Israel would certainly like observers to interpret Goldstone’s latest comments in the Washington Post as an exoneration. However, what we are seeing here with Mr. Singer’s selective offering is yet another example of Israel’s new public line to justify their murder of women and children in Gaza.
Goldstone's report will remain as originally submitted to those who know the truth.

Goldstone has been blackmailed and been the subject of abuse by his own Zionists. The timing of Goldstone’s article has raised additional concern among Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups that he has definitely succumbed to enormous political pressure, standard practice in the state of Israel as we know.

Late last month the UN’s Human Rights Council, which set up the fact-finding mission, recommended that the General Assembly refer the Goldstone Report to the Security Council – the decisive stage in moving it to the International Criminal Court. It is expected that the US, which has consistently opposed such a referral, will block the report’s progress to this Criminal Court – further embarrassing Washington after its recent veto at the UN of a Palestinian resolution against Israeli settlements.
The israeli attack dog wagging the limp American tail, yet again.

Debbie Menon in her editorial from My Catbird Seat stated that “unlike most Zionists, Justice Goldstone spoke the truth first, and then the lie. Perhaps this is something which the Zionists cannot understand, and don’t know how to deal with… because they are fumbling and stumbling about like fools vainly trying, like the proverbial cat on the tin roof, to cover up this mess which is fouling their domain which they do not know how to handle. Trying to put Goldstone’s truths back in the bag but, like the proverbial cat once let out of the bag, is nigh on impossible.

The world knows it.

Their incredible protests and affirmations of his “retraction,” only draw more attention to the lie, and validate the assertion that a man will lie and give up his life and honor, to protect his family from abuse and to secure their place in their social community.

The only thing of substance is the truth where you say;

Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence - it's a war crime.

In addition, the letter continued:

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence…Israel's actions amount to aggression, not self-defence.

It would make a world of difference if leaders themselves could figure out the right from wrong. Save the endless wasteful spending on token diplomacy, and show an even hand to both sides of the equation.

The scar deepens as Israel crys wolf and continues to inflict a lack of equity and rights to others as it expects for itself.

If the world can not sort this issue - what hope is there for a future in the Middle East?

I am sure many more peaceful lives have been lost over the past decades under as hostile conditions of ww2 in the immediate middle east over these issues. The comparison however is defunct when we look at the human right promises made in the aftermath of ww2 and the promises made by the accords for the people of Palestine.

What is occurring is a shambles. A mirror of out own virtues - based on power over people, one sided and narrowing.

Goldstones edit is hardly indicating a change within the whole of the report. It is simply and edit of a line or two that does not over-ride the excessive force delivered by a "developed power" as the world protested, yet stood by and watched. Lost is the fact that Palestine [especially Gaza] is illegally ocuppied and the issues of Jewish Settlements... Add more fire to a weeping sore.

Disgraceful!

http://www.miacat.com/

A further comment is warranted

The real analysis of this story comes from Lawrence Davidson http://www.redress.cc/palestine/ldavidson20110405 who “ looks at the flawed logic and political pressures that may have led Richard Goldstone, the South African Jewish judge who authored the report of the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, into altering his original verdict which suggested that Israel committed war crimes during its invasion of Gaza in December 2008” and who, with Gilad Altzon
http://www.redress.cc/palestine/gatzmon20110405 argued that “Judge Richard Goldstone's shunning of his own report into possible Israeli war crimes in Gaza is a "point of no return".

These are the real truths as compared to the careful structured and misrepresented comments by today's writer Mr. Singer who identifies himself as an ‘Australian’ lawyer but who has as his main theme the propaganda of Israel. In this particular matter he is parroting the comments from Netanyahu who instructed his cabinet to do whatever they could to immediately maximise the “retraction” of the original report.
The truth was hurting Israel, if that is possible.

In October 2009, Goldstone told CNN, “I’ve got a great love for Israel” and “I’ve worked for many Israeli causes and continue to do so”.
How could this love not have been at least weakened by what he discovered when writing his original truthful report along with other members of the UN commission?.

But worse was to come and exactly a year ago, in April 2010, the campaign against him reached new lows. The chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, Avrom Krengel tried to prevent Goldstone from participating in his grandson’s bar mitzvah in Johannesburg since “Goldstone caused irreparable damage to the Jewish people as a whole.” The South African Zionist Federation threatened to picket outside the synagogue during the ceremony. Worse was the interference of South Africa’s Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein, who chastised Goldstone for “doing greater damage to the State of Israel.”

Israel and its henchmen used Goldstone’s need for acceptane into a social group to blackmail him.

Now these are the real reason how Goldstone's UN Report was changed.

--

David Singer,

Oh dear.

And oh dear.

Do you seriously believe Goldstone’s recanting will change a single mind?

For that matter do you truly believe Goldstone’s original report changed a single mind?

Anyone who things they can change people’s minds about Israel should first try something a bit easier. Reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity might be a good place to start.

Let’s have a reality check.

The Goldstone report was initiated by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) whose predecessor body was once chaired by Gadaffi’s Libya. And, no, Gadaffi did not turn into a mad tyrant overnight. He was already a mad tyrant back then who hanged his enemies in public.

The current members include such bastions of civil liberties as Cuba (vice presidency), Bahrain, China, Libya (suspended a few weeks ago), Pakistan, Russia (where journalists are murdered) and Saudi Arabia (currently helping fellow member state Bahrain putting down a Shia uprising)

This august body has only one country under permanent review. It’s not North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya or Belarus. It’s not China or Russia or Syria or Cuba.

It’s Israel.

Who would take a report commissioned by such a body seriously?

You guessed it. Only people for whom any ally in bashing Israel, even Gadaffi, was acceptable.

And what self-respecting Judge would accept such a commission?

How about an Apartheid era hanging Judge who happened to be Jewish and was prepared to bash Israel.

For that matter who would pay any attention to the words of an Apartheid era hanging judge unless he also happened to be a Jew prepared to bash Israel?

Don’t you get it yet David Singer?

The fix is in

Where on earth does Singer get off?

Imagine for a moment that a UN prescribed investigation into rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza that had killed 1300 Israelis, a sizeable proportion of them civilians, were to appoint as its head an Arab who had a 'taken a deep interest in Gaza, in what happens in Gaza, and' had 'been associated with organisations that have worked in Gaza'. Who then only agrees if the actions of Israel during the conflict were to examined as well, even though they had inflicted only 13 Hamas casualties.

David Singer would be absolutely apoplectic. The bile, invective and innuendo would be pouring forth like the closing of the Red Sea over Egyptian heads.

Yet the opposite situation was in play. Goldstone is a Jew who had “taken a deep interest in Israel, in what happens in Israel, and 'had' been associated with organisations that have worked in Israel”, who refused the UN commission unless Hamas was to be included in the investigation.

Yet Singer delivered bile, invective and innuendo, plus allegations of serious bias at the appointees.

Goldstone proved to be quite honourable in his deliberations and his subsequent reappraisal of the findings. He concluded;

“laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.”

Yet only Hamas co-operated with the investigation.

Israel does not consider itself to be under the jurisdiction of the World Court, nor bound by UN resolutions, nor even the Geneva Convention. In fact it considers itself to be so above the standards of international law that it is difficult to see it ever co-operating with an external investigation.

David Singer – a bullying supporter of a bullying state.

Singer is supportive of Israeli army and airforce personnal who shoot at and wound pregnant women at work in plastics factories in Gaza.

Of course the Israeli propaganda lies claim their cowardly men only shot at a 'group of militants digging a tunnel'. And of course Singer will disgracefully swallow that cr-p lock stock and barrel too. And defend them too.

Anything the racist thugs in Israel proclaim is truth to Singer and his ilk .

Pregnant women David ... have you no shame. It's not just Palestinians it's the unborn who also threaten the heroes in Israel now is it?

Utter gutlessness. Contemptable ratbags.

Disgraceful. Don't talk to me ... I am utterly disgusted with your unconsiable support of these actions.

Keith is of course one hunderd percent correct.

The true heroes of this conflict are the upstanding men who detonate themselves in crowded restaurants and movie theaters. They're the fine specimens of humanity who break into the home of a family and slit the throats of the children as well as the adults. They're the people who aim their rockets at suburbs, rather than militray targets, becauase thats what creates maximum damage.

Yes Keith your absoltulety right. These are the real heroes. How is it we all failed to see it until now?

Its interesting to note that no-one challenged the basic facts as presented by Singer.

The report was commsioned by the UNHRC. It has already been stated that this organistation spends the vast majority of its time examining Israel and its actions, which defies any rational explanation. Unless, of course, you belong to the loony left, in which case you might actually be able to convince yourself that Israel IS the worlds worst human rights abuser.

Unfortunately for the anti-Israel cheersquad, most sane Australians do not consider this to be the case. This is the notwithstanding the absurd levels of moral outrage that the BDS proponents are able to manufacture. I've not once seen the same level of vitriol directed at serious human rights abusers, like North Korea, or Zimbabwe, or China.

Those who defend the claims of targeting civillians must resort to fallacious reasoning. It almost always goes like this.

1) Palestinian civillians died during the fighting (this is, of course,true and a real tradgedy)

+

2) some of the time, the weapons that killed them were Israeli. ( this is also true, and also regrettable)

= 3) Therefore, The IDF deliberately targets civillians.

What they don't say is that the terrorist organisations that attack Israel use their own people as shields, which is what leads to most of the civillian casulaties.

The anti Israel lobby don't accept that Israel has any right to protect itself. Of course, they will ignore the fact that this course, whilst protecting innocent Palestinian civillians, fails to protect inncocent Israeli civillians. Although, its a good bet most of these people don't believe there is such a thing as an innocent Israeli civillian. Which shows you just how close their ideology is to Hamas's.

Israel cannot wipe its hands of its responsibility for the deaths of Gazan civillians, but if we are to assign blame then the vast majority must be sheeted home to those who attack Israel from behind the skirts of their women.

BTW MiaCat, Gaza is not occupied by Israel, its blockaded. Get your facts straight.

The UN Human Rights mob, and every other Human Rights organisation in the world, seem to be concerned only with protecting the "rights" of terrorists, criminals, and illegal immigrants.

All of them can be relied upon to always attack Israel for defending itself, while exhibiting a case of extreme myopia to the fact that every Muslim country in the Middle East wants to obliterate it, because it represents a backward step in the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate.

"They all share responsibility for the enormous harm suffered by Israel," says the Singer with a straight face.

Israel suffered the loss of nine Israelis (four more of them were shot by their own forces) while the Palestinians lost 1,400 people, four hundred of them kids as well as the almost complete destruction of all their infrastructure! Yet the Singer wails about Israel's losses.

Don't you see that the Singer is just a stirrer, a deluded religious fanatic whose only purpose is to get people on OLO going. His last mischief received more than 80 responses, 79 more than his article deserved.

How much longer do we have to put up with Singer's mischievous tripe?

It is pleasing to see the level of intelligence and understanding among the comments, now a much greater understanding in the world that Israel is a pariah state.

Having said that, we will probably see an increased level of Israeli sayanims posing as Australian citizens, dual-passports at the ready, writing their propaganda straight from the pages of the Netanyahu doomsday book to the strains of the "The Ethnic Cleansing Rag", literally done to death over the past 66 years. See Gaza, 2008. Sabra, Shatila and on.

It is easy to feel sorry for the likes of Judge Goldstone who has no credibility in the world and is now a spent force. But he was weak, did not have the courage to face the slings and arrows of the evil Israeli machine and all that means with a strong possibility of becoming another assassination statistic or the victim of some false flag exercise. Such was their hatred for Goldstone.

The trade mark of Zionism.

