THE GOLDSTONE REPORT “RECONSIDERED” – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Edited by Gerald M. Steinberg and Anne Herzberg
NGO Monitor and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

(Updated May 2011)

(First Published October 2009)

Click here to read the full PDF version of this book.

Table of Contents

NGO Monitor Reports

NGO Monitor Op-eds

NGO Monitor Press Releases

NGOs in Support of Goldstone

Defensive Responses

Articles of Interest

NGO Monitor reports

NGOs vs. Goldstone: NGO Monitor Analysis, April 11, 2011
Goldstone’s Washington Post op-ed, retracting the substance of the UNHRC “Goldstone Report,” undermines the credibility of the NGOs that provided the false allegations. In response, NGOs and NGO officials have issued numerous statements distorting and rewriting Goldstone’s words, in an effort to preserve their credibility.

The Goldstone Myth: Book Review by Gerald M. Steinberg, SPME Reviews and Recommendations, March 29, 2011
A critique of The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict as a “poisonous anti-Zionist cacophony.”

NGO Monitor Submission to Goldstone Follow-up Committee, March 17, 2011
Since the issuance of the Goldstone report and in order to bolster its one-sided conclusions and recommendations, many organizations claiming to promote human rights and humanitarian objectives have initiated a series of campaigns to discredit the Israeli justice system and to paint Israel as a rogue state in order to bolster politicized attempts to have Israeli officials arrested and tried in European capitals and to support the opening of an investigation against Israel at the International Criminal Court. NGO Monitor has prepared this submission to provide background information and context that may not be known to the Committee. We hope that this information will aid the Committee in preparing its report.

Factsheet: The Goldstone Report on Gaza, February 17, 2011
Summary of key issues surrounding the Goldstone Mission and Report.

NGO and Goldstone Casualty Claims Contradicted, December 29, 2010
In a November 2010 interview given by Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad to the Al-Hayat newspaper, Hamad acknowledged that 600-700 Hamas members were killed in the Gaza fighting. This more than doubles the number of combatants published by the NGOs’ and Goldstone’s unreliable version of events, and is another example of false claims used to justify indictments against Israel. Based on these admissions, Goldstone and the NGOs have the moral obligation to immediately acknowledge the degree to which their allegations against Israel are unsupported.

NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone’s Building Blocks, February 9, 2010
NIF-funded groups and their publications were featured centrally in the Goldstone report. Many of these citations referred to speculative issues unrelated to the conflict in Gaza, seeking to brand Israeli democracy as “repressive.” B’Tselem, Adalah, ACRI, Gisha, PHR-I, and Yesh Din have continued supporting Goldstone and lobbying governments to legitimize the report’s extreme biases and endorse its recommendations. Some NIF grantees campaign against the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. Others are active in worldwide boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns targeting Israel.

List of 36 Incidents in the Goldstone Report, Anne Herzberg, December 11, 2009
The Goldstone Report apparently documents in detail 36 incidents that occurred during the Gaza War. According to Richard Goldstone, “they appear to represent situations where there was little or no military justification for what happened.” A list of these 36 incidents is not published in the report, nor is one available on the Mission’s website.  Neither Goldstone, nor the Mission responded to requests for this information, but NGO Monitor compiled approximately 30-40 detailed incidents culled from a review of the report.

Who Wrote the Goldstone Report?, November 19, 2009
Since the beginning of September, NGO Monitor has been investigating questions relating to responsibility for researching and drafting the Goldstone report.   The Mission’s webpage does not provide any information on this issue, and repeated requests by NGO Monitor to both Goldstone and the Fact Finding Mission office were ignored. Staff members from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who were involved in preparing the report have strong links to NGOs.

Goldstone’s NGO partner: The Arab Thought Forum – E.U. funding to Promote Demonization, November 3, 2009
Goldstone chairs the Executive Committee of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation (IHJR) whose “Middle East Project” involves “establish[ing] a shared history” in partnership with the Arab Thought Forum (ATF) which refers to the “Palestinian holocaust”, “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” and “collective punishment”. This reinforces criticism of the report.

Amnesty International’s Goldstone Campaign, with a review of statements from other NGOs, October 22, 2009
Amnesty International has issued 15 statements in support of the Goldstone Mission. Members of the commission and its staff have conflicts of interest involving Amnesty. Diakonia, Trocaire, Amnesty-Europe, FIDH, Adalah, PCHR, and Al Haq have used the Goldstone report to bolster their calls for “war crimes” cases. Palestinian NGOs’ press release calling on states to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.” B’Tselem condemned the Israeli government for not cooperating with the Goldstone mission and “provided assistance to the investigative staff….”

Human Rights Watch: Selling Goldstone’s Indictment, October 15, 2009
HRW is leading the campaign to promote the widely criticized “Goldstone report” on the Gaza War, with close to thirty statements to date. Repeatedly equates Israel to Hamas, immorally compare its response to attacks on civilians to the genocide in Sudan, and falsely accuse Israel of “willfully” killing civilians and “deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians.” The close links between Goldstone and HRW continue to constitute a clear conflict of interest. HRW’s extensive media campaign diverts attention from the criticism and scandals that plague the organization.

House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report, October 1, 2009
The Goldstone report relies on material from highly politicized and biased NGOs. Adopting the NGOs’ flawed methodologies, false claims, and distortions of international law renders the entire report and its conclusions invalid. Goldstone and other commission members have conflicts of interest involving close links to HRW, Amnesty International, and PCHR.

Made in Europe: How government funded NGOs shaped the Goldstone report, October 1, 2009
Many of the highly politicized NGOs that are cited extensively by Goldstone are European-funded. This funding links European governments to the Goldstone report, and its contribution to anti-Israel demonization. European-funded groups also spearhead the “lawfare” movement, which abuses universal jurisdiction provisions to make allegations of “war crimes.”

Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO “cut and paste”, September 16, 2009
By relying on NGO material, the Goldstone report copies the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and baseless claims. The report follows Amnesty International and HRW in ignoring evidence of human shields and repeats NGO distortions of international law, including the false legal claim that Gaza remains occupied.

The Goldstone “Fact Finding” Mission and the Role of Political NGOs, September 7, 2009
Officials from radical anti-Israel NGOs were chosen to “testify” before the Mission, including the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) which used “Nazi” rhetoric. HRW obsessively supports Goldstone, a former board member. Seven NIF-funded Israeli NGOs claimed that Israel acted “punitive[ly].” The Mission violated the London-Lund guidelines, lacking objectivity, transparency, neutrality, and professionalism.

NGO Monitor’s Submission to the Human Rights Council Inquiry on the Gaza War, Led by Judge Richard Goldstone, June 9, 2009
NGO Monitor’s submission details NGO abuses of international law – including distortions and demonization by PCHR, HRW, Amnesty, and Al Mezan, and “lawfare” campaigns – and urges Goldstone to carefully examine the credibility and biases in NGO claims.

NGO Monitor Op-eds

NGO Monitor Press Releases

NGOs in Support of Goldstone

(HRW, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Israeli and Palestinian NGOs)

NGO Statements to UNHRC debate on Goldstone

HRW

Amnesty

B’Tselem

Israeli and Palestinian NGOs

Defensive Responses

Articles of Interest