Two other members of the Goldstone mission stood by its conclusions as of 3 months ago

on 13 Comments

Since attention will now likely switch to the other three members of the Goldstone mission– i.e. do they agree with Goldstone’s partial retraction— you might find this link to the Irish and Pakistani members an interesting starting point. It seems to indicate that these two commissioners were holding firm. The video was shot at a panel at the American University in Beirut last November 19, just 3 and a half months ago (a discussion of the Goldstone Report at the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs’s UN in the Middle East Research Initiative). Jilani is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Travers is a former officer of the Irish Army and war investigator. Earlier at this site Yaniv Reich wrote that the last time he saw Goldstone he looked like a man worn down by relentless attacks. Neither Travers nor Jilani give that impression– quite the reverse which is, I think, significant. Jilani addresses the lack of co-operation from Israel and says (47:19) “…we can say that where we have given categorical conclusions they are not affected by lack of information from Israel.” Goldstone is now saying, “not so” or so it seems. Jilani ends on a very definitive note re civilian targeting and deals (circa 1:15:50) with the issue of Israeli investigations.

13 Responses

  1. GuiltyFeat
    April 4, 2011, 10:44 am

    Actually, that is not how she ends at all and it’s dishonest of you to say so.

    It seems the video was cut short.

    Here is the last minute of Jilani’s speech before the video cuts out:

    “In the case of the Gaza authorities, we felt… we found no evidence that any system of public monitoring or accountability was in place, or was exercised to ensure that actions in conducting armed resistance by the occupied population or groups responsible for that resistance that, if violations had occurred, they had never been… er… there had never been any investigations. But that was not all. We also found that with respect to the Gaza authorities, there were more serious concerns with regard to the violation of human rights of the population of Gaza. We found torture, we found arbitrary detentions, we found that there was a… a… conduct by the Gaza authorities… [VIDEO ENDS SUDDENLY]”

    Anybody have any idea why this video taken in Beirut university should suddenly end when one of the authors of the Goldstone report was in the middle of talking about violations of human rights by the authorities in Gaza?

    • Chaos4700
      April 4, 2011, 12:41 pm

      Oh bullshit. You know what? Let’s what and hear what these two have to say SPECIFICALLY about the bone Goldstone threw to AIPAC.

      • GuiltyFeat
        April 4, 2011, 3:00 pm

        I didn’t know you were allowed to say “bullshit” on this site. Thanks. That’s going to save a lot of time in the future.

        By the way, what exactly were you calling “bullshit”? Surely not the transcript where Hina Jilani talks about the gross abuses of human rights that are carried out by the Gaza authorities against their own electorate?

        Chaos, you are undoubtedly the angriest troll I have ever encountered on one of these boards. Have you ever visited Gaza or are you just an armchair grumpy so-and-so?

  2. VR
    April 4, 2011, 11:05 am

    Indeed Mr. Moloney, this is why while I made side references to Mr. Goldstone (I never stopped feeling uneasy in regard to his contribution, this can be seen by my previous posts on the Goldstone Report from its inception on this site, not in the sense of its content per se, just Mr. Goldstones “guide lines” for the investigation – Israel’s “right to defend itself,” jus in bello instead of jus ad bellum, the remedy of Israel “examining itself,” etc. Also the need to employ a confirmed Zionist by the UN body), and had a tendency to use the other contributors.

    As an example, here is an article done regarding Colonel Travers which is quite distinct –



    Among many of the statements in the article, in reference to the cooperation of Hamas, I found this interesting statement –

    “Colonel Travers described how, from the outset, Israel stubbornly refused to assist the UN fact-finding mission every step of the way, whereas Hamas co-operated “one-hundred percent”. ”

    Quite a difference between what Travers says and what Goldstone says in regard to the cooperation of Hamas. All in all, it is quite an interesting and enlightening article.

  3. mig
    April 4, 2011, 11:20 am

    Why dont you ask from that person who recorded this video. ( my crystal ball has run out of batterys again ). Update us what they reply…

  4. Colin Murray
    April 4, 2011, 12:21 pm

    Earlier at this site Yaniv Reich wrote that the last time he saw Goldstone he looked like a man worn down by relentless attacks.

    I feel sorry for Mr. Goldstone. He is at an age, following a distinguished career where he made far above average contributions to human civilization, when most people of similar means are comfortably retired playing golf (or whatever) and playing with their grandchildren. He chose instead to do the right thing one last time and was viciously ostracized by many of his own people, including with what are essentially public accusations of racial treason. I fully expect that his family felt the full brunt as well.

    He tried to make some little amends to his attackers with modest qualifications of the original report that come off like formulaic self-denunciations at a Stalinist show trial. This brought condemnation from former supporters and, of course, isn’t enough for his detractors. I have not seen in seven years of paying attention to this issue an instance where supporters of Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization have forgiven one who has publicly crossed them. I don’t know whether his being Jewish will make it more or less difficult.

    The poor guy has more than done his bit. I don’t know where the balance of honor and obligation lies for Mr. Goldstone, but whatever he chooses to do, we should cut him slack and wish him the best.

    • GuiltyFeat
      April 4, 2011, 1:44 pm

      With all due respect, Colin, that’s the most patronizing rubbish I have heard yet on this site. You can agree or disagree with what Goldstone has done, but at least give him the respect of taking his words at face value.

      • annie
        April 4, 2011, 2:05 pm

        but at least give him the respect of taking his words at face value.

        which words? the past or the present?

      • Chaos4700
        April 4, 2011, 2:10 pm

        Which words? The words he said at the UN? Or the words in the WaPo op-ed? Which words? They can’t both be true.

      • GuiltyFeat
        April 4, 2011, 3:03 pm

        I think until we have evidence to the contrary we have to assume that Goldstone believed to be true what he contributed to the report and now he believes to be true what he wrote in his op-ed.

        He may have been wrong either or both times, but you cannot assume that his integrity has been compromised just because he says something you don’t like. That’s simply not the way to carry out a civilized debate.

      • Donald
        April 4, 2011, 6:25 pm

        “He may have been wrong either or both times, but you cannot assume that his integrity has been compromised just because he says something you don’t like. ”

        Actually, we can assume something about his integrity if he makes statements absolving the killers of real people based on flimsy evidence. Goldstone is not the victim here–there are over 1400 real victims and thousands of wounded victims, along with people who lost homes or loved ones.

      • GuiltyFeat
        April 5, 2011, 6:24 am

        You can’t have it both ways, Donald. When he had no evidence he went one way. Now that he has flimsy evidence he goes the other way.

        If the latter is wrong, then the former must surely also be wrong.

  5. DICKERSON3870
    April 4, 2011, 1:40 pm

    RE: “Two other members of the Goldstone mission stood by its conclusions as of 3 months ago” ~ Molony

    MY CONCERN: Yes, but who “creates reality”?


    (excerpts) Reality-based community is an informal term in the United States…
    …The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”[2]

    SOURCE – link to
    SUSKIND ARTICLE, 10/17/04 – link to

Leave a Reply