Richard Goldstone has responded to Shimon Peres’ criticism in typical fashion—by insisting that no matter what people say, his report was fair and balanced.
Peres was quoted Wednesday as calling Goldstone “a small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence,” who was “on a one-sided mission to hurt Israel.”
Goldstone’s response:
Goldstone also said he had anticipated that the report would engender considerable criticism. “After all, no one likes to be accused of committing serious war crimes. However, I was surprised at the many nasty attacks made against me personally. In my view, it was a classic case of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.”
His report’s “message” has been addressed, many times, by many sources—factually—and Goldstone’s response, over and over again, is that people can’t attack him on the facts so they attack him personally. He sticks to this defense even in when he is confronted with evidence that directly contradicts his report, seeming shocked that such evidence exists. So Goldstone is either utterly disingenuous, if not outright lying—and he’s been doing this dance since the beginning. The martyr role is getting tiresome.
Goldstone also rejected the claim that the fact that he is Jewish was exploited to make it more difficult for Israelis to challenge his conclusions. “I was approached because of my experience with regard to the investigation of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.”
Let’s take a look at the AP boilerplate that ran with every article on the Goldstone Commission, shall we?
However, Goldstone’s strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.
It’s there. And here. Oh, and here’s another media outlet touting Goldstone’s Jewish faith as a great reason for the report’s accountability. And while I haven’t heard back from the AP regarding my letter (I never do), let’s face it—they don’t have to point out that Goldstone’s Jewish faith make it any harder for Israel to dismiss his report. It’s what people do when they set Jews to investigate Jews. The intent of the UNHRC, by choosing Goldstone, was to count on exactly the response they’ve got—with the extra added bonus that Goldstone is actually not a very good friend to Israel, else why would he continue to insist that his report is fair and evenhanded, ignoring all evidence to the contrary?
And now, Goldstone goes on his world breast-beating tour, blithely ignoring real criticism, and pretending that no one can disprove his report, anymore than they can show evidence that his Jewish faith has been used all along to try to muffle Israel’s understandable reaction to an anti-Israel report. Let’s see. It worked for Walt & Mearsheimer. It worked for Jimmy Carter. And now it’s working for Goldstone.