Informe Goldstone

Informe Goldstone

Fuente: Portal de NNUU sobre este tema.

Misión de investigación

El 12 de enero de 2009, con la guerra aun en curso, el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de NNUU al final de su 9ª Sesión extraordinaria, contraviniendo el artículo 12.1 de la Carta de Naciones Unidas, que requiere la acción previa del Consejo de Seguridad ("1. Mientras el Consejo de Seguridad esté desempeñando las funciones que le asigna esta Carta con respecto a una controversia o situación, la Asamblea General no hará recomendación alguna sobre tal controversia o situación, a no ser que lo solicite el Consejo de Seguridad."), aprueba su resolución A/HRC/RES/S-9/1 (en español) sobre 'Las graves violaciones de los derechos humanos en Territorio Palestino Ocupado, especialmente debidas a los recientes ataques militares de Israel contra la Franja de Gaza ocupada", en la que entre cosas reclama:

“2. Hace un llamamiento para que cesen inmediatamente los ataques militares israelíes en todo el territorio palestino ocupado, en particular en la Franja de Gaza ocupada, que hasta la fecha han resultado en más de 900 muertos y más de 4.000 heridos palestinos, entre ellos gran número de mujeres y niños, así como el lanzamiento de cohetes artesanales contra civiles israelíes, que han tenido como resultado cuatro muertos civiles y algunos heridos;

3. Exige que la Potencia ocupante, Israel, retire inmediatamente sus fuerzas militares de la Franja de Gaza; (...)

5. Exige a la Potencia ocupante, Israel, que deje de dirigir ataques contra la población civil y contra instalaciones y personal médicos y ponga fin a la destrucción sistemática del patrimonio cultural del pueblo palestino, así como a la destrucción de bienes públicos y privados, con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el Cuarto Convenio de Ginebra; (...)

14. Decide enviar una misión internacional urgente e independiente de investigación, que será designada por el Presidente del Consejo, para que investigue todas las violaciones de las normas internacionales de derechos humanos y del derecho internacional humanitario por parte de la Potencia ocupante, Israel, contra el pueblo palestino en todo el territorio palestino ocupado, particularmente, en la Franja de Gaza ocupada, debido a la agresión actual, y exhorta a Israel a no obstruir el proceso de investigación y a cooperar plenamente con la misión;”

El 3 de abril de 2009, el Presidente del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de NNUU estableció esa Misión de investigación (Fact Finding Mission) con el mandato de:

“investigar las violaciones de la legislación internacional sobre derechos humanos y de la legislación humanitaria internacional que puedan haber sido cometidas en cualquier momento en el contexto de las operaciones militares que se llevaron a cabo en Gaza durante el período entre el 27 de diciembre de 2008 y el 18 de enero de 2009, fueran llevadas a cabo antes, durante o después.” [press release of 3 April 2009 y transcript of press briefing]

'Jueces'

Los miembros encargados de elaborar el informe fueron:

• • Juez Richard Goldstone, Cabeza de la Misión, judío, anterior miembro del Tribunal Constitucional de Sudáfrica e Instructor de la CPI para Ruanda y Yugoslavia.

  • Profesora Christine Chinkin, Profesora de Deercho Internacional en la London School of Economics and Political Science; miembro de la misión de investigación de alto nivel enviada a Beit Hanoun (2008).

  • Sra. Hina Jilani, Fiscal del Tribunal Supremo de Pakistán; anterior Representante Especial del Secretario General de NNUU sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos; miembro de la Comisión Internacional de Investigación sobre Darfur (2004).

  • Coronel Desmond Travers, anterior oficial en las Fuerzas de Defensa de Irlanda; miembro del Consejo de Dirección del Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

Robert Wedine en Five Years Later: Operation Cast Lead and the Goldstone Report, Revisited (January 2, 2014) nos pone en antecedentes tanto sobre la Resolución de NNUU como sobre las personas a quienes se encarga la Investigación.

El Informe

El Informe de la Misión de Investigación, popularmente conocido como Informe Goldstone:

• Advance Edited Version del 15 de septiembre de 2009, A/HRC/12/48

  • en español; 

  • resumen oficial de dicho informe;

• versión final del 25 de septiembre - en español - que corrige algunos errores)

Para mayor escarnio, ese 15 de septiembre de 2009 en que se publica el informe, cae entre el Año Nuevo y el Iom Kippur judíos de ese año, en medio de los más sagrados Días de Reverencia, Temor, Atrición y Asombro de los judíos.

El Informe acusa a Israel de matar “deliberadamente” civiles palestinos durante la Operación en Gaza... aunque no aporta prueba de que Israel hubiera seguido una política deliberada de matar civiles intencionadamente. 

Declaración del juez Goldstone al Consejo de Derechos Humanos de NNUU del 29 de septiembre de 2009. La fuente de información más citada en el IG es la ong B'Tselem, a la que aquí dan un buen repaso.

Pero entre las declaraciones hechas a los informadores encontramos algunas relevantemente discrepantes del resultado del Informe, así, la del Col. Richard Kemp, como él miso recuerda en Former British Armed Forces Commander Speaks About the IDF (June 13, 2011), que reproduzco en gran medida:

“Although not quite a lone voice, mine was certainly a very lonely voice among the many dozens of speeches endorsing Goldstone and repudiating Israel that were made over the two days of that hearing. This is what I said to the UN Human Rights Council:

“‘During its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.’

“What was behind my comments?

“Apart from basic decency and humanitarian considerations, the commanders of the Israeli Defense Forces knew how vital to a counterinsurgency conflict is winning over the hearts and minds of the people, especially in a conflict where they could be sure that killing innocent civilians is exactly where the enemy would be trying to lure them to do.

“Because Hamas (like Hezbollah in Lebanon, like the Taliban in Afghanistan and like Al Qaeda and the Shia militias in Iraq), use their own people as both tactical and strategic weapons of war.

“They used them on the tactical level as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters, sometimes forcing women and children to remain in the positions that they would use to launch attacks from.

“Hamas used their people too on the strategic level, luring IDF troops to attack and kill them.Their own people. Deaths to be callously exploited in the media as a means of discrediting Israeli forces. (Exactly as happens almost daily in Afghanistan.)

“In these most difficult circumstances, the IDF commanders took unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties. When possible, they leave at least four hours’ notice to civilians to leave areas designated for attack, an action that handed a distinct advantage to Hamas.

“Attack helicopter pilots had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too great a risk of civilian casualties in the area. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and even unilaterally announced a daily three-hour cease fire knowing this would give Hamas vital time and space to re-group, re-equip and re-deploy for future attacks. (That, of course added to the danger to their own troops.)

“The Israelis dropped a million leaflets warning the population of impending attacks, phoned tens of thousands of Palestinian households in Gaza urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed in on in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts.

“But despite Israel’s extraordinary measures, a number of innocent civilians were killed and wounded.This was inevitable; let us not forget: Hamas was deliberately trying to lure the Israelis to kill their own people.

“Many have contradicted my assertion about the IDF. But no one has been able to tell me which other army in history has ever done more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone.

“In fact, my judgments about the steps taken in that conflict by the Israeli Defense Forces to avoid civilian deaths are inadvertently borne out by a study published by the United Nations itself, a study that shows that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.

“The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed.

“That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia.

“In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.

“This extremely low rate of civilian casualties flatly contradicts many of Goldstone’s original allegations, and the bleating insistence of various other human rights groups about Israel’s alleged crimes against humanity.

“And now, even Judge Richard Goldstone has changed his mind.”

…

“As with Operation Cast Lead, the tragedy of the Gaza Flotilla incident, one year ago, has been widely exploited as part of the conspiracy against Israel.

