Goldstone: I Never Promised To Have The Goldstone Report Nullified

And that is not all that Goldstone is now backtracking on.

Looks like all those liberals who praised Goldstone for condemning Israel--and then were shocked to learn that he backtracked on part of it--can rest easier now: Goldstone denies rumors that he was ready to seek the nullification of the Goldstone Report:

'Goldstone does not intend to retract UN report'

Report: South African Justice refutes Interior Minister's claims that he promised to seek nullification for his report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, says Yishai called him to thank him for Washington Post piece.

South African jurist Richard Goldstone denied Interior Minister Eli Yishai's claim that he planned to work to nullify his report on the the IDF's Operation Cast Lead in 2009, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Goldstone, in an interview with the Associated Press, said that Yishai had called to thank him for his Washington Post op-ed piece, but that the two never discussed the actual report. Goldstone said that he had responded to Yishai's thanks, telling him his utmost concern was for "truth, justice, and human rights."

But it's not just rescinding the report that Goldstone is denying--Goldstone is denying that he implied in his Friday op-ed that there was any need for the report to be modified at all:

As for his report on the 2009 Gaza offensive, Goldstone reiterated that the "intentionality on the part of Israel" required review, and that "domestic investigation could lead to further reconsideration." The judge concluded, however, that no part of the report needed reconsideration at the present time.[emphasis added]

So much for the Goldstone op-ed. According to Goldstone, he never meant that it was now clear that Israel did not intentionally attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead.

What Goldstone is saying now is at odds with what he wrote in his op-ed:

While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.[emphasis added]

More than that, Goldstone's new claim that the report is just dandy the way it is now does not jive with what he wrote on Friday, that Israel's investigations:

probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

Let's face it, that was an odd thing to say to begin with, considering the fact that Israel was making information available online.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.
But that leaves 2 questions:

• Just what was the point of that op-ed to begin with?
• If Goldstone is this incomprehensible, what good is his report?

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Report>.