Now that the United Nations Human Rights Council has voted to send the Goldstone report to the UN General Assembly, the head of the fact-finding team that produced the report, Richard Goldstone, is back-pedalling.

Goldstone has been exposed in all his naivety. Just like a ghetto Jew policeman, collaborating with his people’s murderers, Goldstone accepted the role of heading the fact-finding mission. And no sooner than the report is presented to the UNHRC, the resolution recommending it to the UN General Asembly becomes doctored to exclude any mention of Hamas and  to include extraneous materials attacking Israel which were not part of the original brief.

And Goldstone, like a naive Jew collaborator never saw it coming.  The revered jurist, the impartial investigator who produced a report so one-sided as to be obscene. Now he is widely reported as being “saddened” by the resolution as jta.org reports, Goldstone went on to say “”There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report”

Well that’s naive and disingenuous, isn’t it? Even in the report the condemnation of Hamas was a mere after-thought thrown in, probably at Goldstone’s embarrassed insistence, as a fig-leaf to cover a deeply nasty biased and dangerous report.

So Goldstone finds himself surprised at being the patsy of the anti-Israel league.

You see the resolution of the UNHRC does not mention Hamas AT ALL! Surprise, surprise. The murdering, lying terrorist abomination that calls itself Hamas and who committed every war crime and broke every rule of war, the Geneva convention, customary law and human decency get off scot free whilst Israel is now called a war criminal and its pariah status no doubt enhanced. Meanwhile other countries for whom no investigation and no resolution will ever see the light of day (Russia in Chechnya and South Ossetia, China in Tibet, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and probably Pakistan) laugh on the sidelines or actively participate in condemning Israel.

This moral inversion, this moral blindness towards Israel and Israel alone is the real crime.

And the UNHRC resolution did not stop at the Goldstone Report. Here’s the extraneous stuff

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by the use of force, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations

So what’s that got to do with the Gaza conflict?

Affirming the applicability of international human rights law and the international humanitarian law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

That’s OK until ‘to the Occupied Palestinian Territory..’ bit. This has nothing to do with Gaza but a lot to do with final status negotiations. Clearly those sponsoring the resolution have already decided that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian Territory even though there is and never has been a Palestinian state. Indeed, the resolution’s title is:

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES.

Do they mean Iraq? Probably the Golan Heights and Gaza which the UN is determined to call ‘occupied’ even though Israel abandoned it and withdrew all its troops several years ago. It was that very withdrawal which led to Gaza being taken over by Hamas and other terrorist groups who used the Gaza Strip to launch thousands of rockets against Israeli towns and cities and whose actions precipitated the conflict.

Only the naive and the blind could say that the text of the resolution includes Hamas by implication.

Goldstone, meanwhile has defended his Report in the Jerusalem Post and this defence is analysed brilliantly by Alan Baker here.

So like the ghetto policeman, Goldstone, a man of impeccable credentials, has sold his soul. But not because of self-serving, but because he has failed to spot the trap. He has failed to see how many lies and distortions Israel’s enemies are prepared to use against it. He has failed to expose the lies of Hamas, the lies of the Palestinian Authority and the moral inversion of the bleeding-heart human rights lobby for whom the narrative is simple: Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians the victim. End of.

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • mbw

    http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.co.....stone.html

    Your blog contains an innaccurate and misleading message concerning Mr. Goldstone’s quote.

    He said he was “saddened” by an early draft which was subsequently amended to meet his concerns BEFORE it went to the UN council.

    See below:

    Q. to Goldstone: “I want to now refer back to a comment you made in your introduction vis-a-vis the Human Rights Council’s endorsement of the report last week. I read a quote from an interview you did with a Swiss newspaper in which you said that the HRC’s acceptance of your report was unfortunate because it included censure only of Israelis and not Palestinians, but just now you said it included both. Can you clarify? ”

    Goldstone: “I was at a conference in Berne, on Wednesay of this last week, and was sent the then-draft of the resolution that was being put before the HRC the next afternoon. I got it early on Thursday morning. I was concerned because I read roughly a 36-paragraph resolution which was in three parts and only one part dealt with the report. There wasn’t a word in this resolution other than condemnation of Israel. I was concerned, and am still disappointed, that the resolution dealing with our report wasn’t a separate resolution. It shouldn’t have been mixed in with condemnations about East Jerusalem and other matters that were not relevant to our report. But it was in that context that I spoke — I was at a plenary panel and also had a press conference with Swiss media, and said I was saddened that the whole resolution only condemned Israel where our report also condemned Hamas and other Palestinian groups.

    As a result of my complaint the matter was taken up in Geneva, which resulted in an additional paragraph being inserted into the section dealing with the report, calling for accountability of all parties and condemning all violence against civilians. That was a clear reference to both sides. Though it might not have gone as far as I would have liked, it at least put into the resolution findings that involved both sides. So we’re talking about in fact two different resolutions: the original draft, which I objected to, and the resolution which ultimately went before the council which had the additional paragraph.”

  • Pingback: Goldstone the patsy | JewPI

Recent Posts

Tags