The Goldstone Retraction: Evidence of an Anti-Israel Bias?

By: Lisa Fiorilli




On April 1st 2011, Richard Goldstone, the chair of the Final Report on the Gaza War (UNHRC), posted an editorial with the Washington Post that explained his personal retraction of the damning views of Israeli conduct during the 2008-09 hostilities. Essentially, the original paper explored the dynamics of the use of force directed towards civilians, and it was originally found that Israel had a policy of targeting civilians.

However, Goldstone's retraction, which is incidentally only his personal one (he hasn't filed for an official retraction of the report yet) explains that they did not have Israeli cooperation at the time (hard to corroborate facts) and he speaks of a negative bias towards Israel in the UNHRC overall. What is telling in the editorial is his condemnation of Hamas' disinterest in investigating its combatants for alleged human rights abuses, though Fatah and the IDF have shown good faith by doing so.

The portrayal of the retraction was clearly jubilant by both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. On its part, Haaretz elaborated on the mention of bias in the UNHRC, and explained that the USA was quite content that the chair of the report retracted and reflected their initial position. Jerusalem Post was more focused on the American support of the retraction, and the American pledge to eradicate any anti-Israel bias from the UNHRC.

An interesting and articulate response to this retraction was published in Al Jazeera, and was written by Noura Erekat. She highlights the fact that Goldstone seems to accept Israeli accounts of what happened at face value, despite the opinion of the experts committee on the very panel that he chaired, despite the fact that they had come to the consensus that the Israeli explanation "structurally flawed". Interestingly, she makes the argument that his argument that Hamas has made no moves to remain under international jurisdiction by following international is flawed, because Israel has defined its very policies towards Hamas as being a "terrorist group", and has resisted calls for its action against Hamas to remain within the bounds of international law.
The editorial points out several flaws in Goldstone's retraction, and is generally quite consistent with coverage around the Arab world.

So, what do you think? What were the motivations behind the retraction? Is it flawed or did he simply make a mistake the first time around? Is it a positive thing for Israeli PR, as it is framed in JPost and Haaretz, or is it 'negligent' like its described in Al Jazeera?










http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/state-department-goldstone-affirms-u-s-position-israel-did-not-commit-war-crimes-in-gaza-1.354147
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=215200
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114413734463122.html