No. He needs to issue a full one.
The damage Richard Goldstone created by his infamous UN sponsored report is reason enough to demand a full repudiation of that report by Goldstone himself. While waiting for his complete mea kulpa, it provides opportunity to explore the cognitive dissonant mindset behind the report. How could an ortherwise intelligent man actually believe that Hamas would ”investigate itself ”?
This is the exact same mindset I’ve run into on repeated occasions with foreign affairs analysts from the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. There is strong belief in that organization (which mirrors that which can be found in other European think tanks) that Israel will have to negotiate with Hamas. That Hamas will one day, like other (non-Islamic) terrorist groups, take a more moderate approach and reach some kind of real negotiated settlement.
This line of thinking runs counter to reality and the dilemma involved that no analyst to date, has been able to adequately answer:
”How can a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization, whose own existence is both based and predicated upon the destruction of Israel, in fact, recognize both Israel and make real peace with it, which by doing so, will remove the credibility and motivations behind the continued existence of that movement.”
Any Hamas’ recognition of Israel, by default, disembowels itself as a movement.The willingness to hold two competing thoughts and believe both to be true, is also at play within European politic circles. As EU politicians repeatedly demand Israel to negotiate with Hamas, they are more than happy however, with the cordon sanitaire placed upon the Vlaams Belang, the Flemish separatist party, whose party platform closely resembles the Tea Party activist agenda.
Should Goldstone be forgiven?
Op-ed: Goldstone’s recent pro-Israel comments cannot offset his immoral behavior
Published: 11.07.11, 18:48 / Israel Opinion
That Israel pursues apartheid policies is “a particularly pernicious and enduring canard.” This is a quote from Judge Richard Goldstone in an article in the New York Times titled “Israel and the Apartheid Slander” published at the end of October. He added: it is “important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and de-legitimize it.” Goldstone attacked those who call Israel an apartheid state and gave many arguments why such accusations are false.
This was a rather unexpected statement from a jurist who headed a malicious United Nations Human Rights Council inquiry. Goldstone received applause for his recent article, even from some who had heavily criticized him before. It is convenient for Israel that Goldstone suddenly appears as its defender on an important issue. This is all the more helpful as he is a South African who is familiar with what apartheid means.
Goldstone has also retracted some of the accusations against Israel in his UNHRC report in an op-ed in the Washington Post in April this year. There he wrote that “if I knew then what I know now the report would have been different.” In this article he said that due to Israel’s investigations and a subsequent United Nations Committee Report it was now clear that Israel did not target civilians intentionally.
However, in this article he also made several statements which show his bizarre views of Hamas, a terrorist organization with genocidal intentions. One was that he had hoped that now Israel was investigating what his report said were serious war crimes Hamas would do the same. Another absurd statement was: “As a 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.”
Full-fledged apology needed
Should we in view of these two articles exonerate Goldstone for having headed an investigation that plays a major role in the defamation, demonization and de-legitimization of Israel? There is a simple way to understand why forgiving Goldstone now would be a major mistake. One should read the recently published book titled: “The Goldstone Report “Reconsidered;” A Critical Analysis. It is edited by Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg of NGO Monitor.