tweakabelle -> RE: What now with the Goldstone Report? (4/16/2011 5:03:52 PM)
|
Having read all of Goldstone's pronouncements on this issue, and as much of the related data as I could, my understanding of the state of affairs is as follows: Out of the 4 authors of the Goldstone Report, one (Goldstone) appears to have changed his mind about one charge. Evidence that has emerged subsequently meant that "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" by Israel, Goldstone now tells us. Pointedly, Goldstone asserts that had Israel co-operated with his inquiry in the first place, the charge might never have been laid. After the furore that erupted following Goldstone's retraction of this single charge, Goldstone felt obliged to clarify his position: " as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."* Goldstone's stated reasons for this change of heart appear questionable - as I have shown in a previous post (#9). None of the other 3 members of the Goldstone panel agreed with Goldstone's revised position. They insisted that the original report stood as published: "The report of the fact-finding mission contains the conclusions made after diligent, independent and objective consideration of the information related to the events within our mandate, and careful assessment of its reliability and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions."^ So, in total, one out of four members of the fact finding mission has changed his mind, for questionable reasons, about one specific charge (out of 36 IIRC). What does that amount to? Does all this suggest that we must ask: What really caused Goldstone to change his mind on that one specific matter? Are Goldstone's stated reasons convincing? Why has he alone changed his mind? * http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_un_report_5 ^http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/goldstone-report-statement-un-gaza
|
|
|
|