Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

The Case Against the Goldstone Report: A Study in Evidentiary Bias

50 Pages Posted: 27 Jan 2010 Last revised: 31 Mar 2010

Alan Dershowitz

Harvard Law School

Abstract

The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group. As Major General Avichai Mandelblit, the advocate general of the Israeli Defense Forces, aptly put it: “I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League. We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional: It’s a vicious lie.

The Goldstone report is, to any fair reader, a shoddy piece of work, unworthy of serious consideration by people of good will, committed to the truth.

Keywords: Israel, Gaza, Goldstone Report

Suggested Citation

Dershowitz, Alan, The Case Against the Goldstone Report: A Study in Evidentiary Bias. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 10-26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1542897 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1542897

Alan Dershowitz (Contact Author)

Harvard Law School ( email )

1575 Massachusetts
Hauser 406
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
528
Rank
42,869
Abstract Views
2,917