I’m seeing a lot of scorn in the papers for the Goldstone report and its fallout.
And for good reason. Richard Goldstone already admitted that his so-called "investigation" "useful road map" hasn't proven anything about Israel. He said as much to The Forward:
For all that gathered information, though, he said, “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.”
Not only that, Goldstone's disappointed with the UNHRC vote. AFP explains why:
Even Goldstone himself, who was in Bern for a conference Thursday, criticised the UN Council resolution for targetting only Israel and failing to include Hamas.
The UN resolution is peppered with references to "recent Israeli violations of human rights in occupied east Jerusalem" but failed to mention Hamas.
"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," he said in remarks published in Swiss newspaper Le Temps.
Why the surprise? Goldstone only devoted two pages (out of 575) to criticism of Hamas. (Hat tip to Israel Matzav via My Right Word for the Le Temps link.)
Commentaries in the Sunday Times, Huffington Post, NY Post, Washington Times, and National Post all see straight through the report and the UN’s rush to judgment.
A big thumbs up to UN Watch for bringing UK’s Col. Richard Kemp to address the UNHRC. The video’s worth watching.
If you're wondering about the quality of Israel's judges and jurors, Robin Shepherd compares how the democracies and the dictatorships making up the UNHRC voted. The bottom line?
I just have one question at this stage: what were Britain and France doing in the bathroom with Angola, Kyrgyzstan and Madagascar while some of the worst dictatorships in the world were passing a resolution against Israel’s human rights record?
For further resources:
