Thoughts Regarding Goldstone

Ynet reports that The New York Times refused to publish Goldstone's retraction - insinuating that it was because it went against the Paper's liberal agenda. If this is true, it is certainly a sign of just how low opinion of Israel has sunk.

However, I'd like to focus on a different part of the article:

Dr. Alon Liel, a friend of Goldstone's from his days as a Foreign Ministry representative in South Africa, went a step further and said that Goldstone has "been through hell" and that has contributed to his decision to publish a letter of regret.
"He was being constantly harassed, received threatening letters, and was forced to change his phone number and email addresses," Liel said. "When Israel decided to boycott him, it was an overwhelming insult.'I'm a Jewish judge, a respected Zionist – and Israel doesn't trust me?' He was a broken man.
"I'm not saying that the threats he received and the hell he went through are what made him publish his article, but there is no doubt in my mind that it influenced his decision."

The personal attacks against Goldstone were harsh. However by choosing that line of attack, we have made his current turn around seem to occur under duress. Has Goldstone really changed his mind, or have 3 years of personal attacks finally reached his breaking point?  The fact that he has voiced his mind in a single short opinion piece, and not in a televised or lengthy interview, does give an impression that he isn't acting from his own conscience.   I think that if Goldstone really has changed his mind, he has the moral obligation to explain to the world at large his reasoning.