For over ten minutes out of a total of twenty, Richard Goldstone explained that Israel had a right to defend
itself, that Hamas had committed war crimes and that he sympathized with the sufferings of Sderot residents as well as all of Israel.

A completely Zionist speech. But let us not be mistaken about the man.

He is an eel.

He becomes intoxicated in front of the cameras.

He is always his own spokesman.

Particularly because he knows he has fallen.

Big time. It’s doubtful whether there is a serious jurist anywhere in the
world, who does not belong to the chorus of Israel haters, who would
take him seriously.

On Thursday, at Brandeis University near Boston, he was confronted
with Dr. Dori Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN. Gold is not
remembered as a great rhetorician. Perhaps this is why Goldstone
consented to the debate, the first since the publication of the report.

Gold appeared prepared, articulate, possessing excellent arguments as
well as excellent rhetoric. As is always the case in such events, most
of those present in the large auditorium, which was unable to hold all
those seeking to enter – had formulated their opinions in advance.

Even the students, most of them Jewish, who made a small act of protest when
Goldstone began to speak. But many media outlets were also there, as
well as those who had genuinely come to listen. Two such people sat by
my side.

They began the evening applauding Goldstone and concluded the
evening applauding Gold.

Goldstone was forced to grab at straws. How does one prove malice on
Israel’s part? He again quoted, as he did in the report, Eli Yishai and
Avigdor Lieberman who made some tactless statements at the time.

But it seemed that more than anybody, it was Yitzhak Herzog who earned the most
mentions. This was Goldstone’s secret weapon. Even Herzog said, he
repeated again and again. Herzog was against Eli Yishai, Herzog
supported an inquiry. Herzog, Herzog, who had become the ultimate proof
for Goldstone’s false claims.

Herzog did not intend to supply ammunition for Goldstone. But that’s
what emerged. Herzog ought to have explained that when there was no
other democratic country that supported the establishment of a
commission of inquiry – Israel should not have granted it legitimacy.

And that when the commission was not asked to perform an inquiry but
rather to supply a conviction – then there is no need to cooperate with
it. And when certain members of the commission, like Christine Chinkin,
determined in advance that Israel had committed war crimes – then it was
all a fixed game.

Yet Herzog, the national PR man, supplied ammunition for Goldstone.

I had three questions for Goldstone. First, his incredible discovery
of statements made by Lieberman and Yishai is praiseworthy. Thus the
ultimate proof was established, according to his distorted method of
reasoning, of Israel’s malicious desire to harm civilians. But how is it
that his prowess did not allow him to mention even one Hamas official,
and there are many, who called for the destruction of Israel and the
murder of Jews? And how did he determine that the house of the
Abed-Rabbo family, whose daughters were killed, was just an innocent
target that had been marked by Israel? After all, he can read
newspapers. He quotes whatever he finds convenient in Israeli papers.

And only the quote from Al-Hayat that reported that the house had become
a Hamas stronghold he seems to have been unable to find.

And how is it that Goldstone rejects basic principles of the State of Israel, but at
the same time there is not a single word, in the nearly 600 page report,
about Hamas’s anti-Semitic charter.

Goldstone was supposed to take reporters’ questions. But this failed
to happen. He disappeared immediately after the debate. These questions
arose during the press conference held by Dore Gold. Goldstone received
those questions in English as well.

We can assume he will not bother to