person and process when the initial report was issued. This is because the Goldstone person and process both personified the impartiality, universality and fact-based precision of the rule of law and political accountability as the best available antidotes to crimes of war or crimes against humanity. This where our focus should remain, as the original Goldstone Commission and Report spelled out so eloquently.

If Judge Goldstone has a change of heart on aspects of the original report, he is entitled to that. As a sitting judge in a credible court of law, he would probably say the same thing about an opinion column related to a case in front of his court. But newspaper op-ed articles and the rule of law are very different worlds. His personal integrity and professional standing require that he explain in more detail where and why he would change his original views, and where the bulk of the issues outlined in the report remain valid and require serious investigation – as they clearly do.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by The Daily Star.