Everyone's been wondering why Richard Goldstone penned his April 1 piece for the Washington Post, stepping back from assertions he and three other international factfinders made in their landmark report on the Gaza conflict of September 2009. The speculated causes have been pressure on Goldstone from supporters of Israel and the judge's personal anguish over how his report and status were being used by Israel's critics.
We'll probably never know for sure. But Goldstone's epiphany seems to have come recently; for his piece changes his specific judgments of two issues he addressed in a speech just 2-1/2 months ago at Stanford. One was his criticism back in January of a horrific episode, an Israeli bombing that killed 29 members of an extended family. The other was his disparaging in January of Israel's claims on the number of combatants killed. In both cases the new piece switches direction--and suggests to me that the judge worked on the piece with someone else.
First the house bombing.
In the Post piece, Goldstone writes that Israeli investigations of incidents in the conflict have disproven the report's allegation that civilians were deliberately targeted by Israel:
For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home [on January 5, 2009]. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.
But when he spoke at Stanford in January, on "Civilians in War Zones," Goldstone was not so forgiving. He went into the shelling of the al-Samouni house (as it is spelled in his original report) at some length, and discussed the same reports of the Israeli government investigation: the drone pictures were fuzzy and were incorrectly interpreted by Israeli officers to show men carrying rocket launchers into a house-- when in fact, they were carrying firewood to a cold house in which scores of frightened family members were gathered. The al-Samouni family was there under orders of Israeli troops who had a command post near the house. The men collecting firewood were "in clear sight of the Israeli troops," Goldstone said.
And even though he accepted Israeli statements that the helicopter gunships did not know what the troops on the ground knew, he still faulted Israeli conduct:
If the latest version to which I referred with regard to the al-Samouni house is correct, it would not, I suggest, excuse the actions of the Israeli Defense Force in bombing the house. It might well however justify a finding that the attack was not a deliberate one against civilians.
An attack on civilians doesn't have to be deliberate in order to be a war crime. As Goldstone emphasized at Stanford, an attack might be judged illegal "because of negligence, or because of indifference." The question of criminality also turns on whether the attacking forces used proportionate force for their target if there were civilians in the area. And at Stanford, weighing the same evidence he has now, the judge suggested that the al-Samouni attack on a civilian neighborhood failed that standard, proportional attack.
The second point on which Goldstone has reversed field is even more of a right turn. It involves the number of enemy combatants among the 1300-1400 killed during the 22-day conflict.
In the Post, Goldstone writes:
Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).
Goldstone is surely referring to a November statement from Fathi Hamad, the Gaza interior minister, last November:
"They say that it was the people who were harmed in the last war," said Hamad. "Are we not part of the people? On the first day of the war, Israel attacked the police command and killed 250 martyrs, from Hamas and other factions.
"This was in addition to the 200-300 members of the Al-Qassam Brigade [Hamas' military wing] and 150 security personnel," Hamad added. "The rest of the fatalities were from among the civilian population."
But in his speech at Stanford, Goldstone quoted Hamad and specifically rejected Israel's "reliance" on the interior minister:
There has been much debate about the number of combatants killed.. In recent months reliance has been made by some Israeli officials on the statement made in November last year [by Hamad]....This statement made some two years after the event was intended no doubt to bolster the reputation of Hamas with the people of Gaza. The Israeli reliance on it is founded on the assumption that the 250 members of Hamas who were killed in police headquarters were combatants. That is not necessarily so. Membership of Hamas alone would not have made anyone a combatant or lose their civilian content. I guess the majority of all the people living in Gaza were members of Hamas. That would not have made them combatants and subject to deliberate attack in the war. If in fact the police officers were members of the Hamas military wing or any of the other militant groups, that would be another matter. On that assumption the number of combatants who were killed would certainly approximate the number claimed by the Israeli government. I must add that in the Gaza report, we did not make any finding at all as to the number killed in operation Cast Lead….
Quite a difference from January to April.
But what do these discrepancies show? The contrasting statements confirm for me the incredible politicization of the report's findings, and the shifting mental processes by which law is fashioned. A great judge in the prime of his life appeared to hold one belief two months ago and today holds a very different one. I believe that he adjusted his views in consultation with someone else. And someone friendly to Israel.
The big shift in orientation as a result of the op-ed is the shift of accusation from patterns and policy of intentional targeting of civilians to incidents.
It is a very big deal.
