Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is There Really a Goldstone 'Retraction'?
The big Israel-Palestine news of the week is Richard Goldstone's op-ed in the Washington Post on Sunday (4/3/11). The short version you pick up from the media is that Goldstone has "retracted" his UN-sponsored report on war crimes during Israel's Operation Cast Lead war in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
The "retraction" language is fairly common--as in the New York Times headline (4/4/11), "Israel Grapples With Retraction on UN Report."
But is there any real retraction?
Goldstone, a retired South African judge, chaired a four-person fact-finding commission investigating crimes committed by both sides. As he explains in his Post column, the Israelis refused to cooperate, which obviously affected the report's findings:
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.
Goldstone writes that he now believes that "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy." He sides with a follow-up report from the UN, which credits Israel for launching some investigations of their Gaza war--though he added:
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.
At CounterPunch, Jonathan Cook notes (4/5/11):
Israel would certainly like observers to interpret Goldstone's latest comments as an exoneration. In reality, however, he offered far less consolation to Israel than its supporters claim.
The report's original accusation that Israeli soldiers committed war crimes still stands, as does criticism of Israel's use of unconventional weapons such as white phosphorus, the destruction of property on a massive scale and the taking of civilians as human shields.
Cook adds that some observers see this as a mostly misdirected debate over intentionality--whether Israeli forces meant to kill civilians, or merely disregarded the fact that their actions would kill civilians. As Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch put it at the Guardian (4/5/11):
Goldstone has not retreated from the report's allegation that Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war. These attacks included Israel's indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus in densely populated areas, and its massive and deliberate destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure without a lawful military reason. This misconduct was so widespread and systematic that it clearly reflected Israeli policy.
Roth also tweeted some criticism of the New York Times' coverage:
NYTimes wrong on Goldstone oped. He said intentional killing wasn't policy. No retraction on indiscriminate warfare.
And:
NYT wrong again. Goldstone says Israel didn't intend to kill but its policy was still crime of indiscriminate warfare
So what has happened then? Goldstone--who has been under tremendous pressure to distance himself from the report that bears his name--now says that there may have been cases where the Israeli military was not behaving with intent to kill civilians. Left unchallenged is the fact that many civilians were actually killed in attacks where little was done to prevent such killing.
But those details may not matter, if Richard Cohen's column in the Washington Post today (4/5/11) is any indication. Cohen writes that it was "shocking" that "Israel was accused of deliberately targeting civilians during its brutal 2008-09 war with Hamas." But now comes vindication:
Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent--the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision.
The report focused on Israeli actions that were "either reckless, disproportionate or deliberate." There is nothing to suggest that most of the report's findings are in serious dispute. But to Cohen, it's now all "the usual fog of war." Cohen also claims:
As Goldstone acknowledges, Israel has looked into every charge of war crimes--incident by incident. Some soldiers have indeed been punished because some awful things happened.
It is not clear where Goldstone says or implies this in his brief op-ed. As Roth and other writers have pointed out, the Israeli investigations have yielded few indictments.
Cohen closes by writing:
Those who gleefully embraced the Goldstone report have to ask themselves why. They may hate the answer.
One might assume that he's suggesting anti-Semitism on the part of Goldstone's "gleeful" champions. Ironically in a piece admonishing those who rush to judgment, Cohen recalls that
a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.
As I noted before, there is plenty of speculation that a Palestinian committed those murders--but no evidence to date to that effect. Apparently speculation is enough for Richard Cohen. He should ask himself why. He may hate the answer.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show AllRichard Goldstone is no Nelson Mandela.
When rabbi's urged the IDF to kill even babies by quoting Psalms 137 verse 9, and when soldiers did just that as referenced by Noam chomsky, I call that policy.
no, that's not much of a retraction.
But I'm sure you've heard the phrase, 'give an inch and they'll take a mile'? The only message that the media will play 6 months from now is that Goldstone retracted his report. Not a part of it, not an admission that one thing might not have been totally right, but that he'll have retracted all of it. That's the message that will now be heard.
Just in time for the next massacre launched by Israel.
Which is why the pathetic Goldstone is now trying to retract part of his retraction . . .
In 2009, when Judge Goldstone agreed to head the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission, he reportedly stated that as a Jew, he believed that he had a duty to investigate alleged Jewish crimes.
Whatever one thinks of his performance and unfortunate backpedaling, it's undeniable that he put himself in a controversial and difficult-- even impossible-- position.
Although Goldstone publicly "hung tough" after the report, rife with criticisms of Israel and the IDF, was released, he was reportedly disturbed by the drumbeat of negative feedback from Zionist Israel-supporters-- e.g., being summarily removed from Hebrew University’s Board of Governors, and incessantly facing rabid protestors and hecklers during public appearances.