“There is every reason to believe that the activists on board the ship Mavi Marmara set out deliberately to provoke the Israeli boarding party into an attack that would cause bloodshed to be exploited in the world’s media. The Turkish humanitarian group IHH was prominent among the organizers of the Flotilla, and had purchased the Mavi Marmara for that purpose.”

“As well as being a genuine humanitarian aid group, the IHH is a radical Islamic organization. The IHH is vehemently anti-Israeli and anti-American, and has extensive connections with international jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda. According to a French investigative magistrate specializing in terrorism, the IHH played an important role in an Al Qaeda plan to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.”

…

“Many who should know better have stridently proclaimed that the Gaza blockade itself is illegal. But does not the government of Israel the right – no, the duty –to protect its citizens against the re-arming of Hamas and other jihadist groups in Gaza, which continue even in recent days to attack the civilian population with rockets, and undoubtedly desire to expand their conflict in line with the proclaimed objective of destroying Israel as an entity?”

…

“A central aim in the conspiracy of delegitimization against Israel is to give validity and justification to attacks on Israel by groups such as Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, allowing them to strike at Israel with impunity, and encouraging the view that any retaliatory or defensive measures by Israel are by definition disproportionate and should be criminalized.

“The more traction this objection is allowed to gain, the greater the instability between Israel and her neighbors. And the less chance of any lasting peace, the more that blood will be shed on all sides in the region.

“The most powerful weapons in this conspiracy are legal, diplomatic and media. Fundamentally we are talking about a war of words, words that are given unprecedented potency by the internet, by the globalization of the 21st Century.”

De hecho, las acusaciones del Informe son contradictorias con los múltiples avisos que de manera sin precedente fueron dirigidos por el ejército israelí a los civiles, por teléfono y sms, cundo sus residencias estaban siendo usadas para almacenar municiones, misiles y bombas y, por ello, legítimamente consideradas como un objetivo militar lícito. 

Por ello, el Informe Goldstone sirvió para recordar a los israelíes que si hacen uso de su derecho a la legítima defensa en el futuro es probable que vuelvan a ser objeto de una investigación internacional... con su correspondiente condena, cualquiera que sean las medidas que adopte para minimizar los daños colaterales.

El 3 de noviembre de 2009, la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de EEUU aprobó por abrumadora mayoría una resolución - la H. Res. 867 [111th] - contra el Informe Goldstone, cuyo resumen oficial dice:

"[The House] Considers the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" (Goldstone Report) to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy. Supports the Administration's efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations (U.N.). Calls on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose any endorsement of the Report in multilateral fora, including through leading opposition to any U.N. General Assembly resolution and through vetoing any U.N. Security Council resolution that endorses the Report's contents, seeks to act upon the Report's recommendations, or calls on any other international body to take further action regarding such Report. Calls on the President and the Secretary to oppose endorsement of, and measures stemming from, the Report. Reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel's right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors.

El 29 de octubre de 2009, el Juez Goldstone había escrito una carta a los promotores de esa resolución de la Cámara de EEUU.

En abril de 2011, informes derivados de los wikileaks dicen que EEUU hizo lo que pudo para abortar las investigaciones que llevaron al Informe Goldstone.

Condolezza Rice, ex ministra de AAEE de EEUU ha dicho al Comité de AAEE de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de EEUU::

“EEUU ha sido claro desde el principio, creemos que el informe era grave y fundamentalmente defectuoso, que sacó conclusiones de manera completamente injusta sobre las intenciones y la conducta de Israel,” ... "[la administración Obama querría] ver desaparecer íntegramente esta propuesta Goldstone”.

El 21 de abril de 2011 la embajadora de EEUU ante NNUU pide que se archive el Informe:

"EEUU urge a NNUU a que, de una vez por todas, acabe sus acciones relativas al Informe Goldstone".

Acciones de NNUU derivadas del Informe Goldstone

El 16 de octubre de 2009, el Consejo concluye la 12ª Sesión extraordinaria tras adoptar una resolución que apoya y llama a la implementación de las recomendaciones del Informe Goldstone.

Ya tras el Informe Goldstone, pero contraviniendo también la Carta de Naciones Unidas, el Consejo de Derechos Humanos sigue en esa senda aprobando las resoluciones A/HRC/S-12/1 (en español) y A/HRC/DEC/S-12/101, de 21 de octubre de 2009, y A/RES/64/10, de 1 de diciembre de 2009. Para actuar así se ampara en decisiones del ICJ, como la de 9 de julio de 2004, que sostienen:

“interpretation of Article 12 has evolved,” y

“the accepted practice of the General Assembly, as it has evolved, is consistent with Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter. (...)It is often the case that, while the Security Council has tended to focus on the aspects of such matters related to international peace and security, the General Assembly has taken a broader view, considering also their humanitarian, social and economic aspects.”

Esa anulación de facto de las prerrogativas que la Carta de NNUU reserva a su Consejo de Seguridad es criticada por Peter Berkowitz así:

To the extent that Security Council acquiescence to General Assembly usurpation has rendered Article 12 irrelevant, and the icj and the General Assembly have redefined war in terms of its humanitarian, social, and economic aspects, the Security Council’s role as the international body with “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” has been significantly diminished. Indeed, these changes threaten to leave the system of collective security established by the un Charter dysfunctional.

El 18 de marzo de 2011 se publica el Informe del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de NNUU, de hecho, del Comité ad hoc de NNUU de expertos independientes (dirigido por la ex juez de New York Mary McGowan Davis) encargado de seguir las investigaciones de Israel y palestinas subsiguientes al Informe Goldstone, titulado Report of the Committee of independent experts in international humanitarian and human rights law established pursuant to Council resolution 13/9 (A/HRC/16/2),  que concluye que "ha encontrado que Israel [se] ha [investigado a sí mismo] en grado significativo; Jamas [no ha investigado] nada", y cuyo sumario dice:

"This report is submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to its resolution 15/6, which “renews and resumes” the mandate of the Committee established in Human Rights Council resolution 13/9. The Committee sought to assess investigations for compliance with international standards of independence, impartiality, effectiveness, thoroughness and promptness. In attempting to fulfill its renewed mandate, the Committee reviewed numerous documents, reports and articles submitted by non-governmental organizations, and held interviews with representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as with Israeli and Palestinian victims and witnesses. The Committee undertook one field mission to Amman to interview relevant actors, including Government officials and human rights advocate. The Committee was not granted access to Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza."

En no poca medida, los supuestos hechos declarados probados en el IG son meras reproducciones acríticas e inadveradas de la información que le facilita la división de las autoridades de Gaza, esto es, Jamás, llamada “Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals,” cuyas inexactitudes y falsedades luego, e incluso antes, han sido puestas de relieve, como

Con Fundamento en dicho informe, el CDH dicta en su 16ª Sesión ordinaria su resolución, de 25 de marzo de 2011 (A/HRC/16/32 - aquí pdf con el borrador A/HRC/16/L.31, de 21 de marzo, revisado oralmente), bajo el título  Follow-up to the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (adoptada por 27 votos a favor, 3 en contra y 16  abstenciones: aunque parezca otra cosa, la posición antiisraelí recibe menos votos favorables de lo habitual como se puede comprobar por el resultado de otras votaciones de esa misma 16ª Sesión ordinaria del CDH). Dicha resolución requiere y promueve entre otras cosas, las siguientes:

"10. Also recommends that the General Assembly reconsider the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict at its sixty-sixth session, and urges the Assembly to submit that report to the Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action, including consideration of referral of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, pursuant to article 13(b) of the Rome Statute;

11. Further recommends that the General Assembly remain apprised of the matter until it is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken at the domestic or international level to ensure justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators, and also remain ready to consider whether additional action within its powers is required in the interests of justice;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to present a comprehensive report on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Fact-Finding Mission by all concerned parties, including United Nations bodies, in accordance with paragraph 3 of section B of Human Rights Council resolution S-12/1, to the Council at its seventeenth session;

