He protested the politicization of his report, saying that while "there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with its substance," it has "been fulsomely approved by those whose interests it is thought to serve."
He found that Israel and its supporters made the harshest assault on the report. "Those who attack it do so too often by making personal attacks on its authors' motives and those who approve it rely on its authors' reputations."
Goldstone thought that as an outspoken supporter of Israel, he would gain cooperation from Israel. Also, "the terms of the mission's mandate," which he described as "even-handed," called for Israel's participation in the investigation. He made clear he called on them to take part many times, and said its "refusal to cooperate was a grave error." Israel even denied them the chance to enter
He rejected criticism of the report as biased. Those critics "should be asking the Israeli government why it failed to argue its cause" before the panel. They wrote about what their inquiry dug up, and Goldstone found much of it shocking:
In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction.He argued the inquiry found ways to speak to citizens of Sderot, where Palestinian rocket attacks hit. They also spoke to the father of the Israeli prisoner held in Gaza for more than three years.
He did provide support for the claim by some Israel-supporters, that the United Nations itself is prejudiced against Israel, but argued against it meaning Israel should be immune from international law.
He ended the oped with a challenge to Israel:
Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will?The decision whether to investigate itself or not will ultimately be a political, rather than a legal, decision. While it is close to impossible that any such self-inquiry will result in prosecutions or a semblance of justice, Israel's refusal to even carry out a routine self-acquittal because it would validate an international inquiry shows just how much Israel has grown to transgress international norms.
One wonders if Israeli intransigence in the face of a United Nations inquiry led by one of its own supporters will be met with any reaction by the international body? With the United States willing to veto away any Security Council resolution critical of Israel, it appears unlikely. The political damage will be done, however, and the United States will again lose a bit more credibility in its defense of the indefensible -- unless Russia comes to the rescue.
