Now I have only read bits and pieces of the Goldstone report first hand - mostly I have only read reports on it so I cannot comment on the actual findings with a high degree of knowledge. However, in looking at the responses I can get some of the complaints and salient points.
In doing some research on it I came across a great interview which I thought made sense regarding the whole issue.
The discussion with Yossi Alper in an interview with Americans for Peace Now is intelligent.
Please follow me over the fold to discuss.
Americans for Peace Now is a group helped to support the Israeli Group Shalom Achshav. From their website:
Americans for Peace Now supports President Obama in carrying out his mandate in the Middle East, and will do everything possible to work with him to realize the long-cherished and long-denied goal of peace, security, and stability for Israel and all inhabitants of the region.
http://peacenow.org/...
In an interview with Mr. Yossi Alper, there is solid discussion regarding the Goldstone report.
I know justice Goldstone and have the highest respect for his integrity. (my emphasis) Nor do I doubt that there were excesses in Israel's January offensive. And this is precisely why, after some soul-searching, it seems we may have made the right decision in boycotting the Goldstone deliberations. True, by testifying we could have supplied mountains of data to support this or that particular offensive move and explain what Hamas really is. Yet participating would also tacitly ratify the "rules of the game" by which Goldstone professes to judge us--rules that are entirely inappropriate to the warfare of southern Lebanon or Gaza. Goldstone undoubtedly follows the internal logic of his approach in excoriating the IDF's own inquiries into alleged misdeeds by its troops in Gaza, simply because the IDF is invoking different, ad hoc rules of warfare for judging commanders and soldiers fighting a terrorist/guerilla regime that uses hospitals as military headquarters, mosques as ammunition dumps and schools as forward outposts.
http://peacenow.org/...
The thrusts of Alphers Peace Now's interview objection to the Goldstone report is in the fighting of the Cast Lead. The report
http://www2.ohchr.org/...
Here are the basis for even moderate people like Peace Now to take exception with the report:
On the basis of the information gathered, the Mission found that Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations and launched rockets from urban areas. It may be that the Palestinian combatants did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population. The Mission found no evidence, however, to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.
This needs to be explored further. Yes Hamas, did not direct traffic into the area but, they just set up and fired. What did they think would happen when firing rockets from a crowded area? Did they think Israel would not try to get the rocket teams? It is my contention and others that they simply didn't care about it's civilian populace and the reprecussions of the strikes.
As Yossi Alper righly says in answer to a question regarding Goldstone
Why is Israel being singled out by the United Nations for scrutiny when a host of other countries have been combating terrorists and guerillas in urban and heavily populated settings, generating far worse civilian losses than in Gaza, yet escaping these kinds of inquiries? The US and its allies in Iraq (e.g., the third siege of Faluja) and Afghanistan (where dozens of civilians are regularly killed and maimed in bombings), Turkey's war with its dissident Kurds, Russia in Chechnya and Sri Lanka all come to mind.
- Why are human rights inquiries into the outcome of combat against terrorists-- who use entire populations of cities and villages as human shields, dare the enemy to hurt them, then appeal to the world's conscience--based on rules of engagement and laws of warfare designed to govern conflicts between sovereign states with standing armies?
- As a corollary to 2 above, why is a sovereign state with a clearly defined army, in this case Israel, placed on a par in the Goldstone report with a terrorist entity nearly all of whose population and even leadership is, according to Goldstone, by definition "civilian"?
http://peacenow.org/...
Further, I think a good point is made in an LA Times editorial:
Some of the four investigators were not neutral arbiters either. Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, one of the four, signed a Jan. 11 letter to the Sunday Times of London before the Israeli operation had concluded, accusing Israel of war crimes.
http://www.latimes.com/...
If this is true it - damns some of the processes. Why? Because the report is specific to determining what happened in Gaza. If one already pre-cludes War Crimes happened then what is the expected outcome?
A "dueling" assesment written by George Bisharat does rightly point out one thing:
The mission conducted 188 interviews and reviewed more than 300 reports, 10,000 pages of documents, 30 videos and 1,200 photographs. The Israeli government barred the group from entering Israel or the Gaza Strip (it reached Gaza, ultimately, through Egypt). By contrast, Palestinian authorities, both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, cooperated with the mission.
http://www.latimes.com/...
Israel from my understanding did not cooperate but the PA and Hamas did particularly in pointing out Israeli misdeeds. Had Israel cooperated it could have been a different report.
I am currently in process of reading through the report so it is interesting to see what my conlusions at the end will be. For now I think Mr. Alper raises some interesting discussion worthy points.
UPDATES:
I have been asked to update the story with reactions from Peace Now and J Street. I think that is a reasonable request.
From Americans for Peace Now (thank you Soysauce for the link):
Reading the Israeli reactions to the Goldstone Report, I was reminded of the language APN started using following the war. In March, our Board approved a statement that included the following:
The seemingly endless rocket fire from Gaza and the realization that the Israeli military cannot, on its own, end the rocket fire has left Israelis feeling vulnerable and angry. The criticism of Israel's Gaza offensive - military action that most Israelis viewed as a last resort after years of rocket attacks that the world largely ignored - has left Israelis feeling aggrieved, with the sense that the world has abandoned them...
For its part, Israel launched a massive military operation that could not resolve the threat to Israeli security in a lasting way. The ensuing costs to Gaza's civilian population, in terms of death, injury, and destruction of property, are unacceptable and a stain on Israel. Israel has a right to defend its citizens from attack, and Hamas bears responsibility for targeting Israeli civilians and escalating its attacks in the weeks preceding the Israeli military operation. It also shamefully turned densely populated towns and refugee camps into launching grounds for rocket attacks against Israel. But a discussion of Hamas' culpability is not sufficient. Irrespective of Hamas' actions, Israel's leaders should have recognized that while Israel has a right to defend its citizens, this is not a right without limits. The scale of human suffering inflicted by Israel on Gazans in this war marks not only a tactical error but also a failure to live up to the moral standards of Jewish values upon which Israel was founded.
Whatever you might think about the war or the Goldstone Report, these words remain true. As does the reality that absent progress towards peace, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out and more lives are lost.
I am not in a position to judge the Goldstone Report, but I do see it as a clear reminder of both the horrors of war and the value of President Barack Obama's efforts to renew peace talks.
http://peacenow.org/...
and from J Street
J Street has reviewed the Goldstone report in its entirety over the past several days.
J Street agrees with Israelis, such as Minister Isaac Herzog, that some of the concerns with the report would have been better addressed had the Israeli Government cooperated with the investigation in presenting its own findings.
We urge the Israeli government to establish an independent state commission of inquiry to investigate the accusations, something Israel has done on several occasions in the past.
J Street strongly condemns Hamas for its actions both before and during the Gaza war - actions which the report says may amount to crimes against humanity.
The past cannot be changed by reports and commissions. Israelis, Palestinians and the international community led by the United States must focus on forging a better future - beginning with this week's trilateral meeting hosted by President Obama.
Purposeful and assertive action is needed now to avert future rounds of violence and bloodshed. A two-state solution, achieved in short order, is the best alternative for Israel to ongoing insecurity and endless rounds of investigations and international opprobrium.
J Street will continue to focus on advancing this goal and supporting those with the courage to lead the way in making the right choices and tough compromises necessary to achieve peace and security in the Middle East and to advance American interests in the region.
http://blogs.jta.org/...