Goldstone says Israel guilty until proven innocent
By Ted Belman
The Goldstone Commission Inquiry reported that “Israel was guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.” But I thought it was a fact finding inquiry only.
The Forward reports Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’.
WOW. What an admission.
Tellingly, in an interview with the Forward on October 2, Goldstone himself acknowledged the tentative nature of his findings.
- “Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission,” he said, sitting in his Midtown Manhattan office at Fordham University Law School, where he is currently visiting faculty. “We made that clear.”
For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.”
This is disgusting. Even the ICC holds the accused, innocent until proven guilty. Goldstone reverses this and holds Israel guilty and requires her to prove her innocence.
- He recalled his work as chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia in 1994. When he began working, Goldstone was presented with a report commissioned by the U.N. Security Council based on what he said was a fact-finding mission similar to his own in Gaza.
“We couldn’t use that report as evidence at all,” Goldstone said. “But it was a useful roadmap for our investigators, for me as chief prosecutor, to decide where we should investigate. And that’s the purpose of this sort of report. If there was an independent investigation in Israel, then I think the facts and allegations referred to in our report would be a useful road map.”
Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author.
This article goes on to analyse the Report. But in my opinion what I have quoted above says it all.
I also read Richard Landes’ excellent fisking of Goldstone’s NYT Op-Ed but wanted to add something. The indented comments are those of Goldstone.
- But above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm.
He has this backwards. The law prohibits “intentional killing” of protected persons. His language ignores the prohibition and uses language that mandates a duty to protect. The is no such duty.
- Many civilians unnecessarily died and even more were seriously hurt.
Once again he invents a new standard, namely whether civilian deaths were “necessary”.
This is not part of the language of war crimes. The only question is whether civilians were intentionally targeted.
To some extent the law demands that you attack your military object in the way that minimizes civilian casualties if you had options. If you failed to avail yourself of alternatives, it might be said that the ensuing deaths were “unnecessary”. But this is debatable. My legal advisors tell me that the IDF doesn’t have a duty to use smart bombs and can use artillery.
Reading Goldstone carefully, it appears he wanted to force the issue and make Israel carry on an investigation to avoid the ICC. So the inquiry was not so much a fact finding mission as it was a prod to force Israel to hold its own investigation. That’s why he said Israel was guilty. Had he only said Israel might be guilty then the need for Israel to investigate is much reduced.
This is what all the NGO’s do. They don’t say Israel may have committed war crimes but that Israel did commit war crimes. Its all about putting pressure on Israel.
As I mentioned about the ICC itself says that all accused are to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a basic human right. Too bad that the HRW and the others, couldn’t care less.
I wonder if Goldstone can be sued for libel. He made an allegation that Israel was guilty that he himself says has not been proven?
Ted Belman
Jerusalem
Posts