His situation is similar to that of Judge Lawrence Walsh, a respected jurist who was appointed Independent Counsel in December 1986 to investigate the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan Administration.
Although a life-long Republican, Walsh prosecuted Republican "heroes" John Poindexter and Oliver North, and indicted former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger.
In doing so, Walsh was blamed for sinking Bush the Elder's campaign against Bill Clinton; he was bitterly castigated, reviled, and made a pariah by the reactionary Republican wingnut community and commentariat.
Goldstone has been put through a similar wringer. Still, his qualified "retraction" is unfortunate and pathetic at best. As previous commenters and critics have observed, Goldstone's "retractions" are relatively selective and weak.
They also reflect an overweening willingness to give the Israeli government and IDF's "investigations" far more weight and credit than they deserve.
The net effect of Goldstone's shifting view is that he indeed tossed a softball to the Hasbarists and Zionist spinmeisters, professional and amateur alike, who have already sought to milk it for all it's worth.
I don't claim to know whether Goldstone is motivated by a desire to mend fences and rehabilitate his standing and reputation among Zionist Jews and loyal, patriotic Israelis. If it is, I pity him.
Even Goldstone must know that, however temporarily mollified his critics and detractors are by this latest equivocation, he will end up like the man in the Aesop's fable who vainly tries to please all, and ends up pleasing none.
Goldstone at least is trying to retract his retraction which shows more spine than Obama.
Real spine would be to denounce Zionism for what it is: The worst religious bigotry of the 19th and 20th centuries, and so far of the 21st century.
Goldstone could learn something from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Rather than going to Palestine as a guest of Yishai, he should insist that Archbishop Tutu accompany him and that places visited include those suggested by the Archbishop.
The behavior of Jews in Palestine is that of jailers without controls which Ken Kesey so well dramatized in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and William Golding fictionalized in Lord of the Flies.
There would seem to be far less evidence that the murder of the settler family was the act of a Palestinian than that the Israeli leadership intentionally targetted Gaza civilians, or that that same leadership grossly disregarded the certainty of those civilian casualties in its planning strategies. There is not one shred of evidence that the Israeli leadership did not target the civilian infrastructure, or sought in any way to minimize the destruction of civilian property. And the report of the "experts" does not support the conclusion that Goldstone drew from it that Israel had investigated its own actions. But you can bet that the murder of the settler family will loom large (if not dominate) the argument.
If Goldstone didn't realize the uses his retraction would be put to, he is naive beyond his years. And if he thinks he can put any of the toothpaste back in the tube, he is delusional.
Have any of the other members of the panel spoken up? Or have they been contacted about their opinions of what Goldstone has done? Were they contacted by Goldstone before he retracted?
.
Hitler was right,,,,,,,,Keep repeating the Big Lie, and eventually it will be believed.
Eventually, we will believe that the 1700 civilian deaths and the 3 Billion dollars of infrastructure destruction; were really "Area Beautification and Trash Removal" conducted by the IDF. Mortaring and Bombing Gaza back into the "stone age", was really a "back to nature" improvement program.
Hey,,,,,,,,who remembers the Armenians ??????????????
//
It doesn't matter, the damage is done thanks to Goldstone. He caved and gave those against the report a big out.
Funny how the retraction got more media attention than the actual report. Remind me again, who controls the media in the US?
Can any Israeli policy illustrate evil more than the torture of children?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gapal1185.doc.htm
The investigation should have been under the auspices of someone other than the UN human rights commission. The commission itself is a bad joke, including such paragons of human rights as Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Azibajan, Belarus, ect al.
Send someone from the Hague.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
See:
1. Professor Lawrence Davidson, "Analyzing Goldstone's Gaza Retreat"
consortiumnews.com, posted April 4,2011
(my comment is ""Fools Goldstone" on consortiumnews,including
correction to link)
2. Ilan Pappe, "Goldstone's Shameful Retreat", available in full at:
http://electronicinti fada.net/v2/article 11895.shtml
email:peterloeb@yahoo.com
Today, the 'freedom fighters' of Gaza shot an anti-tank missile at a school bus and critically injured a 16 year old student. Maybe, I'm too sensitive or ill informed, but I still think attacking school buses is wrong. Anyone agree with me?
Yes, it's wrong, but so is bombing and killing 300 children in Gaza. You cannot say that slaughtering thousands of Muslims in Gaza and Lebanon is justified because Palestinain resistance fighters "critically injured a 16 year old student" or launched homemade missiles into territory that was stolen from them, and killed 13 civilians over 8 years. That would be like saying the British were equally criminal in killing Germans during WW2. The accurate terms for Cast Lead and whatever the Israelis called their invasion of Lebanon is: genocide, disproportionate, slaughter. If thinking people would simply ask, Who is the aggressor in the Middle East?--the answer would be clear: The Israeli Occupation is the historical root of the problem. All else followed.