13. Requests the High Commissioner to submit a progress report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Human Rights Council at its seventeenth session;

14. Decides to follow up on the implementation of the present resolution at its seventeenth session."

Para su propia vergüenza, especialmente a la vista de la Retractación del juez Goldstone, que expresamente reconoce "el carácter obviamente sesgado [contra Israel] del propio Consejo [de Derechos Humanos de NNUU]", y del propio informe del Grupo de expertos independientes del propio CDH que reconocen las investigaciones hechas por Israel y la ausencia de las mismas por Jamás, esa resolución también contiene este párrafo, que, al contrario, condena a Israel y guarda silencio sobre Jamás:

"6. [The Council] Condemns the non-cooperation by the occupying power, Israel, with the members of the committee of independent experts, and its failure to comply with the calls of the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly to conduct investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact-Finding Mission, and also condemns Israel's failure to ensure accountability and justice;"

Claro que el apartado 10 antes transcrito ofrece la oportunidad de 'reconsiderar' el Informe Goldstone a la vista de la retractación de éste, aunque no parece que vaya a aprovecharse. Artículo (5 april 2011) que se refiere a la situación actual derivada de esta resolución.

Algunos análisis sobre el Informe Goldstone

3rd Anniversary: Goldstone Report Hits Dead-Ends, But Far From Dead (UN Watch, Jan 13, 2012) - Un resumen y algunos documentos y análisis

FIGHTING TERRORISM: PERFIDY AND THE RECURRENT LIE OF ISRAELI 'DISPROPORTIONALITY' (Louis René Beres, June 1, 2011) - el profesor de derecho internacional de Purdue analiza el concepto de desproporción de las acciones militares.

The Goldstone Mess (Peter Berkowitz, April 1, 2011)

There Was No Goldstone Investigation (Avi Bell, April 24, 2011)

Judge Goldstone vs. the Goldstone Report? (Gerald M. Steinberg Special to WJW, March 2011)

Entradas sobre el Informe Goldstone en el blog de Yaakov Lozowick.

Controversial Judge Defends Human Rights At Stanford (Philip Spiegel, January 21, 2011) - South African Justice Richard Goldstone expressed his views on international law regarding civilians in war zones. Y en ella participa y debate también uno de sus críticos y también profesor de Stanford, Peter Berkowitz (los tres artículos esenciales de su crítica al Informe Goldstone - uno, dos y tres); días antes de la retractación tienen un segundo debate entre ambos sobre el mismo tema. Ron Radosh sugiere que Berkowitz ha sido clave en la retractación; Stanly Kurtz coincide con él.

Hamas admits it lost 700 terrorists in Cast Lead (Israel Matzav, Nov, 2, 2010)

The Goldstone Report and International Law (Peter Berkowitz, August 1, 2010)

Goldstone: An Exegesis (Joshua Muravchik, June 2010)

Fearful Asymmetry: Reading the Goldstone Report (James Traub, April, 2010)

Proportionality in Warfare (Keith Pavlischek, Spring 2010)

Response to the Goldstone Report. Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip. The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report. Versus the Factual Findings (The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, March, 2010)  (versión completa en pdf) - Informe bastante exhaustivo - Puesta al día de dicho informe (April 7, 2011) - Le Hamas a réagi à l'article publié par le Juge Goldstone en affirmant qu'il s'est soumis à la pression israélo-américaine (Meir Amit, April 6, 2011)

A Usurpation of National Sovereignty (Peter Berkowitz, February 10, 2010)

The case against the Goldstone Report: A study of evidenciary Bias (Alan Dershowitz, Jan, 27, 2010) - El mismo autor publica el 1 Feb 2010 otro artículo con el mismo título, parcialmente, pero de contenido algo diferente

Between Goldstone and Gaza, what’s one more zero? (Martin Kramer, Dec 10, 2009)

The Application of IHL in the Goldstone Report: A Critical Commentary (Laurie R. Blank, Emory University School of Law, Dec 2009)

