Cotler is adamant that a mandate is a mandate is a mandate is a mandate. Goldstone is adamant that that he only took up the job on the condition that he look at both sides, and that the council president agreed. Now, it is undeniably true that the REPORT ITSELF **does** look at the actions of both belligerent parties. So it is undeniably true that the REPORT ITSELF canvasses issues that go beyond its founding mandate. Braude point is therefore well-taken: 1) if the UNHRC accepts the report IN ITS ENTIRETY then Cotler's objection is moot. 2) if the UNHRC accepts only those portions of the report that DEALS WITH ISRAEL then Cotler is correct that the entire process is a farce. Good article, this one. "By arrangement with the Forward" Maybe Haaretz should make these arrangements more often; may I suggest you bump Moshe Arens to make the room?
Police disperse hundreds in brawl in Kafr Manda, northern Israel (Haaretz)
from the article: Will Goldstone's Gaza report prove him just a naive idealist?
'I am ashamed that I saw injustice and never did anything about it,' Reinhold Hanning tells German courtroom.01:17 30.04.16 | 1 comments