There are so many wonderful Jews who have turned the corner and seen the nature of Israeli government, most of them writers and activists. They counter the offsite Congress in Washington called AIPAC, (look it up if you have a strong constitution). It is a fifth column with no interest in the US, just wielding influence by bribery and corruption to a most appreciative group of Congress men and women, hundreds of millions of dollars very year which comes from the US taxpayers as aid to Israel and comes right back again as corruption to enable a vote for further aid to Israel. Clever.

The US is paying for its own downfall. A death wish.

We are plagued in Australia by similar operatives under many names and guises and their success in having the likes of our current, but hopefully temporary Prime MInister, Ms Gillard in their grasp would seem to be a great win. Sorry!.

For the humanists in Australia that deplore Gillard’s total disregard for Palestinians, now you know the way it all happens.

The Goldstone syndrome, alive and well. Like a cancer.

I seem to have stirred up a storm of responses which do not attempt to deal with the allegations in my article.

Instead most responses go off on an entirely different trip of their own speculating on the reasons why Goldstone has now recanted from the terms of his original Report.

This is a tried and true smokescreen. Ignore discussing the message by raising other issues that have no relevance to the message - and at the same time denigrate the messenger.

I suggest you all calm down and take a cold shower and listen to what #Paull said.

"Its interesting to note that no-one challenged the basic facts as presented by Singer."

I repeat that I have alleged the Goldstone Commissioners - all four of them - should have recused themselves or not been appointed by the UN Human Rights Council because of known bias publicly disclosed before their appointment.

If this had occurred and four independent and impartial Commissioners had been appointed the findings may or may not have been different. However because this did not happen the Report has always been tainted. Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done.

If you favour kangaroo courts stacked with people who have biases or prejudice that could affect the decisions they are to make about you - then rant on to your hearts content.

Sir Gerrard Brennan said (as I set out in my article):

"There are qualities of character and disposition to be desired in all judges. The supreme judicial virtue is impartiality. Both partiality and the appearance of partiality are incompatible with the proper exercise of judicial authority. The one poisons the stream of justice at its source; the other dries it up”

The Goldstone Commissioners in my opinion failed that test.

If you disagree then say so and give your reasons. Maybe then we can have a rational discussion on the contents of my article rather than an agenda of your own choosing.

Rexw, I agree with you that Julia's pro-Israel stance is disgusting and shows clearly how lacking she is as a Prime Minister.

But if you caught her address to Congress, you would see that she also worships America, the world's biggest warmonger and imperialist.

Julia Gillard is not fit to govern this country. She is lacking in vision and is in bed with the wrong people and this puts Australia at risk in world affairs especially given the region we live in.

Israel and America should be isolated by the rest of the world and boycotted. Both nations are driven by greed, obsessive self-interest and elitism!

David Singer wrote:

>>If you favour kangaroo courts stacked with people who have biases or prejudice that could affect the decisions they are to make about you - then rant on to your hearts content.>>

Don't you get it?

There's no "if" about it. Kangaroo courts is exactly what Israel bashers want.

You tilt at more windmills than Don Quixote ever did. Don't you ever get tired of it?

"This is a tried and true smokescreen. Ignore discussing the message by raising other issues that have no relevance to the message - and at the same time denigrate the messenger."

Oh my God, did David Singer actually just say that? I keep having to reread the post.

This is coming from a man who denigrates the authority of the UN, claims utter bias in the judges and wants any action to be directed solely at Hamas.

What would have satisfied Mr Singer? A panel of three rabidly Zionist, ultra- orthodox rabbis appointed by God?

And where does he get off saying we haven't addressed the message. What he really means is that we haven't addressed it how he would have liked.

I think it is incumbent on Mr Singer to tell us what authority should have had the mandate to investigate the actions of the Israeli Army in Gaza and who should have made up the panel.

Further he needs to answer the question should Israel have been forced to cooperate with the investigation and if found wanting what actions should be taken against them.

Failure to do so leaves us just with hot air coming from his direction.