Goldstone's Gaza Report: Part One: A Failure Of Intelligence and Part Two: A Miscarriage Of Human Rights (Richard Landes, December 2009)

The UN Gaza Report: A Substantive Critique (Dore Gold, Nov 5, 2009; an Expanded Text of Ambassador Dore Gold's Presentation During an Exchange with Justice Richard Goldstone at Brandeis University on November 5, 2009 - The language used by the UN Gaza Report, with its allegations about “deliberate” Israeli attacks on civilians, maligns Israeli society as a whole, for the Israel Defense Forces (the IDF) is a citizen’s army, an army which ismade up of the people of Israel. The IDF has always beenimbued with a strong sensitivity to averting civilian casualties at all costs.

A Careful, Critical Reading of The Goldstone Report (Yaacov Lozowick, Nov 2009)

Richard Goldstone v. Dore Gold Liveblog (Israel Matzav, Nov, 6, 2009)

The Goldstone Illusion: What the U.N. report gets wrong about Gaza--and war. (Moshe Halbertal, Nov, 6, 2009)

The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity (CAMERA, Nov 3, 2009)

An Open Letter to Richard Goldstone (Trevor Norwitz, Oct 19, 2009) - Con abundantes citas y explicaciones.

U.N. Council backs Gaza war-crimes report (Betsy Pisik, Oct 17, 2009)

Goldstone’s Legacy (Forward, Oct 14, 2009)

Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’ (Gal Beckerman, Oct 7, 2009)

Operation Cast Lead and the Ethics of Just War (Asa Kasher, Summer 2009)

Goldstone report: the rebuttal (Samson Blinded, Sep, 18, 2009)

Blocking the Truth of the Gaza War: How the Goldstone Commission Understated the Hamas Threat to Palestinian Civilians (Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi, Sep 18, 2009) - Detalla, entre otras cosas, abundantes errores en los hechos 'constatados' por el IG. - On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City. This study is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission. Reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity.

Opportunity Missed (The Economist, September 17, 2009)

Goldstone Report Endorses Unreliable Witnesses (Tamar Sternthal, September 16, 2009)

Palestinian "Policemen" Killed in Gaza Operation Were Trained Terrorists (Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi, Sep 13, 2009) - The human rights organizations which reported on Palestinian casualties in Gaza failed to mention the affiliation of hundreds of Palestinian security personnel who were members of terrorist organizations and who were trained fighters, thus artificially inflating the list of "civilians" killed by the IDF. Among the 343 members of the Palestinian security forces who were killed, 286 have been identified as terror organization members (83 percent). Another 27 fighters belonging to units undergoing infantry training raises this total to 313 (91 percent).

Web Understanding the Goldstone Report

Otros Análisis y comentarios

IDF Interview With Al-Jazeera On Operation Cast Lead (video, 2008, en inglés) - Entrevista de Al Yazira con el portavoz de las Fuerzas de Seguridad de Israel, previa al Informe pero que se refiere a los hechos tratados en éste.

Retractación del Juez Goldstone

El 1 de abril de 2011 el propio Juez Goldstone se desdice en grandísima medida  del contenido del Informe Goldstone, negando expresamente su previa acusación de que el ejercito israelí atacó civiles deliberadamente; lo hace en un artículo que publica en el WaPo Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes (en español; y video con la traducción al español), donde incluso reconoce el 'indudable' sesgo anti-israelí de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, para la que hizo el informe:

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document. (...)

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and "possibly crimes against humanity" by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying -- its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. 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.

(...)

I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

Tres semanas antes de su Retractación, el 9 de marzo de 2011, el juez Goldstone dio una entrevista de radio en el programa Forum with Michael Krasny de la KQED en la que ya anticipaba su cambio de opinión; en su minuto 48' (y más, sobre todo en el turno de preguntas) dice:

"I think if Israel had participated, some of the findings in the report might have been very different. And some of the findings may be incorrect in light of investigations that have been launched by Israel."

El 21 de enero de 2011, el Juez Goldstone participó en una conferencia en la que expuso sus ideas sobre la aplicación de la ley internacional a los civiles en zona de guerra - Controversial Judge Defends Human Rights At Stanford (Philip Spiegel, January 21, 2011). Y en ella participa y debate también uno de sus críticos y también profesor de Stanford, Peter Berkowitz (los tres artículos esenciales de su crítica al Informe Goldstone - uno, dos y tres).

Días antes de la Retractación tienen un segundo debate entre ambos sobre el mismo tema. Ron Radosh sugiere que Berkowitz ha sido clave en la retractación; Stanly Kurtz coincide con él; y Abraham Bell, otro de los participantes en el susodicho debate, también opina sobre ello.

Tras la retractación, algunos que apoyaron el Informe Goldstone empiezan a reconsiderarlo o retirarlo: Noruega (9 abril)

A primeros de abril de 2011 se presentan en el Congreso de EEUU dos iniciativas para que NNUU anule y repudie el Informe Goldstone. La de la Cámara de Representantes, promovida por la Presidente del Comité de AAEE, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R), sugiere condicionar parcialmente la financiación de NNUU a que se reforme el Consejo de Derechos Humanos para hacerlo más justo, efectivo y transparente. El 14 de abril aprueba su resolución (S.RES.138) solicitando a NNUU la nulidad del Informe Goldstone y la reparación delos daños causados a Israel:

"to reflect the author's repudiation of the Goldstone report's central findings, rescind the report and reconsider further Council actions with respect to the report's findings."

[Y pide al SG de NNUU] to "do all in his power to redress the damage to Israel's reputation" in the wake of the report, and to bring forth reforms within the council so that it "no longer unfairly, disproportionately and falsely criticizes Israel on a regular basis."

El 14 de abril de 2011, los tres coautores del Informe Goldstone, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin y Desmond Travers, publican en The Guardian un artículo en el que se ratifican en su informe inicial: Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war. A este artículo responden muchos, entre ellos: Goldstone’s Fellow Commissioners Say They Have Nothing to Retract (Anne Bayefsky, April 14, 2011; reproducido también aquí); UN Gaza Report members reject Goldstone retraction in the Guardian (The Wire, Apr 14); Loving the Libel (Ben Dror Yemini, April 15, 2011); y Goldstone Commission Members Weigh In (CAMERA, April 14, 2011); y An open letter to members of the UN Fact-finding mission to Gaza (Maurice Ostroff, April 18, 2011); y Honor Killings, Jew-Hatred & UN Think: An Open Letter to Hina Jilani (Phyllis Chesler, April 22, 2011).

El 26 de abril de 2011 las IDF contestan a la Retractación (informe completo en pdf).

El 1 de noviembre de 2011, el juez Goldstone publica un nuevo artículo en el NYT: Israel and the Apartheid Slander. Empieza así:

La solicitud de la Autoridad Palestina para ser admitida como miembro de pleno derecho de NNUU ha sometido a la esperanza por una solución de dos estados bajo presión creciente. La necesidad de reconciliación entre israelíes y palestinos nunca ha sido mayor. Por eso es importante separar la legítima crítica de Israel de los asaltos que pretenden aislarlo, demonizarlo y deslegitimarlo. Un bulo particularmente pernicioso y persistente que está volviendo a surgir es el que pretende que Israel sigue políticas de “apartheid”.

Algunos análisis sobre la 'Retractación' del Juez Goldstone

Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes (Richard Goldstone, April 1, 2011)

Reacción del Primer Ministro de Israel al artículo de retractación de Goldstone.

The Dry Bones cartoon was published on April 6, 2011

The Strange Case of Judge Goldstone (Peter Lavelle, April 21, 2011) - Al autor le parece que el IG estaba muy bien, y no le gusta su retractación... y califica la Guerra de 2008-2009 de unilateral... y repite falacias.

