The Despicable Goldstone Report

Indeed it is a perverse world we live in when the UNHCR, composed of the world's most vicious human rights violators, sits in judgement over the conduct of a democratic country. Out of all the conflicts and massive human rights violations and the slaughter of innocents around the world by various tyrannical regimes, the UN chooses to only investigate Israel's military operations, a free country merely defending itself against terrorists who have waged war against it. The further irony is that Israel has the most humane armed forces in the world. One in which the lives of its own soldiers are risked in order to avoid killing enemies civilians. What other country on earth does that? The Goldstone Report turns reality on its head as it falsely accuses Israel of deliberately killing civilians while denying hamas uses human shields. I've come to the conclusion that Israel is foolish to be humane, it should fight its wars like every other country does, ruthlessly and without regard for the lives of the Arabs of Gaza or anywhere it may be forced to fight. Israel should no longer be deterred by terrorists using human shields and should strike regardless and fight until the enemy is defeated. So long as the Arabs support terrorists, they ought to suffer the consequences of the choice they have made. To hell with sparing these so-called "innocents". Where does it get Israel? Only singled out for international condemnation anyway.

I've said this a number of times that the UN needs to be defunded and shut-down since it is clearly an enemy of freedom and human rights. It is obscene that we and other free countries should be funding this cesspool which has been hijacked by the islamo-fascists and marxists of the world. In the struggle between civilization vs barbarism, the UN is clearly on the side of the barbarians and it is insane that we are financially supporting our enemies.

The Moral Inversion of Richard Goldstone
Wednesday, 16th September 2009


So now we can see how Richard Goldstone thinks he has preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel. He has produced a report which, as anticipated, finds that Israel committed all the ‘war crimes’ during Operation Cast Lead of which his Mission members had decided it was guilty before even starting their deliberations, along with the NGOs whose unremitting hostility and malice towards Israel and history of peddling Palestinian propaganda as fact did not deter the Mission from uncritically accepting their evidence as the truth, thus finding Hamas guilty of no crimes at all -- except one. That was, by an amazing coincidence, the one set of crimes it committed which the world was forced to acknowledge actually happened – the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel with the sole intention of killing Israeli civilians. By referring to this en passant, devoting minimal attention to it in the course of his 570- page report the vast majority of which is devoted to allegations against Israel, he engineered the ‘even-handed’ headline he needed to maintain his credibility:
There is evidence that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes in the recent Gaza conflict, the official UN report says.
It is, however, only Israel which is required to conduct investigations into such claims -- and thus only Israel which Goldstone recommends should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court if those investigations aren’t carried out to the satisfaction of the UN. So much for even-handedness.

With this cynical veneer, Goldstone does worse even than establish a moral equivalence between the instigators of genocidal violence and those who were attempting to defend themselves against it. He presents Israel, the victims of such aggression, as war criminals and the Palestinians, the actual instigators of terror, as its victims. This is not moral equivalence but moral inversion.

He acknowledges no such crimes by Hamas within Gaza itself -- not least against other Palestinians -- such as turning the entire population of Gaza into hostages by siting its rockets and terrorist infrastructure amongst that population and additionally using them as human shields. Even worse, he presents the Palestinian aggressors as victims of Israel, requiring Israel to make reparation to those from whose houses and streets it was being attacked. No reparations to Israel are required from any Palestinians, even though Goldstone accepts that Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing thousands of missiles at its civilians.

To cover himself completely against the fact that the degraded aim of the mission he headed was to delegitimise Israel, his report claims at the start that his mandate from the President of the UN Council on Human Rights was:
... to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.
Now this is curious, since UN Resolution S-9/1 which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission said the Human Rights Council
Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.
So the UNHRC mandate explicitly limited Goldstone to investigating solely Israel, which it deemed guilty of human rights violations during Cast Lead -- a mandate whose terms as set out in the UNHRC resolution cannot be changed; while Goldstone’s report cites a mandate which is quite different from that resolution, which is ascribed not to the Council but to the President, and which encompasses all such violations during Cast Lead. Goldstone himself said he had changed the terms of the mandate in ‘informal discussions’. It looks therefore as if he and the UNHRC President unilaterally tore up both the Council’s mandate and UN regulations to provide Goldstone with the fig-leaf to disguise the moral bankruptcy of the entire process.

Continue reading