David Singer,

csteele wrote:

>>This is coming from a man who denigrates the authority of the UN, claims utter bias in the judges ....>>

Don't you get it yet David Singer?

I mean really, don't you get it?

So long as it bashes Israel the UN rules.

It may be an utterly corrupt and contemptible body. The morals of its members may compare unfavourably with Tony Soprano. The UN Human Rights Council may be made up of members who are, how shall I put it? not exactly bastions of civil liberties.

But none of this matters.

Bashing Israel is the thing.

You may refer to rape victims as "uncovered meat" like Sheikh Hilaly. But if you bash Israel you will be forgiven and a feminist Greens senatorial candidate will share a platform with you.

Why do you keep submitting articles here David Singer?

You are not changing any minds.

Isn’t it obvious to you yet?

Britain totally opposes call to retract Goldstone Report

The British government said that while Goldstone’s acknowledgment was important, his was not the only report on the 22-day conflict.

Debbie Menon stated “Goldstone is Jewish. His entire life, his entire milieu, his entire social network and culture is in and among the world of Jews”. The defamation of character, slander, and professional threats exercised by ADL (in the US, the Anti Defamation League, restricting free speech) and AIPAC minions (Israeli fifth column and corrupter of elected representatives) “are sufficiently devastating to have a strong influence on most people who might choose to go up against Israel, but even worse would be the social ostracism and shunning by all the rest of the people in a culture such as is Judaism”.

Goldstone was weak as one can now see, clearly. Like Obama, Biden and the shallow, devious Clinton, who have sold all their people down the river every month since they have been acting in their roles, anywhere else would have welcomed Goldstone and the truthfulness of his original and only honest report.

The Jews will still discard him like an old boot as soon as they have milked this current situation for all it is worth, which is nothing.

They are so obvious.

Dear Stevenlmeyer,

May I enquire if you are Jewish? Feel free not to answer if you wish and I apologize if this has been made clear in earlier threads that I may have missed. I recall you have emigrated to Australia from South Africa but that is about it.

LOL csteele

Let me answer all your questions

--I am Jewish

--I am a supporter of Israel

--I think it blindingly obvious that much of the bile directed against Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Much of the rest is motivated by a desire to cuddle up to Arab oil and money bosses. For example, the City of London would suffer greatly if Arab oil bosses withdrew their money.

I post this for information only. For the reasons I outlined in my posts directed at David Singer I am not going to debate the matter. To borrow a metaphor:

>>I think it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to change someone’s mind about Israel.>>

Or, to adapt a much quoted line from Star Trek:

>>Debate is futile>>

Does that answer all your questions csteele?

Feel free to ask more.

Dear Stevenlmeyer,

Thank you. It should have been a given but I always like to be sure. It is kind of like meeting a young earther and assuming they are Christian but I did meet one who wasn't. Strange dude but that's another story.

All is right with my universe now. No further debate required.

Thanks again.

#stevenlmeyer

You ask why do I keep posting articles?

I do so because I believe I have the right as much as anyone else to express my opinion on important developments in the ongoing Arab-Jewish conflict.

I am sure that there are a lot more OLO readers out there who are prepared to fairly consider my analysis than the same very few who repeatedly seem to become very vocal, critical and personally offensive when my articles are published.

Readers - as you yourself has - will judge these people's views and attach to them what they will. Some may be impressed. You clearly are not.

You will also note that OLO is frequently being indirectly asked by the same few - mainly anonymous - posters to deny me the right to have my views published on OLO.

For so long as OLO is prepared to publish my articles, I intend to submit them. OLO has its own policy and publication of my articles is not always guaranteed. These critics are entitled to write to the Editor and ask him to accede to their demands. If this were to happen I would hope that I would be given the opportunity to respond.

As I repeat all the time - attacking the messenger and failing to address the message is a waste of time. If anyone wants to challenge the contents of my articles, correct any facts in them, or require further explanation or elaboration I am prepared to do so.

