Responding to an Israeli call for retraction, the principal researchers behind the United Nations’ Goldstone Report — which was highly critical of the Israeli military’s actions during the major assault on Gaza in 2008-2009 — insisted that no details have come to light that would contradict their findings.
Though critical of the Israeli government, the report also focused on Palestinian resistance group Hamas, accusing both of potential war crimes.
“In the case of the Gaza conflict, we believe that both parties held responsible in this respect, have yet to establish a convincing basis for any claims that contradict the findings of the mission’s report,” the report’s authors wrote.
South African judge Richard Goldstone has faced enormous criticism since the report was published, and he recently said that he no longer believed Israel had intentionally targeted civilians during the 22-day assault that left over 1,400 Palestinians dead and thousands more wounded.
Just 13 Israelis perished in the assault, which allegedly began as a response to home-made rocket attacks from Gaza to Jerusalem.
Goldstone wrote that his personal assessment had been changed by the fact that, whereas Israel had thoroughly investigated the concerns raised by his panel, Hamas had not.
“Many of those calling for the nullification of our report imply that the final report by the follow-up committee’s two members, Judge Mary McGowan Davis and Judge Lennart Aspergren, presented to the human rights council in March 2011, somehow contradicts the fact-finding mission’s report or invalidates it,” they wrote.
“In the light of the observations of this committee such claims are completely misplaced, and a clear distortion of their findings.”
Goldstone also said he felt the commission had exhibited a bias against Israel.
“We consider that calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature and purpose, disregard the right of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice,” the commission members concluded. “They also ignore the responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and independent investigations. We regret the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact-finding mission since we began our work in May 2009. This campaign has been clearly aimed at undermining the integrity of the report and its authors.”
Stephen C. Webster
Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.
Raw Story is a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media. While giving coverage to the big stories of the day, we also bring our readers' attention to policy, politics, legal and human rights stories that get ignored in an infotainment culture driven solely by pageviews.
Founded in 2004, Raw Story reaches 5 million unique readers per month and serves more than 19 million pageviews.