By

Marian Lebor

Opinion

Good critique of Goldstone

September 30, 2009 11:01
2 min read

This analysis of the Goldstone Report by Benjamin Pogrund is the the best I've read. Pogrund is a former South African anti-apartheid activist and journalist. During the struggle against apartheid, he played a key role in transforming the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg into a newspaper that publicised anti-apartheid activities, for which he suffered government prosecution and imprisonment. He co-edited "Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue", and is founding director of Jerusalem's Yakar Centre for Social Concern.

Pogrund lists five ways in which Richard Goldstone erred:

“First, Goldstone underestimated the Human Rights Council's malevolence toward Israel. Most members harbor deep hatred for Israel, and wish for no less than its destruction. Goldstone should have been warned off by the refusal of several people before him to accept the job, including former Irish president Mary Robinson.

”Second, he accepted the council's mandate, even though it had declared in advance that Israel was guilty of war crimes in Gaza. It is not enough that the council's chairman later said the mandate could include Hamas: Apart from the fact that this statement does not bind the council, his findings on Hamas will mean little or nothing in practice because the organization is not a recognized government and is beyond international action. Israel is the council's target and Goldstone has delivered it. His report has more strength because he is a Jew and enjoys international status.

To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.

Support the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper