“O you who believe, take not into your intimacy, those outside your ranks, they will not fail to corrupt you, they only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths and what their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the signs if you have wisdom” [TMQ 3:118]

The war on Gaza earlier this year generated a strong and worldwide outrage due to the heinous crimes committed by the Israeli forces against the Muslims in Gaza. The war asserted the continued aggression of Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian land. The severity of the war, the destructions it caused and the casualties it made generated a strong momentum within the Arab and Muslims communities across the globe. The momentum could have easily grown into a mass movement which potentially could have brought fundamental change to the geo-political map in the area. The governments and regimes in the Muslim countries became more vulnerable than any time in the past. The government of Egypt in particular was in a very awkward position for the positions it took asserting the blockade against Gaza, preventing the entrance of food and medicine to Gaza, as well as banning the sick and wounded to leave for treatment in Egypt and other parts of the Arab countries.

One plan used by the kuffar was handed to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the result of which has produced the “Goldstone Report”. The mission of the UN Human Rights Council was called a fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict. The fact, though, is that the mission was set to divert the facts instead of finding them. The real fact is that the war on Gaza created an environment which brought back the problem in the area to its normal reality; that is a war between an occupier of the land and people who are resisting the occupation. The masters of the political game rushed to the UN and transferred the problem from a war between two parties over a well defined right to a problem of violating the human rights during the war. This is the essence of the Goldstone report. The mandate of the mission is defined in the first article of the report, which states:

On April 3rd 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “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.”

Note that this article generalizes the mission to include the region, and not only Gaza where the war took place. In other words, it talks about both sides of the conflict as being equal and in the same category. It defies the overwhelming fact of occupation, which is a main objective of the report. On top of that, the report asserts that the findings of the report are not intended to incriminate specific individuals for criminal acts. The report says in article 25: “The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offenses nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.”

The details of the report and the specifics of its analysis further dilute the issues and blur the picture which was very clear during the war. Following are some excerpts from the report which clarify this issue.

In articles 29 and 30, the report describes the military operations of Israel in Gaza, and the only conclusion it arrives at is that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza reported by different entities was consistent, without even giving the specific number. However, article 31 specifically mentions that 4 Israelis were killed by Palestinian rockets, 3 of which were civilians (that is 75% of the casualties).

The entire air force attacks and ground forces invasion that were actually behind the Muslims outrage did not seem to raise an issue with the commission.

In Article 35, the report alludes to the possibility that the Palestinians could be responsible for the increased civilian casualties in Gaza, and says “It may be that the Palestinian combatants did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population”.

Article 36 of the report is by and large the most absurd and biased part of the report, which lead to open ended debates. On the potential use of Mosques for military purposes, the report says: “Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, it cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.” Note how the report explicitly says that there was no evidence that the mosques were used for military purposes. However, the slanted judges insist that the mosques could have been used by the militants; without evidence.

The report repeats the same prejudiced conclusions in regard to the use of the UN facilities which were devastated by the Israeli attacks. The report says: “On the basis of its own investigations and the statements by UN officials, the Mission excludes that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from UN facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations. The Mission cannot, however, discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups were active in the vicinity of such UN facilities and hospitals.”

On the contrary, when evidence was abundant that the Israeli forces targeted civilians, the report provided an excuse or a room for argument. In Article 37, the report goes on to say: “The Mission acknowledges the significant efforts made by Israel to issue warnings through telephone calls, leaflets and radio broadcasts and accepts that in some cases, particularly when the warnings were sufficiently specific, they encouraged residents to leave an area and get out of harms way”. With all honesty, the report continues to say: “However, the Mission also notes factors that significantly undermined the effectiveness of the warnings issued.”

When the first draft of the report was released, Hamas was quick to condemn the report on the basis that it was not fair enough. In order to push Hamas away from its position and force it to adopt the report, the masters of the game created a scenario where the Palestinian authority requests the delay of the report. As a result, an outrage in the Palestinian community erupted condemning the Palestinian authority position, and demanding a reconsideration of the report. A few days later, the report was brought back to the UN for a vote. Hamas could not even criticize the report.

The history of the United Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council clearly show that it has been a tool used by the western countries (U.S. and Europe) to exploit other people and legitimize their countries occupation. The support given to Israel and the subsequent legitimization of her occupation to the Holy Land, the occupation of Kashmir, the occupation of Chechnya, the Second Gulf war against Iraq and the sanctions against it, the division of Sudan Land between the North and the South, the sanctions against Libya, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli attack against Lebanon in 2006 and before, the war in Somalia, the issue of Iran and the war against Muslims in Pakistan are just examples of what is the UN’s role regarding Muslims.

In the final conclusion, the Goldstone report provides a good example of political maneuvering used by the Kuffar against Muslims. It was able to relieve the local governments from their responsibility; it was able to reduce the problem from a problem of occupation to a problem of violating the International Law. This political maneuvering has succeeded in the past in transferring the problem of Palestine into a problem of refugees or a problem of who controls the holy places. Muslims should not fall into the traps of the UN and its resolutions, and they should reject any role the kafir plays in the vital issues of the Muslims.