http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-philosopher-meets-judge-moshe.html

By the way, how many non-partisan (i.e., neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian) experts on international human rights law have criticized the report?

“In addressing this vexing issue, the Goldstone Report uses a rather strange formulation: “While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of the Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from the civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from the attack.” The reader of such a sentence might well wonder what its author means. Did Hamas militants not wear their uniforms because they were inconveniently at the laundry? What other reasons for wearing civilian clothes could they have had, if not for deliberately sheltering themselves among the civilians?

As for the new “front” in asymmetrical warfare, we read in another passage, which is typical of the report’s overall biased tone, that, “On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrikes by the Israeli armed forces.” What reason could there possibly be for launching rockets from urban centers, if not shielding those rockets from counterattack? And what is the moral distinction that is purportedly being established here?”

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-goldstone-illusion

I consider this the most crucial indicator for the double standard applied: “…the Mission found no evidence… of intention to”

One of his repeated lines of defense during the debate was to assert that the facts on the grounds were such that he had no alternative but to conclude that the IDF’s INTENTION was to target civilians, qua civilians. Yet here were have two examples in which the intention to harm civilians is clearly manifest yet all of a sudden circumspection and scepticism are called in: let’s not be too hasty in our judgment.

I guess this is the tragic flaw in this fiasco, the classic double standard: let’s impute to the Jews the darkest motives when they act in their interests; let’s withhold judgment when we speak of Palestinians behaving badly. While there is no doubt about the intentions of Israeli Jews, there is every reason to give Hamas the benefit of a doubt.

Justice Goldstone can think like a judge instructing a jury when it comes to determining Palestinian guilt. Justice Goldstone can think only as a prosecutor when he indicts Israel.

It is funny how he tries to use the paltry section he inserted into the report about Hamas role in this war as if it were an incontrovertible proof for his “even handedness”.

I thought Dore Gold did a good job but not good enough. His response about the bombing of the mosque was somewhat lame.

As for Judge Goldstone, I thought it was pathetic of him to try to ingratiate himself with the audience by telling them how terrified he had been of Hamas and entering Gaza and then his great delight in finding out that the people there were actually hospitable and polite. Not only pathetic but clearly indicative of some incomnensurability with the task he was assigned.

http://ikibbitz.com/?p=112