Are you of the opinion that b/c Israel did not cooperate, it was perfectly okay for Goldstone not to seek the truth from sources already available? Did you read the open letter from Trevor Norwitz regarding the manner in which Goldstone did not even try to investigate crimes committed by Hamas, did not cross-question, dismissed/minimized evidence, etc.?
I really don't see why we have to 'play along' and pretend like Goldstone that if only Israel cooperated, only then would we the investigation be balanced.
Goldstone was still saying 6 weeks after the report's release that no real criticism of his report existed, only ad hominem personal attacks against his character....so why should we believe that if only Israel cooperated __________? Colonel Travers just said the same thing yesterday here....
"But not a glove has been landed on the report itself..."http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1119/1224259107221.htmlYou realize the MFA, CAMERA, and some other people like Maurice Ostroff wrote substantive criticisms of the report well within 6 weeks of its release? If Goldstone lies about that, what makes you believe him about Israel's cooperation? You do realize enough evidence in Israel's favor and against Hamas was available to Goldstone from the public domain (internet, news sources)?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore