Goldstone’s doubly revealing nightmare from which we have not awoken

In his “debate” on Thursday November 5, at Brandeis, during question and answer, Goldstone got chummy with the audience and told them an anecdote about how he felt going into Gaza:

As far as conditions in Gaza are concerned, I must say that my visit to Gaza turned out very differently from what I had anticipated. Frankly, and I make no, no, no, and I’m not ashamed to say it, I was very nervous about being a Jew going into Gaza on probe by Hamas, especially when the first reaction to my appointment by Hamas was to reject a meeting with me because I was Jew.

And my wife sitting here will remember that three nights before I went, I woke up in the middle of the night after a terrible nightmare, with sweat on my brow, because I had a vivid dream that I’d been kidnapped by, by Hamas, and people in Israel were rejoicing. [laughter] That was the nightmare, based on real fears.

Now Goldstone clearly didn’t tell this anecdote in order to reveal the utter intellectual bankruptcy of both his Report’s methods and and conclusions. But that’s what he did.

I’ve written many times about intimidation and its impact on the MSNM. And at Understanding the Goldstone Report, we’ve addressed the issue of intimidation of witnesses before the Goldstone Mission and Goldstone’s denial. Let’s start with some evidence of Goldstone’s formal state of denial on the subject: (HT Elder of Ziyon)

Already, back in June of 2009, when Goldstone was in Gaza, questions arose about the presence of Hamas in the Mission’s work. On June 9, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency, citing an AP article, mentions the problem:

There were also problems in collecting information in Gaza, [Goldstone] said, explaining that Hamas-allied security forces accompanied his 15-member team during their five-day working visit to Gaza last week, potentially inhibiting the ability of witnesses to speak freely, according to AP.

The AP article does not present this last point as one made directly by Goldstone. Indeed, a week later, in a comment to Ma’an News, Goldstone hotly denied the allegations of intimidation of witnesses.

“You know, this allegation keeps being made,” Goldstone said, even though he said his report accused Hamas in unmistakably clear language of war crimes for its targeting of Israeli civilian population centers. “It is absolutely without any truth at all.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry had claimed that “at every stage of their visit to Gaza the Mission members were accompanied by Hamas representatives,” citing unspecified Palestinian media reports. “If so, this was clearly a major obstacle to obtaining genuine evidence.”

But Goldstone insisted that “Hamas didn’t follow us at all,” much less “at every stage” of the visit. “They were nowhere near any of the interviews we held, and there was just no question; there was no issue.”

He added, “Had they attempted in any way to do that, I would have found that objectionable and I would not have accepted it – but it just didn’t happen.”

UN investigator Richard Goldstone, right, walks with Hamas parliament member Ahmed Bahr, second right, and members of a UN delegation during a visit to the Palestinian parliament building that was destroyed in January during Israel’s offensive on the Gaza Strip, in Gaza City

Despite these hot denials to the press, in his Report, specifically in the exploration of whether or not Hamas had deliberately endangered the lives of their civilian population, Goldstone repeatedly admits to problems of possible intimidation:

¶35. The Mission examined whether and to what extent the Palestinian armed groups violated their obligation to exercise care and take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population in Gaza from the inherent dangers of the military operations (chap. VIII). The Mission was faced with a certain reluctance by the persons it interviewed in Gaza to discuss the activities of the armed groups….

¶148. The Mission is also concerned about anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to it or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip. The contents seemed to imply that the originators of these anonymous calls and messages regarded those who cooperated with the Mission as potentially associated with armed groups. One of the recipients conveyed to the Mission apprehensions about personal safety and a feeling of intimidation. The Mission also wishes to record that there are others who have declined to appear before it or to provide information or, having cooperated with the Mission, have asked that their names should not be disclosed, for fear of reprisal.

Note here that it’s impossible to tell from this carefully worded paragraph, whether the intimidation was of Israeli or Hamas origins.

¶167. …Participants took part in the hearings on a voluntary basis. Some individuals declined to participate for fear of reprisal.

This, however, does not prevent him from drawing conclusions that essentially exonerate Hamas on perhaps the most critical issue in determining who was responsible for civilian deaths. He continues:

On the basis of the information gathered, the Mission found that Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations and launched rockets from urban areas. It may be that the Palestinian combatants did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population. The Mission found no evidence, however, to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.

Any lawyer and any historian worth his salt (and that’s a minimal value) knows that absence of evidence, especially under such circumstances cannot be taken as evidence of absence. As Maurice Ostroff put it in his first response to the Goldstone report:

In view of the above circumstances and the widely reported violent retribution inflicted by Hamas on dissidents, (including being thrown from tall buildings), the lack of testimony about storage of weapons in houses, mosques and schools cannot be accepted as evidence that this did not occur on a wide scale.

Now let us return to Goldstone’s nightmare.

Frankly, and I make no, no, no, and I’m not ashamed to say it, I was very nervous about being a Jew going into Gaza on probe by Hamas, especially when the first reaction to my appointment by Hamas was to reject a meeting with me because I was Jew.

And my wife sitting here will remember that three nights before I went, I woke up in the middle of the night after a terrible nightmare, with sweat on my brow, because I had a vivid dream that I’d been kidnapped by, by Hamas, and people in Israel were rejoicing. [laughter] That was the nightmare, based on real fears.

This implications of this story are staggering. Goldstone admits that he was afraid of the atmosphere in Gaza, that he even had nightmares of being kidnapped, especially because he was a Jew. In this sense, he’s no different from any reporter who goes to the Palestinian territories and whether before or after being there, has nightmares for the rest of his life. After all, Alan Johnston was only the 23rd known kidnap victim. Those countless cases of journalists held for a few hours and released (after being terrified about what might happen at their next kidnapping), never even reach the news.

Goldstone had good reason to have nightmares. Kidnapping is a widespread practice in Gaza. And if it’s not kidnapping, it’s worse. Indeed, the situation has gotten so bad that Gazans even openly wish Israelis would come back and reoccupy.

Goldstone instinctively knows this, even if he’s unfamiliar with the gruesome details, exposure to which both his MSNM and his colleagues in the Human Rights community spare him (and us). Everyone knows how dangerous conditions in Gaza are: one of the reasons that Western journalists were unable to cover the war in Gaza was because few even visited, and none stayed in Gaza.

A., who writes for a Palestinian paper, also noted that since BBC reporter Alan Johnston was kidnapped, “foreign journalists have virtually stopped coming to Gaza. The foreign media have to make do with us – the locals.”

After Alan Johnston’s nightmare, it was clear that even the most explicit and eloquent advocacy for the Palestinian cause could not guarantee one’s safety. So the journalists all lived in the comfort of a tolerant Western society, and when the war broke out unexpectedly while they were on vacation, they couldn’t get back in.

Indeed, even as they take advantage of Israel’s tolerance to repeatedly put their host country in a bad light, when journalists report from the Palestinian territories they, to quote Ricardo Cristiano, the craven Italian news editor, “always respect (/will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine….

In other words, journalists know that if you want to survive, you’ve got to tell their version of the story. Unflattering material, like footage of the barbaric Ramallah lynching in 2000 (12 days after al Durah), must not get out, and the lives of everyone involved in defying the ban, are at risk, including — especially — the Palestinian stringer.

And so, Judge Goldstone, if you, who came with UN protection and the eyes of the world upon you, were afraid, how much the more do you think the people you left behind to the tender mercies of Hamas, felt? Do you really think that because none of the people around you wore Hamas uniforms, or publicly identified as Hamas, that the eyes and ears of Hamas were not present? Do you really think that people spoke freely to you, unafraid that if they said anything that Hamas didn’t like, their words would reach Hamas? Did you think about this when you hotly denied any intimidation?

Let’s go back to Goldstone’s enormously revealing remarks at Brandeis, in which he gives us his “happy ending.”

That was the nightmare… based on real fear. [laughter] I was, I’m happy to say, met warmly by ordinary Palestinians. And what struck me in particular was how similar the people of Gaza are to the people of Israel, the atmosphere, the warmth, the food, everything [applause]… and that made me feel even more sad at what has happened. At the ordinary people, who are suffering the block… the effect of the blockade, the siege of Gaza is having huge effects. People are reliant on humanitarian aid. And do you know what that does to your dignity? That you can’t learn your own living, you can’t buy your own food. That because the policy foisted on Gaza people are forced to get what they can as hand outs and they never know from day to day what will be let through.

Anyone who really thinks that the atmosphere in Gaza — where people are ruled over by a brutal theocratic regime — is the same as in Israel, where, despite what the state department says, anyone can speak their mind without fear of reprisal, is either living in a PC dreamworld — note the fulsome applause at this reassurance that we’re all just folks — or just plain dishonest.

Note also his emphasis here is on his warm reception by the “ordinary people of Gaza.” Before this audience, he wasn’t about to wax warm on his relations with Hamas. But here, in his official report, we have an interesting comment to that effect:

¶9. The Mission did, however, meet officials of the Palestinian Authority, including a cabinet minister, in Amman. During its visits to the Gaza Strip, the Mission held meetings with senior members of the Gaza authorities and they extended their full cooperation and support to the Mission.

Now for those of you who may not know what Goldstone refers to here as the “Gaza Authorities,” there’s a nice footnote (#1, after several uses of the term) explaining it:

Note 1 (to ¶137, pp. 37-8): The term “Gaza authorities” is used to refer to the de facto Hamas-led authorities established in Gaza since June 2007.

“Senior members of the Gaza authorities” means the men running Hamas.

Somehow, the phrase, “The Gaza authorities report 1,444 fatalities,” sounds a whole lot better than Hamas reported 1,444 casualties.” It makes it easier to then side with the “independent” NGOs who agree with Hamas.

The Government of Israel provides a figure of 1,166. The data provided by non-governmental sources on the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent and raise very serious concerns about the way Israel conducted the military operations in Gaza.

Never mind that Goldstone’s Report never addressed the issue of how many of these fatalities were civilians, allowing such sterling journalists as Niel MacFarquhar to write in the ever vigilant IHT that these figures refer to civilian casualties. (Not even the reckless inflation of Hamas came near that kind of a figure for civilian casualties. Does MacFarquhar really think the Israelis killed that many civilians? Does he care enough to be accurate?)

As for Goldstone, he never looked into the extensive evidence that literally hundreds of Jihadis were listed as civilians, provided to him in a series of memos that he never consulted.

Of course that doesn’t prevent him from making statements like this in an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN in response to her question about whether they looked into the problem of Hamas shooting from among civilians:

We didn’t find any proof, uh, uh, any precise proof of that, but we assumed it might have happened, but even then it didn’t justify the sort of civilian casualties that we see as a result of Operation Cast Lead.

Here we find the key to why Judge Goldstone — a Jew for crying out loud — managed such a warm and uneventful trip to Gaza. He played Hamas’ game. He adopted their narrative. We hear it in his segue from nightmare to “warm” reality. It made it all the more poignant: here are these fine people whose dignity has been robbed from them by… Israel’s blockade/siege. Not their electing an insane, genocidal leadership who deliberately brought down upon them these plagues.

On the contrary, the pervasive narrative thread running through his Mission’s Report finds Israel at fault — for intimidating witnesses (¶146-9), ¶1171, ¶1927), for intimidating dissent within Israel[!] (¶1723-32). Indeed, one of the central and most damning conclusions of the Report, articulated right from the outset was:

¶59. …The Mission concludes that this treatment constitutes the infliction of a collective penalty on these civilians and amounts to measures of intimidation and terror.

¶60. In addition to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and violation of due process rights, the cases of the detained Palestinian civilians highlight a common thread of the interaction between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians which also emerged clearly in many cases discussed elsewhere in the report: continuous and systematic abuse, outrages on personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment contrary to fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The Mission concludes that this treatment constitutes the infliction of a collective penalty on these civilians and amounts to measures of intimidation and terror. Such acts are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and constitute a war crime.

The Mission finds fault with the deeds of Palestinian armed groups” (not Hamas) for terrorizing and intimidating the citizens of Israel (¶1687-91). And although it has a somewhat lengthy treatment of the brutal way that Hamas Security Forces treated Fatah members, which it condemns (¶1345-72), it does not consider this in the context of intimidation (the word never appears in the discussion). Criminal violation of human rights? Yes. Impact on witnesses who might fear that the willingness of Hamas to use violence might go beyond the myopic focus of the Mission on Fatah? No.

The only mention of a Palestinian government authority intimidating Palestinians accuses the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank for threatening people associated with Hamas — as if Hamas represented just another civil political party (¶1559 and n. 922, ¶1564-1589).

