What About Hamas?
Goldstone concerned that UNHRC missed half the point of his report
It’s something of a long month of climb-downs for Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report that bears his name, accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, and has whipped up a frenzy of international coverage. First, Goldstone told the Forward on October 8 that “we had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” Moreover, he wouldn’t find it at all embarrassing if “many of the allegations turn out to be disproved,” a position that the Forward shows contradicts Goldstone’s earlier pronouncement in a New York Times editorial that “[r]epeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require.”
There is also the matter of Goldstone’s flagging faith in the body that commissioned the report in the first place—the United National Human Rights Council, which in its decision to pass the report onto the General Assembly affirmed only those claims critical of Israel. The HRC’s language, Goldstone charges, did not reflect the even-handedness with which he indicted both sides in the war. The jurist told Agence France-Press, “There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report.” Yes well, anyone familiar with the short but sordid history of the Human Rights Council—an organization that, with the encouragement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has called five out of ten special sessions to condemn Israel, yet none to call to account Sudan for the ongoing genocide in Darfur—might have anticipated.
The question now becomes this: If Goldstone wishes to portray his own report as a tentative first-draft study and not a thorough and responsible basis for legal action, and he wishes to distance himself from the organization that commissioned it—where does that leave the 575-page document responsible for so much mayhem and ill will around the world?
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.