With so much (though not all) of the civilized world justly condemning (or ignoring) the Goldstone report for its distortion of the facts and its one-sided condemnation of Israel, Richard Goldstone himself now seems to be backing away from the report’s conclusions—at least when he speaks to his Jewish audiences.
In an interview with Jewish Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted “an investigation.” Instead, it was what he called a “fact-finding mission” based largely on the limited “material we had.” Since this “material” was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that “if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than “a road map” for real investigators and that it contained no actual “evidence,” of wrongdoing by Israel.
“Nothing proven!” No “evidence!” Only “a road map!” You wouldn’t know any of that, of course, by reading the report itself or its accompanying media release. In the text of the report itself, Goldstone neither sought to clarify nor explain what he now claims is the limited scope and legal implications of the report. The language of the report reads like a judicial decision, making findings of fact (nearly all wrong), stating conclusions of law (nearly all questionable) and making specific recommendations (nearly all one-sided). According to the Forward:
“…the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author. The report repeatedly refers, without qualification, to specific violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention committed by Israel and other breaches of international law. Citing particular cases, the report determines unequivocally that Israel “violated the prohibition under customary international law” against targeting civilians. These violations, it declares, ‘constitute a grave breach’ of the convention.”
It is as if there were two entirely different “Goldstone Reports.” The first submitted to the United Nations and the second to the Jewish community. In speaking so differently to different “audiences,” Goldstone is reminiscent of Yassir Arafat, who perfected the art of double-speak, by using bellicose language when addressing Arab audiences and more accommodating language when addressing western audiences.
Goldstone apparently lacked the courage to stand up to the other members and staffers of his commission and to insist that his clarifying language be included in the report itself. Nor did he have the courage to file a dissenting or concurring statement. Instead, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, sending one message to those who read the actual report and a very different message to those who read his words in the Jewish Forward (and the New York Times for whom he wrote a more ameliorative op-ed on the day after the release of the Report). In doing so, he is trying to have it both ways.
Goldstone went so far as to tell the Forward that he himself “wouldn’t consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved.” This is total nonsense. Goldstone has put his imprimatur—and his reputation—behind the reports’ conclusions. The only reason anyone is paying any attention to yet another of the serial condemnatory reports by the United Nations Human Rights Council is because Richard Goldstone—a “distinguished” Jew—allegedly wrote it and signed on to its conclusions. If he really doesn’t stand by its conclusions—if he doesn’t care one way or another whether they are true or false, proven or unproven—then no extra weight should be given to its findings or conclusions because of the “distinguished” reputation of its Jewish chairman.
But weight is being given by some to its “unproven” and uninvestigated allegations which Goldstone admits may be wrong. There have been calls for boycotts, divestments, war crime prosecutions and other forms of condemnation based on the conclusions reached (or not reached, depending on which side of Goldstone’s mouth one is listening to) by the Report.
If Goldstone stands behind what he told the Forward, then he must come forward and condemn those who are treating his report as if the allegations were based on “evidence” and “proven.” Don’t hold your breath, because such a statement would be heard by both of Goldstone’s audiences at the same time.
Richard Goldstone seems to be a hypocritical Liar of the tallest order.
I had thought he was a man of integrity and honesty as that was what was the media push was on his history out of South Africa and the Balkans.
The Israelis did far more than any other army I have studied in urban warfare for the non combatants. All the information I have read Richard Goldstone could have.
I can only conclude that he didn't want to as he had an agenda.
Unfortunately, the "bell cannot be unrung" and Israel, which always does a terrible inadequate job defending itself, has done itself no favor by not pursuing a vigorous and open investigation of its own. After all its history why did not Israel send TV teams to continually record the events in Gaza?
Are you referring to the Sept 16th, 2009 article in the Jewish Forward? (http://www.forward.com/articles/114165/).
If so, I can't find the section which begins with "...the report itself..." nor Goldstone's specific quotes. Did Forward flush that part of the article down the memory hole, or am I looking at the wrong one?
21st Century Blood Libel
I. "The Goldstone Report was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council following Israel's military action in Gaza. The Council's objective was the political defeat of Israel by gutting any lawful exercise of the country's right of self-defense.
