EMAIL FROM AN OLD FRIEND To: Judge Richard Goldstone From: Barbara Press Subject: Hello Richard… It’s been a while… Dear Richard Our paths have crossed many times compelling me to correspond directly with you. I pray your indulgence that you hear me out by reading to the end of my missive. In fact I ask you to share my letter with Noleen from beginning to end and to respond with your thoughts. It has been a while since (inspired by you as head of ORT South Africa) I, together with Rabbi Bernard at Oxford Shule, established a school to teach the Killarney-Houghton Black domestic workers how to write, read, sew, cook and drive. It has been a while since you praised my father Hubert Press as one of the finest business brains you had ever encountered. It was been a while since I dined with you, Noleen, David and Marilyn Rivkin, discussing opera. Jewish life has been crying out for a man of the stature of Adolph Cremieux, of Justice Louis Brandeis, of Sir Moses Montefiore, people of the highest integrity and purpose. For those who champion their own people are remembered forever in the annals of history. But those who are self-serving are lost in a trail of ignominy. South African Jewry stand tall and your efforts in championing Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa were applauded and earned you a reputation as a man of stature. I am bewildered by the direction you have taken as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council. This rogue Council has been tainted by a membership that does not condemn Iranian tyranny, Chinese oppression, African despotism but spends their time condemning one country unjustly, Israel. The Goldstone Commission bears your name. One would expect the mandate of any report to be objective so that your name could be respected and a legacy ensured. Instead your committee ignored the facts, embraced bias and rendered the report bearing your name, illegitimate. You tried to defend yourself in the New York Times but it was transparent and not effective. You could have resigned from the commission and retained your integrity. You knew that Israel faced 12000 Grads and Kassams from its Iran backed terror base of Gaza, 8000 irreversibly traumatizing the families and children of Sderot. You knew that the U.N. never passed one resolution condemning these deadly missiles. You knew that before and during Operation Cast Lead Israel made thousands of cell phone calls to warn civilians. You knew that Israel sent thousands of texts to warn civilians. You knew that Israel dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets in Arabic (I managed to obtain one of these as evidence) to warn civilians. You knew that Israel aborted operations to avoid civilian deaths. You knew that Israel set up medical facilities on the edge of Gaza to treat civilians. You knew that Israel dropped supplies of food into Gaza to feed civilians. You also knew that Hamas operatives are not “civilians”. You knew that not only were they not civilians but that they hid behind their own civilians to fire on Israeli civilians. You knew that they misused ambulances for military purposes. You knew that mosques and schools were used for Hamas depots and launching pads. You knew that Hamas operatives kill or shoot at the legs of any Gazans refusing to target Israel. The video footage and U-tube sequences are still available for any and all of us to witness. You clearly knew that one of your team members had condemned Israel in a published letter even before the conclusion of the incursion or the beginning of your investigation. But you did not resign or distance yourself from the hypocrisy of this illegitimate report. Instead a tedious 500-page report of the 3 week battle was padded with pages from the tainted U.N. mockery of Israel’s security barrier (misnamed the “wall”). What a sad indictment of the charter of the United Nations. Richard, you were indeed a respected legal giant in Johannesburg. This report did not arise from ignorance or naivete. I am trying so hard to resist the conclusion that your role and report might represent a self-serving desire to ingratiate yourself for a more senior position in the kangaroo court called the United Nations. But if true-and one hopes that this is not the case-at what price? Association with the infamous U.N. garners no respect in the USA so why would anyone seek to be head inmate at the U.N. Asylum? I have been very direct as South Africans are want to be. But many of us South Africans have been tainted by the perfidy of the Goldstone report. This is the Jewish time of Judgment when the scales of fate are entered in the book of life and we all need to look into our souls. I am not sure how you could comfortably extricate yourself. Perhaps we could discuss this face to face. Good Yomtov to you, Noleen and your family. Regards Barbara Press Fix På samma länk finns ganska många andra uppgifter om Goldstone.

Goldstones källor

Professor 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 NGOs

56 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.”
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

En något senare rapport från samma källa:

House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report

NGO 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.

Contents:

1. Number of NGO citations in the report
2. NGO Conflicts of Interest among Goldstone Mission Staff
3. Adoption of NGO Interpretations of International Law
4. Distortion of NGO statements that did not fit Palestinian narrative
5. NGOs and Factual Claims
6. NGO quotes in the section on “Repression of dissent”
7. Quid pro quo: The symbiotic relationship between NGOs and Goldstone
8. Appendix 1: Listing of NGO statements of support for Goldstone

1. Number of NGO citations in the report Note: The following data are based on systematic analysis of the preliminary Goldstone report, published September 15, 2009. Additionally, we note that in places, the report refers to NGO officials without mentioning their affiliation to a particular organization. These ambiguous references may not be reflected in our analysis. The information below includes direct and indirect mechanisms by which NGO allegations are reflected in the report. In the category of direct reliance, we include NGO publications, as well as interviews with and testimony from officials. The report includes than 500 such references. The category of indirect reliance includes 120 references to or citations from UN agencies, such as OCHA. Many of their reports and information provided are based solely or primarily on NGO claims. The direct references to the most frequently cited NGOs include:

• 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

* Thus, it is clear that the report relies overwhelming on the allegations of these political NGOs, and does not constitute an independent fact-finding mission. Jag minns inte om det kom till svenska “nyheterna” att Hamas anklagade Israel för att sprida sexstimulerande tuggummi? Jag tror det nämndes någonstans. En av Hamas’ polistalesmän, Islam Shahwan, hade kommit med den fantastiska nyheten som borde kunna säljas för miljarder globalt. I §414 berättar ett av Goldstones kronvittnen hur medlemmar i Hamas halvmilitära polisstyrka absolut inte kunde räknas som “militanta” – det vittnet råkar vara samma person, Islam Shahwan…….Share