Goldstone’s daughter was ‘furious’ with him, Times reports

Israel/Palestine
on 74 Comments

The Goldstone Report and reconsideration won’t go away, they are back on the Times front page. A good report by the Times’ Ethan Bronner and Jennifer Medina on why Goldstone did it boils down to, He loves Israel and thought he was going to reconcile the two societies, Palestinian and Jewish, through his report but was oh-so wrong about the politics. A man who says he may have been “naive” about the U.N.’s commitment to evenhandedness seems to have been naive about the Jewish response to his document. Then there are the politics of his family, and his daughter who spent 10 years in Israel. Oh my, what was the Zionist judge thinking? And when is a shul going to stage the war inside the Jewish family? Times:


In trying to understand why he published an essay on April 1 in The Washington Post retracting his harshest accusation against Israel and toughening his stand toward Hamas and the United Nations — an essay that has been rejected by the fellow members of his investigation panel — the South African precedent is important. For Mr. Goldstone, it was the model of how the Gaza report would work. Instead, it helped drive Israeli politics farther to the right, gave fuel to Israel’s enemies and brought no notable censure on Hamas.

“I know he was extremely hurt by the reaction to the report,” said Aryeh Neier, president of the Open Society Foundation, who has known Mr. Goldstone for years and remains close to him. “I think he was extremely uncomfortable in providing some fodder to people who were looking for anything they could use against Israel.”..

Hailed by the Arab world and the anti-Israel left, he has been censured by those with whom he had always identified. One of his two daughters, who spent more than a decade in Israel and now lives in Canada with the man she married here, has been furious with him, according to a family friend; he was nearly unable to attend the bar mitzvah of his other daughter’s son in South Africa…

As he said in an interview with the newspaper The Forward, “I was driven particularly because I thought the outcome might, in a small way, assist the peace process. I really thought I was one person who could achieve an evenhanded mission.”…

The Times piece includes this egregious mischaracterization of the facts, in favor of Israel’s version of events:

One area of disagreement was whether 250 police cadets killed on the first day should be considered fighters. Israel said yes; most others said no.

In November, the Hamas interior minister, Fathi Hamad, told the newspaper Al Hayat that many of the dead were fighters: “It is a fact that on the first day of the war, Israel struck police headquarters and killed 250 members of Hamas and the various factions, in addition to the 200 to 300 operatives from the al-Qassam Brigades. In addition, 150 security personnel were killed.”

The implication was that the 250 cadets were fighters and that the total number of militants killed amounted to some 700. Many sent Mr. Goldstone the update.

BFD. As I have reported here earlier, Goldstone specifically rejected the Hamad #s back in January at Stanford as propaganda, and then embraced them in the Washington Post in April. Why’d he flip on such an essential particular? Pure political pressure, working on his guilty conscience.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

74 Responses

  1. Avi
    April 19, 2011, 4:52 pm

    Some daughter. So much for the younger generation being less Zionist than their parents.

    • Mooser
      April 20, 2011, 11:31 am

      “One of his two daughters, who spent more than a decade in Israel and now lives in Canada with the man she married here,”

      I guess abcess makes the heart grow fonder. I can’t help but concurr, I might find it easier to love Israel from Canada.

  2. annie
    April 19, 2011, 4:58 pm

    the longer it stays in the press the better as far as i am concerned.

    i thought this was telling:

    In describing his new position, Mr. Goldstone wrote, “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” He has declined requests to elaborate. Interviews with two dozen people who know him suggest a combination of reasons: the hostility from his community,

    what stands out most for me is the mambsy pambsy unclear un-definitive wording, lack of elaboration and that hostility from his community. people know what this means.

    • Walid
      April 19, 2011, 5:08 pm

      Any reason given for being furious by the daughter in Canada?

      • Bill in Maryland
        April 19, 2011, 8:55 pm

        No reason given in the NYT story Walid. We get some insight into Nicole Goldstone (the Canadian daughter) and her passion in a Haaretz story from 2009 however:

        Nicole Goldstone, who currently lives in Canada with her family, spoke of her great love for Israel. “Every time I dream of returning to the country or that my son will one day immigrate there,” she told Army Radio. “Israel is more important to me than anything. I’m not there at the moment, but my heart is always there.”

  3. dubitante
    April 19, 2011, 5:17 pm

    Personally I think Goldstone was wrong to dismiss Hamad’s claims as propagandist. It’s not a secret in Gaza that *some* members of the Hamas police force are police by and militants by night.

    The crucial point is – it’s irrelevant from the perspective of international law. International humanitarian law and the Israeli Supreme Court are very clear on this – they were civilians.

    When Dershowitz ran with this “story” at the end of last year I wrote about it, explaining why the police were civilians regardless of whether Hamad was telling the truth or not:

    link to dubitante.org

    • Eva Smagacz
      April 19, 2011, 6:00 pm

      I really liked your blog entry and its clear language. Thank you

    • maggielorraine
      April 19, 2011, 8:56 pm

      well done! bookmarked.

    • Avi
      April 20, 2011, 1:01 am

      dubitante April 19, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      It’s not a secret in Gaza that *some* members of the Hamas police force are police by and militants by night.

      I don’t understand why they are “militants”. Is NATO made up of “militants”? If it is, then why are members referred to as “soldiers”?

      Instead of adopting the mainstream media’s language, why don’t people pause and think about the power of language and the meaning of words?

      • dubitante
        April 20, 2011, 3:09 am

        Hi Avi – I salute your intent to find a different narrative. I don’t often use the term “soldier” for members of the Qassam Brigades for the simple reason that they often don’t meet the criteria for a regular army, and often don’t even meet the criteria under international humanitarian law for combatants.

        I could call them guerillas, which is more accurate. “Soldier” has specific connotations for me that I choose to avoid.

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2011, 10:31 am

        The members of the Qassam Brigades who engage in ordinary combat operations should be treated as combatants and POWs in accordance with Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The members of the municipal police force attending a ceremony are not combatants, even if they are members of a volunteer corps. If that logic were applied, then universal military service would render the bulk of the civilian population of Israel a valid military objective.

        In 1989, Prof L.C. Green wrote in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights that one of the Palestinian militias, the PFLP, had been recognized by the Government of Jordan. He said that, if the Palestinians were to accede to the Geneva Convention, Israel would be hard pressed to deny members combatant status and treat them as POWs.

        Many states urged the international community to recognize the Hamas government. See for example OIC members urge international community to recognize Hamas In any event, the State of Israel has taken steps which ordinarily result in belligerent recognition, e.g. declaring Gaza a hostile entity and imposing a blockade. Wikileaks has revealed that Israel’s former Military Intelligence Director, Amos Yadlin, said that Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a HOSTILE STATE. (emphasis added) The U.S. State Department has a webpage which explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition, because they are “a weapon of war between sovereign states.”

        Prof. Anthony D’Amato pointed out that fact when Prime Minister Netanuahu’s spokesman told the Washington Post that Israel was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade ANOTHER STATE in the midst of an armed conflict.” (emphasis added)

        Prof Kevin Jon Heller cites “The contemporary law of armed conflict”, by L.C. Green and explains that Israel’s positions have created a dilemma for it.

        The Qassam Brigades are being commanded by individuals, such as the late Mohammed Watfa, who was killed during an IDF “Targeted Killing” operation. The Goldstone report cited the “Targeted Killings” case and provided examples where the fighters were identified as members of the Qassam Brigades because of their uniforms, e.g. 1043. …”In a room at the bottom of the stairs he found three armed young men wearing military camouflage and headbands of al-Qassam Brigades.”

        Palestine is being treated and labeled as a “state” in connection with the Goldstone Follow-up process in the UN – and Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza. See for example the asterisk and footnote which indicate Palestine is a non-member State of the Human Rights Council @ link to un.org

  4. eGuard
    April 19, 2011, 5:27 pm

    I think the NYT piece is very thin on that Goldstone factfinding piece twenty years ago in South Africa. And this, they claim, is the Missing Link in explaining Goldstone’s pirouette.

    South Africa, 20 years ago:
    [Goldstone led] a fact-finding mission into black violence that offered a Solomonic conclusion. The violence, he found, was endemic but a covert government campaign was sponsoring black killings to undermine the opposition. [Applause]. So it was Goldstone, not Mandela, who kicked out Apartheid then.

    And now, because this time it didn’t work out this way, he changed his mind? The NYT has found another theoretical Weapon of Mass Deception.

    At least, we want to read some more about that early report. Second, we can extend the parallels, like: “Goldstone is a Zionist who related violence by the oppressor to violence by the oppressed” (I bet Bronner wil not use that). And third: NYT, why not publish the earlier version Goldstone has send to you? It is in your drawer!

  5. eljay
    April 19, 2011, 5:28 pm

    >> One of his two daughters … has been furious with him …

    She appears to be of the Zio-supremacist mindset that tribalism trumps universal human rights, truth and justice. Pity.

    • Mooser
      April 20, 2011, 11:35 am

      “She appears to be of the Zio-supremacist mindset that tribalism trumps universal human rights, truth and justice.”

      On the other hand, she is always handy to point to as an explanation for the increasing incidence of intermarriage, if you get my drift, Nod-nod, wink-wink! Does she go? Eh? Does she go?

      Why no, she doesn’t go, does she, she stays in Canada.

  6. Richard Witty
    April 19, 2011, 6:40 pm

    ““He was upset by the misuse of those who accused Israel of being an apartheid state,” Mr. Ostroff said. “

    • James North
      April 19, 2011, 6:54 pm

      Richard: What, no reflection about how you made up a quote, and put false words in the mouth of Hamas? No need to apologize here, and on all the other sites where you spread the lie? No remorse for contributing, not to reconciliation, but to more violence?

      • marc b.
        April 19, 2011, 7:06 pm

        did he really do that, fabricate a quote?

      • James North
        April 19, 2011, 8:34 pm

        Richard made up a bloodthirsty quote, claiming that Hamas threatened before the 2008 invasion of Gaza “to wipe the streets with Israeli blood.” He spread it all over several websites. Several of us searched for the source, fruitlessly. He says he doesn’t have to apologize for what he “remembers.”
        I say he is fundamentally no different than the Tsarist secret police who forged The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

      • marc b.
        April 19, 2011, 9:40 pm

        i’m sure it was just a mistranslation on witty’s part. he is fluent in saidi and egyptian arabic, but his knowledge of the finer points of the arabic spoken by most in gaza isn’t his strong suit, i think he’d admit.

      • Avi
        April 20, 2011, 1:04 am

        I say he is fundamentally no different than the Tsarist secret police who forged The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

        Did they forge, or forget?

        I think in light of rich’s manipulation of the facts, perhaps “forget” is more apt. No?

        Perhaps they were quoting something else from memory — Like rich — and ended up with the Protocols — (Like rich?)

      • Avi
        April 20, 2011, 1:06 am

        marc b. April 19, 2011 at 9:40 pm

        i’m sure it was just a mistranslation on witty’s part. he is fluent in saidi and egyptian arabic, but his knowledge of the finer points of the arabic spoken by most in gaza isn’t his strong suit, i think he’d admit.

        Well, many Palestinians in Gaza actually speak Hebrew. Seriously. But, since rich only knows 1 or 2 words in Hebrew, it’s no wonder he couldn’t understand.

        How’s that for delicious irony?

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2011, 12:06 pm

        “did he really do that, fabricate a quote?”

        Marc, he does it CONSTANTLY! He will fabricate false quotes in a comment thread. Witty simply encloses what he is thinking, or what he thinks you said, or what he wishes you said, in quotes.
        I don’t think he knows what quote marks mean.

      • marc b.
        April 21, 2011, 9:32 am

        he is irredeemable. i had some sympathy for him, but his repeated hectoring ‘analyses’ of documents he couldn’t be bothered to read turned me off completely. this takes the cake though, the blood libel of palestinians (i missed it). really, dick, you don’t see the parallels between yourself and 2nd quarter of the 20th century fascists? they’re not all that subtle.

      • LeaNder
        April 19, 2011, 7:18 pm

        Back with a quote and a deep sigh signaling: I told you so. Our poor unrecognized genius.

      • Shingo
        April 19, 2011, 8:51 pm

        Yes, where is your retraction Witty?

    • Shingo
      April 19, 2011, 6:56 pm

      ““He was upset by the misuse of those who accused Israel of being an apartheid state,” Mr. Ostroff said. “

      So what does hat have to do with Cast Lead?

      • Richard Witty
        April 20, 2011, 12:06 am

        Withdrawn.

      • Richard Witty
        April 20, 2011, 12:41 am

        link to spiegel.de

        This does not contain the specific quote that I referred to, but does discuss some of the propaganda strategy of Hamas, to convey that they were prepared for an Israeli invasion. The article is dated in January, after the period that I was referring to.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Towards the end of the article.

        “Before and during the conflict, Hamas’ senior representatives released number of statements designed to avert Israeli decision-makers from launching any military operation in Gaza and to cause demoralization among Israelis. Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas boasted that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance.[258] Hamas representatives threatened on several occasions to abduct Israeli soldiers, and during the ground invasion tried to spread rumors that it actually had captured or killed more Israeli soldiers.[259]“

      • Shingo
        April 20, 2011, 2:43 am

        This does not contain the specific quote that I referred to..

        No, because we’ve already established that the specific quote you referred to never existed.

        This is a seriously lame effort Witty. The link says:

        The threats, of course, were not ultimately successful in preventing an Israeli ground incursion.

        Which debunks your theory that Hamas statements affected Israel’s stratergy. In fact, the link suggests that Hamas fell for Israel’s bluff, not the other way around:

        …Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak even appeared in a satirical broadcast on Dec. 26 — by which point the decision to attack on the morning of Dec. 27 was 24-hours old. An unsuspecting Hamas considered itself safe. On the morning of Dec. 27, men met in offices and barracks and dozens of policemen gathered at a defense ceremony. At that point, nearly 60 Israeli fighter jets were already in the air, headed for battle.

        Yuor wiki link points to teh same article.

        Neither articels provide one iota of evidence of your fake quote, let alone any supoprt for your claim that Israel changed heir stratergy based on that fake quote.

      • Chaos4700
        April 20, 2011, 3:55 am

        Also for reference:

        How Israel led Hamas into false sense of security

        However leaks to the media prompted Hamas officials to go underground in anticipation of the operation, forcing Israel to rethink its strategy and attempt a three-stage deception maneuver…

        “Hamas pulled its people out of hiding and resumed normal operations,” said the sources. “It would seem that Hamas believes the Israeli media, and thought it had a few more days before Israel launched an operation… once the tactical opportunity presented itself, the prime minister called Barak and Livni to his home on Friday night and they made the decision.”

        Humanitarian aid as bait. Followed up by concerted, directed attacks on refugee camps, schools (which were being used as shelters during the attack) and ultimately, the torching of the UN relief supply warehouse.

      • eljay
        April 20, 2011, 8:20 am

        >> This does not contain the specific quote that I referred to, but does discuss some of the propaganda strategy of Hamas, to convey that they were prepared for an Israeli invasion.

        Both articles you linked to indicate that both sides used psychological tactics to demoralize their opponents. Scary stuff.

        >> Towards the end of the article.

        Hamas made threats and – guess what? – Israel made threats: “It also warned residents that their homes would be targeted if they were located in an area of possible target.[265]”

        Very “Rohrshach” of you to omit that little tidbit.

      • LeaNder
        April 20, 2011, 10:26 am

        Richard, what I find interesting is that you followed Dan Fleshler’s hint, who also asked you for the source and questioned aspects of your summary of the lead up to Operation Cast Lead, telling you he considered the Wikipedia article balanced. I just followed a source and corrected a tiny but important detail accordingly. Let’s see if it will last. Not more time to carefully study it.

        Your Spiegel article about increasingly effective Israeli psychops/psychological warfare is a quite interesting choice in our context. Isn’t that exactly what you attempted with your blood-of-Israel-soldier’s quote, you allegedly found in Haaretz, as you claim on Realistic Dove, around December 22, 2008 or so. But you only starts to use it on June 14, 2010 “or so”? It’s not that cast lead wasn’t discussed here earlier.

        In your earliest usage, both state that Hamas agression “baited” Israel into the war, but there the statement still seems to represent IDF fears. And only later you turn these fear into statements by shifting sources: Some Hamas Officials, Hamas Officials, Hamas Commanders, the Al Qassam Military Wing, Al Quassam Brigade, Leaders of Al Quassam Brigade as you go along defending Israel’s IDF in different target groups.

        Al Qassam seems to be used for target audiences, you assume are more Israel friendly, and the diverse Hamas factions here and on Rabbi Brant’s blog for us the dissidents / the earlier right/left posse.

        I would still like to know if you are a victim of psychological warfare, or in fact a willing perpetrator. If you are a victim than you should be able to tell us your source, which is clearly not what you told Dan Flesher(see link above “around December 22, 2008″)

        There may be other creative uses of this US psychops around. An interesting article, with an even more interesting source history, which leads us right into the emerging latest enemy of Israeli Salafi groups rising to the right of Hamas. Will they take care once Israel decides to actually talk to Hamas, the perpetual story goes on?

        If you didn’t rely on similar source, then you should explain to us, how you define truth and lie. Or what motivates you? And what conclusion we should draw from it, maybe?

      • James North
        April 20, 2011, 11:01 am

        Let’s not forget: Just after Israel’s attack on Gaza, Richard Witty said, ‘Hamas’s bloodthirsty threats justify Israel’s violence, including the killing of 1400 human beings, among them more than 300 children.’

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2011, 11:40 am

        “Withdrawn.”

        Quick, kid, run off to the chabad house while you’ve got a chance. He may reconsider the withdrawal.

      • Chaos4700
        April 20, 2011, 11:50 am

        Incidentally, every time I see a Witty post that miraculously only contains one word, and it’s that word, I smile. It really makes all the hard work countering his lie-spam worth it.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2011, 12:02 pm

        You all do a wonderful and commendable job of dealing with him.

      • LeaNder
        April 20, 2011, 2:33 pm

        Moose, I am never quite sure, if I shouldn’t empathize with him.

        But before I’ll return to my duties, let me you show you something that reminded me of your ciocaine in my latest net-excursions:

        Here on The Democratic Underground you`ll find this statement about him by Phillies:

        Richard Witty, who posts on Phil’s site, provides that view on a regular basis.

        There is plenty of knee-jerk accusations of being a self-hating Jew. I guess those who level that accusation don’t usually come off as thoughtful.

        Now the context tells us that Richard may well be a God sent angle help overcome this very Jewish disease:

        But back to the elusive cause of Jew Flu: what makes one Jew vulnerable and not another? Wouldn’t a far larger proportion of Jews fall prey to Jew Flu if, say, Stockholm syndrome was the culprit? Is there a prime mover, some physiological or neurological smoking gun pointing to a root cause?