His is a single opinion. The op-ed was an opinion. As the topic is contreversial, it is his responsibility to support his conclusions with details. However, in an op-ed that standard is much lower than in a legal document. He can site impressions as impressions and not violate standards of argument. He is not guilty of negligence, cowardice, or fraud.
Blah blah blah blah.
Care to translate that into plain English?
We should ask what changed? What has changed? What extra research did he do? What evidence could he have seen since then to change his mind?
That’s all that matters Richard Witty. Sincere people go straight to the point and ignore all the superficial mumbo jumbo you just wrote.
…which is why it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the validity of the Goldstone Report, which is a documented factual record.
And we’re now starting to see the other contributors to that report step forward and call bullshit on Goldstone himself for his about-face.
Following the collection of facts, of observations, comes the phase of interpretation of those facts.
His op-ed indicated that the earth has moved, that the definition of potentially legitimate scope of operations has moved.
It is a material change.
I hope that we can talk about varying interpretations of observations as varying interpretations and not falsely elevate them to “facts”.
What is an observation?
Four bombs from an Israeli plane fell on this building between 5:00 am and 5:20 am on x date. 7 adults and 5 children lived in this building. Of the 12, 5 adults and 4 children were killed as a direct result of the bomb, 1 died a week later.
Within IDF command, x gave the order on 4:30 am on x date to bomb that target.
Observations. Facts I guess. From that selection of facts, people derive interpretations. “War crimes were committed.”
If to those facts, were added, 6 qassams were found in the basement apartment of the building in which 3 adults and 4 children lived. The IDF telephoned the residents of the house at 4:48 to inform them that the house would be bombed at 5:05 am.
And, the officer in charge of initiating the bombing earlier inquired “what time of day are there the least number of individuals exposed to a bombing.”
Then the interpretation of the same facts are different.
And, if the IDF had made “phony” calls on 6 occassions, that a bombing would occur at 5:00 am and didn’t. And, if the officer got the information that 6:00 am was the time of least collateral damage, but for other reasons (to visit his girlfriend by 9:00 am) instead chose 5:00. And, instead of removing people from the apartment in anticipation of the likelihood of the building becoming a target, Hamas vanguard encouraged the children and women to stay.
Then the rational interpretation of those selected facts changes again, but gets murkier.
Its why I call this rohrschach, seeing what one is predisposed to see.
The anti-war conviction asks that the heat turn down, if the facts are in fact murky.
You state clear grey. I state muddy grey.
No, Witty, I deal in factual data and regulated investigation. You deal in wild speculation, intimidation, assumption and, when it suits you, blatant falsehood.
“No, Witty, I deal in factual data and regulated investigation.”
Yeah, what the heck was that? Is RW writing a science fiction novel about the Gaza conflict in some alternate universe?
Wow Witty. What a waste of space. Can you actually substantiate that mess or are you going to fill the blog with more superficial verbiage?
What does any of that have to do with Goldstone’s op-ed?
Here is the only question that matters:
What new information prompted Goldstone to write the op-ed?
If there is new information, what is it?
Did Goldstone do some more research since his last ‘anti-Israel’ comments (in your eyes) to now (approval, glowing, in your eyes once again)?
That’s it. This isn’t that complicated and since you have not done your homework, you just decided to spam like always.
STOP.
People are tired of it.
You – and the other Zionists on this blog – were quick to do a 180 on Goldstone but you haven’t asked any of these important questions – the biggest and most obvious being… why? why now? what changed?
Instead, we get more blah blah blah from you.
“If there is new information, what is it?”
There doesn’t seem to be much. There’s a disputed account about whether an Israeli officer did or did not know if a house contained civilians, but it turns out there was much more to that story than just that–
link
Goldstone’s op ed simply doesn’t make much sense except as a pathetic sort of attempt to get back into the good graces of the “Israel can do no serious wrong” crowd (of which Witty is a charter member). Israel is doing what it always does–low level investigations, a largely meaningless charade. Admittedly it’s no different with America’s lack of accountability on torture, but we don’t have a leading human rights activist with a distinguished career as a judge lending his stamp of approval to our dishonesty.
Over here, Donald. After reading that it feels to me I know exactly why all of this happened so hard and fast, and now.
Thank you, Phil, for following this up so well. It needs more and more. The pressure on Goldstone must, must BACKFIRE!
“The men collecting firewood were “in clear sight of the Israeli troops,” Goldstone said, though he accepted Israeli statements that the helicopter gunships did not know what the troops on the ground knew.”
