What the Goldstone report missed in Israel

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Regarding the Nov. 15 editorial "War unchecked":

The editorial declared that conclusions about Israel's military operations in Gaza last summer by the esteemed jurist Richard Goldstone were based on "scant evidence." But the editorial also parroted Israeli propaganda, for which neither The Post nor Israel has given any proof. How can The Post ignore numerous reports with mountains of corroborating evidence from widely respected humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the Red Cross/Red Crescent and Human Rights Watch?

I was in the Gaza Strip in the summer, and I can tell you that the Goldstone report was kind to Israel in its conclusions. The utterly incomprehensible extent of the destruction in Gaza would lead any rational observer to conclude "that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel.

Furthermore, the editorial failed to consider the sources of the present conflict: namely, the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine in the West Bank, the brutal apartheid system the Palestinians are subjected to daily and the illegal siege of Gaza being waged by Israel and Egypt.

Matthew Thomas Miller, St. Louis


© 2009 The Washington Post Company