UN author of anti-Israel 'Goldstone report' retracts his findings

Trench Broom

South African judge Richard Goldstone, said on Friday that new accounts indicated Israel had not deliberately targeted civilians.

He said that if he had known what he knew now, "the Goldstone Report would have been a different document".

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post on Friday, Mr Goldstone wrote that his conclusions about Israel appeared to have been wrong.

He said the Israeli investigations, which were recognised by a UN committee, indicated that "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy".

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war," he explained. "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Goldstone noted that the final report by a UN committee following up on the Goldstone commission's report found that Israel had devoted "significant resources" in investigating allegations of misconduct during Operation Cast Lead

The former jurist also criticizes the UN Human Rights Council's anti-Israel bias, saying that he had hoped that the report could "begin a new era of evenhandedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/goldstone-retracts-israel-didn-t-target-civilians-in-gaza-1.353726

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12949016

It appears that cracks are starting to form in the anti-Israel diplomatic war at the UN and EU, as well as some human rights groups.

We've had the founder of human rights watch criticise his own organisation for its obsession with Israel and unfair, anti-Israel assessments.

Now we have one of the most powerful weapons of the anti-Israel movement (the Goldstone report) being questioned and indeed retracted by its own author in what appears to be a monumental embarrassment to the UN and all those who jumped on the anti-Israel bandwagon.

Let's hope this is the start of the truth coming out.

karma_

How vague can anyone actually be?

'new accounts'

'if he had known what he knew now'

wes

israel had the opportunity to cooperate with Goldstone in the first place, they have only themselves to blame in regards to the conclusion of the report.

Also, a few month ago Goldstone was called every name under the sun by Zionists, and now they find him uniquely trust worthy. Surely, then Israel should have cooperated in the first place, with the report.

Also, for the report to retracted, shouldn't the new evidence that exists be presented and new investigation be done, assuming the new evidence, is of sufficient weight to cast doubt on the reports conclusions.

A Dub in Glasgo

I am sure that the original poster will be calling for this new 'account' to be scrutinised and a new report commissioned if valid? It may be difficult to robustly scrutinise the new 'accounts' considering the time period that has elapsed. For this report to be discredited, the Israeli Government and military will have to open up to international scrutiny.

Here is the opinion piece from Goldstone in the Washington Post that triggered the original post.

Trench Broom

wes wrote: »

israel had the opportunity to cooperate with Goldstone in the first place, they have only themselves to blame in regards to the conclusion of the report.

They didn't cooperate because the findings were already made public before the investigation. i.e. Israel was guilty, guilty, guilty.

Also, a few month ago Goldstone was called every name u
Also, for the report to retracted, shouldn't the new evidence that exists be presented and new investigation be done, assuming the new evidence, is of sufficient weight to cast doubt on the reports conclusions.

How come the Israeli investigation of itself took longer and seems to have been more thorough than the UN investigation.

Surely one would expect a UN investigation to be the most thorough, yet it seems Israel's was.

I'm glad they didn't cooperate. Now the UN is backtracking and have egg on their face whilst Israel's investigation has been recognised by the UN.

Nodin

Trench Broom wrote: »

.........
Now we have one of the most powerful weapons of the anti-Israel movement (the Goldstone report) being questioned and indeed retracted by its own author in what appears to be a monumental embarrassment to the UN and all those who jumped on the anti-Israel bandwagon.

Let's hope this is the start of the truth coming out.

(my bold)

This is news to me.

I'm unsure what the "anti-Israel movement" is meant to refer to, but - presuming that its a term referring to critics of Israeli policy - you'll find that 'powerful weapon' is the continuing settlement and occupation of Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And I don't think anyone is going to come along and show that isn't happening.

wes

Here is a link to the McGowan Davis report:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.24_AUV.pdf

The Mondoweiss blog, did point the following part of the report, which seems to contradict Judge Goldstones claims about it:

From:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/goldstone-op-ed-praises-israeli-investigation-of-gaza-war-crimes-but-un-committee-paints-a-different-picture.html


This endorsement of the Israeli investigation is directly contradicted by the expert's report he appears to be referencing. Here is the relevant passage from the experts' report:

From:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.24_AUV.pdf


--SNIP--
The Committee does not have sufficient information to establish the current status of the on-going criminal investigations into the killings of Ateya and Ahmad Samouni, the attack on the Wa’el al-Samouni house and the shooting of Iyad Samouni. This is of considerable concern: reportedly 24 civilians were killed and 19 were injured in the related incidents on 4 and 5 January 2009. Furthermore, the events may relate both to the actions and decisions of soldiers on the ground and of senior officers located in a war room, as well as to broader issues implicating the rules of engagement and the use of drones. There are also reports indicating that the MAG’s decision to investigate was opposed by the then Head of the IDF Southern Command. Media reports further inform that a senior officer, who was questioned “under caution" and had his promotion put on hold, told investigators that he was not warned that civilians were at the location. However, some of those civilians had been ordered there by IDF soldiers from that same officer’s’ unit and air force officers reportedly informed him of the possible presence of civilians. Despite allegedly being made aware of this information, the officer apparently approved air strikes that killed 21 people and injured 19 gathered in the al-Samouni house. Media sources also report that the incident has been described as a legitimate interpretation of drone photographs portrayed on a screen and that the special command investigation, initiated ten months after the incidents, did not conclude that there had been anything out of the ordinary in the strike. As of 24 October 2010, according to media reports, no decision had been made as to whether or not the officer would stand trial. The same officer who assertedly called in the strike reportedly insisted that ambulances not enter the sector under his control, fearing attempts to kidnap soldiers.
--SNIP--

Despite Goldstone's insinuation, it appears that the officer responsible for bombing the Samouni house is not being legally investigated for the incident.

