The impression I came away with last night after watching the Gold-Goldstone debate at Brandeis is how utterly clueless Goldstone is about, well, everything. He seems dumbfounded that people don’t agree with him one hundred percent. He seems astonished that his facts can be—and have been—challenged, and utterly resists any information that contradicts what he has deemed to be the facts of the case.
He seems particularly unable to understand why everyone doesn’t just see that he changed the original mandate (the one that ordered only investigation into “Israeli war crimes,” and the one that was never officially adopted by the Human Rights Council), that the Goldstone Report is not biased against Israel, and that he implicated Hamas as much as he blamed Israel for the civilian deaths in Gaza. When confronted with facts that contradict this worldview, he insists that he did everything right, he is being slandered by people who don’t like the report, and all Israel had to do was take part in the Goldstone Commission’s investigation, and then everything would have been all right.
Last night he repeated the same allegations against Israel made in his report, because Goldstone reiterates the same major points at every stop: The report did condemn Hamas, the 36 incidents cited were proof of Israel deliberately targeting civilians, and the proof of that is the destruction that was wreaked, especially of infrastructure.
Point number one: The report never actually condemns Hamas. Not once. It does, however, keep mentioning “Palestinian armed groups” as responsible for some of the crimes (for example, the rocket launching). There is a reason, Dore Gold said, why Hamas accepted the report. Because it didn’t implicate them at all.
Point numbers two and three: Those 36 incidents were incidents that Goldstone said proved Israel was guilty of deliberately targeting civilians. But the report could find “no evidence” of Hamas booby-trapping buildings or using human shields. The report quoted Palestinian eyewitnesses, but did not interview anyone in the IDF. One of the student questioners asked Goldstone how the report could possibly be unbiased when it did not interview a single soldier. He insisted that it was unbiased. You know, when I was a child, the “Because it is” defense never really worked with my mother.
The IDF found plenty of evidence of Hamas war crimes. Dore Gold brought videos and evidence of booby-trapped houses to the debate, and Goldstone seemed flabbergasted. But that didn’t stop him from continuing with his usual points.
That’s a theme with Goldstone. All evidence brought to the contrary appears to astound him. But then he recovers and starts accusing Israel of war crimes again.
Why destroy the infrastructure if not to collectively punish? Etc., etc., yadda yadda, QED, there’s your proof. He did not interview the commanders who made the decisions to fire on those areas, but he knows they did it for collective punishment. His report found no evidence of human shields and booby-trapped houses, but he knows that the IDF destroyed all of those homes deliberately and for no military reason. He touched on the IDF’s military bulldozers destroying Palestinian farmland. That would be because the roads into Gaza were booby-trapped, so the IDF made its own roads into Gaza, destroying whatever was in its path to prevent the deaths of soldiers. That, according to Goldstone, was a war crime. According to the rules of war, it’s damned good strategy.
Goldstone utterly disregards charges of bias. But when asked by a student how the report could possibly be unbiased when Christine Chinkin, member of the Commission, signed a letter accusing Israel of war crimes in the first week of the Gaza operation, he insisted that was not relevant. He said that if it had been a judicial investigation, then yes, she should have recused herself, but that since the commission was not judicial, it didn’t effect the investigation. The fact that he sees absolutely no cognitive dissonance in admitting that she was biased enough to be thrown off a judiciary investigation, but not a UN investigation, seems astonishing—but not when you consider that Richard Goldstone will brook absolutely no criticism of his efforts. He is right, Israel is wrong, and we are wrong for not accepting uncritically the Goldstone Report.
The hubris of this man is unbelievable. And the damage his report has done is yet to be seen.
