A Rakuten Company

More titles to consider

Shopping Cart

itemsitem

Synopsis

ON APRIL 1 2011 in the pages of the Washington Post the international jurist Richard Goldstone dropped a bombshell. He effectively disowned the massive evidence assembled in the United Nations report carrying his name that Israel had committed multiple war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in Gaza during its 2008-9 invasion.Israel was jubilant. Everything that we said proved to be true Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu crowed. We always said that the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is a moral army that acted according to international law Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared. We had no doubt that the truth would come out eventually Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman proclaimed. The Obama administration used the occasion of Goldstones recantation to affirm that Israel had not engaged in any war crimes during the Gaza assault while the U.S. Senate unanimously called on the United Nations to rescind the Goldstone Report. Some commentators have endeavored to prove by parsing his words that Goldstone did not actually recant. While there are grounds for making this argument on a technical basis such a rhetorical strategy will not wash. Goldstone is a distinguished jurist. He knows how to use precise language. If he did not want to sever his connection with the Report he could simply have said I am not recanting my original report by which I still stand. He must have known exactly how his words would be spun and it is this falloutnot his parsed wordsthat we must now confront. Goldstone has done terrible damage to the cause of truth and justice and the rule of law. He has poisoned Jewish-Palestinian relations undermined the courageous work of Israeli dissenters andmost unforgivablyincreased the risk of another merciless IDF assault. There has been much speculation on why Goldstone recanted. Was he blackmailed? Did he finally succumb to the relentless hate campaign directed against him? Did he decide to put his tribe ahead of truth? What can be said with certainty and what Norman Finkelstein demonstrates in these pages is that Goldstone did not change his mind because the facts compelled him to reconsider his original findings.

People who read this also enjoyed

Get a 1 year subscription
for / issue

Read This On

You can read this item using any of the following Kobo apps and devices:

  • DESKTOP
  • eREADERS
  • TABLETS
  • IOS
  • ANDROID
  • BLACKBERRY
  • WINDOWS