So, it really boils down to whether we consider Israel investigations to be credible, and I personally would not consider them to be so. However, as I said before, if there is credible evidence, then it should be investigated, and ultimately Israel has only itself to blame for not cooperating in the first place, if they had such credible evidence, which I personally believe they did not hence why they refused to cooperate.

Sand

Does anyone think this retraction is in anyway important when it comes to peoples views on the events of that war?

The people who condemned Israel will still condemn Israel. The people who supported people will still support Israel. Goldstone was in no way important to determining their support. Facts, investigations, information...all of these are just sticks to beat the other side with. Nobodys position will change an iota as a result of this retraction.

wes

Trench Broom wrote: »

They didn't cooperate because the findings were already made public before the investigation. i.e. Israel was guilty, guilty, guilty.

It seems pretty clear that Judge Goldstone would have been willing to listen to Israel, so the very existence of this thread, shows up your claim. Essentially, Israel has only itself to blame for not cooperating, especially as we can see the Judge Goldstone would have been willing to hear there side.

Trench Broom wrote: »

How come the Israeli investigation of itself took longer and seems to have been more thorough than the UN investigation.

The Goldstone report wasn't a judicial investigation, which I would expect to take longer, and secondly the length of the investigation does not make it more thorough I am a afraid.

Trench Broom wrote: »

Surely one would expect a UN investigation to be the most thorough, yet it seems Israel's was.

We don't actually know that Israel investigation was more thorough, that is just a claim that you made.

Trench Broom wrote: »

I'm glad they didn't cooperate. Now the UN is backtracking and have egg on their face whilst Israel's investigation has been recognised by the UN.

No, the UN hasn't back tracked actually. You are just making stuff up.

Secondly, the UN report (McGowan Davis, which i linked to earlier), actually raises doubt about Israel's investigation.

BlaasForRafa

Sand wrote: »

Does anyone think this retraction is in anyway important when it comes to peoples views on the events of that war?

The people who condemned Israel will still condemn Israel. The people who supported people will still support Israel. Goldstone was in no way important to determining their support. Facts, investigations, information...all of these are just sticks to beat the other side with. Nobodys position will change an iota as a result of this retraction.

Thats pretty much true. What this does is help to vindicate those who broadly supported Israel against those who immediately take an anti-Israeli stance whatever happens.

later12

Well if the author of the Goldstone report himself discredits it, I'm sorry but that really has to be the end of the thing.

The UN ought to commission a new report to clarify the findings of the first Goldstone report to the extent that this is still possible, and not merely have these findings replaced by the Israeli investigation. There are practical and technical difficulties with attempting to do such a thing, such as visiting conflict sites and interviewing prisoners who have now been released or are dead and where galvanised anger has altered peoples' memories.

However, even a report which would meet such difficulties is preferable to one which is now completely unacceptable in its authenticity.

Manic Moran

From day one, I have always maintained two positions on the report.
Firstly, that though I Goldstone et al were doing their honest best to come up with a neutral document, that it should not be considered as definitive as it was made with considerably less than perfect knowledge. It may not be their fault, but that doesn't change the analysis.

Secondly, that the Israeli choice to not cooperate, even if one agrees with why, was almost definitely going to result in a document which, imperfect though it was, would be a political bullet against them. These are two separate issues, one for analysts and one for politicians. It's nice to be proven right...

However, I must salute Goldstone for actually coming out and undermining his own report. It does credit him with his impartiality

NTM

Einhard

I know it's forlorn, but I really hope that people on both sides of the argument can look at this new information imparitially and objectively, without the one side hailing Goldstone where they had previously damned him, and the other side switching from lionisation to condemnation.

I agree with later10. The most prudent reaction isn't to leave things as they are, and squabble over a partially discredited report and the Goldstone's motivations. A completely new investigation is needed, and one, ideally, pursued by an independent team of investigators, the composition of which is accepted by all sides.

Unfortunately, in the white heat of the Palestinian/Israel debate, this isn't likely to happen. And so Goldstone will go from ogre to hero, and vice versa, depending on one's stance on the issues, and people will use select details and narratives to back up their own partisan view on the matter.

Inverse to the power of one!

Sorry......but totally off topic and yet related, Isn't it strange that a new member just randomly appears out of the blue to push a pro-Isreal agenda on the largest Irish forum, and not just pro but actively attacking anything critical of Israel.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, but sometimes you see a blip on the radar that raises an eyebrow.......

Hannibal

The truth about this conflict is:
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and their refusal to return to the 1967 borders.

There's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel controls its airspace and waters and does not allow goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. They are an occupying power by means of strangulation and their blockade leaves the Gazan economy on its knees.

