Goldstone claimed that sanctions are not effective and it seems impossible that divestment could make a difference either. Goldstone also admitted that a double standard is applied to Israel. He defends his report with the following metaphor. To him, the situation is analogous to a city where 14 murders are committed in one day; however, the police department is only able to prosecute three of the murders. Goldstone asks, shouldn’t the police still complete their investigations even if not every murderer can be brought to justice? The analogy has a major flaw, the same flaw in every argument supporting singling out the Jewish State. In Goldstone's city, what if the suspects in three of the murders are Jewish, and the other eleven from different ethnic groups. Wouldn’t there be something wrong if only the murders where Jews were suspected are investigated and prosecuted while the other eleven are ignored?While there is much criticism of the methods and assumptions Goldstone made to complete his report, Goldstone still makes it clear that Israel is not Apartheid and does not speak of the nation as pariah in the same way as those who have embraced his report. Even more appalling than the shoddy investigative methods Goldstone used is his continued tacit-approval of people using his report to support claims that he does not make, like the claim that Israel is an Apartheid State. Furthermore, his lecture made it clear that the divestment movement is happy to pick and choose whom they find credible based on what is being said. To them, Goldstone is credible when he says Israel commits war crimes, but despite what he said on Thursday, Israel Apartheid week is sure to be held this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment