CRITICS OF GOLDSTONE REPORT CLAIM IT IS UNFAIRLY AGAINST ISRAEL, BUT THEY NEVER SAY WHY

I don't understand the criticism of Judge Richard Goldstone for his Report on the Israeli attack on Palestinians in Gaza in January 2009. The U.S. State Department, the NYT's David Brooks, as well as the liberal J Street group -- all say that the Goldstone Report is biased against Israel. But they never say why or give examples. Have any of these critics ever read the Report? If so, they need to cite examples by giving page numbers and specific overstatements or untruths. Otherwise, their comments are what we called in law school worthless and "conclusionary."

Barry Bearak writes in The New York Times on some fallout faced by Judge Goldstone in his desire to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah in Johannesburg.

Writes Bearak:

"Judge Goldstone, 71, is certainly no grandpa retreating into retirement. After the end of apartheid, he served on South Africa’s highest court until 2003. He was also the chief prosecutor for the United Nations’ war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

"In early 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council selected him to lead an investigation into possible violations of international law during the three weeks of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009. He said he was “shocked, as a Jew” to be chosen.

"The Goldstone Report, released last September, concluded that, based on the available evidence, both Israel and Hamas had taken actions amounting to war crimes. But the findings focused mostly on the Israelis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel later said, “We face three major strategic challenges: the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.”

"Here in the judge’s home country, many Jews suddenly viewed him as a heretic. He was accused of faulty reasoning. He was accused of being co-opted. He was accused of being the worst kind of anti-Semite, a self-hating Jew."

The point of all of this is that these critics of Goldstone and his Report are engaging in all sorts of name-calling and slander. If a person disagrees with the Report, it is not enough to say that Goldstone is biased or self-hating Jew. The most important part of any argument especially this one is what follows "because," as in, "This report is biased against Israel because . . ."

ASSOCIATE OF PALESTINIAN PRES. ABBAS CRITICIZES HIM FOR YIELDING ON GOLDSTONE REPORT

Even a high-ranking associate of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is criticizing Abbas' decision to withdraw support for letting the UN General Assembly consider the Goldstone Report on Israel's conduct during the three-week war last January against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Rory McCarthy reports in the guardian.co.uk:

"A senior Palestinian official admitted today it was a "mistake" to drop support for a UN human rights council resolution that called for investigations into Israel's conduct in the Gaza war.

"Frustration and anger has been mounting against Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, for his surprise decision not to endorse a highly critical UN inquiry into the January war. The inquiry, by the South African judge Richard Goldstone, accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity."

South African Judge Goldstone has a reputation for fairness and lack of bias. His report put most of the onus on the IDF for its indiscriminate shelling and shooting of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Since the report was published several weeks ago, Israel and the Israeli government under PM Netanyahu have been putting pressure on countries to ask the U.N. to postpone dealing with the explosive report. For some reason, Abbas went along.

Palestinian groups and human rights organizations have condemned the postponement and Abbas' involvement in it.

Writes McCarthy:

"There have been several demonstrations against the decision in the West Bank, as well as protests from human rights organisations. Syria cancelled an official visit by Abbas, criticising the Palestinians for backing down.

"In a joint statement, 17 Palestinian human rights groups "strongly condemned" the decision, saying the justification for delaying the vote was "inappropriate" and that accountability was needed as part of a peace process. "Justice delayed is justice denied. All victims have a legitimate right to an effective judicial remedy, and the equal protection of the law," it said.

"Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian MP, said the decision was a "grave and horrible mistake" that had damaged the Palestinian Authority's credibility. "The only beneficiary of this postponement was Israel and it happened at a time when there was an opening to hold Israel accountable." He added that it left the Palestinians in a weaker position in peace talks with the Israelis."