To begin with, Hamas has admitted that 700 of the 1300 Gazans killed during Operation Cast Lead, were resistance fighters. Thats 700!
As for the thousands of Lebanese killed by Israel in Lebanon, it bears remembering that 120,000 Lebanese had died killing each other during their 15 year civil war. It is fair to say that Israel killed only a fraction of Lebanese who died during this terrible time. The overwhelming majority of deaths were Arab on Arab. Fact.
Stolen? During Israel's War of Independence, 6000 Jews died and roughly 9000 Arabs also died. Nothing was 'stolen'. This was total war between equally matched combatants, and your side lost. Nothing was 'stolen'. The Jews paid heavily for their new State.
I didn't anything about justification. You did! Not me. So don't put words in my mouth or I'll put worse in yours.
Yes, the Israeli occupation is the root of the problem; in Syria, in Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Blame the Jews for the Arab unrest.
Aggressors? In 1967, the United Nations was asked to label Israel the aggressor in the Six Day War, but the United Nations could not and did not label Israel the aggressor. And who started the Yom Kippur War? Who was the aggressor than? Didn't Hezbollah start the Second Lebanon War by crossing into Israel and ambushing an Israeli patrol within her own borders? Didn't five Arab States, in collusion with Great Britain, attack Israel in 1948 in order to kill the infant State of the Jews? Who was the aggressor than? Israel or the five Arab States?
The historical root of the problem is Nazi-tinged, Koran inspired, Arab hatred of Jews. That, Donna, is the problem. The solution is a robust, razor sharp, unremitting Jewish defense of Israel against the Arab-Moslem forces that want Israel and her Jews gone from the Middle East and elsewhere.
Doubtless, Donna, you have bet the wrong horse.
Munia
"So don't put words in my mouth or I'll put worse in yours."
I don't think you realize how bad that sounds... (obviously a real charmer).
"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him
(Nasser) ." -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin. (6-day war)
The 73 attack on Israel was an attempt to take back the land occupied by Israel during the 67 war, as they were trying by diplomacy since 67. No fighting on Israeli territory. As for the "second" Lebanon war, if what you offer here is a justification for an invasion, well, you should be calling for Lebanese invasions of Israel all the time.
I'm not sure what to say to the "It is fair to say..." passage. I think I'll just go to Africa and kill some niggers. I mean, "it bears remembering" that they kill each other on a much larger scale anyway.
If anyone is interested in a realistic picture of Israeli behavior, try the UN archive, in stead of this
Yes. Israel attacked first. Her's was a preemptive defense against the Arab 'aggressor'. Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran in violation of international law, placed Egyptian troops in the Sinai in violation of the UN agreement and than kicked out the UN buffer force that stood between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai. Egypt also twice overflew the sensitive nuclear reactor at Dimona in ultra sophisticated Soviet MIG Foxbat fighter bombers. So yeah, Israel attacked the Arab aggressor (Nasser),
Days after her victory in the Six Day War Israel's war cabinet voted to return Sinai and the Golan in exchange for written peace agreements. Israel's generous peace offer was refused.
I didn't say Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 was justified, I said that Hezbollah started the war but crossing the border, laying lethal ambushes, kidnapping wounded soldiers and bombing an Israeli town. It is fair to say that Israel was only responsible for a small fraction of the Lebanese deaths during the period in which she was involved in her bloody, civil war.
Is Richard Cohen still writing drivel for WaPo? No one but diehard zionists ever read his crap--and believe it.
Please try to refute a single thing I've posted Donna. Please.
The West's Left Wing is like the frog in the lab beaker that doesn't see or know that it is slowly, being boiled to death (by Islam). Islam's bloody borders move inexorably closer to your homes in Europe and America and you are too Israel or Jew obsessed to see or care what is happening all around you. Israel is the canary in the coal mine. What happens to her, vis a vis Islam, will happen to the West as well and sooner than later.
Juliano Mer-Khamis, the Jenin Freedom Theater producer, was murdered ala' Theo Van Gogh, by Islamists. Who is next?
I'd ask you to look at the propaganda of the other race baiters in history. Your rhetoric is deranged, and it's setting the stage for another holocaust of semitic people. Only this time it'll be the Israelis using nukes to get rid of the untermenchen.
Sieg Heil, you nazi scum.
You obviously have nothing to add.
You're just jerking it.
Now GO AWAY!
you mad, bro?
I've provided enough facts above to maintain a weeks worth of dialogue. You have nothing to say.
Just keep wanking it.
Actually, you've posted the same old propaganda and tripe that's been shot down before. We see your 'facts' every time there's an article that's slightly negative towards Israel. You and your fellow hasbarists have no interest in dialogue, you want nothing but total worship of Israel. You want us to think that Israel can do no wrong, and never has been able to do any wrong.
Speaking of wanking...