And the Goldstone Commission was a paragon of impartiality

A few days ago Robert Mackey of the New York Times made a case against Israel’s inquiry into the attack on the Mavi Marmara:

The selection of Mr. Trimble, a former leader of Northern Ireland’s Ulster Unionist party, was described as unfortunate by his political opponents at home. The Unionists fought for decades to keep in place the partition dividing the island of Ireland into two parts, each with a different ethnic nationalist majority.

Well, no the case wasn’t explicity, but Mackey quoted enough of Trimble’s opponents to make it clear that he thought that including Trimble was a sign that Israel would not investigate itself adequately.

This sentiment was mentioned explicitly by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

The panel announced by Israel to investigate the deadly assault on a flotilla seeking to run the Gaza blockade lacks adequate international weight to make the panel credible, the United Nations secretary general said Friday.

Although Israel gave two foreigners observer status on the panel, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that most countries he had consulted agreed that “it is not sufficient enough to have international credibility.”

I could find no objection by the Secretary General though over the composition of the Goldstone Commission. In addition Judge Goldstone the commission consisted of Prof. Christine Chinkin, Ms. Hina Jilani, and Col. Desmond Travers.

But UN Watch showed:

The reasonable person would consider Prof. Chinkin to be partial after she publicly declared the guilt of one of the concerned parties on the very case and controversy under consideration. Therefore, if justice is to be done—and to be seen to be done—the only remedy is Prof. Chinkin’s recusal, or her disqualification by the Mission or the Human Rights Council president.

Hina Jilani believed (via Eye on the UN)

“Israel is depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights using security as an excuse.”

Col. Travers said that Hamas had fired “‘something like two’ rockets” at Israel prior to Israel going to war with Hamas in 2008.

May I assume then, that to Ban Ki Moon, “international credibility” means “to prejudge Israel’s guilt?”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to And the Goldstone Commission was a paragon of impartiality

  1. Michael Lonie says:

    “May I assume then, that to Ban Ki Moon, “international credibility” means “to prejudge Israel’s guilt?”’

    Sure looks that way.

    Israel, unlike her enemies, is a democratic state with an independent media, lots of cretinous, custard-headeed leftists to take her enemies’ side, and an independent judiciary. There is no need for outside observers to keep Israel’s inquiry honest. Let them inquire instead into the complicity with terrorists of the Turkish government, or the activities of the UN in Gaza for the last 60 years, keeping the Arabs there in camps, rather than encouraging the other Arab countries to resettle the refugees, as so many other refugees have been resettled since WWII. It appears that the UN is good for nothing except “jobs for the boys” and encouraging antisemitism.

  2. Alan Furman says:

    Perhaps Sharia, under which it takes the testimony of two dhimmis to have the same weight as that of one Muslim, is now the de facto legal system of the Benighted Nations.

Comments are closed.