The Goldstone Reversal

Richard Goldstone’s retraction of his conclusion that Israel intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians during the 2008-09 war in Gaza is either not warranted by the evidence on which he says that he now relies, or it is premature. The available evidence is clearly too paltry to warrant such a shift.

NEW YORK – Justice Richard Goldstone was condemned by many apologists for Israel’s human-rights record for his conclusion that Israel intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians as a matter of policy during the 2008-9 Gaza war. Goldstone’s United Nations-backed report accused both Israelis and Palestinians of war crimes, and called on both sides to investigate, prosecute, and punish their own personnel.

The Israeli government reacted furiously to Goldstone’s efforts. Now he is being condemned by some critics of Israel’s human rights record for retracting his finding of intentionality. The controversy illustrates the care that is required in publishing human-rights reports.

What is not in dispute about the “Goldstone Report” is the fact-finding on which its conclusions are based. In difficult circumstances, and with no cooperation from the Israeli government, Goldstone documented in substantial detail a large number of Israeli attacks that killed many hundreds of civilians, injured thousands, and destroyed a significant part of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

required

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in

http://prosyn.org/xnnUmuQ;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.