“This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel . . . There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope that the council can modify the text.”
So said none other than Judge Richard Goldstone himself to the Swiss Le Temps newspaper on Friday before the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution (without modifying the text) endorsing the Goldstone Report, clearing the way for discussion in the UN Security Council.
The resolution also condemned Israeli activity in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank even though these were not part of the Goldstone remit.
Was Goldstone so naive as to think that his report would not be turned into a political and legal weapon to use against Israel by the UNHRC? Commentator Robin Shepherd points out the obvious hypocrisy and depravity of the UNHRC’s membership and those that voted for the resolution:
Among the supporters of the resolution, the presence of so many despotisms as well as many others that are ranked by Freedom House as only “partly free” speaks for itself. Countries ranked as “not free” by Freedom House in the group are: China, Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Partly free countries in the group are: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Djibouti, Jordan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Zambia. Of the 25 countries who voted against Israel 17 (68 %) are either outright despotisms or are seedy and corrupt pseudo-democracies.
As UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer states:
The grossly imbalanced resolution grants Hamas terrorists the political victory they desperately crave. Council members like Pakistan, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia have won again with their strategy of focusing on Israel in order to hide the world’s real abuses, especially their own. With this being the council’s 6th special session on Israel — versus only 4 for the whole world combined — it’s tragic that once again politics is trumping human rights.
BRITISH MILITARY COMMANDER ADDRESSES UNHRC
Addressing the UNHRC on behalf of UN Watch, Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, stated:
During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
See Col. Kemp’s full statement by clicking below:
Col. Kemp also said:
Hamas, like Hezbollah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.
Indeed, why is it that the media and now the Goldstone Commission are prepared to take the claims of terrorist groups and their supporters at face value, yet question the reliability or even the honesty of Israel?
But what of Richard Goldstone himself? In addition to his disappointment with the UNHRC resolution, his report’s credibility was further undermined in an interview he gave to The Forward, where he stated:
If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven. I wouldn’t consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved.
Writing in The Sunday Times, R.W. Johnson says:
Goldstone’s behaviour will not surprise those who have followed his career. As a student in South Africa he took the anti-apartheid side and many expected him to do the same as a lawyer, for a small cadre of liberal lawyers were crucial to the defence of the regimes political opponents. Instead, Goldstone kept his head down and avoided annoying the apartheid government, devoting himself to commercial cases. Then, as the political situation changed, so did Goldstone. Entrusted by President de Klerk with a commission to investigate the causes of violence, Goldstone turned up damning evidence against the apartheid regime but refused to investigate the ANC’s armed wing. …
Throughout his career, Goldstone has been accused of cutting corners because of ambition, and critics say his Gaza commission has set a new low. That a Jewish judge, barred from entering Israel for accepting a commission biased against the state, should write a report based largely on interviews with Hamas which panders to anti-Zionist (even anti-Semitic) opinion seems unbeatable.
Does your local media get it? The Washington Times does:
There is no moral equality between Hamas and Israel any more than there is between al Qaeda and the United States. Yet under the Goldstone logic, terrorists and sovereign states are identical. The incidental, unintentional civilian deaths Israel caused during the Gaza conflict are condemned as war crimes; the widespread and intentional Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians are basically ignored. The Goldstone model makes it impossible for civilized states to strike effectively against the world’s barbarians who are fighting a shadow war against decency that views innocent noncombatants as both legitimate targets and useful shields.