Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
















clear
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Goldstone saddened by UNHRC adoption of Goldstone Report
clear

What is the equivalent term for 'dozy bint' for men?  From Israel Insider:

Israel's foreign ministry predictably savaged Friday's adoption of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict by the United Nations Human Right Council, but sharp criticism also came from an unexpected source: Judge Richard Goldstone himself.

Even before the vote, Goldstone criticized the wording of the UNHRC draft resolution, saying it was wrong to target only Israel while failing to condemn Hamas. "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel," AFP quoted Goldstone as telling Swiss newspaper Le Temps on Thursday.

"There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope that the council can modify the text," Goldstone said. The text was not modified, the Jewish Judge could only sit back and fret over the way in which even his meager attempts at balance were ignored and over-ruled by Arab and Islamic states and other third-world non-democratic states.

[...]

Although the Goldstone report also accuses Hamas of war crimes, the five-page resolution adopted in Geneva mentions only Israeli violations of international law. The ministry's statement stressed that Israel would continue "to implement its right to self-defense, and will work to ensure the safety of its residents."

Zionism is racism, self-defense is a war crime.  The UN is irredeemable at this point.

clear
Posted on 10/18/2009 1:40 AM by Artemis Gordon Glidden
Comments
20 Oct 2009
Send an emailmbw

Your blog contains an innaccurate and misleading message concerning Mr. Goldstone's quote.

He said he was "saddened" by an early draft which was  subsequently amended to meet his concerns BEFORE it went to the UN council.

See below:

Q. to Goldstone: "I want to now refer back to a comment you made in your introduction vis-a-vis the Human Rights Council's endorsement of the report last week. I read a quote from an interview you did with a Swiss newspaper in which you said that the HRC's acceptance of your report was unfortunate because it included censure only of Israelis and not Palestinians, but just now you said it included both. Can you clarify? "

Goldstone: "I was at a conference in Berne, on Wednesay of this last week, and was sent the then-draft of the resolution that was being put before the HRC the next afternoon. I got it early on Thursday morning. I was concerned because I read roughly a 36-paragraph resolution which was in three parts and only one part dealt with the report. There wasn't a word in this resolution other than condemnation of Israel. I was concerned, and am still disappointed, that the resolution dealing with our report wasn't a separate resolution. It shouldn't have been mixed in with condemnations about East Jerusalem and other matters that were not relevant to our report. But it was in that context that I spoke -- I was at a plenary panel and also had a press conference with Swiss media, and said I was saddened that the whole resolution only condemned Israel where our report also condemned Hamas and other Palestinian groups.

As a result of my complaint the matter was taken up in Geneva, which resulted in an additional paragraph being inserted into the section dealing with the report, calling for accountability of all parties and condemning all violence against civilians. That was a clear reference to both sides. Though it might not have gone as far as I would have liked, it at least put into the resolution findings that involved both sides. So we're talking about in fact two different resolutions: the original draft, which I objected to, and the resolution which ultimately went before the council which had the additional paragraph."





Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
clear

 

The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31    
clear

Subscribe