WHAT GOLDSTONE SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED
Despite all your column inches on the Goldstone report, the JC has failed to get to the heart of the matter ( JC October 23).
Why did Richard Goldstone accept the job of head of the commission when (according to Douglas Davis writing in last week’s Spectator) as many as six other candidates turned it down?
Mary Robinson, one of those candidates, said she “felt strongly that the Council’s resolution was one sided and did not permit a balanced approach to determining the situation on the ground”.
Why did Goldstone fail to take account of the anti-Israel history of the UNHCR? Why did he fail to use his influence and widen the brief to examine the phenomenon of asymmetrical warfare, and the use by Hamas and Hizbollah of their own population as human shields?
Clearly Goldstone has an agenda which he needs to explain to a more rigorous interviewer. Teddy Graham Oakleigh Gardens, Whetstone, N20
Your extensive coverage of the Goldstone report has left me puzzled. I have no legal background; therefore, before I come to any conclusion about his report, I really need to know something about the context of his inquiry.
I would like to know how Judge Goldstone went about gathering his evidence. Did he, for example, take evidence under oath or use some other means to verify witness statements? When he looked at destroyed buildings, did he find out from any source why those particular buildings were attacked? Did he get any evidence from the other side of this conflict? After all, there is plenty of video and other verifiable evidence freely available. In legal terms, would the members of his committee be considered impartial or be seen to be impartial?
Finally, has anyone asked Judge Goldstone if he might, in his inimical judicial way, like to make a similar inquiry into the workings of some of the countries who commissioned the report. Edward Bowman Carlton Close, London NW3