Allyn Fisher-Ilan's theory for why Goldstone recanted

Mendacious Reuters correspondent and astrology freak Allyn Fisher-Ilan has a theory for why Richard Goldstone recanted the central thesis in his infamous report on the 2008-09 Gaza war between Hamas and 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.

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".

Fisher-Ilan then completely mangles Goldstone's redress as published in the Washington Post:  

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.

Here's what Goldstone actually wrote:

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.

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.

It is that recognition now, 19 months after the original publication of his report, which led to Goldstone's recanter.

Goldstone "reconsiders" his Gaza war report in a WaPo editorial

In an exceptional act of contrition couched in words of considered reflection, Richard Goldstone, author of the much-cited report bearing his name on the 2008-09 Gaza war between Hamas and Israel, "reconsiders" his own findings:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report.  If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.  The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”  Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas.  That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.  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.  While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy [...]

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

Reuters has yet to report on Goldstone's remarkable reversal.  We eagerly await the agency's spin.

Radical leftist at Reuters provides soapbox for fellow traveler

In a 700+ word breathless interview/op-ed disguised as a news piece, Reuters Allyn Fisher-Ilan rushes into the fray to defend and promote the views of New Israel Fund (NIF) president Naomi Chazan.  Two weeks ago, an investigative study by the Zionist group Im Tirtzu revealed that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war had been seeded with defamatory claims against Israel by political NGOs financed by the NIF.  The Im Tirtzu report and subsequent well-publicized, ill-tempered reaction from Chazan and the NIF has led to widespread panic in the anti-Israel NGO community and of course at their propaganda arm, Reuters.

Fisher-Ilan begins her damage control effort on behalf of Chazan by lumping together the NGOs funded by the NIF under the righteous banner "civil rights groups".  So characterized, they are of course beyond reproach -- precisely the notion Chazan is peddling:

In an interview with Reuters, Chazan said she saw a "very, very dangerous process" under way in Israel, where human rights groups such as hers were increasingly targeted for criticism... "The very pillars of democratic society are being assailed and we have to be very concerned about that," said the former left-wing Meretz party legislator.

Got that?  According to Chazan, and parroted by Fisher-Ilan, "human rights groups" must be above criticism or the foundations of a democratic society are at risk.  Funny, we always had the impression that criticism was an essential component of a democratic society.  Apparently, not when it is the left-wing being criticized.

Fisher-Ilan continues:

Goldstone's report found evidence of war crimes by both Israel and Hamas Islamists in the three-week Israeli offensive in Gaza, in which over 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed... But it put most of the blame on Israel, stoking worldwide criticism of the Jewish state's behaviour in the war. Israel has dismissed the report as biased and supporters are lashing out at left-wing groups who had a role in Goldstone's work.

Yes, Israel has dismissed the Goldstone report as biased for any one of a hundred reasons and as Im Tirtzu has noted, 191 of 207 negative references to the Israeli army and government appearing in the report were supplied by organizations receiving NIF money.  In view of the fact that the NIF bankrolls groups like Adalah which advocates for the return of millions of Palestinian Arab "refugees" to Israel -- neatly eradicating the Jewish state -- supporters of Israel might be on the right track criticizing the NIF for funding this type of anti-Israel activity.

Fisher-Ilan then takes a stab at persuading readers with the bandwagon logical fallacy:

Left-wing activists in Israel and abroad, joined by New York-based Human Rights Watch, have rallied behind Chazan, denouncing the criticism of her and the arrests of peace activists at recent protests as "an affront to democracy."

Er, citing Human Rights Watch may not be the most effective way to make the case for democratic ideals.  And as we noted here, these "peace activists" are anything but.

Then, there's a red herring:

The right wing is well represented in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition.

As is the left-wing.

Right and left-wing Israelis have been arguing for decades for and against withdrawing from occupied Palestinian land for peace.

No.  Israelis have been arguing for and against surrendering unallocated land won in a defensive war to a group of people sworn to their destruction for the promise of peace.

Fisher-Ilan continues with another mischaracterization:

A separate Israeli legislative probe has been launched into funding for non-government groups, seen as targeting human rights organisations in particular.

No.  The probe is intended to expose and monitor those Israeli NGOs of any flavor that receive large sums of money from foreign governments and organizations.

The English-language Jerusalem Post, meanwhile, has cancelled Chazan's biweekly column.

Yes, after she threatened to sue the paper.

Chazan criticised the Israeli government's refusal to cooperate with Goldstone and said Israel should launch its own investigation into the Gaza war

Ah, but it has.

We recommend Allyn have a soothing Chamomile tea and catch up with her horoscope.

Reuters serving as mouthpiece for discredited HRW

Following their usual tidy disclaimer,

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone,

Reuters acts as a mouthpiece for the corrupt and Nazi-infatuated rights "experts" at Human Rights Watch by publishing an HRW press release which urges the UN to implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report on the war in Gaza.

We won't fully critique the Goldstone report which despite its 575 pages has, within hours of publication, already been stripped of all credibility by other readers 1) here, 2) here, 3) here, and especially comprehensively 4) here, 5) here, 6) here, 7) here, 8) here, 9) here, 10) here, 11) here, and 12) here.

We do however, need to point out a couple of inanities in the press release by HRW which as a result of its partnership with Reuters as an AlertNet member, obtains free and unfettered publishing rights on the Reuters/AlertNet website.

The essence of the press release is to urge the US government, "not to stand in the way of the recommended Security Council action that would for the first time address the conduct of both Israel and Hamas". HRW goes on to aver that:

The Human Rights Council alone is no substitute for the Security Council because Israel has dismissed the council as biased and because the Security Council can refer the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court (ICC)... The ICC, the only permanent international criminal court, is the obvious international tribunal for war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict.

Of course, the International Criminal Court has no power whatsoever to successfully prosecute Hamas leaders for war crimes who after all, represent an outlaw terror group -- not a state -- and are answerable to no international body or legal authority. Thus, only Israeli military officials and/or government leaders would be subject to the prosecution for which HRW bays.

Even Arab states traditionally ignore the ICC. Remember Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir? While he tours the Arab/Muslim world freely, the ICC is still trying to enforce the warrant it issued for his arrest on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Good luck arresting Hamas' Khaled Meshal; we're sure the Syrian authorities will be right on the case.

The UN Security Council is similarly helpless to punish Hamas for war crimes as any international sanctions aimed at ejecting them from power would almost certainly impact negatively on the Palestinian population in Gaza. We wonder if the United Nations, assisted by HRW, would then accuse itself of "collective punishment" and "crimes against humanity" as Goldstone has labeled the Israeli blockade.

HRW then goes on to promote some of its previous accusations of war crimes against Israel, like "shooting civilians who were waving white flags".

Yes, we remember that.