Goldstone Reconsiders

Gee, if I only knew then what I know now, says Richard Goldstone, author the UN sponsored Goldstone Report that was so libelous of Israel.

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

The Goldstone Report cast Israel and Hamas as equally guilty of terrorism.  When Israel refused to be party to the UN witch hunt, Goldstone proceeded to gather his evidence almost exclusively from parties hostile to Israel.  I can imagine Goldstone thinking, "I'll show them."

For Goldstone, it was a given that the Palestinians and Hamas were in the practice of deliberately firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets, a practice which the UN seems to consider culturally acceptable in the current Middle East context.  The Goldstone Report acknowledged the rocket attacks with casual, halfhearted condemnation, but then focused on Palestinian allegations of Israeli war crimes which were readily accepted at face value. 

808. In reviewing the above incidents the Mission found in every case that the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians. The only exception is the shelling of the Abu Halima family home, where the Mission does not have sufficient information on the military situation prevailing at the time to reach a conclusion.

But now Richard Goldstone has changed his mind.

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

It's a regrettable misunderstanding which Goldstone now seems to imply was all Israel's fault for not cooperating in the first place.  Realistically, would Israel have gotten a fair shake from anyone so eager to accept the Hamas storyline?  Today Goldstone says,

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case.

Yes.  Sadly it has not.  And sadly there is nothing to suggest that the Goldstone Report would have been any less naively (or dishonestly) accepting of Hamas accusations, even if Israel did play along with its kangaroo court.

Comments

[CaptDMO]

When the pre commissioned outcome of "recent studies show..." runs head first into credibility crushing peer review, does it make a noise?

[Tom Bowler]

Not if you're expecting to hear from MSM.

[Marian]

Dear Mr. Goldstone,

Duh. Anyone reading any news article, with half a brain in their head that they USE while reading said articles, could figure out that both sides are guilty. Good job on hindsight though.