The Council set a mandate to focus only on Israel and its predetermined violations of international law. The Council selected investigators who had already publicly expressed the view that Israel was guilty.
This video contains footage of the Council's consideration of the Goldstone report. Lining up to congratulate Goldstone are some of the world’s leading human rights abusers. They understood the report as granting a license to declare Israel guilty of a "holocaust," "concentration camps," "genocide," and "crimes against humanity."
Also in the video are statements by Israel's accusers which illustrate the political agenda behind the Goldstone mission.
The video includes Anne Bayefsky's response to Goldstone during his "dialogue" with states and non-governmental organizations at the Council, and Goldstone's Israel/South African apartheid analogy as an answer to her cricitism. While the President of the Human Rights Council castigates Bayefsky for her remarks, he has no difficulty thanking Israel's attackers for their hate-filled demonization of the Jewish state."
Watch video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kDlF2fc0wg
(Via: Eye on the UN)
II. Listening to member states in their eagerness to condemn Israel, one keeps hearing
"Israel guilty of a "holocaust," "concentration camps," "genocide," and "crimes against humanity."
However, a few days later, Richard Goldstone sat with the very obliging Fareed Zakaria where the following exchange took place:
"ZAKARIA: When you look at these crimes against humanity, these war crimes, how do they compare? You have a long career. You've seen many of these kinds of things, investigated some. Where does this stand? How should we think of it?
GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't like making comparisons because each situation is so different. But certainly one can compare what has happened here to situations that I've investigated in the former Yugoslavian genocide. One doesn't here in respect of Gaza get anywhere in my view anywhere near that sort of situation.
It's very different. Many people are comparing what's happening in the occupied territories to apartheid South Africa. I don't like that comparison. There's some similarities, but there are more differences."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/fzgps.01.html
The testimony of the author himself, who wrote what amounts to a harsh prosecutorial indictment of Israel, severe enough in its findings to merit being labeled as a "blood libel" (a judgment I concur with), objects to comparisons --equivalences-- suggested between the events he investigated and such enterprises as genocide, holocaust or apartheid.
So one wonders if even one of those who rushed with such glee to condemn Israel of genocide and what not, actually read the report or even paid the scantest attention to what Goldstone was saying (as perfidiously slanderous as it is).
And what kind of moral weight, then, would we give a commission that does not even bother to read the reports it has initiated in the first place.
It appears that facts, records, legal opinions are of little use for the UNHR Commission.
Correct.
Time will tell, but it appears that Goldstone may have earned his place in history; as an incompetent, an undisciplined jurist and an intellect totally blind to the power of words. Very surprising for a learned Jew, to act as if the logical procedures to discover the truth, as outlined in the many legal texts in Judaism, such as the Gemara - never existed. Or if he acknowledges their existence, then, based on his association with such a flawed investigation - they certainly had no impact on him. What an embarrassment!
Good for you, Alan Dershowitz. You have been a hero of mine, not just because you are a fellow lawyer (I am now retired but my sons are still there) but because you have always said it like it is.
The UN are a scurvy mold. America made a monster when it helped create that body of hate-filled countries. I have not researched this but I wonder how hateful it was before Africa got divided into numerous countries, each with its own vote and bias before we even consider the muslims with their dictate to "First kill all Jews and Infidels." Hey, I am one!
Stewart
Last name omitted because I do not want to publicize my name in a world of fanatical killers. I admire you!
Where can I obtain the full text of Goldstone's report?
Just put the Goldstone in the garbage bin and forget about it. It's a disgrace.
This man realy should be prosecuted to death by court
of human morality.
Sadly the world is treating the finding and the conclusions of this report very seriously.
Not many people stop and think how these facts were collected - at every stage of Mr. Goldstone's visit to Gaza the Mission members were accompanied by Hamas representatives.
And this was clearly a major obstacle to obtaining genuine evidence, particularly regarding Hamas' violations of international law, and its use of civilians as human shields.
If its true that Goldstones findings may be wrong and he seems to be indicating that.The honourable thing for him to do would be to admit it. I would hate to be in his shoes on judgement day.I am not Jewish I am an Australian. I believe every country has a right to protect its citizens from indiscriminate terrorist attacks Isreal values its citizens and took the appropiate action.