Phew, this is getting confusing. First there was the Goldstone Report produced by Judge Goldstone, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers. Then Goldstone distanced himself from the report but in a way that was so disingenuous, only the most staunch of Israel advocates could take any satisfaction from his re”think”. Now his co-reporters have gone on record in The Guardian (and presumably elsewhere) to say that the original report still stands:
In recent days some articles and comments appearing in the press with respect to the report of the United Nations (UN) fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-2009 have misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise the findings of this report and to cast doubts on its credibility.
The mission that comprised four members, including Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair, came to an end when it presented its report to the UN human rights council in September 2009. The report of the mission is now an official UN document and all actions taken pursuant to its findings and recommendations fall solely within the purview of the United Nationsgeneral assembly which, along with the human rights council, reviewed and endorsed it at the end of 2009.Aspersions cast on the findings of the report, nevertheless, cannot be left unchallenged. Members of the mission, signatories to this statement, find it necessary to dispel any impression that subsequent developments have rendered any part of the mission’s report unsubstantiated, erroneous or inaccurate.We concur in our view that there is no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in any way change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict.
So what was Goldstone on about?
This is how The Guardianis now reporting the statement from Goldstone’s co-reporters:
Though they do not mention Goldstone by name, they shoot down several of the main contentions in his article and imply that he has bowed to intense political pressure.
So again, what was Goldstone on about?