Richard Goldstone Sets the Gold Standard of Hypocrisy

Sure, everyone read Goldstone's smug, self-congratulatory September 17 op-ed in The New York Times, "Justice in Gaza", which begins:

"I ACCEPTED with hesitation my United Nations mandate to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war and international human rights during Israel’s three-week war in Gaza last winter. The issue is deeply charged and politically loaded. I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups. I accepted because my fellow commissioners are professionals committed to an objective, fact-based investigation."

But as known to most, the mandate was not "to look at all parties" (there was a reason that even Mary Robinson wouldn't touch this investigation), and his fellow commissioners were far from committed to an "objective" investigation (Christine Chinkin declared Israel guilty prior to seeing any evidence).

But more to the point, how many people commenting on Goldstone actually read the Goldstone "Fact Finding" Mission report? I couldn't help but notice the following language:

paragraph 9: "The Mission has enjoyed the support and cooperation of the Palestinian Authority and of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. . . ."

paragraph 150: "Finally, the Mission wishes to thank the people of Gaza for their warm welcome, their humanity and their hospitality in spite of such difficult and painful circumstances."

paragraph 438: "In its efforts to gain more direct information on the subject, during its investigations in Gaza and in interviews with victims and witnesses of incidents and other informed individuals, the Mission raised questions regarding the conduct of armed Palestinian groups during the hostilities in Gaza. The Mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the armed Palestinian groups. Whatever the reasons for their reluctance, the Mission does not discount that the interviewees' reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals."

paragraph 439: "The Mission also addressed questions regarding the tactics used by Palestinian armed groups to the Gaza authorities. They responded that they had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with al-Qassam brigades or other armed groups and had no knowledge of their tactics. To gather first-hand information on the matter, the Mission requested a meeting with representatives of armed groups. However, the armed groups were not agreeable to such a meeting. The Mission, consequently, had little option but to rely upon indirect sources to a greater extent than for other parts of its investigation."

paragraph 496: "The Mission asked the Gaza authorities to provide information on the sites from where the Palestinian armed groups had launched attacks against Israel and against the Israeli armed forces in Gaza. The Mission similarly asked whether, to their knowledge, civilian buildings and mosques had been used to store weapons. In their response, the Gaza authorities stated that they had no information on the activities of the Palestinian armed groups or about the storage of weapons in mosques and civilian buildings. The Mission does not find this response to be entirely plausible."

In short, after observing the warmth and cooperation received from the Palestinians as opposed to the Israelis (Goldstone reportedly fell asleep while being screened a film showing Sderot children fleeing from rocket fire), Goldstone observes that in fact cooperation was not received from the Gaza authorities concerning what is most critical in his report, i.e. the locations, amid the Gazan civilian population, where and from which the Palestinians stored and fired rockets and Grad missiles. Given the lies of the Gaza authorities, Goldstone happily relied upon "indirect sources", i.e. conjecture, to pillory Israel, as mandated by the UNHRC.

Although unwilling to identify the civilian structures where Hamas stored its missiles, from which it fired its missiles, and which it booby-trapped, Goldstone nevertheless blithely condemns Israel for harming civilian targets.


Acknowledging that Gaza authorities were not "entirely plausible" in their explanations and dubious of Hamas claims concerning the casualties they inflicted upon the Israeli army (paragraph 362, note 233), Goldstone nevertheless prefers their civilian casualty figures to those of the Israeli Defense Forces when it serves his purposes. Above, Abdullah Talal Ibrahim Aal-Sane, an example of a "civilian" casualty.

Like Qaddafi, Goldstone was provided a pulpit by The New York Times to feed his narcissism and spew outright falsehoods. I complained to a senior editor of The Times, with whom I occasionally correspond, that he had not provided adequate or appropriate space for opinion contrary to that of Goldstone, and that the Goldstone report did nothing to advance the cause of peace, but was met with stony silence.