How my email to Goldstone was twisted by his report

Hillel Neuer
U.N. Watch
21 January '10

Israeli public figures who say their country would have benefited by cooperating with the UN Human Rights Council’s “fact-finding” mission on the Gaza conflict are mistaken.

The raw malice that the Goldstone Report evinces toward Israel, the one party about which the panelists can say nothing good (as opposed to their exuberant, repeated praise for the “resilient” people of Gaza), demonstrates convincingly that the source of the imbalance lay in the UN committee’s mental structure. More information would have meant nothing. In the commissioners’ jaundiced view of the conflict, the Israeli leadership’s guilt for premeditated murder on a mass scale was taken as a philosophical given, a first premise not open to logical challenge.

Indeed it bears note that in July 2009, during the time that Goldstone, Chinkin, Jilani and Travers were conducting their UN inquiry, Israel did publish a voluminous document offering its side of the story, entitled “Factual and Legal Aspects of the Operation in Gaza, 27 Dec 2008 - 18 Jan 2009.”

When I saw this report on the internet, I emailed the link to Judge Goldstone, in the hope that it might provide some balance to the Hamas-influenced testimony on which the UN Human Rights Council appointees were basing their inquiry.

(Read full article)
.