At roughly 360sq km it is the largest prison ever known to man, it has a population of 1.6m people of which 1m are UN registered refugees.

Manic Moran

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Sorry......but totally off topic and yet related, Isn't it strange that a new member just randomly appears out of the blue to push a pro-Isreal agenda on the largest Irish forum, and not just pro but actively attacking anything critical of Israel.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, but sometimes you see a blip on the radar that raises an eyebrow.......

As the largest Irish forum, surely it's a good place to be a new member? I was one once too, you know.

I actually saw the news article the day before the thread was started. I was curious to see how long it would take for a thread to show up on the matter, and if it would have been posted by the same individuals who would have posted the report the second it came out two years ago. Perhaps it is telling that the thread was started by a new person, and not one of the regulars?

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

As the largest Irish forum, surely it's a good place to be a new member? I was one once too, you know.

It's a good place for people who are genuinely interested in becoming members of this community. Trench Broom has been a member for 5 months and in that time has only managed to make 13 posts which have only focused on matters relating to Israel and all with a definite pro-Israel bias.

http://www.boards.ie/search/?u=405522&sort=newest

Looking at some of his previous comments it also appears that our friend Trench has a bit of an anti-irish slant.

Trench Broom wrote: »

The Irish obsession with Israel is bordering on a mental disorder.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70406235&postcount=1

Trench Broom wrote: »

The Irish have an obsessive-compulsive disorder which started with the demise of Jesus and developed further due to their penchant for supporting every tinpot terrorist group in the world. Be that ETA, Hezbollah, FARC, Hamas etc.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70406560&postcount=122

Trench Broom wrote: »

The Irish have a pretty dark history towards Jews and they have carried it on towards Israel.

'Israel' is the perfect cover for anti-semites. Attacking Israel gives a perfect alibi for those whose real gripe is actually Jews.

...

Ireland is the most vociferous anti-Israel voice in Europe.

The Irish are obsessed with Israel.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70420925&postcount=36

I think we should make it clear to people like Trench that the Israeli Hasbara brigade are not welcome here.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps it is telling that the thread was started by a new person, and not one of the regulars?

NTM

What would be the point of regulars drawing attention to the fact that Goldstone has made a complete fool of himself?

The Waltzing Consumer

I think the report is very interesting. But I would not agree with the OP who seems rather to be trying to rub this in the face of anyone who criticized Israel. People around the world only have reports like these to go on when finding information about conflicts and behaviour of states. Thankfully, this author has been mature enough to discredit his own work when he found out it was not accurate. That should be welcomed and encouraged for all future reports.

As for the OP, after reading some of his past comments, there is quite a pattern and he seems quite anti-Irish. We are a tiny country with a very tiny and not very visible Jewish population yet he assumes we are all obsessed with Israel and the most anti-Israel country in Europe. I think this is 100% wrong and not based on anything credible. A couple of people posting anti-Israel threads does not equate to the whole population OP.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Sorry......but totally off topic and yet related, Isn't it strange that a new member just randomly appears out of the blue to push a pro-Isreal agenda on the largest Irish forum, and not just pro but actively attacking anything critical of Israel.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, but sometimes you see a blip on the radar that raises an eyebrow.......

Nothing strange about it at all.

Also nothing strange that every time there's a new account opened which sides with Israel the conspiracy buff's come out of the wood work.

I'd recommended this site to an Israeli friend, but she shy'd away from it because of the level of hatred she felt would be leveled at her.

From her first post people went into over drive trying to figure who was she was and from what other account she came - I felt she was about to be banned and had to step in and tell people she was a personal friend of mine.

Anyway the topic..

From day one I argued here that Israel wasn't deliberately targeting civilians and that had their intention been to target civilians the casualty count would have been countless times the final casualty figure.

In fact Col. Richard Kemp said exactly that when he addressed a UN Human Rights Council Special Session on the Goldstone Report in October 2009.

Here's Col.Kemp

Lemming

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

From day one I argued here that Israel wasn't deliberately targeting civilians and that had their intention been to target civilians the casualty count would have been countless times the final casualty figure.

In fact Col. Richard Kemp said exactly that when he addressed a UN Human Rights Council Special Session on the Goldstone Report in October 2009.

I've not watched the video yet nor have I read the discrediting of the authors own report so I shall not comment on any of that. Cadence Moldy Termination, Israel claiming it wasn't deliberately targeting civilians with the body-count that was achieved is disingenuous at best. Which was it? Deliberate? Tried not to but bad things happen? Or being blasé about it e.g. "Sir, there's civvies over in that building, we told them to stay there. So? Who cares, just level it anyway".

Turning around and saying "We ONLY killed 'n' amount of civilians. Just imagine how well we could have done it had we ACTUALLY being trying!" is a disturbing defence.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Lemming, sorry that doesn't make much sense to me..

Just look at the video, and maybe go back to the orginial thread on Operation Cast Lead - but its heavy reading, and get the opinion of the operation from military men.

I notice from your sig your an online gamer, I'm not slagging that off - a few lads in work play too. But I often find gamers have the least amount of understanding of what happens in a real (and not virtual) war.

Honestly, look at the video clip and consider what Col.Kemp has to say.

