Soccer Dad

Challenging berman

Ron Kampeas reported that Judge Goldstone objected to a Congressional resolution criticizing his report.

We reported earlier this week the resolution that U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the senior Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced condemning the Goldstone report, and urging the Obama administration not to allow it to advance further.

(Quickie refresher: the U.N. Human Rights Council mandated a fact finding mission, led by Richard Goldstone, a noted pro-Israel human rights judge, to investigate alleged war crimes during last winter's Gaza war. Israel would not cooperate with the mission, saying the original mandate, by naming only Israel and assuming war crimes had been committed, was inherently biased. Goldstone addressed Hamas actions as well in his report and accused both sides of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.)

Ros-Lehtinen marshalled to her side the who's-who of House Middle East luminaries: The chairman, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and the chairman and ranking member of its Middle East subcommittee, Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.) respectively.

We briefed this, but I haven't had time until now to post the whole thing, and it's below the jump. Last I looked, it's garnered 114 co-sponsors (very good in a four-day period).

Also below the jump is Goldstone's reply. I give him a win on points.

Kampeas is being credulous here. Goldstone's response was incomplete and misleading. Co-blogger Daled Amos poked a number of holes in his response. More importantly, Rep. Berman or someone on his staff wrote a rebuttal to Goldstone. Clearly Goldstone believed that the term "respected" that preceded his name in so many news reports would shield him from scrutiny. But as Yaacov Lozowick observes:

One of the strange things about the report is that if you dislike Israel, there's lots in it that will warm your cockles. However, if you're into factual analysis, the report supplies endless demonstrations of its own profound biases and general lack of honesty and seriousness. Someone in Berman's office has done this homework.

To take the first example:

"Here are some comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors: "1. Paragraph 3:That is why I and others refused the original mandate - it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: '. . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.'

"That mandate clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report with that mandate that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups."

Response: The broadened mandate Justice Goldstone sought was discussed, but not voted on, at a UNHRC plenary session. It was then announced via a press release in an altered formulation, more restrictive than the formulation envisioned by Justice Goldstone. The UNHRC did not create a new mandate. The only relevant mandate remained the one which includes operational paragraph 14 of UNHRC resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, as was accepted by the Council on January 12, 2009. The January 12 mandate was also the only mandate referenced in the October 16 UNHRC resolution that adopted the Report.

This whereas clause focuses on the mandate. Of course, the far more important issue is the Report itself, which makes only limited mention of the rocket attacks on Israel.

This, by the way contradicts Kampeas, who seems to feel his job is to defend Goldstone, not report.

Goldstone clearly thought that if he made a statement everyone would accept it. In fact he has regularly claimed that his critics never read what he wrote and attacked him instead. Now that someone has challenged his words, will he respond?