Of course, for a pathological Israel-hater like Fisher-Ilan, Goldstone's retraction of his original accusations against Israel, proven false by the meticulous work of researchers and bloggers, could not possibly be due to the jurist realizing he was mistaken. No; it can only be explained as a reaction to "being lambasted by Israel".After months of being lambasted by Israel over the accusations, Goldstone published a column in the Washington Post this month, qualifying a central charge that he had rendered.
Fisher-Ilan then completely mangles Goldstone's redress as published in the Washington Post:
Here's what Goldstone actually wrote:Israel has long accused the Human Rights Council of bias and refused to cooperate with Goldstone's mission, a stance he cited in his recent article, saying his findings might have been different had Israel been more forthcoming.
So his report would have been different (definitively), not "might have been different" as Fisher-Ilan misrepresents. And although Goldstone laments Israel's refusal to cooperate with his investigation, the fact is, he and his commission accepted at face value, testimony from Hamas officials and drew erroneous conclusions based on that testimony without availing themselves of countervailing evidence in the public domain which would have exculpated Israel.If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document... The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.
It is that recognition now, 19 months after the original publication of his report, which led to Goldstone's recanter.