Goldstone admits his own report is wrong

[danny]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

He is still ridiculous in the way he calls Hamas to investigate actions which the Hamas position is to support and celebrate when they succeed, but it is still nice to see him come about.

[Gustaf]

Swedish media waited till today to publish this and then spun it as Israel attacking a UN report commissioned by the Human Rights Council, despite clearly being guilty of heinous war crimes. *sigh*

[MaxQue]

Well, what do you expect from an Israeli?
He will spin any facts in a way to support Israeli propaganda.

Israel committed war crimes, they used fragmentation bombs in Lebanon, if I remember well.
Simple.

[danny]

"Goldstone admits his own report is wrong" is an interesting interpretation to put on his op-ed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Goldstone admits that had Israel provided any assistance or input into the investigation, this may have affected the report", isn't quite as nifty a headline I suppose.

You call me saying that Richard Goldstone says his report is wrong "spin" but it still very much true. In fact "Goldstone admits his own report is wrong" and "Goldstone admits that had Israel provided any assistance or input into the investigation, this may have affected the report"  are not at all mutually exclusive, the first relates to his opinion about his report while the second relates to his reasoning for that opinion (I.E, why it was wrong).

[danny]

Well, what do you expect from an Israeli?
He will spin any facts in a way to support Israeli propaganda.

I may be Israeli but that doesn't mean I support anything my government would do, if I thought it was doing something wrong I would have no problem saying so.

[Gustaf]

"If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

That's about as close as you can come to saying the report was wrong without actually saying the words, imo.

[danny]

They aren't necessary mutually exclusive, but, in this case, I don't believe both statements to be equally valid. Far from it, indeed.

They are both valid in the sense that they are both entirely true. Its just that it's more noteworthy that Goldstone says his report was wrong because that is something new, as opposed to him saying that Israel should have cooperated with him, which is the same position he has always had.

I'm not really sure what is so noteworthy about what Goldstone says at all - except that maybe Israel will now realise that co-operating with such investigations (rather than denigrating them before, during and after their reporting) might actually be worthwhile.

When the original report came out it certainly got plenty of media coverage, in fact you yourself said that people should read it and seemed supportive of it at the time:

While it seems the easy option for some here is to dismiss the report out of hand for being commissioned by UN (OMG ITS THE EVILS!!!111!), it might be advisable to take a look at the report before castigating it.

So if the original report was noteworthy, I don't see why Its author saying it is wrong would not be.

[Gustaf]

Well, what do you expect from an Israeli?
He will spin any facts in a way to support Israeli propaganda.

Israel committed war crimes, they used fragmentation bombs in Lebanon, if I remember well.
Simple.

I forgot to comment on this appealing little piece of anti-semitism. Then again, what should one expect from a French-speaker, they're anti-semitic cowards who will spread any lies about Jews they can think of.



I often feel as if I should try my hand at racism more often. It's great fun.

[MaxQue]

I'm not antisemitic.

I'm really not a fan of the country of Israel, true.
But I have nothing against Jews (well, I have something against orthodox Jews, but that is more a problem with fundamentalism than Jewish religion. I just don't think than homeschooling kids with 5 days a week for religious study, 1 day for praying and only one day for maths/science/languages is acceptable. I also dislike much Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, for the record).

Sure, Israel is clearly superior to most countries in that area, but some decisions of the government are just disgusting me.

I'm disgusted by a government, not a people.
Not everybody in Israel is Jew, neither all Jews are living in Israel.

So, if I criticize Israel, it doesn't mean than I'm antisemitic.
Like if I criticize Sweden, it doesn't mean than I'm anti-protestant.

But, sure, I know than this is an usual way to silence people who criticize Israel, by saying than they are antisemitic.
Like people opposing Afghanistan War were called pro-taliban.

[Gustaf]

I'm not anti-semitic.

I'm really not a fan of the country of Israel, true.
But I have nothing against Jews (well, I have something against orthodox Jews, but that is more a problem with fundamentalism than Jewish religion. I just don't think than homeschooling kids with 5 days a week for religious study, 1 day for praying and only one day for maths/science/languages is acceptable. I also dislike much Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, for the record).

Sure, Israel is clearly superior to most countries in that area, but some decisions of the government are just disgusting me.

I'm disgusted by a government, not a people.
Not everybody in Israel is Jew, neither all Jews are living in Israel.

So, if I critisize Israel, it doesn't mean than I'm anti-semitic.
Like if I critisize Sweden, it doesn't mean than I'm anti-protestant.

But, sure, I know than this is an usual way to silence people who critisize Israel, by saying than they are anti-semitic.
Like people opposing Afghanistan War were called pro-taliban.

