The Goldstone Report…cont’ Update 4/19
Judge Richard Goldstone has long been an esteemed jurist in South Africa and internationally. Here is a round-up of recent articles that discuss his change of views about Israeli targeting of civilian in the war in Gaza and the controversy that has followed.
Goldstone’s fellow commissioners, though pressured to change their minds, refuse to do so. “The statement by Mr. Goldstone’s three colleagues shows that they share none of his second thoughts about the report and that they are eager to prevent his essay from being used to cast aside the report entirely, as the Israeli government and some members of Congress are hoping it will.” New York Times. Here is their complete statement as published in the Guardian.
The Forward had this story recounting the pressures reportedly placed on Goldstone to back down from the reports’ findings. The Forward.
Roger Cohen looks at the report of Mary McGowan Davis who Goldstone cites as the source for his change of views. Cohen thinks Goldstone has misread Judge Davis’s report. New York Times.
Here again is Judge Goldstone’s op-ed piece in the Washington Post that started the controversy.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has joined the stampede to repudiate the Goldstone Report and in this interview looks forward to PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. Has she no shame? Ha’aretz interviews her.
A full story from Ethan Bronner (NY Times) about Judge Goldstone’s struggle with the controversy: “Interviews with two dozen people who know him suggest a combination of reasons: the hostility from his community, disappointment about Hamas’s continuing attacks on civilians, and new understanding of Israel’s conduct in a few of the most deadly incidents of the war.”
So, the author of the Goldstone Report has recanted his own report, yet you refuse to believe him. Hmmmm…”Goldstone”…do you think he might be one of those Elders of Zion, perhaps?
I imagine you still believe in the myth of the “Massacre at Jenin” as well?
It makes no difference whether I believe him or not; his fellow commissioners do not.
I admire Judge Goldstone; I am sorry to see him in this predicament. Maybe analogous to Henri de Lubac and/or John Courtney Murray vis a vis community pressure.
P Flanagan: Nobody here refuses to believe him. In fact his position conforms to the Commonweal editorial dated 14 Jan 11 which outlines that the intentional killing of civilians when done as a pre-emptive self-defense is licit.
How does one tell the difference between a Palestinian civilian and a Palestinian militant, by the way? Do you even attempt to comprehend the impossible task imposed on the Israeli army in such situations?
” the intentional killing of civilians when done as a pre-emptive self-defense is licit.”
Hang on, I just did a spit-take on that. The intentional killing of civilians is NEVER licit. cf; Hiroshima. Did you make a typo or did you mean to say UNintentional? Do you have a link to that editorial?
Good grief. Here is the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council [sic] when it opened this debunked blood libel “investigation” against Israel:
“The Human Rights Council … decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission … to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people.”
And you support the conclusion of such a patently biased report, even after the retraction by the head of the investigation!
The head of the commission, Judge Goldstone, did not call for a retraction. He wrote: “While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.”
His fellow commissioners, cited above, point out that the report is now in the hands of the UN; they do not accept Judge Goldstone’s view that by calling individual Israeli soldiers to account the responsibility of higher authorities has been addressed.
The only calls for retraction have come from Israeli PM Netanyahu and members of his government (and no doubt he has been joined by members of the U.S. Congress–his Amen Corner!).
Foreign Policy magazine has additional commentary on Judge Goldstone’s change of mind:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/06/the_debate_that_changed_goldstones_mind
Thanks for the link. I saw mention of this debate but saw no account of it. One of the participants, Abraham Bell, here reports on the debate t from his perspective, that is, on the side opposed to the Goldstone Report.
The FP article is titled, “The Debate that Changed Goldstone’s Mind?” The question mark is appropriate since Goldstone has not said what changed his mind other than the fact that information not available during the commission’s investigation is now available. About this, Goldstone said that had he known then what he knows now it would have been a different report.. (He doesn’t say there would be no report.) Bell also says he does not know what brought Goldstone to write the op-ed piece. Presumably only Goldstone knows that.
The FP article also offers some insight into the pressure Goldstone might have been under (including, of course, new informaiton) during the debate; though not a participant, Goldstone is described as a “discussant,” who spoke for 10 minutes before and after the debate.
The debaters were Bell, professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law and Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law and Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (his scholarship focuses on the interplay of law, ethics, and politics in modern society) who spoke against the report. In his FP article, Bell identitifies the “pro” report speakers as Palesinians. They are: Noura Erakat, a Palestinian human rights attorney and activist, currently an adjunct professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University and Victor Kattan, a policy advisor for al-Shabaka — the Palestinian policy network, and a Teaching Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
If the Palestinians were to give an account of the debate, I wonder if they would be inclined to identify Professor Bell as an Israeli given his professorhsip at Bar-Ilan University? We see here all the subtle and not-so-subtle mechanisms by which this vexed subject (not just the Goldstone Report, but Israeli/Palesinian relations) is beset.
“The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council to rescind the Goldstone Commission’s report on the Gaza war, in light of its author’s expressed regret for some of its claim.”
The story from Ha’aretz (of course) also notes that “Goldstone himself has said that he is not seeking to annul the report.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-senate-urges-un-to-rescind-goldstone-s-gaza-report-1.356124