Why Did Goldstone Retract?

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. L. Oberstein says:

    I first read Goldstone’s actual words today. He says that had Israel participate in the inquiry in the first place instead of boycotting it, the results would have been different. He says that Israel has indeed investigated the allegations and demonstrated that civilians were never targeted and that deaths of civilians was unintentional He also says that Hamas has not investigated charges against it and that Hamas is certainly guilty of targeting civilians. he says that he had hoped his participation would enable a fair hearing of all siges and not one prejudiced against Israel.
    I guess that the harsh rejection of him as a person by the Jewish community and the trouble surrounding his attendance at this grandson’s Bar Mitzvah had something to do with it.Goldstone tried to be even handed and came out looking like a Jew justifying charges against Israel. I don’t think that was his intention, but he may have deluded himself that his participating was good for the Jews. He erred.

  2. dr. bill says:

    Question: what did he think originally?
    1)Israel targeted and killed civilians,
    2)Israel targeted/killed civilians who housed and supported terrorists to dis-incent such behavior,
    3)Israel killed civilians in pursuit of terrorists.

    I do not know, but my hunch is he may have thought 3) and even 2) but not 1) except in a limited sense.

    What did he find out that caused him to retract?
    •3) happened but only rarely and most often resulted from field operations not planned activity. In fact Israel, would punish soldiers who purposefully violated Israeli government policies in this area.
    •2) was very, very rare and represented rogue actions, that were prosecuted.
    •1) was a myth believed by his biased anti-Semitic committee members

    I think he, like many, think they can bend over backwards to work to improve the state of Israel’s standing in the world and convince its enemies of its true nature. He was naïve, perhaps pig-headed, but deserves credit for his public admission of severe errors. Many of his fellow-travelers (J street, for example) should learn an important lesson.

    I can also think of other calumnies about the state, its military and even its medical profession that have been asserted and not retracted. Those individuals often deserve similar criticism/ ostracism to what was deservedly heaped on a misguided/hapless judge from South Africa.

    I hope this answers your opening question but given your phrasing: “I’d don’t know what made Richard Goldstone issue his mealy-mouthed retraction…” I tend to wonder if you are seeking to understand.

    judging even those we oppose more charitably appears more fair than your position.

Pin It on Pinterest