What’s the use of “command and control” if the troops don’t tell each other what’s up? The Israelis didn’t shoot each other very much (weren’t all or most of the huge number –13– of Israeli casualties due to Israeli fire?). If Israeli troops were watching the house, why was the helicopter independently going around shooting at it? do they speak in foreign languages? Is Hebrew a secret language even to the Israeli army? If the family was there “under orders”, is there any explanation of why these orders were not sent to Israeli C&C so the helicopters could also know that? How do they explain this?
And none of this can explain the fact that the Israeli troops kept rescue from reaching the house, when they knew there were wounded civilians there. This, in itself, is a war crime.
great article phil
An attack on civilians doesn’t have to be deliberate in order to be a war crime.
i wondered about this and just asked about it in another thread this morning. thanks for clearing that up.
The speculated causes have been pressure on Goldstone from supporters of Israel and the judge’s personal anguish over how his report and status were being used by Israel’s critics.
well, it’s interesting that one ” speculator” has a name and openly calls himself a friend of Goldstone, and the other’s are simply nameless “sources” or “a source”. Would you give a newspaper your name and report something about “a friend”, if he didn’t tell you? Wouldn’t you prefer to remain “a source”.
“The speculated causes have been pressure on Goldstone from supporters of Israel and the judge’s personal anguish over how his report and status were being used by Israel’s critics.”
Speculation by who? This is more of the anti-Zionist tendency to reject everything that goes against their worldview. Speculation is that Goldstone got tired of his report being distorted by the far-left anti-Zionist community. Speculation is that he read the comments in Mondoweiss and saw how criticism of Israel devolves in antisemitism on a regular basis.
“The speculated causes have been pressure on Goldstone from supporters of Israel and the judge’s personal anguish over how his report and status were being used by Israel’s critics.”
“I believe that he adjusted his views in consultation with someone else. And someone friendly to Israel. ”
What’s your evidence for this Phil? This is simply speculation on your part – speculation, not journalism.
It’s not even speculation. Can someone post a link to the YNet article of that Zionist organization gushing about how they pressured Goldstone?
>> Can someone post a link to the YNet article of that Zionist organization gushing about how they pressured Goldstone?
Dunno about YNet, but…
link to haaretz.com
link to occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com
There was a Zionist organization in South Africa that was bragging as well. I think that’s what the Ynet article referred to.
Here is what I recollect seeing about that. Right under my proverbial nose here, can’t believe I forgot where I saw it specifically.
you give me a lot of power hophmi in thinking this site affected the judge; the Forward today echoes my line…
of course phil, this site is in the lead.
Phil made it perfectly clear that no may ever know why Goldstone capitulated so what he says after that is, by definition , speculation. It is a perfectly legitimate thing for a political analyst to do, especially after warning the reader that is what he is doing.
Actually, Hopni, I tend to agree with you at a certain level. Goldstone continued to insist that he was a Zionist. His belief in Zionism is incompatible with the notion of justice for Palestinians. His report brought that logical crises to a head precipitating a mental crises. Ilan Pappe in the above post makes this point very clearly. We may soon see a Judge Goldstone that will be addressing Christian Zionist conventions and engaging in other right loon activities signaling a complete break with reality.
Negligent or careless behaviour that leads unintentionally to death, say by dangerous driving, is surely criminal. But then there’s the question of a good intention which reason shows us can be carried out only by distressing but necessary means.
Goldstone now seems to be saying that the al-Samouni massacre – and much else beside – could fall within the category of ‘mistake that a reasonable person, engaged on a just and necessary task, might well have made amid the fog of war’. Others, including me, would say that to put an unknown number of lives at risk on the strength of some wretched image that must, else the mistake would not have been made, have been fuzzy and untrustworthy, is not a reasonable but a reckless action.
There is a legal phrase, “reckless disregard” which applies here. Was there actual, subjective intent (i.e., I intend to murder those particular people)?? Who knows, without getting the I”D”F militants at trial, but there appears to be no other rational conclusion other than that there was a reckless disregard for whether the conditions existed which would make the attack legitimate. In some instances, such reckless disregard can be sufficient to establish intent, even in the absence of actual, subjective intent.
Reckless disregard certainly seems, as a matter of common sense, to tell you something about the real intention, whatever words are spoken, behind the real action.