        There may be. David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations.

        Brooks reports that “the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own.”

        This phenomenon was epitomized by Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik and Jew Flu victim. “I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering,” declared Rosa the Red. “Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles? I feel closer to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations of Putumayo or the Negroes in Africa… I have no separate corner in my heart for the ghetto.”

      • Donald
        April 20, 2011, 7:36 am

        “He was upset by the misuse of those who accused Israel of being an apartheid state,” Mr. Ostroff said” (Richard Witty quoting the NYT story)

        “So what does hat have to do with Cast Lead?” (Shingo)

        Richard doesn’t seem to understand this puts Goldstone in a bad light.
        Goldstone was driven to rethink his judgments about Israeli cruelty because he didn’t like how the facts about its behavior were being used to criticize Israel. And unlike Desmond Tutu, Goldstone seems to be another one of those sensitive souls who gets all upset by the Israel/apartheid South Africa comparison. In fact, he seems more upset by the harsh judgements on Israel than he is about what Israel has done and in retrospect, he regrets his brief period of honesty.

      • Richard Witty
        April 20, 2011, 8:07 am

        Now you are going at Goldstone, similar to going at me.

        “In fact, he seems more upset by the harsh judgements on Israel than he is about what Israel has done and in retrospect, he regrets his brief period of honesty.”

        I think, he resents that his effort to present a non-prejudicial, balanced and complete report, were abused in partisan advocacy.

        That so many partisans abused his integrity by using the report for propaganda, so many that the report itself was not seen.

      • Shingo
        April 20, 2011, 8:53 am

        Now you are going at Goldstone, similar to going at me.

        Stop self agrandising yourself. You’re not anywhere near Goldstone’s league Witty.

        I think, he resents that his effort to present a non-prejudicial, balanced and complete report, were abused in partisan advocacy.

        I think you’re wrong and merely projecting your own anxiety and shame onto Goldstone.

        That so many partisans abused his integrity by using the report for propaganda, so many that the report itself was not seen.

        Rubbish. As was reported, Israel knew what they report woudl contain long before it was released, and were already pushing the argument that laws of war neede do tbe changed.

        In your case, you admitted to refusig toe read the report because you were too afrad of the information it could contain.

      • Richard Witty
        April 20, 2011, 5:21 pm

        Again,
        The significance of the ‘quote’ was to indicate that Hamas had communicated its preparedness and intent to cause harm to Israeli invading forces.

        Please acknowledge that that is true, even if I can’t find the specific reference.

        And, that that contributed to the rational thinking of the Israeli military to respond to that preparedness.

        The contrast is between the conflict as a conflict, in which war is the greatest war crime, of which crimes during war are an additional 10 feet, even 100 feet, on a 10000 foot mountain.

        And, that solidarity that adds heat to animosity is a contributor, an additional 5 feet to the mountain.

      • James North
        April 20, 2011, 5:31 pm

        Again,
        Just after Israel’s attack on Gaza, Richard Witty said, ‘Hamas’s bloodthirsty threats justify Israel’s violence, including the killing of 1400 human beings, among them more than 300 children.’
        The significance of the ‘quote’ is to show that Richard Witty does not think Palestinians are human beings, who deserve to have their rights respected.
        By posting made-up bloodthirsty quotes all over the internet, Richard Witty “adds heat to animosity.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 20, 2011, 5:45 pm

        The contrast is between the conflict as a conflict, in which war is the greatest war crime, of which crimes during war are an additional 10 feet, even 100 feet, on a 10000 foot mountain.

        Richard,
        What the hell is wrong with you that you can’t write a short, clear, declarative sentence? Seriously, did you have stroke or suffer a brain parasite or something? I would feel like hell if that were the case, but at least it would make sense. Unlike your writing.

      • Shingo
        April 20, 2011, 5:53 pm

        The significance of the ‘quote’ was to indicate that Hamas had communicated its preparedness and intent to cause harm to Israeli invading forces.

        Rubbish Witty.

        There is no significane to the quote, seeing as it never existed. In war, people make all kinds of bold statements, but no militry worth it’s salt is going to base it’s intelligence or stratergy on what other states in public.

        Look at Baghdad Bob.

        So no, it’s not true Witty.

        And, that that contributed to the rational thinking of the Israeli military to respond to that preparedness.

        False. For the 100th time, your quote does not exist and secondly, your own links state that Hamas’ public statement weer meaningless and inneffective.

        The contrast is between the conflict as a conflict, in which war is the greatest war crime, of which crimes during war are an additional 10 feet, even 100 feet, on a 10000 foot mountain.

        A new world salad Witty? That is even more incoherent than usual.

      • Donald
        April 20, 2011, 11:32 pm

        “That so many partisans abused his integrity by using the report for propaganda, so many that the report itself was not seen.”

        Hilarious Richard. So now you’re defending the Goldstone Report? You seem confused here. The Goldstone Report is a damning indictment of Israel–I think you mean to defend Goldstone now that he is waffling.

      • Shingo
        April 21, 2011, 6:27 am

        Hilarious Richard. So now you’re defending the Goldstone Report?

        Even more hillarious is that he’s defending a Report he hasn’t read or had the courage to read.

      • eljay
        April 21, 2011, 6:57 am

        >> By posting made-up bloodthirsty quotes all over the internet, Richard Witty “adds heat to animosity.”

        And by continuing to rationalize Israeli terror, he is investing in it.

        That adds at least another 37 cubic metres per second of flow to the river of discord upon which the Palestinian canoes of self-determination bobble precariously.

      • marc b.
        April 21, 2011, 10:02 am

        everyone is always going after witty, who can’t pass up an opportunty to strike the crucifixion pose.

    • Hostage
      April 20, 2011, 8:33 am

      “He was upset by the misuse of those who accused Israel of being an apartheid state,” Mr. Ostroff said.”

      The authors of the Goldstone report went way out of their way to document the fact that Israel is committing all of the material elements of the crime of apartheid in connection with the crime of persecution with both knowledge and intent. Here are some examples:

      206. Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. Notably, existing planning and construction laws were annulled and replaced with military orders, and related civil powers transferred from local authorities to Israeli institutions, with ultimate discretion resting with military commanders. The application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land”.

      207. The two-tiered civil status under Israeli law, favouring “Jewish nationals” (le’om yehudi) over persons holding Israeli citizenship (ezrahut), has been a subject of concern under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, particularly those forms of discrimination carried out through Israel’s parastatal agencies (World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund and their affiliates), which dominate land use, housing and development. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also has recognized that Israel’s application of a “Jewish nationality” distinct from Israeli citizenship institutionalizes discrimination that disadvantages all Palestinians, in particular, refugees.

      208. In 2007, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination highlighted another discriminatory policy imposed by the Israeli authorities on Palestinian residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as those who are Israeli citizens (but denied a legal “nationality” status). The “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order)” of 31 May 2003 bars the possibility of granting Israeli citizenship and residence permits in Israel, including through family reunification, to residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Committee noted that such measures have a disproportionate impact on Arab Israeli citizens who marry Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory and wish to live together with their families in Israel. While noting the State party’s legitimate objective of guaranteeing the safety of its citizens, the Committee expressed concern about the fact that these “temporary” measures have systematically been renewed and have been expanded to citizens of “enemy States”.

      1381. The information gathered by the Mission indicates an ongoing pattern of ill treatment and use of force by the Israeli security forces against Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Ill treatment and low levels of force are reported being common in encounters at checkpoints between Palestinians and the Israeli security forces (army, police and border police), while a greater, sometimes lethal, degree of force has been used during demonstrations, incursions and search and arrest operations. With heavily armed Israeli military forces present throughout the West Bank, the possibility of violence always exists. As a witness reported to the Mission, “the use of force is part of the system of control of the occupation, where a key element is fear, which can only be sustained by the constant threat and the periodic act of violence”.

      1382. Violence against Palestinians in the West Bank does not only come from the security forces. The Israeli military operations in Gaza commenced when the West Bank was experiencing some of the worst acts of settler violence in several years.

      1384. …Settler violence is a regular occurrence, targeting primarily Palestinian civilians and their property but also, on occasion, Israeli soldiers. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “a root cause of the phenomenon is Israel’s decade-long policy of facilitating and encouraging the settling of its citizens inside occupied Palestinian territory, defined as transfer of population and prohibited by international humanitarian law.” Israeli media attribute the increase in settler violence to the settler movement which became increasingly radicalized after the Gaza Disengagement in August 2005.

      1388. There was a significant increase in the use of force by Israeli security forces during demonstrations in the West Bank after the start of the Israeli operations in Gaza. The degree of force used against protests during the previous year had already been high, including during protests against the Wall in places such as Jayyous, al-Ma’sara, Bi’lin and Ni’lin.*721 The villages where demonstrations are regularly held have lost or stand to lose much of their land to Israeli settlements and the Wall. A vibrant grass-roots, non-violent resistance movement has evolved that has attracted support from Israeli and international activists. New tactics and weapons used by the Israeli security forces aimed at suppressing the popular movement have resulted in deaths and injuries. For example, in July 2008, Israeli border police killed two children, Ahmad Musa, aged 10, and Yusef Amera, aged 17, both of whom were shot in the head.

