Judge Goldstone meets with SA communal Jewish leaders

Last week a delegation of senior Jewish communal leaders, headed by the South African Zionist Federation, met with Judge Richard Goldstone. This after an explosion of criticism induced by the SAZF’s threats to hold peaceful protests against Judge Goldstone outside the Sandton synagogue.

Some of the criticism was precipitated by community members genuinely concerned about protest tactics that contradicted principles that they stood by. Most of the shrieking criticism, however, was just plain and easy opportunistic Zionist bashing.

Despite the pulsing emotions Goldstone and communal Jewish leaders agreed to meet to discuss Goldstone’s participation in the 2009 UN Fact Finding Mission into the recently concluded conflict in Gaza.

Below you will find links to the opening statements of SAZF Chairman Avrom Krengel and Judge Goldstone, which formed the basis of the discussion that followed.

It was agreed by both parties that the opening statements reflected the nature of the discussion and that no interviews relating to the content of the meeting would be given by any of the participants.

Goldstone’s response is a caricature of a deeply mistaken and stubborn man who clings to clever but empty sound bites. Over and over again he whitewashes the record of barbarism that stains the UN Human Rights Council by claiming that he initially refused the mission, but then agreed to accept it when he eventually (he casts himself as the star of this show) managed to convince them to allow him to investigate Hamas crimes instead of just Israeli ones.

Over and over again he accepts us to believe that any harsh findings made against Israel are the result of Israel’s refusal to participate in the process.

Over and over again he completely ignores the substance of the criticism against his report and blindly repeats his sound bites, uttering them as systematically as the sound of a Muezzin calling Hamas devotees to prayer.

Amazingly Goldstone states that he expected his heroic work to “herald the start of a new approach by the Human Rights Council to adopt an appropriate policy in which all similar human rights valuations around the world receive equal attention”. Really? An investigation into the conduct of Israel in a conflict with Gaza from a council where 90% of all its resolutions target ONLY Israel is going to lead to a utopia in which all similar human rights valuations around the world receive equal attention. Amazing.

Krengel’s opening statement includes most of the criticisms that have been addressed numerous times before. Goldstone could easily have predicted exactly what Krengel was going to say. He should have loaded his statement with answers to these criticisms. But he didn’t. And so like Goldstone blames Israel’s refusal to participate in the hearings for any harsh findings made against it Goldstone should not be surprised when we blame his failure to deal with common criticisms for any harsh findings we make against him.

I thought Krengel’s statement was very strong too emotional but made some good points. I recommend you read it all. I’m interested in hearing what you think?

• Statement by Judge Goldstone
• Statement by Avrom Krengel

Comments

[Ezer Weizman]

vacuous

[Proud]

I found it to be a lazy reply to such a contentious issue. I got the impression he spewed a few half-hearted words on a page and he expected everyone to find it sincere. A case of ‘you can fool some of the people some of the time’

I thought Avrom's was a good piece, but that he got a little side-tracked as he got more and more emotional writing it. I feel he went a little off the mark toward the end, with multiple references to other countries like Sri Lank. That being said, it was a very good piece that summed up the seriousness of the report and the devastating effect it had on Israel. Israel has often been criticised, incorrectly, for using disproportionate military force against its enemies. I would say Goldstone used disproportionate standards on Israel when concluding his ‘findings’.

[Steve]

Great analysis. I agree. Krengel over-played the valid point that other countries aren't held to the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps he repeated this because Goldstone made specific reference to his goal of all countries being treated as equals.

[Benjamin-sa]

Some thoughts:
Most of AK's points, are besides the point. First three paragraphs are redundant (especially considering the audience). His criticism of the HRC is not part of this debate, RG himself agrees with the criticism. Other countries have done and are doing terrible things, they should be investigated and held responsible but that is another debate, this is about a specific report, authored by a specific individual about a specific war.

Eventually AK actually gets to some specifics, accusations of bias and contextual criticisms, and concludes that the report is: 'tainted to the core' and rejects it. Asking that: "Israel is not treated in a manner different to any other nation"

There are a couple of problems with this way of arguing.
1. It is ironic that he is doing exactly what he accuses Goldstone of doing, ignoring facts and criticisms. Read the findings of the report AK doesn't address a single one. He simply rejects them all. They are easily found and AK could have easily incorporated them into his opening remarks.

2. "Israel is not treated in a manner different to any other nation" is AK implying that the UN should treat Israel as it does Russia? ie ignore human rights atrocities? seems to be the implication. AK has it precisely backwards, the UN should treat the rest of the world the way it treats Israel.

I agree with you about RG opening statement, it was also redundant, a summary of what everyone already knows. I thought he should have got straight to the point and argue the critiques.

BUT, these are opening statements only? It is difficult to gauge much on that. Is the rest going to be released?

[Steve]

Hi Benjamin,
Fair enough, both statements suffered from similar faults.

Your point about treating other nations like Israel is valid. But if you accept that their discussion was not limited to the report but also to Goldstone's decision to accept the mandate then it is acceptable to argue about the wisdom of his participation given the record of the UNHRC. The problem I agree is that it does not address Israel's actual conduct.

To your first point, I think it is I and not AK who accused Goldstone of failing to address the substance of criticisms. I accept your point.

They say that the opening statements reflected the nature of the discussions and they wont be releasing anything further.

[Benjamin-sa]

Hey Steve,
You are correct about the scope of the debate. Looking at RG statement, he mostly talks about why and how he was involved. AK statement makes more sense to me now. I wish they would have talked about the report, personal bias.

Pity about the opening statements, they don't seem to have added, nor resolved anything.

[RF2]

Great analysis Ben

I couldn't agree more that Russia's treatment is irrelevent to Israels treament by UNHRC.
Avron did a nice job but could have mbeen more substantial. That said, this was only an opening remark - who knows what was said afterwards.

I wisj to bring up the issue of the report in Yediot Achronot (also in English) about Dick sentencing 28 blacks to death. I think its clear from what I've written before that I have know love for the disgrace to his people, but that said in the name f truth I feel that this was unfair and again irrelevent. I don't see why supporting the death penalty and human writes are mutually exclusive. Especially considering the report itself states that those he sentenced to hang had committed murder, not political crimes.
Now for my hypocrisy: Even though it may be an unfair discrediting of him, I'm all for it. This man lied and dragged Israel name unfairly through the mud using the press's fickleness and drive to find a good story. I see this as a valid means of self defence.If he can be discredited in the eyes of the world (particularly the left who abhores the death penalty) then maybe some of the damage can be undone. That said the anti Israel crowd can make Nadia Comaneci proud with there intellectual gymnastics when it comes to contradictions in their logic

[bav]

hi
lets look at the facts

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/content/t1.asp?Sid=13&Pid=334

[Jane]

I agree with you about RG opening statement, it was also redundant, a summary of what everyone already knows. I thought he should have got straight to the point and argue the critiques.

[Martha]

Its a great news. I hope they came out with some solution. Thanks for sharing such an useful info.

[JerusalemCenter]

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold held a debate with Judge Richard Goldstone at Brandeis University.
For some clips of his presentation, see: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJerusalemCenter#p/u/0/NJhkWGZ5oB8

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJerusalemCenter#p/u/39/i83FWWFslOQ

Read the expanded text of his presentation, a substantive critique of the U.N. Gaza Report: http://www.jcpa.org/text/GoldGoldstone-5nov09.pdf

[bridal gown]

This was the first one I tried on and tried about 6 more after that.