The Goldstone report has generated discussion, much of it vituperative and most of it leveled at Israel. I send you the following to illustrate, if we needed further illustration, as how the media and diplomatic world treats Israel in a completely unbalanced and unfair way. The source is Honest Reporting, a media watchdog group.
* * * * * * * * * *
"This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel . . . There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope that the council can modify the text."
So said none other than Judge Richard Goldstone himself to the Swiss Le Temps newspaper on Friday before the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution (without modifying the text) endorsing the Goldstone Report, clearing the way for discussion in the UN Security Council.
The resolution also condemned Israeli activity in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank even though these were not part of the Goldstone remit.
Was Goldstone so naive as to think that his report would not be turned into a political and legal weapon to use against Israel by the UNHRC? Commentator Robin Shepherd points out the obvious hypocrisy and depravity of the UNHRC's membership and those that voted for the resolution:
Among the supporters of the resolution, the presence of so many despotisms as well as many others that are ranked by Freedom House as only "partly free" speaks for itself. Countries ranked as "not free" by Freedom House in the group are: China, Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Partly free countries in the group are: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Djibouti, Jordan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Zambia. Of the 25 countries who voted against Israel 17 (68 %) are either outright despotisms or are seedy and corrupt pseudo-democracies.
As UN Watch's Hillel Neuer states:
The grossly imbalanced resolution grants Hamas terrorists the political victory they desperately crave. Council members like Pakistan, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia have won again with their strategy of focusing on Israel in order to hide the world's real abuses, especially their own. With this being the council's 6th special session on Israel -- versus only 4 for the whole world combined -- it's tragic that once again politics is trumping human rights.
...But what of Richard Goldstone himself? In addition to his disappointment with the UNHRC resolution, his report's credibility was further undermined in an interview he gave to The Forward, where he stated:
If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven. I wouldn't consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved.
So there you have it. Goldstone doesn't consider the allegations in his own report to be all that credible. What standard of truth was he using?
* * * * *
A view quite different than that espoused in the report was delivered to the UN Human Rights Council, though undoubtedly to people unwilling to hear it. Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, stated:
During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
Click on the following to see his full testimony (several minutes).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Colonel Kemp's testimony is really compelling and refreshing. It puts this whole fiasco in context. The UN is a moral cesspool.
Post a Comment