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

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.

Posted on 10/18/2009 1:40 AM by Artemis Gordon Glidden
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."