No, sorry, you don't get to play that little victim card. You didn't criticize the state of Israel. You said, and I quote, "what do you expect from an Israeli. He will spin any facts in a way to support Israeli propaganda"

I suppose that had you said "what do you expect from an Jew. He will spin any facts in a way to support Jew propaganda" the anti-semitism would have been more obvious but it was pretty blatant as it was.

You didn't mention the government, you actually did mention the people. If you said "what can you expect from a Swede, etc" that would seem anti-Swedish.

And saying that not all Israelis are Jews is pretty ridiculous. We all know what we're talking about here, don't we?

[MaxQue]

Well, how the Israeli government came into power?

Oh, Israeli people elected it!
So, I suppose than at least the half of the population supports the policies it is implanting, no?

Yes, sure than most Israelis are Jews, but it is totally irrelevent here.

I'll admit than I'm perhaps anti-Israel, but not for religious reasons (well, letting fundamentalists enter the government is part of the reasons I dislike them).

I mean, invading your neighbour isn't something that is acceptable. We all know than this won't stop Muslim fundamentalism. Worse, it can ignite it.

I can't accept than a country attacks civilian populations in another country.
And, honestly, check the news in the last year. Israeli government, elected by Israeli people is less and less open to peace. It even decided to lift the "colonisation" ban.

Government shows no desire to seek peace by compromise. Sure, the other side is worse, by using fundamendalism and systematic attacks on civilians. I don't think anybody is contesting that.

But I don't see why I should approve a side because the other one is worse.

I'm idealistic, I know.

[Gustaf]

Well, how the Israeli government came into power?

Oh, Israeli people elected it!
So, I suppose than at least the half of the population supports the policies it is implanting, no?

Yes, sure than most Israelis are Jews, but it is totally irrelevent here.

I'll admit than I'm perhaps anti-Israel, but not for religious reasons (well, letting fundamentalists enter the government is part of the reasons I dislike them).

I mean, invading your neighbour isn't something that is acceptable. We all know than this won't stop Muslim fundamentalism. Worse, it can ignite it.

I can't accept than a country attacks civilian populations in another country.
And, honestly, check the news in the last year. Israeli government, elected by Israeli people is less and less open to peace. It even decided to lift the "colonisation" ban.

Government shows no desire to seek peace by compromise. Sure, the other side is worse, by using fundamendalism and systematic attacks on civilians. I don't think anybody is contesting that.

But I don't see why I should approve a side because the other one is worse.

I'm idealistic, I know.

Good to see you admitting that your hatred of the Israeli government is actually hatred of the Israeli people. I'm sure you agree that they are entitled to killing Palestinian civilians, since the Palestinians voted for Hamas, an organization that is openly anti-semitic and wants to root out the Jewish people. I mean, what can one expect from an Arab.

[Gustaf]

"If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

That's about as close as you can come to saying the report was wrong without actually saying the words, imo.

I respectfully disagree.

Had Goldstone come out and said that had Israel actually co-operated with the investigation and provided evidence to which he could not otherwise get access, that this wouldn't have changed the report, then that would be quite remarkable and raise questions as to bias.

Of course the report would have been different given access to facts only known to the Israelis - that doesn't make the report "wrong" per se.

Even if one were to take Goldstone's editorial as a complete retraction of the civilian targetting allegations (the only matter he addresses in terms of what might be subject to amendment had he known then what he knows now) the great majority of the remainder of the report would presumably remain unaffected, as would almost all its conclusions.

He seems to have changed his mind on Hamas as well. And he also deals with the way Israel handles human rights violations committed by Israeli armed forces.

As I understand it, one of the major points of the Goldstone report was that Israel intentionally targeted civilians and in a broader sense that it basically equated Israel and Hamas in moral terms, perhaps even favouring the latter. Retracting these points seem like a major change.

Whether that was obvious from the start isn't really relevant. A statement is not less wrong because the wrongness was hard to perceive at the time. Nor does being wrong imply that everything in the report was wrong.

The report claimed that Israel was intentionally targeting civilians. Goldstone now claims this was wrong. Thus, the report was wrong. I don't see how one can argue against these basics, even if one can argue about what spin this should have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Let's throw more fuel on the thread: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

[Gustaf]

Let's throw more fuel on the thread: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

I'd agree with most of that.

[danny]

I don’t think the report alleged that there was an Israeli policy of intentionally targeting civilians. It mentions the ‘low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population’ (para 44), which, though serious, is obviously not the same thing. The report also mentions “deeds by Israeli forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that as a whole they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the “supporting infrastructure.” In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.” This again though is quite different from targeting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Goldstone clearly says intentionally before giving an example about a civilian family so Goldstone certainly seems to say the report says that Israel did target civilians.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Let's throw more fuel on the thread: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

Absolutely correct, of course.