Goldstone Backtracks to BBC

On October 16, in Geneva, Goldstone expressed disappointment and sorrow at the way the UN Resolution had weaponized his report in a one-sided attack on Israel that included matters extraneous to his report.

The next day, he was interviewed by the BBC and offered every opportunity to repeat his reservations. He didn’t.

Did someone give him a call and tell him to back off? Just how subservient is Goldstone willing to be in this process?

19 Responses to Goldstone Backtracks to BBC

  1. E.G. says:

    Well, today his JPost spin is at the Guardian.
    But yesterday, CiF readers were surprised to read that Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel
    A moral atrocity

  2. oao says:

    Just how subservient is Goldstone willing to be in this process?

    as subservient as he was to the 2 regimes in south africa in order to advance his career.

    he has put himself in this situation and he must dance back and forth to the tunes of different interviewers and for different audiences.

    what kind of character must one have to be manipulable like this?

  3. Solomonia says:

    Did You Know that the Goldstone Report Does Not Condemn Hamas Even Once?…

    In the entire text? In fact, it goes out of its way to exculpate Hamas, and make any of its accusations generic. Elder of Ziyon has gone through it in detail: Goldstone Report does not condemn Hamas once. Not only……

  4. Thick Black Theory…

    An interesting post over at . . ….

  5. Leib says:

    I heard Goldstone, I think on Al Jazeera, say that the resolution does condemn Hamas. That after he had voiced his criticism about the ommission the language condemning killing all civilians was included and he is OK with that. What a fool!

  6. Lianne says:

    Is goldstone engaging in the time-honored practice of telling different things to different audiences?

  7. oao says:

    it’s about time that this idiot should be ignored.

    let’s see how dore gold does with him at brandeis.

  8. Cynic says:


    Goldstone has spent so much time together with the UN types that their practice has rubbed off on him.

    As Solomonia’s post (#5 trackback) discloses: “You lie” is applicable to more than one in the political arena.

  9. Cynic says:


    Just read your link and wondered if you could enlighten me as to the meaning of the comment by one Ivo October 20, 2009 17:02?

    Are the comments posted, a selection made by the editor?

  10. E.G. says:


    I have no idea about RFE’s policy regarding comments.
    But despite my reluctance – even opposition – regarding personal attacks, I found this article illuminating: we’re dealing with an ambitious convert, hence the zeal.

    The specific comment should be, IMHO, viewed through Sharansky’s 3D prism, developed to help distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism: demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.

  11. Cynic says:


    I have no argument with the article per se as the “hearsay” I was subjected to during the 90s seems to jibe with what is presented now.
    So, I attribute more than just a grain of truth to the gist of it seeing that said “hearsay” emanated from several people of different professions.
    Anyway one now sees a possible character trait which can explain such erratic distort & report behaviour.

  12. Cynic says:


    Here’s a link commenting on R W Johnson’s writing which adds weight to the article you linked to in the sense that Johnson knows what he’s writing about:

    The credibility of RW Johnson

    No scholar, journalist or commentator identified the despotic potential already latent in the politics of the nationalist movements of southern Africa so early or so accurately as RW Johnson.

    Also all his articles that appeared in the Guardian must add to something against those trying to discredit his expose of Goldstone. If anything his previous writings more than substantiate his current appraisal.

  13. E.G. says:


    I had no idea (and didn’t check) about who Johnson is. Now I have.
    Aside from being Oxfordian ;-) , he’s not uncontroversial. Since I’m not familiar with SA “political cuisine”, I really can’t tell how much of the controversy is due to PoMo convictions of his critics.

    At any rate, what he writes about G-stone does not seem to be either fake or distorted. Especially his acceptance of judgeship under apartheid.

  14. […] do you think can take you seriously with a statement like this? Even you expressed brief concern with their use of your report. Even if, for a brief (and for some of us, nonexistent) moment, the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *