Goldstone's Mystery Week.

Politico is quoting an anonymous source claiming that the Yediot Story about the New York Times refusing to publish Goldstone's article is false, or at least a part truth:

A source familiar with the paper's dealings with Goldstone says this report isn't true. The Times saw a very different op-ed by Goldstone about two weeks ago, just one in a series of articles he'd written trying to clarify and finesse the meaning of the report; the paper rejected it because it said nothing new, the source said.

That version didn't contain the crucial repudiation of the report's central thrust, that the Israeli Defense Forces targeted civilians intentionally and as a matter of policy.

One thing that does stand out - what exactly was Goldstone writing just a few days ago? if Politico is to be believed it would seem that Goldstone had changed his mind literally in the last few days.

Shedding some light on the mystery is Prof Avi Bell:

Last Monday, I debated with Richard Goldstone about the controversial Goldstone Report at Stanford Law School. Three days later, Justice Goldstone finally admitted, inThe Washington Post, that, contrary to the report’s assertions, Israel did not intentionally target civilians. A Palestinian outfit called the International Middle East Media Center carried a story this weekend lamenting that two “racist Zionists” at the debate – Peter Berkowitz and I – were responsible for convincing Goldstone of the error of his ways. Sadly, this is, at best, only partly true....

Goldstone said during the debate that no one has disputed the report’s factual allegations. But this is demonstrably false and Goldstone knew it, because he was looking right at me when I reminded him of this fact during the debate. He did not repeat the claim in The Washington Post.  [markings not in original - BoT]

So as recent as a week ago, Goldstone claimed that no one has disputed the factual allegations.

Another view of what I can only assume was the same debate is given by Noura Erakat -

Just last week, I had the chance to speak to Goldstone at Stanford Law School where I participated in a debate on the report featuring him as a discussant.

Goldstone seemed struck by recent revelations made in Israel’s investigation of itself that its murder of 29 civilians in the Sammouni home, where approximately 120 civilians had taken refuge, was the result of negligence and not a deliberate attack.

He emphasised that had Israel participated in the investigatory process rather than boycott it, it would have been able to contest the mission’s findings before the report’s release thereby correcting its alleged bias.

Judging by this it seems that Goldstone had at least the begining of the change of mind he would express in the Washington Post Op-Ed - as the basic points he bases his new Op-Ed are already present. However it is clear that at least a week ago Goldstone had not yet decided to go quite as far as his Op-Ed and clear Israel from the charge of intentional targeting of civilians. 

Since it seems that only a week ago Goldstone was not ready to make clear statements in line with his Op-Ed, we can only ask what changed during that week?

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.

Worth a Read: The Goldstone Edition

Judge Richard Goldstone has published a Washington Post article, where he seems to regret certain claims made in his infamous UN report. Most Notably:

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. 

Melanie Philips in her charecteristic style is quick off the bat," By his own admission, the man stands revealed as at best an abject idiot and at worst a moral and judicial bankrupt." Ron Radosh follows a similar line, and doesn't believe that there is anything Goldstone didn't know when the original report came out,  Yaacov lozowick points out " Too late The damage has been done, and no retraction now will alleviate it, not unless, perhaps, the judge spends the rest of his days trudging from TV station to TV station, from newspaper to newspaper, from campus to campus, and insists that the original reports was an abomination."
Ha'aretz argues that Goldstone's recantation is a sign of a larger shift in Western opinion,  Ynet quotes an unidentified military source, that seems to think Goldstone's retraction will lessen judicial risk for IDF officers (It won't).


Ed Lasky makes the point that everyone will suspect that Goldstone's new view was made under duress. Memri brings a palestinian source already making that claim.