Goldstone in the WaPo:
Hard to believe that a serious jurist wrote this. Goldstone is engaged in sheer speculation about an ‘appropriate process,’ even as he already admits that it’s dragging on too long, which could well be deliberate stalling in preparation for burying the issue.
Secondly, his confidence that Israel will ‘respond accordingly’ if the officer was negligent is contradicted by a long line of previous incidents that were ‘investigated,’ ranging from the Israeli pilots who killed 34 US sailors on the USS Liberty, to the bulldozer operator who run over and killed Rachel Corrie, to the commandos who killed nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara, to numerous incidents of IDF brutality against both Palestinians and international observers.
Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on Goldstone. He was pressured, and he caved. His character, compromised by the deviant ideology of zionism, wasn’t up to the task of sustaining his well-substantiated charges against Israel.
If Goldstone can indulge in absurd counterfactual speculation, so can I. I’m speculating that Goldstone caved in response to credible death threats from Mossad. How do you like them apples, Judge? And they’re not even all that ‘counterfactual,’ are they?
Goldstone also hasn’t talked to the officer, his subordinates, his commanding officer, or anyone actually doing the investigation.
So basically, when Goldstone wrote the op ed, he took talking points from what amounts to a press release from the Israeli government. I don’t seem to recall him being anywhere near that trusting of Hamas when he was actually in Gaza. Was he?
YNET has a piece about how Goldstone allegedly wanted to publish his retraction in the NYT, but they rejected it. (I just noticed the link below is in the post Phil wrote). Demonstrating the bizarro world that some pro-Israel types live in, they say this is because the NYT is very anti-Israel, as demonstrated by columns written by Tom Friedman lately.
There’s a quote I’ve seen here from a friend of Goldstone who says he has been through hell, while others claim Goldstone repented because he sees how he was manipulated.
There’s something entertaining about reading all this. Also depressing, if I think about it too much.
link
I have no sympathy for Goldstone. Ilan Pappe is right — Zionism requires its adherents to prostitute themselves out to militant, ideological Israel even at the expense of basic social justice and intellectual integrity. If anything, Goldstone should have known how vicious other Zionists are capable of acting (he saw it ON THE GROUND IN GAZA FOR HIMSELF) and he should never have taken the job with the UN if his fanaticism for (or fear of) Israel exceeded his commitment to jurisprudence.
I feel a tiny bit sorry for him, but he’s not the victim here. But the people pressuring him–it’s like a freak show. These people really have some religious need to worship their Holy State, as Chomsky would say.
I was at the talk at Stanford. The ferocity and conviction Goldstone displayed was astounding. I was honored to listen to him, impressed with his principles and intellectual honesty. Now…now I just don’t know.
Well, Witty’s certainly jumping on this one. Fortunately, he has not figured it out or he’d be delusional. We all need to face the fact that we just got played, big time, by an exceptional Zionist Lawyer. Nothing new. If you think it through, if he pushed his initial position within the UN committee beyond what he did, he would have been recognized for what he is, an extremist. Total setup and all of us that gave him the benefit of doubt, got played again. They’ll name a street after him in Jerusalem down the road.
Hej!
Appear to be reasonable, then drop bottom from out of under them. Great damage control in a bad situation. Worse news down the road and everybody forgets about this!
Smile!
Essentially it could be that this was worked out with Mr. Goldstone as “a way back to the community.” If you think that he was just thinking of himself you are very wrong (if this is the case), his entire posterity has probably been threatened, this is what he is dealing with right now (remember the grandsons Bar Mitzvah, which was just a manifestation of much more bad will).
This is not the first time this has been proposed for “errant ones” in the Zionist community, or those of Jewish heritage for that matter who have advanced in the community. Many times it makes the difference between a life of access and comfort as opposed to hard one or a hell on earth for yourself and your loved ones – adjustable to the supposed offense. I would say in reference to the Goldstone report it is proposed as a grievous problem that could affect the family from this time forward.
Those who have not been subjected to this might find it hard to believe, but when you participate in whatever discipline which is well developed in the community (law), you face hurdles at every turn. It is much easier to face if there is no immediate family threatened, as an example – in the case of Norman Finkelstein (field of education), this needs no elaboration.
This could be what Mr. Goldstone is experiencing, than again perhaps it is not, and this whole process was just one big show. I don’t know, and I am not in a position to come to any solid conclusions about what is transpiring in the background to or for Mr. Goldstone.