Richard Goldstone: Better Never Than Late

In a newly published op-ed in the Washington Post, Richard Goldstone abandons the central conclusion of his infamous report on the Gaza conflict of 2008-2009: that the Israeli military and political leadership deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians.

Now, after a follow-up investigation (itself deeply flawed) by the United Nations, Goldstone says: “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”

That is the truth–and it has been clear from the beginning. Yet for more than two years, Goldstone demonized Israel, serving the interest of the dictators who hold sway at the UN Human Rights Council and their radical western enablers.

In March 2009, Goldstone co-signed an open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in which he demanded an investigation into “gross violations of the laws of war” which he presumed to have occurred. Once he had been appointed to lead the “fact-finding” mission, Goldstone ensured that it would do maximum damage to Israel.

Though he claims, in his op-ed, that “[t]he purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel,” he made sure that the testimonies of alleged Palestinian victims (conducted under the watchful eye of Hamas in Gaza) were broadcast to the entire world.

The publication of the Goldstone Report in September 2009 sparked an explosion of anti-Israel resolutions and outright antisemitic rhetoric at the UN. It also encouraged further violence against Israel; in the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla debacle of May 2010, for example, Hamas demanded another “Goldstone Report.” Goldstone also bolstered anti-Israel groups in the west, such as J Street, which paraded him around Capitol Hill.

Having whitewashed Hamas in the report, Goldstone is now trying to whitewash the report itself. Goldstone says in his forthcoming op-ed: “That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying – its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.” But his report actually refused to assign blame to Hamas–it merely allowed that “it is plausible” that Hamas tried to kill Israeli civilians.

Even now, Goldstone continues to point the finger at Israel, lamenting that the Israeli government refused to cooperate with his kangaroo court. He is forced to admit that Israel’s casualty figures were correct–though he disputed them throughout his report–and that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed were combatants. He also acknowledges that “asking Hamas to investigate [itself] may have been a mistaken enterprise.”

Goldstone’s retreat is welcome–but it is not cause for celebration, because the entire “fact-finding” mission never should have taken place. After Goldstone had signed the open letter demanding an investigation of the Gaza conflict, I wrote to him to ask why he had done so:

To me, such a commission seems an empty gesture at best, an anti-Israel show trial at worst. Israel acted in conformity with international law against a terrorist force that continues to target Israeli civilians while using Palestinian civilians as human shields…. Its response was proportional to the military objective of reducing rocket fire and it daily shipped in humanitarian aid to assist the innocent residents of the Gaza Strip. What more is there to discover? What purpose would a commission serve except to allow people with avowed anti-Israel views…to vent their spleen?

Goldstone replied:

I would respond to your e-mail only by suggesting that you are assuming the truth of facts that are very much in issue. I do not wish to debate this matter further by way of e-mail correspondence.

Yet it was Goldstone who had assumed that Israel was guilty until proven innocent. In the two years that it has taken for him to admit he was wrong, Israel has suffered lasting damage to its image and security, and democracies in general have been weakened in their struggle to defend themselves against terror using legitimate military means.

Goldstone is guilty of malicious prosecution and defamation on the broadest scale. He may have admitted the truth–finally. But he can never restore his credibility, nor can he undo the harm he has done. He must never be allowed to preside over, or serve in, any international tribunal. He should quit in disgrace.