      *Footnote 721 “Repression Allowed, Resistance Denied: Israel’s suppression of the popular movement against the Apartheid Wall of Annexation”, Addameer and Stop the Wall report, July 2009. For a list of the 19 people including 11 children killed in anti-wall demonstrations up until July 2009, see link to palsolidarity.org .

      1502. The systematic discrimination, both in law and in practice, against Palestinians in legislation (including the existence of an entirely separate legal and court system which offers systematically worse conditions than that applicable to Israelis) and practice during arrest, detention, trial and sentencing compared with Israeli citizens is contrary to ICCPR, article 2, and potentially in violation of the prohibition on persecution as a crime against humanity.

      1548. From the facts available to it, the Mission believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin The Mission is concerned about the steps taken recently to formalize the separation of Gaza from the West Bank, and, as such, of two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Mission is also concerned that the increasingly entrenched array of movement and access restrictions, both physical and non-physical, amount to a deliberate policy of closely controlling a population in order to make use of areas of its land. From the facts available, the Mission believes that these restrictions constitute violations of fundamental rights.

      1549. Insofar that movement and access restrictions, the settlements and their infrastructure, demographic policies with regards to Jerusalem and Area C, and the separation of Gaza from the West Bank prevent a viable, contiguous and sovereign Palestinian State from being created, they are in violation of the jus cogens right to self-determination.

      1936. The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

  7. pabelmont
    April 19, 2011, 7:15 pm

    I cannot see if the suggestion is that Goldstone wanted (in retrospect) to re-write his report (contrary to law and fact and professionalism) or merely wished he had never undertaken the job in the first place. When he was DOING the job, he seems to have done it wholeheartedly and professionally. The Jewish tribal pressure seems to have been exerted by others to make him assault the report, but his late-occurring recognition of the unpleasantness of the tribal pressure seems something that (had he predicted it sufficiently early) would have led him to turn down the job, not to fudge it.

    • Citizen
      April 20, 2011, 11:14 am

      I read he said he was much surprised when he discovered what Israel had done. It’s not hard for any Zionist, Christian or Jewish, to believe what Israel says from afar, without any digging themselves. When he and his three non-Jewish investigators submitted their report, he likely had mustered all he could to temper their findings already in behalf Israel, especially given Israel offered no help. (He also said he agreed to the job to best protect Israel from anyone seeking to discredit it, treat it unfairly)

      After 19 months of MOTs telling him in detail he had, was, harming his people, and others were using his findings to discredit Israel, to wash Jewish dirty laundry in front of the goyhim, his most core values took over under the total circumstances.He was a Jew first, a Jewish family member second, a Jewish extended family member third–extending to the state of Israel, the safe harbor for all Jews in a world of eternal enemies, if not now there, then here, or later, there, etc. He was, fourth, a human being in general. If God himself thought to distinguish, who was he not to? Likely, same as his daughter in Canada feels and thinks.
      “He came home at last.” It was a different kettle of fish when he judged goy v goy in apartheid S Africa.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 11:37 am

        The same ethical mental process happened with many of the American Jews who fought gentile racism/ethnic chauvinism in the 1960s, champions of MLK, and still fight it wherever it attempts to rear its head here–but not when Israel is called to account. Because that’s over there, in Israel. PEP.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2011, 11:44 am

        “He was a Jew first, a Jewish family member second, a Jewish extended family member third”

        Oddly enough, I think that’s the way I would describe myself, in certain contexts. And my in-laws tell me they don’t mind having a Jewish family member at all. Of course, I immediately tell them the other girls in the family will have to get their own. Mine’s just for my wife.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 6:22 pm

        Why, Mooser, that’s not odd at all. You’re much more ordinary than you pretend to be. Not to worry, you don’t have to admit it any more than Ted Turner has to, or Don Trump for that matter. Or Jon Stewart. Your antlers have a particular curve to them. Of course, one has to know the species to see it.

  8. Donald
    April 19, 2011, 7:43 pm

    “In truth, even many who hailed the Goldstone Report in the human rights world, in Israel and the United States, had been uncomfortable with the report’s assertion that Israel intended to kill civilians.”

    This is the tribalism of the self-satisfied smug Western “liberal”. Who would have ever dreamed that targeting infrastructure and using indiscriminate firepower in an urban setting would kill civilians? Who could possibly think that Israel might have done this with the intent of killing some civilians to teach them a lesson? I mean, that’s like saying they’re as bad as Arabs.

    • Citizen
      April 20, 2011, 6:27 pm

      Not really, given the hi-tek, and industrial nature of their free American weapons, and the post-Nuremberg/Geneva international rights scene, it’s more like saying they are as bad as those Germans in in the late 1930’s.

  9. RoHa
    April 19, 2011, 8:23 pm

    You’ve lost it again, Philip.

    Why is it so hard to write “NYT”?