Lemming

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

Lemming, sorry that doesn't make much sense to me..

Re-reading your previous quote, my mistake. I misread you as citing an IDF source in arguing not killing civilians by counting only those already killed. Ignore my previous comment as it doesn't make sense now.

I notice from your sig your an online gamer, I'm not slagging that off - a few lads in work play too. But I often find gamers have the least amount of understanding of what happens in a real (and not virtual) war.

Now that is insulting. You have no clue who I am, what I do, who I know, or what interests I have - besides occasionally indulging in online gaming and discussing politics. Cheers for the lazy attempt at stereotyping.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Lemming wrote: »

Now that is insulting..

Sorry, that wasn't my intention at all.

Its only my opinion and I'll withdraw it from the discussion if you wish.

TheRevolution

There is something very uneasy about the whole report. In one article he backs up everything AIPAC have been claiming about the UN since their formation. Now, the question is, if Goldstone really believed all this and the 'history of bias' against Israel then why did he not say something sooner? Furthermore has he actually retracted any of the war crime claims or simply said the report itself was biased?

There was an article recently about Goldstone claiming to be under severe duress and stress in his life ever since the report (he claimed his jewish friends stopped associating him, he was banned from attending his Grandson's barmitzvah etc.)..........I don't know, the whole article just seems off.

Am I alone in thinking that?

BlaasForRafa

cyberhog wrote: »

It's a good place for people who are genuinely interested in becoming members of this community. Trench Broom has been a member for 5 months and in that time has only managed to make 13 posts which have only focused on matters relating to Israel and all with a definite pro-Israel bias.

If you have a problem with him take it up with the mods, otherwise he's as free to post where he wants as you are. There have been one-topic anti-israeli posters here before but if you think that someone might be a shill then its best to report his/her posts rather than starting something on the thread.

Gijoe

Everybody has a price.

BlaasForRafa

TheRevolution wrote: »

There is something very uneasy about the whole report. In one article he backs up everything AIPAC have been claiming about the UN since their formation. Now, the question is, if Goldstone really believed all this and the 'history of bias' against Israel then why did he not say something sooner? Furthermore has he actually retracted any of the war crime claims or simply said the report itself was biased?

There was an article recently about Goldstone claiming to be under severe duress and stress in his life ever since the report (he claimed his jewish friends stopped associating him, he was banned from attending his Grandson's barmitzvah etc.)..........I don't know, the whole article just seems off.

Am I alone in thinking that?

There might be some that agree with you here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Byron85

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There might be some that agree with you here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

That the best you can do? The poster you quoted does have a point, whether you like it or not.

nice1franko

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Sorry......but totally off topic and yet related, Isn't it strange that a new member just randomly appears out of the blue to push a pro-Isreal agenda on the largest Irish forum, and not just pro but actively attacking anything critical of Israel.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, but sometimes you see a blip on the radar that raises an eyebrow.......

It happens a lot - on this forum and others. It's called Astroturfing (i.e. fake "grassroots").

It would seem the Israelis make huge and constant efforts with their Astroturf campaigns.

wes

Byron85 wrote: »

That the best you can do? The poster you quoted does have a point, whether you like it or not.

Yeah he does, and we have various Zionists admitting to pressuring Judge Goldstone:

'Goldstone's road to atonement long'

--SNIP--
He said the Jewish lobby in South Africa had a part in Goldstone's surprising confession. "We met him about a year ago, and during the meeting he insisted on his stance. We, on the other hand, told him why we were angry with him.

"We asked where were the investigation committees against all those countries which are undoubtedly committing war crimes and where was the UN on their matter, and why did he only come out against Israel, which was defending itself. He said Israel was the first among many, but that didn't happen of course."

Krengel added that "Goldstone was very quiet months after that. Perhaps he self-examined himself and realized that what we said was true – that there was a bias against Israel and not a bias to probe the truth – and then he started talking and expressing reservations."

Looking back, Krengel give South Africa's Jews credit for the battle against Goldstone. "He suffered greatly, especially in the city he comes from. We took sides against him, and it encourages us to know that our way had an effect against the international pressure and made him admit and regret his remarks."
--SNIP--

Also, there was trouble over his Grand son's Bar Mitzvah:

Report: Zionist group bans Goldstone from grandson's bar mitzvah

So the poster certainly does have a point, and there have been incidents where Goldstone was punished by Zionists for his report, and we even have some admitting to doing exactly that, as well as news on previous examples of him being ostracised for his report.

Whether, that influenced his op-ed is another story, but I think considering that we know of incidents where the Judge was targetted, and we have some people admitting as much as well, the line of reasoning is valid one.

cyberhog

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

Honestly, look at the video clip and consider what Col.Kemp has to say.

@Cadence Moldy Termination

You've posted a 3 minute video in response to a 452 page report. Do you feel this is adequate? Kemp did not undertake an inquiry he had no evidence and he had no first hand knowledge of what went on in Gaza during Cast Lead. His assessment was based on watching the news from a comfortable armchair somewhere in the UK.

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

get the opinion of the operation from military men.

You want the opinion of a military man?

Colonel Desmond Travers was the senior military figure on Goldstone’s panel and he made it very clear in an interview with Middle East Monitor that he doesn't think much of Richard Kemp's knowledge of the IDF operation in Gaza.

DT - I find it interesting that the two former military officers quoted in the media in defence of Israeli military actions in Gaza are both British. Colonels Tim Collins and Richard Kemp, both distinguished soldiers, seem not to be embarrassed in the least while making statements about the fighting competencies of another army – one they seem to know little about.

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf

I also did a bit of digging on Kemp and quickly came across an interesting article at the link below reporting on Col. Kemp's belief that the BBC are being exploited by "dark forces" that want to harm Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8527563.stm

So not only was he talking out of his ass on the situation in Gaza it appears that Col Kemp ia also a bit of a conspiracy nut.lol

Cadence Moldy Termination the only people that believe Kemp is a credible source are, in order, you and Richard Kemp.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cyberhog wrote: »

So not only was he talking out of his ass on the situation in Gaza it appears that Col Kemp ia also a bit of a conspiracy nut.lol

Goldstones most recent comments would lend credence to Kemps talk to the UN.

cyberhog wrote: »

Makikomi the only people that believe Kemp is a credible source are, in order, you and Richard Kemp.

And now Goldstone.. And since he was invited to talk, the UN too.

Had the IDF/IAF not had any regard for civilian casualties they could have run Operation Cast Lead on the cheap and ensured a certain victory by carpet bombing Gaza back to the stone age with good ol' dumb iron bombs.

Instead they fought a limited ground offensive and used expensive guided munitions to try as best they could safe guard civilian lives.

Its funny how the original Goldstone report has been thrown in my face so often since its release and now the same people won't retract their opinions on it.

Sad really, but haters will hate.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

It's a good place for people who are genuinely interested in becoming members of this community. Trench Broom has been a member for 5 months and in that time has only managed to make 13 posts which have only focused on matters relating to Israel and all with a definite pro-Israel bias.

<snip>

I think we should make it clear to people like Trench that the Israeli Hasbara brigade are not welcome here.

Maybe he's just got an opinion he feels strongly about? I will usually post on matters military, American or firearm related. If I don't choose to post on, oh, the traffic problems in Athlone or the new GAA field in Offaly, am I unwelcome?

What would be the point of regulars drawing attention to the fact that Goldstone has made a complete fool of himself?

It would demonstrate intellectual honesty and credibility? I don't believe he's made a fool of himself either, by the way, indeed, he's just gone up a notch in my esteem for making the follow-up statement.

NTM

Son Of A Vidic

Damn! I suppose that wasn't White Phosphorous that appeared to be clearly raining down on Gaza and it's civilian population. It must have been talcum powder all along.

cyberhog

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

Its funny how the original Goldstone report has been thrown in my face so often since its release and now the same people won't retract their opinions on it.

Two of the co-authors say Goldstone's op-ed does not make any difference to the substance of the report or its central conclusions.

Desmond Travers:

"the tenor of the report in its entirety, in my opinion, stands,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-council-goldstone-regret-not-enough-to-rescind-gaza-war-report-1.354070

Hina Jilani:

"Ultimately, the UN Report would not have been any different to what it was".

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/2207-member-of-un-fact-finding-mission-on-gaza-conflict-insists-report-stands-unchanged

UN Human Rights Council spokesman Cedric Sapey

"UN reports are not canceled on the basis of an op-ed in a newspaper,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-council-goldstone-regret-not-enough-to-rescind-gaza-war-report-1.354070

However, I'm open to new evidence that could change my mind on this matter, and if new evidence is presented, I will consider it completely.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It would demonstrate intellectual honesty and credibility? I don't believe he's made a fool of himself either, by the way, indeed, he's just gone up a notch in my esteem for making the follow-up statement.

NTM

In that case you need to raise your standards!

Goldstone fired off his op-ed without even consulting the co-authors of the report. That is highly unprofessional and unethical behaviour for a judge of his calibre.

"I probably didn't expect to see the comments he made, to be honest, Desmond Travers told the AP in a telephone interview," adding he had not been consulted beforehand.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-council-goldstone-regret-not-enough-to-rescind-gaza-war-report-1.354070

Manic Moran

Goldstone fired off his op-ed without even consulting the co-authors of the report. That is highly unprofessional and unethical behaviour for a judge of his calibre.

He was the lead, no? With the higher position comes higher authority. My squadron's plans are authored by the Staff on behalf of the Squadron Commander, but the Squadron Commander can say whatever he wants about them without consulting with the staff first.

NTM

wes

Judge Goldstone clears things up a bit in the following interview:

Goldstone won't seek Gaza report nullification

--SNIP--
"As appears from the Washington Post article, information subsequent to publication of the report did meet with the view that one correction should be made with regard to intentionality on the part of Israel," the judge said. "Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."
--SNIP--

I think some people jumped the gun on both sides (having said that some things attributed to Judge Goldstone have turned to be untrue), and as I said earlier personally, if new information is avaliable on the part of Israel, then it should be given to the UN, so that it can be investigated, to see if it does indeed clear Israel. The question is, will the US veto the referral to the ICC, so that we can find if both Hamas and Israel are guilty of war crimes. Personally, I think a judicial investigation by the ICC, would be the best way to go forward.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Damn! I suppose that wasn't White Phosphorous that appeared to be clearly raining down on Gaza and it's civilian population. It must have been talcum powder all along.