My allegation that all four Goldstone Commissioners were biased because of the public statements made by them before their appointment and because of the failure to disclose their close professional association- still remains unchallenged. If anyone out there has a different view - then let them tell me why by giving their reasons.

>>My allegation that all four Goldstone Commissioners were biased because of the public statements made by them before their appointment and because of the failure to disclose their close professional association- still remains unchallenged.>>

If they were not biased they would not have been appointed in the first place.

If Goldstone were not a "judge for hire" vouched for by, among others, Gadaffi's good buddy, Nelson Mandela, he would not have attained prominence as an international "jurist*"

The intention was to set up a kangaroo court from the beginning. Anyone who takes a dispassionate look at the antics of the UN Human Rights Council will see that in an instant. (see for example my post of Thursday, 7 April 2011 2:54:06 PM)

>>I do so [post] because I believe I have the right as much as anyone else to express my opinion on important developments in the ongoing Arab-Jewish conflict.>>

I am not denying your right. I do question both the wisdom and utility of doing so.

>>I am sure that there are a lot more OLO readers out there who are prepared to fairly consider my analysis..>

That’s what we call a “faith based statement.” You have no evidence for that and I doubt that is the case.

The accepted story among Israel-bashers is that the wicked Jews so pressured poor Goldstone that he buckled.

*I use the word loosely.

stevenmeyer states "I think it blindingly obvious that much of the bile directed against Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism."
You may consider this blindingly obvious but I certainly don't. I am not in any way an anti semite. I do not dislike Israel because it is populated by Jews. I dislike it because it is a racist state that carries on a decades long military occupation, all the while transferring its population to the occupied territories. It dismisses any resistance as terrorism. It allows Jews from any nation in the world to move there yet will not allow the native population who were driven out at the formation of the state to return. It frequently wages war on its neighbours and thinks nothing of taking the lives of hundreds of civilians. Yet at the same time it claims to be a bastion of liberal democracy in the Middle East. This simply gives liberal democracy a bad name.
There are certainly worse regimes in the world, but they tend not to enjoy the unflinching support of nations like Australia and the US. That is why people like myself find Israel's behaviour to be abhorrent.
The thing I dislike most about Israel is the manner in which its supporters slander Israel's critics by calling them anti semites, or in the case of Jewish critics, self hating Jews. This is the equivalent of Australians blaming criticism of our past treatment of the aboriginals as being based on some innate hatred of the English.
But I guess if it enables you to keep a clear conscience then you can continue with your little fantasy.

Dear Stephenlmeyer,

As you said this is for information rather than debate.

You said “>>I think it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to change someone’s mind about Israel.>>

I know I'm a fairly thin bastard but I managed it.

I fell in love with the idea of Israel in my mid teens after reading Mitchener's 'The Source'. I was pretty keen on getting myself to the country after studies and kept in pretty good touch with what was going on in the region. I remember thinking being an Israeli came a fairly close second to being an Australian. It took nearly twenty years for the enthusiasm and support to fully dissipate. Now I am both sad and angry with what the country has become.

I retain a sense of Jewish history, of substantial contributions to the rest of the world, of an innate sense of social justice, and of an appreciation of Jewish culture.

I also retain a sense of guilt as a cultural Christian about what the Jews have suffered through Christian history culminating in the Holocaust. That now extends to what has befallen the Palestinians since our trespasses have inflicted European Jewry upon them.

At times I do envy the ability to be so devoted to an ideal, or a religion, or a people, or a state, that there is no right or wrong, just us or them. Perhaps the closest I come is family and the unconditional love and support that those ties require of me.

And while most of us Aussies mightn't be zinging with the spirit of the Lord, nor overly fussed about a bill of rights, nor does Advance Australia Fair have a patch on the Star Spangled Banner, but we do have a pretty strong ethic of supporting the under-dog and of getting fairly ticked off toward bullies.

And I have to tell you we are jack of the belligerence of both the Israeli government on settlements and of its supporters tossing around accusations of anti-Semitism.