uncle Tom GOLDSTONE: YAHSA MAASSER

Goldstone: 'I Love Israel, and as a Jew I Must Investigate It'

by David Lev

(IsraelNN.com)

Retired South African Judge Richard Goldstone told an interviewer Sunday on the CNN cable news network that as a Jew, he had an "obligation" to investigate war crimes, such as the ones the he claimed the IDF committed in Gaza.

Goldstone headed a panel on behalf of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which issued a report accusing the IDF of committing "war crimes" against residents of Gaza.

Chicken massacre?
While parts of the interview were dedicated to enumerating the supposed war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers – for example, he accused troops of killing thousands of chickens and destroying the egg industry in Gaza – Goldstone spent a good portion of the interview reflecting on his personal philosophy, and how the fact that he is Jewish figured into his investigation.

Speaking to CNN host Fareed Zakariah on the GPS program, Goldstone said that he tried to be fair.

I have great love for Israel and have worked for many Israeli causes. ir to both sides, and that any limitations on his investigation was due to a lack of resources. For example, he said, his panel was unable to verify whether Israeli accusations that Hamas used Gaza Arabs as human shields in hospitals and schools were true or not. "We investigated specific incidents, we didn't find the Israeli claims to be justified," he told Zakaria, but added that did not mean that Israel's claims weren't true.

'Not apartheid'

And, Goldstone said, he was certainly not anti-Israel. "I have great love for Israel and have worked for many Israeli causes. What saddens me is that Jews, whether inside or outside of Israel, think that because I am a Jew, I should not investigate Israel. However, I believe I have a greater responsibility, as a Jew, to do so. If I have investigated war crimes in other countries, why should Israel be different? That should be welcomed," Goldstone said. In general, he said, he believed Israel had the wrong idea about his mission. "We didn't question the right [of Israel] to defend itself, we looked at the method," he said.

Goldstone added that despite the report, Israel's actions could not be compared to war crimes around the world that have taken place in recent years, such as those committed in Yugoslavia. "I don't like making comparisons," he said.

He added that Israel's relationship to Gaza "is also not apartheid. I don't like that comparison, there are some similarities but there are more differences."

He added that he hoped his report would be an impetus for both Israel and Hamas to settle their differences in a peaceful manner. "No South African can be pessimistic regarding the chances for peace. We [South Africans] had an impossible situation and we were positive there would be a bloodbath. And thanks to good leadership, this was prevented. And I am proud to say that today we have a wonderful democracy in South Africa. True, there are problems, but we are progressing in the right direction," he said.
///////////////////////////////////
Oct. 6, 2009
Anne Bayefsky , THE JERUSALEM POST

On September 29, Richard Goldstone presented his report on the Gaza conflict to an enraptured UN Human Rights Council. The Council, in which the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power, commissioned his report. Goldstone promoted his 575-page smear campaign against the State of Israel by parading his Jewishness and then analogizing his work to his prior efforts to combat apartheid.

At its core, the report repeats the ancient blood libel against the Jewish people. Or as Goldstone casts this abomination for a modern audience, Israel "deliberately…terrorize[d] a civilian population;" Israeli "violence against civilians w[as] part of a deliberate policy."

The report claims to be a human rights document but never mentions the racist, genocidal intent of the enemy which Israel finally confronted after years of restraint. It invents laws of war which never mention the "right of self-defense," and it relies on testimonies from witnesses speaking under circumstances that gave rise to "a fear of reprisals" from Hamas should they have dared to tell the truth.

After the report was presented, the Council resembled an assemblage of vultures moving in on their prey. But instead of adopting a resolution intended to implement the report's recommendations, on October 1, the matter was tabled until the following Council session in March 2010.

REPORTS INDICATE that the American administration told the Palestinian Authority to back off. So the delay is not an indication that the hysterical Goldstone report went too far even for the UN. After all, this lead human rights body is populated by the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.

What is less clear, however, is what the breathing space will mean. Does President Obama plan to use the opportunity to extract concessions from Israel in exchange for putting the Goldstone report permanently to rest? Or does he appreciate that there can be no peace progress so long as Israel's alleged "peace" partners are bent on gutting its right of self-defense, and the phrase "living side-by-side in peace and security" is meant to apply to a party of one? Initial signs are worrying.

The Bush administration refused to lend the Human Rights Council any credibility. While aware of the fact that the Council had adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined, the Obama administration reversed course. The United States joined the Council and took its place as a full member for the first time at this latest session.

Given the Council's preoccupation with Israel, participating and lending it legitimacy handed the Obama administration new leverage - against its ally. In the past, Canada insisted that anti-Israel resolutions be brought to a vote, rather than railroaded through by "consensus," and courageously voted against.

But when the United States came on board, Canada rotated off the Council, thus creating a dynamic in which Israel became dependent on US proclivities.

The Goldstone report, however, has forced the Obama administration to recognize that the leverage over Israel presented by Council membership is not cost-free. No Israeli administration is going to take a seat at a negotiating table that its "peace partner" has festooned with a sword of Damocles.

So the report presents the president with a dilemma: how to avoid alienating his new friends in the Arab and Muslim world while keeping the peace process percolating? Moreover, sooner or later the Goldstone "rules" of engagement could well be turned against American action in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond.

The Obama administration needs to make a policy decision on the Goldstone report quickly. There are likely to be various attempts to insert references to the report at the UN General Assembly this fall.

Goldstone himself can be expected to continue seeking the limelight. In September, he made the unprecedented move of commandeering the UN Headquarters' press room in New York to release his report, even though it had been authorized by a Geneva institution and was due to be considered shortly. Having made recommendations to continue the witch hunt, including at the Security Council, Goldstone is very likely to attempt to turn the report's "implementation" into a permanent meal ticket.

The president, therefore, should be under no illusions. Waxing eloquent about multilateral engagement will not make the report and its progeny all go away - if that was ever his game plan.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT appears that the president may have a different agenda. Speaking at the Council in the presence of Goldstone, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner said that the United States was ready "to engage in discussion of this report," and the US takes Goldstone's allegations against Israel "seriously." Posner was well aware that the report found that violence against Palestinian civilians was part of a deliberate Israeli policy, and yet could only manage to respond: "The report makes negative inferences about the intentions of Israeli officials… on the basis of a limited factual record." The only problem with referring the allegations to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court, according to Posner, was that "then the role of the Human Rights Council would be dramatically different."

In language similar to Goldstone's trashing of the Israeli judicial system, Posner asked the Council to adopt a resolution telling "Israel to investigate and address allegations through a credible domestic process." It therefore appears that the Goldstone report will continue to fester and that administration officials may be preparing to use its threatened revival as a bargaining chip.

Now is the time for concerned Americans and members of Congress to demand that this scandalous report be buried permanently and immediately, and that it not become a weapon in behind-the-scenes struggles between Israel and the United States on vital issues. The right of every democracy to defend itself against a fanatical enemy who is prepared to put its own people in harm's way depends on it.

The writer is a professor at Touro College, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the editor of EYEontheUN.org