It was W.P. all right, whats your point?.

Do you know what is it?.. I ask because when the first photos of its use in Operation Cast Lead were published here on boards the gamers and haters ran screaming about the place like they were seeing the IDF use death rays from mar's on Gaza.

MM/NTM posted (at the time) re. the legalities of its use, and why (tactically) W.P. was used in Gaza during Cast Lead.

Manic Moran

MM/NTM posted (at the time) re. the legalities of its use, and why (tactically) W.P. was used in Gaza during Cast Lead.

In the interests of accuracy, I did not explain why it was used in Gaza, only how it could have legally been used. Since the photos are always absent context, and since I'm not in the Israeli military, I obviously could not be in a position to do more than show how the photos could not be used as proof of malfeasance. This is different from proving correct use, and simply means that claims of 'war crime' resulting from viewing the photographs could not be substantiated.

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

He was the lead, no? With the higher position comes higher authority.

NTM

Goldstone would not have the authority to withdraw or change any part of the report by himself. He would need the backing of his three co-authors to make any corrections.

cyberhog

wes wrote: »

Judge Goldstone clears things up a bit in the following interview:

I don't see how this clears things up?

In his op-ed April 1 he says

civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html


In his telephone interview April 5 he says the report should be corrected

information subsequent to publication of the report did meet with the view that one correction should be made with regard to intentionality

Then he says

as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time.

His position is internally inconsistent.

If he has no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time then that must include the following parts regarding intentionality.

45. The Mission further examined an incident in which a mosque was targeted with a missile during early evening prayers, resulting in the death of 15 people, and an attack with flechette munitions on a crowd of family and neighbours at a condolence tent, killing five. The Mission finds that both attacks constitute intentional attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects.

C. Information concerning the instructions given to the Israeli armed forces with regard to the opening of fire against civilians

802. The Mission found in the above incidents [see report p.179] that the Israeli armed forces repeatedly opened
fire on civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities and who posed no threat to them.

D. Legal findings with regard to the cases investigated by the Mission

810. In reviewing the above incidents [see report p.181] the Mission found in every case that the Israeli armed
forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians.

883. The Mission finds that the attack on the Abd al-Dayem family condolence tents constitutes an intentional attack against the civilian population and civilian objects

1212. A statement of objectives that explicitly admits the intentional targeting of civilian objects as part of the Israeli strategy is attributed to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel. [see report p257]

(b) Incidents involving the killing of civilians

1921. The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

cyberhog

Cadence Moldy Termination wrote: »

It was W.P. all right, whats your point?.

Two points if I may.

It's clear from the Goldstone Report that white phosphorus was illegally used by the IDF and that it's reckless use caused tremendous suffering to the people of Gaza.

1924. In relation to the weapons used by the Israeli armed forces during military
operations, the Mission accepts that white phosphorous, flechettes and heavy metal (such
as tungsten) are not currently proscribed under international law. Their use is, however,
restricted or even prohibited in certain circumstances by virtue of the principles of
proportionality and precautions necessary in the attack.

1919. The Mission finds that in a number of cases Israel failed to take feasible precautions
required by customary law reflected in article 57 (2) (a) (ii) of Additional Protocol I to
avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian
objects. The firing of white phosphorus shells over the UNRWA compound in Gaza City is
one of such cases in which precautions were not taken in the choice of weapons and
methods in the attack, and these facts were compounded by reckless disregard for the
consequences. The intentional strike at al-Quds hospital using high-explosive artillery
shells and white phosphorous in and around the hospital also violated articles 18 and 19 of
the Fourth Geneva Convention. With regard to the attack against al-Wafa hospital, the
Mission found a violation of the same provisions, as well as a violation of the customary law
prohibition against attacks which may be expected to cause excessive damage to civilians
and civilian objects.

895. In addition to the reckless use of white phosphorous, the Mission must emphasize that it is
concerned not only with the inordinate risks the Israeli armed forces took in using it, but also the
damage it caused in fact. In speaking with medical experts and practitioners, it was impressed by
the severity and sometimes untreatable nature of the burns caused by the substance.

896.Several patients died, according to doctors, as a result of organ failure resulting from the burns.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

wes

cyberhog wrote: »

If he has no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time then that must include the following parts regarding intentionality.

I was under the impression, is that in one instance, he is talking about a personal belief, but doesn't have any facts to back it up and hence why the report doesn't need to be reconsidered.

cyberhog

wes wrote: »

I was under the impression, is that in one instance, he is talking about a personal belief, but doesn't have any facts to back it up and hence why the report doesn't need to be reconsidered.

That doesn't tie in with what he said in his op-ed

If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

KNOWING something and BELIEVING something are completely different. If he says he knows something then he must have the facts to back it up.

He says further down his op-ed

Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report........ probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality....

So although this new Israeli evidence appears to have convinced Goldstone that civilians were not intentionally targeted he goes on to say "I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."



Does that not strike you as a little incongruous?

wes

cyberhog wrote: »

Does that not strike you as a little incongruous?

