Elder of Ziyon briefly reviews the question of possible Hamas intimidation of witnesses who presented to the GFFM. Goldstone's response to these questions raises further doubts: Does he really think that only physical presence constitutes intimidation? Would not every witness know that whatever they said would be known to Hamas?

The segment of Trevor Norwitz's open letter to Goldstone dealing with its flaws where testimony is concerned.

Your Procedurally Flawed Investigation

In my earlier letter to you, I made three points:

(i)             I implored you not to hold the Israeli  government’s refusal to cooperate with your investigation against Israel or allow that to be a source of injustice,

(ii)           I begged you to try to find out the relevant facts regarding the activities and actions of Hamas and other terrorist groups operating in Gaza and Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties, notwithstanding the refusal of the Israeli government to assist you, and

(iii)          I urged you to put your findings in their proper context. You said you would take these things into account but unfortunately I now see my worst fears realized.

Passing judgment based on one-sided (and tainted) evidence. Your Mission took Israel’s refusal to cooperate as an invitation (or perhaps as an excuse) to allow the scales of justice to weigh with only one pan being filled. Time and time again, you made findings of fact based solely on evidence provided by the Palestinian side of the conflict (even though your Report expressly acknowledges that the testimony you received from witnesses in Gaza was tainted by duress (8), not to mention obvious, if understandable, bias). Almost every one of your “findings of fact”was arrived at using the formula: the direct evidence the Mission collected said X; no evidence to the contrary has been provided; therefore “onthe information available to it9, the Mission finds”X.

Endre Mozes of Take-a-Pen writes to the UNHRC asking them to reject the Goldstone Report on the basis of their disregard for critical testimony about Hamas war crimes, contained in two memoranda he had submitted to the Goldstone Mission in June and July of 2009.  The first memorandum is reproduced in an appendix, the second is linked.

Goldstone admits that "“We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was [sic] a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”  (The [sic] refers to the fact that since it was not a court of law, the verb should be in the subjunctive contrary to fact.)  As the author of the article notes, this admission does not seem to have played a role in the nature or conviction of the conclusions:

Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author. The report repeatedly refers, without qualification, to specific violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention committed by Israel and other breaches of international law. Citing particular cases, the report determines unequivocally that Israel “violated the prohibition under customary international law” against targeting civilians. These violations, it declares, “constitute a grave breach” of the convention.

It is this rush to judgment based on what critics believe to be unsubstantiated allegations that has angered some who have delved into the details.

 

Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’

ARIEL JANKELOWITZ

At Odds: Richard Goldstone, in his New York office, says his report on Gaza presents only tentative find- ings. But the document makes bold allegations that haven’t been scrutinized.

By Gal Beckerman

Published October 07, 2009, issue of October 16, 2009.

 

The incident detailed in paragraphs 713 through 716 of the Goldstone Report, if accurate, was a moment of indiscriminate terror.

A hundred members of the extended al-Samouni family are gathered together in one house, ordered there by Israeli soldiers patrolling their Gaza neighborhood of Zeytoun as part of Operation Cast Lead. Five men step out of the house to collect firewood. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a missile strikes them, fired, possibly, from an Apache helicopter. Two or three more missiles follow, this time aimed directly at the house. In all, 21 family members are killed, among them many women and small children. When the surviving al-Samounis attempt to leave and make their way to Gaza City, they are told by an Israeli soldier to return to the house, to “go back to death.”

 

A few pages later, in paragraphs 822 through 826, there’s another scene of seemingly unprovoked violence. In a mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah, somewhere between 200 and 300 men and women are gathered for the evening prayer. An explosion rips the front door off its hinges and flings it all the way across the room. A missile has struck the mosque’s entrance, killing 15 people, some kneeling mid-prayer. A boy sitting by the door has his leg blown off.

 

The details are hard to turn away from, but they have, in fact, been largely ignored. Instead, the heated conversation about the Goldstone Report, the United Nations fact-finding mission led by Richard Goldstone, an internationally respected jurist and a South African Jew, has revolved mostly around political questions — charges of imbalance, lack of context and a history of anti-Israel bias on the part of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which gave Goldstone his charge.

 

Write comment (0 Comments)

From Israel Matzav

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Why we won't listen to Goldstone

Writing in YNet on Wednesday, Tel Aviv University professor Aeyal Gross urges Israelis to listen to the Goldstone Commission report, claiming - despite all evidence to the contrary - that it looked into the conduct of both sides in the Gaza conflict.

The report was drafted by a distinguished group of experts that are not nti-Semitic or anti-Israeli. Goldstone made a name for himself not only as a prosecutor on behalf of the special courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but also as a courageous South African judge, especially when he looked into the roots of political violence towards the end of the apartheid regime and exposed the complicity of security forces.

The following is an excerpt from a Memorandum submitted by Maurice Ostroff to the UNHRC on the Goldstone Report.  It discusses the issue of how little freedom to speak exists in Gaza, thus leaving the Goldstone Mission with the double problem of not being able to get access to dissenting voices (who might criticize Hamas), and having the witnesses they do hear concerned that their testimony not "get them in trouble."

3. Lack of freedom to investigate in Gaza
Although Judge Goldstone praised the Hamas administration in Gaza for its cooperation, as contrasted with Israel's refusal to cooperate, the Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported on June 2, that while the Mission's mandate called for investigating violations by all parties, including Palestinian fighters and the Hamas-led government, it was unclear if authorities in Gaza would cooperate with that aspect of the inquiry. See http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=38258.

On June 9, Ma'an reported that the Mission was experiencing difficulties in collecting information because Hamas-allied security forces accompanied the 15-member team, potentially inhibiting the ability of witnesses to speak freely, a factor that obviously needs to be taken into account in assessing the credibility of testimony received.

In view of the above circumstances and the widely reported violent retribution inflicted by Hamas on dissidents, (including being thrown from tall buildings), the lack of testimony about storage of weapons in houses, mosques and schools cannot be accepted as evidence that this did not occur on a wide scale.

Jonathan Weber, publishing at YNet (English version of Yediot Aharonot) goes over some of the testimonies.  He does not even raise the possibility that some of this testimony is unreliable: "All testimonies where deemed credible by the United Nations-appointed inquiry team, and were compatible with other reports received."

Goldstone testimonies revealed

Jonathan Weber

Eight months after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, controversial UN report accuses Israel of committing war crimes, enraging many officials in Jerusalem. Now, Ynet reveals number of Palestinian testimonies detailed in report

An in-depth look into the Goldstone Report probing the events of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza reveals the official first-hand testimonies from the days of the war. The testimonies were given by family members who lost their loved ones and eyewitnesses to the fighting, and they shed some personal light on what happened in Gaza.

All testimonies where deemed credible by the United Nations-appointed inquiry team, and were compatible with other reports received. Here are just some of the testimonies: