In a case where a prospective judge has an interest or a perceived interest (e.g. the judge has a business or personal relationship, with a party to the litigation or personal interest in the outcome), the judge should recuse himself. Otherwise he/she would be perceived either to favor that party or to bend over backward to appear not to favor that side. In this case, where Goldstone, who is Jewish and apparently a "Zionist", never should have agreed to sit. This is basic and established western (at least) law. I suppose that his ego, and perhaps his pocketbook, clouded his judgment. Now, he has to bear the consequences of his participation. How can the mainstream (at least) Jewish community feel comfortable with him in their presence? Those who welcome his decision should understand that it is tarnished by the implication that he did bend over backward to condemn Israel. What would Israel's detractors have said (as a matter of rote!) if he had exonerated Israel?
Three homemade bombs in Egypt's Alexandria wound two (AP)
from the article: Report: Zionist group bans Goldstone from grandson's bar mitzvah