Why are you posting me with a Mary Robinson quote about the UNHRCs original remit[changed at the insistence of Goldstone] when I posted you on a different matter entirely, namely the nature of Goldstones questioning of witnesses which you had claimed in your post were conducted whilst surrounded by Hamas operatives? Meo, are you having trouble remembering what you said. Take some gingko then re read your #52: "Goldstone talking to eyewitnesses who "saw it". Hilarious...when we know that Goldstone people were surrounded by Hamas murderers ... " Meo #52 I responded to that remark with a specific refutation from Goldstone on THAT VERY ISSUE that YOU raised. Here again for forgetful Meo: "there was no Hamas presence anywhere near the vicinity of where we saw people. There were malicious statements to the effect that they were, but I can give you every assurance that it didn`t happen. And I can assure you that if it did happen, I wouldn`t have been prepared to continue to operate under those situations. I would have insisted that they leave. And if I couldn`t achieve that, I would have abandoned the investigation." Judge Richard Goldstone Given with references, on #63. Even that quote [Robinson] appears outdated, seeing as Goldstone secured a completely different resolution to the original one Robinson appears to be referring to. Is that it then? Truly hilarious! Diversionary tactics alert!!! The reason you cannot provide any credible information that Hamas were present whilst individual witnesses were questioned is because you do not have any. However if you go back to where you dredged up what Goldstone refers to as "malicious statements to the effect that they were" you will likely find them in the credulous and disreputable places I suggest in #63.
from the article: IDF to release new findings defending Gaza war strike