I wonder if we're not being too tough on Goldstone.

It's possible that without him, the report would have been 100 times worse.

And, it's important to note that he didn't undertake the "investigation" of his own accord - but rather at the instigation of the UNHRC.

I think the latter should be investigated for bias and also for failing to protect the millions of people around the world who are harmed every year.

They are too busy investigating Israel apparently.

That really is a crime.

Meanwhile, it's upsetting because if there was wrongdoing on the part of Israeli soldiers this SHOULD be investigated but it must be done in an unbiased manner and in the context of the war and this includes the reason for the war - which was to prevent terrorist attacks on civilians.

Somehow that's gotten lost in the shuffle.

I would say you're being too charitable to Goldstone personally. He's put himself and his heritage out in front as a stalking horse for this horror. He gave it cover, and he's continued to cover for it, and he knows what he's doing.

Don't forget that the IDF does and has done its own investigations. All free countries with disciplined armies must do so. You certainly wouldn't want an international group like this looking over your shoulder while you did.

I think that the assertion that 'all' countries fighting terrorism will find themselves in the dock is clearly overblown. This has one effect and one effect only, to condemn Israel. No sane person seriously worries that Sudan or Indonesia or Nigeria or Zimbabwe or Venezuela or China are even going to be accused let alone charged with anything like this. And were the US or any EU state or Russia charged, they'd ignore it. This is 100% about Israel, about the Jews.

After watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kDlF2fc0wg

"Lining up to congratulate Goldstone are some of the world’s leading human rights abusers. They understood the report as granting a license to declare Israel guilty of a "holocaust," "concentration camps," "genocide," and "crimes against humanity."

Also in the video are statements by Israel's accusers which illustrate the political agenda behind the Goldstone mission. "

I happened to catch Goldstone on Fareed Zakaria's GPS where he said this:

"ZAKARIA: When you look at these crimes against humanity, these war crimes, how do they compare? You have a long career. You've seen many of these kinds of things, investigated some. Where does this stand? How should we think of it?

GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't like making comparisons because each situation is so different. But certainly one can compare what has happened here to situations that I've investigated in the former Yugoslavian genocide. One doesn't here in respect of Gaza get anywhere in my view anywhere near that sort of situation.

It's very different. Many people are comparing what's happening in the occupied territories to apartheid South Africa. I don't like that comparison. There's some similarities, but there are more differences."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/fzgps.01.html

The testimony of the author himself, who wrote what amounts to a harsh prosecutorial indictment of Israel, severe enough in its findings to merit being labeled as a "blood libel" (a judgment I concur with), objects to comparisons --equivalences-- suggested between the events he investigated and such enterprises as genocide, holocaust or apartheid. But he now sees his own report being bastardized, distorted, falsified, in the most heinous way, and it's all done in full view, by the gang of thugs he so faithfully served. Does he not know that you cannot make such pacts with the devil?

India? You'd think after they experienced the Mumbai attack they'd have a little more insight into what it takes for a country to defend itself.

Sophia,

Did you bother to read Goldstone's report?
The first thing noticeable in his demand for and as you describe part of Israeli soldiers this SHOULD be investigated but it must be done in an unbiased manner
was his "trashing" of the Israeli justice system.
Dershovitz certainly was enraged by that.
There were even comments mentioning the Israeli Supreme being involved in military investigations; which even in the US the Supreme court does not get involved in.

Goldstone got himself into a fix which even Mary Robinson declined. What an asshole and now you cover for him and the damage to collective Jewry?

Hi Cynic,

I admit I haven't read the whole report, but I have read substantial parts of it.

I did see the part about this Israeli justice system and I was completely baffled by it. I was shocked to be honest. It's especially absurd because it's accompanied by a statement praising the Hamas justice system - in fact that's beyond absurd, it's offensive, particularly in view of the treatment of Fatah members.

I agree on balance the report is dreadful. What's more dreadful is that, although it included statements to the effect that Hamas was in violation, only Israel is being called to account by the UNHRC.

Goldstone himself finds that upsetting apparently and also he has subsequently played down the idea that it was a real "investigation", more of a report of what people were saying, and that none of it could be proved.

So what I'm wondering is, would it have been even worse without Goldstone's participation? I would say it's quite possible. The bias against Israel is so blatant one can only imagine if the "investigation" had been carried out minus any balancing voice whatsoever. That is my point.

Of course it's also possible that Goldstone, because he IS Jewish and has ties to Israel, was even more critical than necessary - it isn't an uncommon phenomenon.

In any case the bias is so wrong on many levels, not least of which is the fact that it makes it nearly impossible for us to examine our own actions because we're always on the defensive.

Face it, when you're routinely libeled and accused of war crimes and even genocide and being a vampire, etc, it's hard to take ANY criticism seriously, even constructive criticism from within the community.

PS, I was uneasy from the start with the decision to keep reporters away from the strife. This has made it possible for people to say whatever they want because no objective journalists were present to confirm or deny what amount to rumors. Even well-meaning eyewitness accounts are often wrong, especially in confusing and violent situation. So the exclusion of the press may have been a huge mistake.