Open Letter to the numbskull Richard Goldstone

Very detailed letter from Trevor Norwitz, a professor at the Columbia University Law School. From the letter it is apparent that Goldstone and his gang were out to take revenge on Israel because they had been snubbed by the Israeli Govt. Is it so very difficult to find honest, decent people for "fact finding" reports ? Who appointed this man ? Wait... that was the UN. Okay...enough said.

......Passing Judgment Based on One-sided (and Tainted) Evidence. Your Mission took Israel’s refusal to cooperate as an invitation (or perhaps as an excuse) to allow the scales of justice to weigh with only one pan being filled. Time and time again, you made findings of fact based solely on evidence provided by the Palestinian side of the conflict (even though your Report expressly acknowledges that the testimony you received from witnesses in Gaza was tainted by duress[7], not to mention obvious, if understandable, bias). Almost every one of your “findings of fact” was arrived at using this formula: the direct evidence the Mission collected said X; no evidence to the contrary has been provided; therefore “on the information available to it[8], the Mission finds” X. And you did this in the full knowledge that you had heard only half the story. I understand that you and your fellow commissioners were outraged by Israel’s decision to snub you (as is evident in the numerous references to their refusal to cooperate throughout your Report — I stopped counting at 40), but if your investigation was truly seeking to uncover the truth, you quite simply could not have reached conclusions and made such momentous and awful accusations based on one-sided evidence. In your October 19 article in the Jerusalem Post, you state: “Our mission obviously could only consider and report on what it saw, heard and read. If the government of Israel failed to bring facts and analyses to our attention, we cannot fairly be blamed for the consequences.” I strongly disagree. As one entrusted to find the facts, you had a moral if not legal obligation to seek the truth, and if you were not able to do so, you should have said just that, rather than pretending that you have established the truth (“based on information provided”) when you knew that was not so and that you had only heard one side of the story......

.......In contrast, you were virtually never able to ascertain any improper intention on the part of the Palestinian parties to this dispute even where the intention behind their actions would seem to be fairly obvious and even though you “enjoyed” their full support and cooperation.

Example: Firing rockets from civilian areas: “On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces.”

Another example: Hamas fighters mingling with civilians: “The Mission finds that the presence of Palestinian armed fighters in urban residential areas during the military operations is established. . . . While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack.” ........

Read the entire thing