Yes, your right. He is contradicting himself, and things are actually more confused now.

cyberhog

wes wrote: »

Yes, your right. He is contradicting himself, and things are actually more confused now.

I think Ilan Pappe has an interesting take on it

...it cannot be new evidence that caused Goldstone to write this article.Rather, it is his wish to return to the Zionist comfort zone that propelled this bizarre and faulty article..... And he hopes that this would absolve him of Israel's righteous fury.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11895.shtml

I think it's fair to say the inconsistency displayed in Goldstone's statements lends credence to the theory his op-ed was just an attempt to appease his Zionist detractors.

Nodin

...so apart from "intentionality", he's happy with the rest of it, and that particular section was written the way it was because of lack of information.......?

"retract" wouldn't be the word I'd use. 'Adds a caveat' perhaps.

paulaa

cyberhog wrote: »

I think Ilan Pappe has an interesting take on it



http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11895.shtml

I think it's fair to say the inconsistency displayed in Goldstone's statements lends credence to the theory his op-ed was just an attempt to appease his Zionist detractors.

I have to agree with you cyberhog. Goldstone received numerous death threats form Israel and her supporters after the report was published. He couldn't go to his grandson's Bar Mitzvah in South Africa because Jewish groups were threatening him there. He couldn't visit his daughter who lives in Israel because they banned him from the country.

He's old and probably wants to see Israel before he dies, he has also been put under considerable pressure to change his story. Look how quickly Israeli supporters have jumped on and twisted an opinion piece by Goldstone.

Israel's interior minister Eli Yishai said that he had invited Goldstone to Israel in July and he had agreed to work to have the report withdrawn . Yishai lied and Goldstone has rejected his statements

http://www.theage.com.au/world/goldstone-rejects-israeli-allegation-20110406-1d4f5.html

Israel's reasons for wanting the Goldstone report overturned imo is 1. Several senior government and military figures have arrest warrants against them in several countries for war crimes in Gaza and are afraid to travel abroad .
2.Israel is panicking with the prospect of the announcement of a Palestinian state in September. As usual when peace threatens Israel they ramp up the violence, Gaza has been subjected to bombing raids for the last 3 weeks. Israel is under far more scrutiny this time in their attacks on Gaza

Of course Hamas are stupid enough to retaliate which is exactly what Israel wants.

timhorgan

During the Irish Army UN deployments to Lebanon their impartiality (and courage) did not go down well with the Israelis. The Israelis became quite adept at using "proxy" Lebanese forces against the Irish.

More recently, the same tactic was used with regard to Goldstone but this time the Israelis resorted to using ex-British Army proxies- more specifically Col.Richard Kemp and Col.Tim Collins.


Richard Kemp.
What is not generally known is that on leaving the British Army Kemp went to work as head of security at Canary Wharf in London, brainchild of Paul Reichmann, a billionaire Canadian property developer who is staunchly pro-Zionist and at one time was part-owner of the Jerusalem Post. There have been reports of links with the Mossad. Kemp laughingly likes to claim that he was "commander of all British forces in Afghanistan" at one time but when he was there the total British involvement was 266 men based in Kabul.He now travels frequently on the Zionist dinner circuit.

Nato Order of Battle for Afghanistan 2003 which shows Kemp had only 266 troops under command! So much for the "Commander of all British Troops in Afghanistan" as he likes to boast!

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/08-august/e0811a.htm





Tim Collins
More interestingly Col. Tim Collins has long-time connections with the Henry Jackson Society a pro-Zionist front manipulated by Dore Gold from Jerusalem-with the help of Israeli intelligence. (Gold was shown up as a liar when he testified at an Oireachtas meeting in Dublin).Collins was allowed to travel freely from Israel to Gaza at a time when the Irish Foreign Minister and other EU ministers were forbidden to do so by the Israelis. This was so that Collins could repudiate in a tv programme the findings of Goldstone-and specifically the findings of Col.Desmond Travers of that report. Collins left the British Army with a great deal of bitterness towards it-few senior British officers of that time even now lament his loss.

Lovely photo here of Collins banging the Lambeg Drum

http://www.luton-lambeg.org/events/2005/gunpowder_plot/gunpowderplot.htm

The BBC programme where Collins tried to discredit Goldstone, and especially Col.Desmond Travers of the Irish Army was produced by a company called Conflictzones with Paul Martin. Martin is a staunch Zionist who has been caught out in the past for highly unprofessional conduct-see below:


http://qumsiyeh.org/deceiptatthewashingtontimes/

Deceit and pressure can take other forms. The Washington Times (circulation 100,000) has dodged responsibility for severe breach of journalistic integrity and ethics by one of its reporters, Paul Martin. The paper's reputation was tarnished by the refusal to fully admit and come clean on Martin's faking of report's under a fake reporter's name (Sayed Anwar), fake dateline (Bethlehem), dodgy facts, and most egregious for purporting to be an Arab "spilling the beans" on his own people. Paul Martin, based in London created a fictional name called Sayed Anwar as a reporter for the Washington Times. The fictional Mr. "Anwar" (i.e. Paul Martin) published pieces of propaganda masquerading as an Arab telling of horrible Palestinian attacks in Bethlehem.

More inf. and references to all of the above if required.

Brown Bomber

The story of Al Samouni’s family of Gaza is tragic and appalling. According to Al Haq’s field research members, the story began on Saturday, 3 January 2009, with Israeli incursion into and firing at the Al Zaytoun neighborhood.
The following day, on 4 January 2009, Israeli occupying forces bombed the same area killing one Palestinian.
On Monday at 7:00 Am, 5 January 2009, again Israeli occupying forces bombed the very same area of Hay (neighborhood) Al Zaytoun. One of the missiles struck the third floor of Tallal Hilmi Al Samouni’s home. Traumatized, the family nonetheless managed to extinguish the fire. Earlier the 16-member family—including the grandfather, grandmother, their children and families—had evacuated into the first floor in fear of the bombs that were striking Gaza.
As the situation deteriorated and the shelling intensified, three additional Al Samouni families sought refuge in Tallal’s home. The families included: Ibrahim Al Samouni (12 members), Rashad Al Samouni (11 members), and Nafiz Al Samouni (10 members). Altogether 49 members of Al Samouni’s family gathered at Tallal’s house.
Later on Monday, the Israeli occupying forces knocked on the door of Tallal’s home and asked the congregated family members to move to Wael Al Samouni’s home (11 members). The Israeli occupying forces also asked the men to lift their shirts on their way out (a dehumanizing gesture across all cultures), then surrounded Wael’s home and left the 60 members of Al Samouni family without water for 24 hours. As for electricity, it has been cut off entirely in the strip since Israel’s bombardment began on 27 December 2009.
The next day, 6 January 2009, the family heard shooting nearby, followed by calm. Some thought that the Israeli occupying forces had withdrawn from the neighborhood, and so one of the men left the front door to bring water from a tank placed in front of the house for the children, who were thirsty. To his surprise, the Israeli occupying forces and their tanks were still surrounding the house, which made him immediately turn back inside.
Five minutes later, the tanks shelled a missile into the house and injured seven people. Only three minutes later the Israelis aimed another missile close by, which killed many Al Samouni family members—predominantly children and women.
About 22 of the survivors, many of whom were injured, left the house raising white banners and carrying four bodies of those killed. The Israeli occupying forces began shooting around them, but they continued to walk, and tried to call the ambulance to pick them up and save the injured among them. But the Israeli occupying forces informed them that they have banned emergency services from reaching the area. Indeed, Israeli soldiers, with their heavy weaponry, vehemently prevented medics and ambulances, including the Red Cross, from entering. However, at a crossroad about a kilometer and a half further on, an ambulance managed to collect the injured.
Back at the house, where the dead bodies of Palestinians lay, there were thirteen family members who were still alive. Eight of them were children, some of them injured, who had been locked in for three days with the bodies of their dead parents and family members, with no access to food or water.

The Red Cross was only allowed entry three days later to evacuate the dead and injured, the majority of whom were so critical that they were taken to Belgium, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia for treatment.
Overall, 26 members of Al Samouni family were killed, including 10 children and 7 women.

Manic Moran

It's clear from the Goldstone Report that white phosphorus was illegally used by the IDF and that it's reckless use caused tremendous suffering to the people of Gaza.

With respect, though those were the Mission's honest conclusions, they cannot be deemed definitive as they by necessity have to incorporate assumptions or guess information which was denied them. Both Goldstone and McGowan Davis have acknowledged this. There may not be a political/PR difference, but there is certainly a factual one.

I think it's fair to say the inconsistency displayed in Goldstone's statements lends credence to the theory his op-ed was just an attempt to appease his Zionist detractors.

Hmm... You think a man of integrity will do that? It's not as if he didn't know that the report was going to be poorly received in Tel Aviv when it was published.

Does that not strike you as a little incongruous?

Not if you delve into the details. The figures and facts in the report remain unchanged. If the Israeli government had reported opening investigations on 14 out of 100 claimed events at that moment and time, and there's no reason to believe today that this was wrong, then there's nothing to change in the report. Since the report was published, there has been nothing to indicate, for example, that the line "It remains to be considered whether, in carrying out its duty to investigate allegations of serious violations, Israel has observed the universal principles of independence, effectiveness, promptness and impartially" was wrong. Indeed, it is quite possible that in this OpEd commenting on the McGowan Davis report, he is conducting that consideration now.

Remember, the report is dated and is made on the basis of the information available at the time. Unless it can be shown that the Commission made an error which should not have been made at the time, there is no reason to change it. This is in no way incompatible with the statement of 'had I known then what I know now' and indeed, is reinforced by it: Because had he known it then, the report would have had different information available to it. But he didn't, it didn't, and the report should stand as it is.

...so apart from "intentionality", he's happy with the rest of it, and that particular section was written the way it was because of lack of information.......?

"retract" wouldn't be the word I'd use. 'Adds a caveat' perhaps.

I've just scanned through the original report and there is nothing in there I could find in a cursory read which accuses Israel of targetting civilians as a matter of policy or as an accepted practise. However, the overall tone of the report, which analyses various individual incidents, could very well lead one to infer this. Nodin's term of a 'caveat' would be accurate, I think.

NTM