Former South African anti-apartheid activist, Maurice Ostroff, has devoted more effort to leading the fight against the Goldstone report than probably anyone else not paid to actually do so. Throughout the process he has opened up a civil dialogue with Goldstone, sending through points and questions like the ones below, that Goldstone is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to answer.
Dear Richard, [...] Paragraph 9 of the Report deals at very great emotional length with the unfortunate shooting of Amal, Suad, and Samar, daughters of Abed Rabbo, and accepts, without any attempt at corroboration, testimony that they walked out of their house carrying white flags to find an Israeli tank. The Report describes two soldiers sitting on top of the tank, one eating chips, the other eating chocolate. One cannot but wonder how the witnesses in the tense circumstances were able to distinguish what the soldiers were eating. Without warning, the report says, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls. All very incriminating, creating an emotional picture of callous Israeli soldiers eating chips and chocolate while a third mows down innocent children carrying white flags. It is not inconsequential that none of these types of emotional descriptions are used when Hamas' infractions are mentioned. BUT! Most importantly, the writers of this Report failed in their bounden fact-finding duty to check the accuracy of the information they purveyed. With just a little attention to detail, they would have read the report by Palestinian News Agency Ma'an and MECA the Middle East Children's Alliance, that the unfortunate girls were killed in collateral damage from an attack by Israeli planes. No tank, no soldiers eating chocolate (or chips), and no white flags are mentioned. I trust you will agree that the Report must be amended to correct this and other inconsistencies. Sept 26, 2009Dear Richard, While you may not feel an obligation to respond to individual responses, very many responsible people believe that because of the momentous implications of your report, all persons who have taken the trouble to address sincere credible questions to you, deserve the courtesy of considered replies to the issues raised, if not in direct correspondence, at least in your published comments. In fact, if the HRC is to arrive at a meaningful decision, it too, is entitled to receive explanations to questions that have been raised. Unfortunately, none of the valid critical issues that have been raised have been addressed in your many public comments in the press and on TV. Your recent interview on Al Jazeera TV was disturbing, and I quote only one example of a factor that cries out for correction. You quoted the firing on a mosque as one of Israel's heinous crimes, denying Israel's claim that mosques were used for military purposes and storage of weapons. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbi6FnvWwvc Yet on August 14, while your report was being prepared, a fierce gun battle was reported as Hamas stormed a mosque that had been taken over by a group of Islamic militants resulting in 22 people killed, (or massacred in the words of Mahmoud Abbas), including an 11-year-old child, and 125 badly wounded. This incident unambiguously confirms Israel's claim that mosques are used for military purposes and in the circumstances it is not only fair, but incumbent that your report be amended accordingly. Or does Hamas enjoy the impunity that you mistakenly referred to in regard to Israel, during that interview? Sincerely Spet 25 2009 |
Also see Ostroff's recent article at the Intellectual Conservative: Send the Goldstone Report Back to the Drawing Board
It was hinted at in the Jpost article.
Is it possible that Goldstone is preparing for a run at UN general secretary?
He has the anti-apartheid halo and the Rwanda investigation to secure the African states vote. The Europeans like the fact that he cleared their conscious during the Yugoslavia massacres. The only glitch to his plan was the fact that he was seen as a Jewish Zionist. Now he’s won over the Arabs by proving that he can easily shake off his Zionist label.
Interesting how he’s never done anything to piss of the Chinese either…
Posted by: Shaun | October 05, 2009 at 10:16
I saw the same thing Shaun. I'm loathe to always think there is some ulterior motive for reports that are anti-Israel, but it is an interesting thought.
And, loathe it or not, I'm afraid it does always seem to be the case that there is some other motives in play.
I place greater emphasis on personality attributes than motives. Arrogance, inability to admit you are wrong, etc. I think Goldstone knows he is wrong on many issues but his character wont allow him to admit as much.
The lie gets bigger and bigger and he no longer has any control over it.
Posted by: Steve | October 05, 2009 at 16:46
And to think I let him tap me on the head at graduation!
Posted by: RF2 | October 05, 2009 at 23:14
Great article by Moshe Arens, in Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119133.html
You have to figure that Goldstone missed to boat when even Haaretz sees a problem in what he did.
Posted by: Shaun | October 06, 2009 at 09:45
When will we hear the real reason for Hamas starting a major conflict in the Middle East,my point being
does the Judge know this reason and what is it so we can make our own judgments.If the Arab/Muslim power in the UN condones the Goldstone report then they are condoning Hamas and it,s terror campaign ,if they condemn it then Israel,s off the hook so to speak.
Posted by: Samuel | October 06, 2009 at 17:05