    • Avi
      April 20, 2011, 1:15 am

      RoHa April 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

      You’ve lost it again, Philip.

      Why is it so hard to write “NYT”?

      New Yorkers have nicknamed it, “The Times”.

      You don’t go to Italy and order “Italian food”, do you? You order, “Tagliatelle with Bolognese”.

      Capisce?

      • RoHa
        April 20, 2011, 10:11 pm

        “New Yorkers have nicknamed it, “The Times”. ”

        If this blog is restricted to New Yorkers, then fine. But if it is open to the rest of the world, then Phil should try to make sure that we know he means the NYT, and not “The Times”.

    • annie
      April 20, 2011, 2:49 am

      here in the bay area we call the SF chronicle “the chronicle”.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 11:44 am

        Yes, of course. RoHa never picks up on US insider lingo. He’s similar to a great swatch of Americans that live between “flyover” country. Except he’s academically educated more so, I suspect.

      • lysias
        April 20, 2011, 11:44 am

        Here in the D.C. area, we call the Washington Post “the Post”.

        When I used to live in the Bronx, we not only called the New York Times “the Times”, we called New York City (or sometimes just Manhattan) “the city”.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 6:29 pm

        Yeah, the four girls are well known, even in Cochechton, NY.

      • maggielorraine
        April 20, 2011, 1:16 pm

        Re: “here in the bay area we call the SF chronicle “the chronicle”

        Indeed, Annie, we do. Just like we call San Francisco “the City.” Doesn’t mean there aren’t other cities, nor that there aren’t other chronicles. Isn’t this pretty normal?

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 20, 2011, 12:14 pm

      “Why is it so hard to write “NYT”?”

      Especially considering that there is a newspaper called “The Times” and it’s not “The New York Times.”

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 6:30 pm

        Geez, Tanaka, the “old gray lady?”

  10. casaananda
    April 19, 2011, 10:46 pm

    In some respects, I pity Goldstone. He must be a savagely tormented soul now, though I don’t doubt he imagined he was doing something “constructive” with the original report. When it became clear he isolated himself from his community and family, and came up against an unmovable rock of Israeli denial, defensiveness and intransigence, only then did he reconsider. But in his heart of hearts he knows war crimes were committed, deliberately. He knows, even if he won’t admit to it now. And he’s going to have to live with this the rest of his life.

    • Chaos4700
      April 19, 2011, 11:00 pm

      Goldstone has suffered far, far less than the average Gazan that he condemns to a life under brutal savagery of the worst sort by running interference for Israel and Israel alone. He got in bed with Zionism, and now he shouldn’t be surprised at the painful inflammation in sensitive places as a consequence of it.

    • Mooser
      April 20, 2011, 11:48 am

      “And he’s going to have to live with this the rest of his life.”

      No he won’t. There’s a solution for it. I’m not completely clear on the details, but it involves red-hot rocks, lot of davaning, and staying in a hot bath until you look like a prune. And then presto-change-o you’re purified, you think you can make it now, it’s gonna be a bright, sun-shiney day, and all the bad feelings have disappeared!

    • Citizen
      April 20, 2011, 11:51 am

      You mean like Madoff having to live with his son’s suicide? Seems to me, Goldstone is more traditonally Jewish than Madoff. What say you? By that I mean Madoff had no problem bilking fellow Jews too, and he even catered to their sentiments to do so. Sort of like a Russian Jew who ripped off everyone once the USSR fell, and became a new business titan. Madoff finally decided, given what he had unearthed, to shred his international stature and career for his love of Israel as Israel. In the end the gohim didn’t count, and so, international law and ethics didn’t count either–unless it could be used as a tool for Israel.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2011, 12:10 pm

        “You mean like Madoff having to live with his son’s suicide?”

        Thank you Citizen, I was being inconsiderate. Yes, even tho I picture Witty as someone who is extremely emotionally stunted, still there are some things which get through to anybody.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2011, 6:42 pm

        Actually, I don’t know what came over senile me, but I meant it was Goldstone who decided to “shred his international stature and career for his love of Israel as Israel. In the end the goyim didn’t count, and so, international law and ethics didn’t count either–unless it could be used as a tool for Israel.”

        I hope everyone saw my glitch since Madoff didn’t have any international stature in the first place. (Such stature means the goyim respect you, for your humane nobility, not for your way to make a good buck while doing nothing.)

  11. Jason-is-Free
    April 20, 2011, 12:55 am

    Why don’t we just call the report something else?? If he doesn’t want his name on it. This is very infantile, apparently he doesn’t care about the dead that died in Gaza.

    • Citizen
      April 20, 2011, 12:01 pm

      Well, I’d say he cares about the dead Gazans maybe as much as he cares about the concerns of world-wide PETA. He may care about his longtime pet cat more.

Leave a Reply