Islamic states reveal: “We created the Goldstone Report”

Soon, on January 12, 2010, we will mark the one-year anniversary of the UNHRC special session and resolution that commissioned the Goldstone Report. It’s a time to remember who orchestrated the “fact-finding” exercise.

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic  Conference (OIC), which effectively controls the UNHRC, is being far more honest about this than Goldstone. Here’s what OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu revealed to Al Jazeera in October:

Let me first start by completing the story of the history of the Goldstone report. What I would like to put on record is that the OIC was the initiator of this process.

On January 3, during the attacks on Gaza, we convened the executive committee of the OIC on a ministerial level. It was decided that the OIC group in Geneva should ask the Human Rights Council to convene and consider the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Gaza.

The OIC was instrumental in getting through this resolution and thanks to the good offices of Ms Pilay, the UN high commissioner, that she formed this fact-finding mission headed by Judge Goldstone.

On October 8, I visited Geneva and had a meeting with OIC ambassadors and the high commissioner. We revived the process again and the Goldstone report has been approved by the rights council.

2 Responses to “Islamic states reveal: “We created the Goldstone Report””

  • I think the title of this blog is a little misleading. To me, it implies that the Islamic states wrote the report. There is also a difference between “initiating” (what they said) and “orchestrating” (what blog author said). There is not enough fact cited in the blog entry to allow any reader to determine what level of involvement they actually had in creating the report, so everyone is free to assume the worst (or best).

    As to “initiating” – I think it’s totally reasonable that Islamic states would initiate, as they would view it as a legitimate need for looking after “their own people”.

    I would similarly expect America, or any country, to try to sponsor human rights investigations into international events which hurt either American citizens, or citizens of closely allied countries. So actually, I see nothing sinister in Islamic countries “initiating” the investigation into what happened in Gaza (regardless of my views about the actual conclusions issued in the report). Let’s be reasonable here.

    I agree with one of the basic premises here however, that the process should be open, so that all are free to take into account any potential conflicts of interest when it comes to fact finding or conclusions.

    Finally, the last implication is the Judge Goldstone somehow lacks integrity. I don’t know if this is true, or not, since there are no facts stated above which would support such a serious implication. I rather suspect, that because author disagrees with report’s conclusions, there is a post-facto assumption that the process and Judge Goldstone must somehow have been corruptly influenced by Islamic sponsors. However this is simply innuendo, and not factual.

  • Justice Goldstone issues a line-by-line critique of H.R. Res. 867, which rejects the Goldstone Report as one sided and anti-Israeli. Justice Goldstone points out what he calls “misleading” and “factually inaccurate” interpretations of the Goldstone Report, including the charge that the basis of the fact-finding mission Goldstone led was to investigate Israeli activity. Goldstone says that the mission was to investigate all war crimes committed in Gaza during the fighting last December, and that the report specifically mentions war crimes committed by Hamas.

Comments are currently closed.

write essays for money