¶1561. Hamas-affiliated organizations have been particularly targeted since 2008 (see n. 925)

¶1589. It is a serious concern to the Mission that the normal system of checks and balances between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches in the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority appears to be flawed. There seems to be little evidence of a functioning accountability system to counter instances of torture and other forms of abuse of power. It is also of serious that, in the absence of governmental oversight, civil society organizations are receiving threats and being harassed and seeing their operations impeded by administrative obstacles.

All the pieces are there: the fearful witnesses, the brutal behavior of Hamas “security forces,” the pervasive violence between various Palestinian armed groups… to realize that witnesses, in testifying to Goldstone’s public hearings — he wants them to have the therapeutic experience of airing their pain — wil follow the path of least retaliation: blame Israel, blame Fatah, don’t cross Hamas.

This is particularly notable in the worst case of a vicious lethal narrative about Israel from the Abd Rabbo family. The story that emerges from a close analysis of the evidence runs as follows: The family lived on a terrain directly overlooking Sderot; Hamas dug tunnels there and shot Qassams into Israel from the family compound, turning them into human shields. The Israelis hit the house in an airstrike and tragically killed three of Abd Rabbo’s daughters on January 6.

But by the time journalists like Tim McGirk of Time Magazine arrived, the story had changed dramatically. The family was cooperative; there were no hostilities at the time; and out of the blue, an Israeli soldier popped out of a tank, shot the girls and their grandmother at close range, and then crushed with a tank the ambulance that came to get them, guaranteeing that they bled to death.

And Goldstone believed every word (¶770-79).

¶777. The Mission found Khalid and Kawthar Abd Rabbo to be credible and reliable witnesses. It has no reason to doubt the veracity of the main elements of their testimony.

This tale stands as a symbol of the legal and intellectual incompetence of the Mission’s Report — their inexcusable credulity in the face of extensive evidence of contradictory evidence, underpinned by their systematic denial that their witnesses might be telling them stories shaped by a fear of Hamas and a convenient hatred of Israel. It’s classic scapegoating: you can’t identify the real source of your pain because they’re too powerful, so you target someone else, a victim your oppressor approves of.

Accordingly, Goldstone and his friends cannot thread the needle. On the contrary, they continuously shift the attention from Hamas to Israel, even the PA. Anything but Hamas. And in so doing, they assured their warm welcome in Gaza and full cooperation of the “Gazan authorities” who knew they had a patsy.

Now imagine if Goldstone were the brave man he thinks he is. Imagine if he had gone into Gaza, armed with the mandate he claimed he had, and insisted on probing Hamas directly, for example, holding a surprise visit to Shiffa Hospital in Gaza City to see if, indeed, Hamas had used it as a headquarter during the war — i.e., the ultimate act of using unwilling “human shields.” Or questioned Egyptian doctors and officials on whether Hamas had refused medical assistance while complaining loudly of the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza hospitals. Or if, instead of relying entirely on “friendly” NGOs and UN Mission staff, he had arranged to hear from dissidents who needed protection after bearing witness to Hamas victimization of their own population.

Imagine if he had used his authority to rip the mask of legitimacy from the grotesque faces of genocidal religious fanatics, and had come to the rescue of the population they held captive…

Then he would have been a brave man. Then, he might have even saved the purpose and reputation of the institution he wishes to lead. Then, had Hamas kidnapped him, you can be sure he’d be mourned by Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Instead, he behaved exactly the way a dhimmi behaves: he muted any criticism of Hamas, and blared out their lethal narratives about Israel, and in so doing, left the “ordinary Gazans” in the predatory talons of their “democratically elected” officials.

If the obvious meaning of his dream was that he feared Hamas, the more troubling and profound part was the part about Israelis cheering on his captivity. That little piece of projection — how little he knows the Israelis — suggests that, already, he knew he would betray them. And despite the warm welcome they gave him, he betrayed the Palestinians as well.

Alas! What a lost opportunity!

And when it becomes clear, Richard Richard, that you have brought not peace but war to this unhappy planet, that you have not protected civilians, but encouraged terrorists to hide among them… what will you say to yourself, deep in your troubled soul.

Need you wait that long?

Wake up from our collective nightmare!

23 Responses to Goldstone’s doubly revealing nightmare from which we have not awoken

  1. harris says:

    “That little piece of projection”

    Sterling! I hadn’t noticed.

  2. Cynic says:

    But by the time journalists like Tim McGirk of Time Magazine arrived, the story had changed dramatically.

    Tim McGirk who concocted the Haditha massacre is back

    I think McGirk is afflicted with something himself. says the writer and it seems that the rest of the Goldstone crew are also afflicted.

  3. Cynic says:

    Instead, he behaved exactly the way a dhimmi behaves:

    He’s not a dhimmi. He’s up for the highest bidder and that bidder better take care not to turn his back.
    Nixon would not have bought a used car from Goldstone.

    Actually thinking about it the crooked dhimmi brings Dickens’ Uriah Heep to life.

  4. Eliyahu says:

    you know, I think Uriah heep fits our “distinguished, esteemed world-renowned judge.”

  5. noah says:

    Dr. Landes, thank you for your enlightening posts about The Goldstone Report.

    The applause he received when talking about Gazans being ordinary people, just like Israelis is simply mind boggling.

  6. sshender says:

    Thank you for another excellent observasion and fisking! I’d appreciate more of the same about the debate, because as much as I deplore him, Israpundit has rightly noted that whereas Goldstone’s delivery was smooth and compelling, Gold gave a choppy defense of Israel that was (however factually true) not near as articulate enough or competent enough and just did not measure up to Goldstones. So far, I seem to be in the minority of people who think so, because judging by the responses of the pro-Israel blogosphere Gold’s performance was better.

    I’d really love to see a serious critique (similar to a recent one by Moshe Halbertal) of Goldstone’s presentation.

  7. sshender says:

    *Clarification – the deplore part refers obviously to Goldstone and not Israpundit.

  8. E.G. says:

    I think G-stone’s nightmare is pure fabrication for P.R. purposes.

  9. margie says:

    B.G. whether or not it was an actual dream it was a fabrication of Goldstone’s imagination and so is a legitimate reflection of his thought processes. His mentioning his wife present at both scenes is significant. It reminded me that he is a lawyer citing evidence of a witness for corroboration, ‘here today in court’. His wife of course could not testify that he had the dream but the domestic detail of it served to attempt to humanise him. He is really a wily character. All those lawyer jokes come to mind.

  10. E.G. says:


    We basically agree.

    a legitimate reflection of his thought processes.
    I’d couch it a bit differently e.g., one more Jewish peculiarity pulled out of his tricks hat to gain public sympathy. So Woody Allenesque. Or Philip Rothish.

    p.s. please don’t call me names (B.G., really! Next it’ll be what? KKL?) ;-)

  11. Eliyahu says:

    wily is putting it mildly. Goldstone is extremely sly, like the snake in the Garden of Eden. By the way, Margie, have you read the accounts of goldstone’s past by people who knew him in South Africa, including lawyers?? He is a confirmed opportunist, as I’m sure you understood. But his deviousness is superb. He’s the kind of character that the UN needs on its staff and in its leadership.

    You should also consider his partners in lies, christine chinkin, Hina Jilani, and Col. Desmond Travers. See link:

    Travers is supposed to be a soldier, a military expert, but he also excels at agitprop in the tradition of Father Coughlin, if you know who he was. To say that the UN is unable to make peace or to keep it is far too mild a criticism. The UN helps to bring about wars. Two political scientists, Abraham Yeselson and Anthony Gaglione, reached this conclusion in their book on the UN about 35 years ago [“A Dangerous Place”].

  12. margie says:

    Eliyahu: You only have to watch his behaviour at Brandeis to get some insight into him. He doesn’t pause for an instant to recollect an incident clearly – it is more important to him to present a smooth front and to convince his audience than to present actual facts, it seemed to me. This might be the reason for his multiple versions of events as correlated so superbly by Harris.

  13. harris says:


    very true observations, i think.

    But don’t forget that they also contradicted the oral testemonies in the written report without being in a lecture situation. See my first post regarding the flour mill case.

    And very important remarks about legitimate (genuine?!) reflections of one’s mind. This is crucial. One has to accept the things he (better they) are saying or writing. Then one should try to expose the inner contradictions and perversions. I’m prepairing an analysis of one of the strangest sequences in his remarks at Brandeis regarding the mosque case:

    “There were no questions there was no question at all of any secondary explosions which indicated that there was no question of ammunition being kept there”

    This is sequence just amazing, i think.

    Some time ago I argued against superficial critiques that tend to argue that he had forgotten Israeli victims. He is a judge (something one should accept) and a judge must not care about victims in other cases. I think the most reasonable procedure is the isolation of specific case or statements and trying to find reasons why this can not be true.

  14. E.G. says:


    He is a judge (something one should accept) and a judge must not care about victims in other cases.

    Are you sure? Is this Intl. law? Because in most civil law systems, such cases enter into the motivations part. I mean, one is judged on one specific incident solely. But one’s background and the relationship between the alleged criminal and the victim is also taken into consideration, isn’t it?

  15. harris says:


    sure, but that always is and must be secondary.

    No one would argue: Hey, some time ago he was robbed. I don’t care what he has done this time. Case closed.

    It’s the other way around. Determine what the case is. Then perhaps take a look at the background.

    Let’s assume that some IDF soldiers had brutally murdered some children in the Gaza strip. That would constitute a war crime even if Hamas had shot thousands of missiles on Tel Aviv before, wouldn’t it?

  16. E.G. says:


    Yes. Jus ad bellum (e.g., Hamas bombing Israeli civilians provoking an Israeli retaliation) does not justify breaking Jus in bello (e.g., IDF misconduct in Cast Lead). Except that there are numerous proofs for IDF breaking Jus in bello conventions the other way around: it went beyond requirements to protect uninvolved civilians.

    So is there a specific law/threshold being established for Israel, and only Israel, requiring her to avoid any civilian casualty despite Hamas’ efforts to use the same persons as (in)voluntary human shields or strategic cannon fodder?

  17. margie says:

    E.G Goldstone was asked that at Brandeis – asked how warfare is to be conducted now considering his strictures His answer was illuminating. He advocated some sort of guerrilla warfare that might cost lives (not his, note) he mumbled and stumbled and had nothing concrete to offer. So the result seemed to be, don’t defend yourself because you might get into trouble.

    It reminds me of the case of the farmer in the UK who was sentenced for protecting his property against a burglar and then was prosecuted by the burglar for robbing him of his livelihood. I can’t find a link at present but here is an American similar case:

  18. E.G. says:


    Yes, I saw that part too. What he’s advocating is something akin to the 1st part of the Jenin operation in 2002, when IDF soldiers got ambushed and killed (only after the high IDF death toll did they bring in the bulldozers). But there’s a catch:

    Comparing the operations reveals an interesting phenomenon: in some cases, human rights organizations can cause more harm than good to their case, since wild claims and exaggerations after Defensive Shield contributed to Israel’s change of tactics in Gaza.

  19. Cynic says:

    margie, #17

    That poor farmer, Tony Martin, became a cause celebre because he was imprisoned for shooting at the robbers when they broke into his isolated farmhouse:
    The burglar wounded by Tony Martin is suing the jailed farmer for thousands of pounds in compensation.

    Fearon, who has 34 convictions, served 18 months of a three-year sentence for his part in the attempted burglary of Martin’s Bleak House farm in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

    Where I come from, our homes are still our castles

    If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. ……….
    Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars. “It cannot possibly be suggested,” the government lawyers argued, “that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences” adding, “society can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury”.

    (My emphasis)

    There, one has Goldstone’s cockeyed reasoning taken from British bureaucratic rationale.

  20. […] And they have good reason to so believe. After all, Goldstone, in his investigation into the abuses of the Palestinian people during OCL, never once looked into this kind of human shielding. Imagine if he had! […]

  21. […] And they have good reason to so believe. After all, Goldstone, in his investigation into the abuses of the Palestinian people during OCL, never once looked into this kind of human shielding. Imagine if he had! […]

  22. […] The fact that Hamas thought they could clean up the scene and pull off a Gaza Beach, successfully blaming the Israelis for the tragedy, speaks eloquently of their exceptionally low appraisal of the forensic acumen of the Western press (or their power to indimidate). And they have good reason to so believe. After all, Goldstone, in his investigation into the abuses of the Palestinian people during OCL, never once looked into this kind of human shielding. Imagine if he had! […]

Leave a Reply

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