I don't have much to say on the Goldstone report. Though following Richard Goldstone's apparent change of heart regarding what can only be described as blood liable (accusing Israel of a systematic policy of targeting Palestinian civillians), I have to say at least a few words. Anybody interested in my original piece can read it here: Blind Injustice – The Failure of the Goldstone Mission.
I do however want to point out a major fact regarding the report.
Let's first take a look at what Mr. Goldstone had to say in the original report.
From the "Goldstone Report" released September 15, 2009.
I do however want to point out a major fact regarding the report.
Let's first take a look at what Mr. Goldstone had to say in the original report.
From the "Goldstone Report" released September 15, 2009.
Israel imposed “a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip,” which “was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”
That's three times he definitely stated, for the record in the UN Human Rights Council that israel had a deliberate policy of targeting the civilian population.
Now lets see what he had to say in his Washington Post piece on April 1st:
"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".
If he was so confident to say what he did in the intial report, have it broadcast around the world countless times, and stand by that statement again and again in the media, why now would he recant?
All I can say is that if there was any doubt regarding this man's integrity (not to mention the integrity of the report), its become perfectly clear that there little to none. Except for the last scrap which comes way to late.
Now lets see what he had to say in his Washington Post piece on April 1st:
"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".
If he was so confident to say what he did in the intial report, have it broadcast around the world countless times, and stand by that statement again and again in the media, why now would he recant?
All I can say is that if there was any doubt regarding this man's integrity (not to mention the integrity of the report), its become perfectly clear that there little to none. Except for the last scrap which comes way to late.
If he had any conscience at all, he'd dedicate the rest of his life to undoing all the damage his report has done, putting Israel on the docket not just in the international court of justice, but in the international court of world opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment