UNDERSTANDING
THE GOLDSTONE REPORT

Perhaps the single most troubling part of the Goldstone Report, a flaw that permeates and vitiates its every discussion, is the issue of testimony: under what circumstances the testimony was heard, how the witnesses were located and came before the tribunal, what role intimidation played in suppressing evidence, how the judges probed the testimony for honesty, which witnesses the judges chose to hear, and which it chose to exclude.  Even Goldstone admits that, under the circumstances, the evidence he adduces would not stand up in court.  Among the issues at stake are the criteria for hearing some and dismissing other witnesses, for granting credence and importance to some and not to others.

 

In particular, the issue of Hamas' intimidation of witnesses, directly and indirectly reappears at a number of critical places. As one editorialist put it:

The most basic problem with the Goldstone Report has nothing to do with the intentions of Mr. Goldstone nor of the UN. The problem is that it is difficult to solicit truthful testimony from people who live in a radically unfree state. How do you conduct interviews in Gaza with any expectation that you will be told the truth? Hamas has its spies everywhere and it denies the existence of the category "non-combatant." The poor people in Gaza know that they cannot criticize their political leaders to anyone, let alone to a nattily dressed Westerner.

Goldstone responded to accusations that he did not factor in the Hamas intimidation factor by denying any such possibility.

'Hamas didn't follow us... You know, this allegation keeps being made," Goldstone said... "It is absolutely without any truth at all." Israel's Foreign Ministry had claimed that "at every stage of their visit to Gaza the Mission members were accompanied by Hamas representatives," citing unspecified Palestinian media reports. "If so, this was clearly a major obstacle to obtaining genuine evidence." However Goldstone insisted that "Hamas didn't follow us at all," much less "at every stage" of the visit. "They were nowhere near any of the interviews we held, and there was just no question; there was no issue."
He added, "Had they attempted in any way to do that, I would have found that objectionable and I would not have accepted it - but it just didn't happen."

This section explores these issues from a general perspective; for specific examples of flaws in testimonial procedures, see Case Studies.