Goldstone’s Retreat? (David Shulman, April 20, 2011) - Sostiene que la Retractación no exonera a Israel sino que acusa a Jamás, como no hizo el Informe Goldstone.

Wiki Leaks and The Goldstone Report (Alan M. Dershowitz, April 19, 2011) - Un comentario a ese artículo y otros.

Goldstone vs Goldstone: The ugly truth about an anti-Israeli report at the UN (Trevor Norwitz, April 19, 2011) -

Trevor Norwitz, abogado que durante meses mantuvo correspondencia con Richard Goldstone, expone como el IG se convirtió en farsa.

Carta a la Defensora del lector de El País (ACOM, Abril 17, 2011) - Responde a un artículo de Ilan Pappé previamente publicado en ese periódico sobre la Retractación del Juez Goldstone, y lo hace de manera detallada y documentada, con enlaces a las fuentes que cita.

Judge Goldstone Shouldn't Be the Only One to Reconsider (David Harris, April 17, 2011)

NGOs and Goldstone's retraction (April 17, 2011) (video)

NY Senator Gillibrand : Goldstone report unsubstantiated and biased; Israel can count on the US support (April 16, 2011)

Olmert: There can be no forgiveness for Goldstone (April 15, 2011)

Campaign to Rescind the Goldstone Report (Chana Ya'ar, April 20, 2011)

Richard Goldstone’s Legacy of Shame Continues (Abraham H. Miller, April 9, 2011) - The judge can't wash his hands of the UN's rotten Gaza report.

The Goldstone Report: Behind the Uproar (Ted Piccone, April 9, 2011)

US plotting strategy to have Goldstone report withdrawn (Hillary Leila Krieger, April 8, 2011)

Europe Should Follow Goldstone's Lead (Daniel Schawmmenthal, April 8, 2011) - When the U.N. endorsed the report accusing Israel of war crimes, not a single EU country objected.

3 Things Judge Richard Goldstone Needs to Do Right Now to Right the Wrongs of the Libelous Goldstone Report (By Rabbi Abraham Cooper, April 8, 2011)

New Attacks on Israel Bring Goldstone Controversy into Focus (Jonathan S. Tobin, April 8, 2011)

Goldstone's Regret: Implications for Israel and Others (Tal Becker, April 7, 2011)

Sullivan: Goldstone Needed Telepathy to Know his Report Was a Blood Libel (Omri Ceren, April 7, 2011)

Battle Over Goldstone Report Continues (Alex Margolin April 7, 2011)

Human Rights Watch (and Amnesty International) on Goldstone Retraction (David Bernstein, April 6, 2011) - Abundantes citas de HRW y AI que contradicen sus propias protestas sobre sus posiciones relativas al Informe Goldstone y su posterior Retractación. - Y siguiendo con el mismo tema, luego escribe Human Rights Watch’s Iain Levine on Goldstone (David Bernstein, April 15, 2011)

Did a Private Meeting Prompt Goldstone To Change His Mind? (Larry Cohler-Esses, Gal Beckerman and Claudia Braude, April 06, 2011) - Se refieren a una reunión semisocial de Goldstone con un grupo de 10 líderes de todas las tendencias de la cumunidad judía sudafricana. - A la misma reunión se refiere MJ Rosenberg Dances with Goldstone (Matt, April 10, 2011) - Otras explicaciones sobre su retractación: Past Holds Clue to Goldstone’s Shift on the Gaza War (Ethan Bronner y Jennifer Medina, April 19, 2011) donde se sostiene, tras entrevistarse con conocidos del juez, que éste 'soñaba con el día en que pudiera a volver a dormir"; artículo que es contestado por The Harshest Accusations (Israel, Matzav, April 20, 2011) y The Mysteries of Richard Goldstone (Jeffrey Goldberg, April  21 2011, y acotado por Goldstone was extremely hurt by reaction to report' (Yitzhak Benhorin, April 20, 2011)

El video es una sátira de LATMA sobre la Retractación del Juez Goldstone