Goldstones källorProfessor Gerald M. Steinberg, chef för NGO Monitor, uttryckte det på följande sätt efter att ha läst rapporten:
Goldstonerapporten: 575 sidor av klippa-och-klistra från antiisraeliska NGOs56 referenser är levererade av B’tselem. 50 referenser är levererade av Palestinian Center for Human Rights mer än 40 referenser från Al-Haq mer än 36 från Human Rights Watch 27 från Amnesty etc. Det är kul att gå till artikeln på denna länk, som berättar om alla israelhatande NGOs som Bildt ger den ena miljonen efter den andra till. Dert är ganska självklart att han uppskattar Goldstonerapporten efter det att den utan kontroll rapar upp all okontrollerad gallimatias dessa grupper har uttalat sig om – utan några som helst verifikationer.
Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO “cut and paste”NGO Monitor September 16, 2009
- The 575-page Goldstone report is primarily based on NGO statements, publications, and submissions (70 references each for B’Tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and more than 30 for Al-Haq and Human Rights Watch). In itsanalysis of NGO submissions and testimony, NGO Monitor found numerous false and unsubstantiated allegations. Nevertheless, the Goldstone committee simply copied the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims, rendering the entire report invalid.
- Goldstone’s press conference in New York and the report’s recommendations constitute another step in the Durban Strategy, crystallized at the 2001 NGO Forum, using the language of human rights and international law as weapons in the political war to isolate and demonize Israel, and restrict legitimate responses to terror.
- Still no “human shields” in Gaza. Following HRW and Amnesty, paragraph 495 ignores evidence that contradicts Goldstone’s predetermined conclusions: “Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.”
- The report copies NGO distortions of international law, including:
- Promotion of the false legal claim invented by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (and promoted by NGOs such as B’tselem, HRW, Amnesty) that Gaza remains “occupied” after the 2005 disengagement (p. 9). The political objective of this distortion is to manufacture humanitarian obligations that do not exist under international law. (The ICRC, in contrast, had acknowledged that Gaza is an “autonomous territory.” However, after the release of the Goldstone report, the ICRC changed its website to promote the biased conclusion of the Mission.)
- The classification of the Gaza police force as “civilian” (paras. 33-34) even though independent studies have shown that more than ninety percent were members of Hamas’ military wing and active combatants.
- The claim that under the Geneva Convention (para 28) Israel has a duty to supply food to Gazans. No such duty exists and the Commission does not cite to any specific provision of the Convention to support its claim. For more on NGO distortions of international law regarding Gaza, see NGO Monitor’s report on the topic.
- Paragraph 493 claims that the failure of armed Palestinian groups “to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself.” This is patently false. The adoption of civilian dress is a violation of the IHL obligation against perfidy.
- Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone’s report asserts that the “data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent …” (para. 30). There is no such “consistency” — the numbers claimed by these organizations differ by the hundreds. Goldstone also fails to note the major lack of credibility in PCHR’s data, such as characterizing two leading Hamas military figures, Nizar Rayan and Siad Siam, as civilians. And as researchers have shown, the B’Tselem data, while different from PCHR’s, is also unreliable.
- Prior to the report’s release, Goldstone made several public statements that the Commission’s work was “not judicial. This is not a court.” (This claim was used to defend Prof. Christine Chinkin’s membership on the committee, who should have recused herself because of prejudicial comments made during the war.) In contrast, the report draws legal conclusions, asserting (without basis) that “the normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law” (para 15). But these legal judgments are issued without any evidentiary procedures in place, including the right to cross-examination or guarantees of due process.
House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone ReportNGO Monitor October 01, 2009
- The NGO network actively promoted the Goldstone inquiry, supported claims of a “balanced” mandate, and attacked Israel for not cooperating. In turn, Goldstone bolstered NGO credibility by relying on their publications, ignoring biases and false claims, praising their “high professional standard,” and defending them against “repression” from the Israeli government.
- The report includes more than 500 direct citations from politicized NGOs that lack credibility, as well as 120 references to or citations from UN agencies, such as OCHA, which often repeat NGO claims.
- The reliance on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased NGOs is inconsistent with the claim to have conducted a “fact finding mission.” By adopting the flawed methodologies and false claims from the NGOs, Goldstone renders his entire report and its conclusions invalid.
- Conflicts of Interest: Goldstone and other members of the commission have close links to HRW, Amnesty International, PCHR and other politicized NGOs. Staff researchers Sareta Ashraph has been involved with pro-Palestinian NGOs and “lawfare” campaigns.
- Goldstone, following many NGO publications, ignored the international legal prohibition against incitement to genocide, and the evidence submitted that included many examples of Hamas and Iranian incitement against Jews.
- The report cites to a PCHR report condemning the closing of Hamas “humanitarian organizations” as a “flagrant violation of the right to association.” This is in direct opposition to the international legal obligation to fight terrorism and its financing.
- The report duplicates HRW and other NGO allegations regarding the Abed Rabbo family, describing family members as “credible and reliable witnesses.” In contrast, NGO Monitor found more than 14 different recorded versions of the family’s story.
- The radical NGO affiliations of some witnesses were hidden. For instance, Jonathan Pollak, referenced on 5 occasions, is a leader of Anarchists Against the Wall, and has ties to the International Solidarity Movement which provokes violent confrontations with the Israeli military.
- Number of NGO citations in the report
- NGO Conflicts of Interest among Goldstone Mission Staff
- Adoption of NGO Interpretations of International Law
- Distortion of NGO statements that did not fit Palestinian narrative
- NGOs and Factual Claims
- NGO quotes in the section on “Repression of dissent”
- Quid pro quo: The symbiotic relationship between NGOs and Goldstone
- Appendix 1: Listing of NGO statements of support for Goldstone
- B’Tselem: 56 citations
- Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR): 50
- Al Haq: 40
- Adalah: 38
- Human Rights Watch (HRW): 36
- Defence of Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS): 28
- Breaking the Silence: 27
- Amnesty International: 27
GD Star Rating
GD Star RatingShare