The co-authors of a scathing report on Israel's conduct during its 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza said Thursday they stood by their work, hitting back at critics who've pushed to have its findings withdrawn after the report's lead author, Richard Goldstone, aired doubts about one of its central conclusions.Or does it? Moral equivalence does not solve anything. They can only choose one side or the other, and sadly, no matter what they say in the sham report, they're on the Hamas side.
In a statement published on the website of Britain's Guardian newspaper, Goldstone's three colleagues said there was "no justification" for any move to review or rescind the 575-page report — which among other things accuses Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in its campaign against Hamas militants. The report also condemned Hamas for targeted Israeli civilians by firing rockets at Israeli cities.
Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said the Israeli position about the Goldstone document remains the same.Translation: she and her cronies don't even want to listen to the public. Another example of the damage-is-done situation. Goldstone knew quite well that Hamas is a terrorist group, and could've avoided doing anything to side with them. That he hasn't even sought an actual retraction at the UN on his part shows how phony his whole personal retraction is.
"The whole process was deeply tainted by political bias and an extremist dominance over the U.N. Human Rights Commission by nondemocratic countries," he said, adding that the Israelis are still studying the "implications" of Goldstone's newspaper article.
"We will try to take whatever steps are possible in order to minimize the unjust damage caused by the original report," he said.
Thursday's statement from Goldstone's colleagues — Pakistani human rights lawyer Hina Jilani, former Irish peacekeeper Desmond Travers, and international law professor Christine Chinkin — was even more categorical, suggesting that Goldstone had split with his co-authors by writing in the Post.
Jilani confirmed to The Associated Press that she and her colleagues disagreed with Goldstone's latest assessment, saying in a telephone interview that she could not see "anything of substance now in the public domain that merits a rethinking on the findings of the report."