A week or so back Mike Hanna of the Century Foundation told me that Goldstone would prove to be "tricky" diplomatically for the U.S., even in the effect that the report has had on American Jews. I didn’t believe him. I was wrong. Goldstone continues to resonate. Yesterday Adam did this post on Tony Blair wriggling at the University of Buffalo, claiming that the Goldstone’s assertions are hotly-disputed, when in fact no one has denied that Israel destroyed Gaza’s flour mill or dropped white phosphorus on school children. And now this from Haaretz:
Israeli officials on Sunday criticized the British Ambassador to the United Nations John Sawers for backing a controversial United Nations report into Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza last winter… Sawers told Israel’s Army Radio on Sunday morning that he supports the findings of the Goldstone commission, and called for both Israel and the Palestinians to investigate its conclusions….The ambassador, who will next month become head of MI6, Britain’s external intelligence agency, told the radio that both sides had been damaged by efforts to prevent a UN debate on the report. He said attempts by Israel and the Palestinians to suppress a debate on the report had boomeranged, as the report would be discussed anyway, but now a tense atmosphere would prevail.
Oh and look at this blackmail:
"London is waging its own war against terror, and they might find themselves with their hands tied if they back Goldstone’s recommendations," the Israeli officials said.
Wrong. British and American forces have at least investigated their massacres lately.
