In April of 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a report on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that had taken place the previous winter. That report is colloquially known as the Goldstone Report, so named for the person leading the “investigation,” former South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The original report was, of course, born in sin. The authors, Mr. Goldstone and his compatriots, prior to even starting to investigate the allegations had already called for Israel to be tried for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The very fact that it was commissioned by the UNHRC was ipso facto proof that it would be institutionally biased against Israel, especially considering that almost 50% of all resolutions to come out of that body are to condemn Israel. Knowing that the fix was in, Israel understandably refused to cooperate.
The fix really was in. Without regards for actual facts, and taking the word of Hamas at face value, Goldstone published his findings. Israel was found guilty of intentionally targeting civilians amongst a raft of other accusations. Much of the information in the report was based on reporting by Hamas. All of this was used to pillory Israel in the world press for months following its release.
On April 1st , Judge Goldstone published a piece in the Washington Post “reappraising” his position on the report. Goldstone said, in part:
“Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations.”
In other words, he was living on unicorns and the hope that Hamas would actually cooperate truthfully with his investigation. Or, rather, he was well aware that they wouldn’t, but still went forward. In any event, these points have already been discussed elsewhere.
The media, of course, was certainly complicit in spreading the calumnies of the original report. While his retraction still blames Israel for not cooperating with the original investigation and for bringing the whole situation upon itself, it is something. There is a reason it was published in the Washington Post.
The Israeli paper, Yediot Achronot, has recently published an article quoting sources close to Judge Goldstone claiming that he went to the New York Times to print his letter. The Grey Lady rejected the scoop and has also refused to comment on why they wouldn’t print the paper. Yediot’s source speculated that it had to do with the Paper of Record’s ideological agenda, pointing to the push in the editorial pages, led by Thomas Friedman, against Israel.
Whatever the reason for refusal, the Times is still complicit in the demonization of Israel following the original publication. They did not seem to have any issue with printing Goldstone’s letter on the opinion pages back in 2009. So, one would wonder what changed this time around.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.