In defence of Justice Richard Goldstone

The authors ignore the fact that the UN Human Rights Council is well known for its malevolence toward Israel. Most members harbor deep hatred for Israel, and wish for no less than its destruction. Goldstone should have been warned off by the refusal of several people before him to accept the job, including former Irish president Mary Robinson, who is not known as an admirer of Israel. She said:"This is unfortunately a practice by the UN Human Rights Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable."
Contary to the authors’ assertion that the mission found that both Israel and Hamas committed violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the report strongly criticizes Israel but the Hamas and its leaders are never accused of responsibility for terrorism and firing rockets. Rather, nebulous "Palestinian armed groups" are responsible.
One would expect that Arthur Chakalson and George Bizos, being lawyers, would immediately reject any judgment passed by a prejudiced court. They should keep in mind that the wording of the resolution establishing the fact-finding UN commission prejudged the outcome of any investigation, by stating that violations of humanitarian law had been committed by Israel.
Also, one of the members of the commission, Professor Christine Chinkin, has been a vociferous critic of Israel and said that it has committed war crimes in Gaza before any investigation had begun. In spite of that she was appointed to the commission.
It is clear that the UN Council targeted Israel and Goldstone delivered it. Which explains why Goldstone is being criticized.

Coming from the Honourable Judge Arthur Chaskalson, who was part of the cover-up at Quattro, this defence may need a little salt.

The two learned ANC supporters have omitted that:
As Chancellor of Wits University, Goldstone encouraged a racist admissions policy, not a good background for someone investigating Human Rights abuses.
He accepted appointment on to a Commission he knew was biased (do Bizos & Chaskalson believe everything they hear on SABC?) [See Amir's post above. That is why the Israel military refused to co-operate]
Goldstone was subsequently forced to admit that (apart from hearing evidence from only one side) the evidence they heard would not stand up in court. Making a judgement based on hostile, unreliable witnesses means Goldstone was either incompetent or biased. Perhaps his two cronies will explain which.

Methinks he was following Stalin or Goebbels more closely than his privileged legal training.

This article is long overdue. I find it so disgusting the way people have been deciminating Judge Goldstones reputation for what partaking in an investigation of human rights. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't from the start. It is simply a concerted attack to discredit someone who in a balanced and fair way made some startling discoveries that Israel would have preferred to cover up.
Thank you Judge Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.

dgement was a prefixed one that he was gonna punish one side and ignore the other side.

Just like in South Africa and the rest of the Continent the same out there where the downtrodden suffered more in the hands of their liberators than oppressors.

In South Africa operatives handed themselves over to the Boers because they didn`t want t go back because of the attrocities they have seen there and not knowing if when they return will they not be thrown in those notorious exile prison Palestinians are running to South Africa from Hizbollah and Hamas than the Israeli forces and it was a great ommision for him not to investigate as to if the suicide bombers were volunteers or forced operatives.