Of course I concur with Bolton on what Obama should do. It's what any rational, moral, decent, civilized man would do. But I diverge from Bolton's analysis that Obama would do it, or that it is even in the realm of possibility. I think Obama is happy with the factually incorrect, libelous, anti-semitic Goldstone report. I think Obama wants very much to back Israel into a corner and ethnically cleanse her of Jews in parts of the Jewish homeland. I think Obama is an Islamist, and based on the teachings of his mentors, Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Mansour, and his advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski, Malley, Powers, et al, the Goldstone report couldn't be more welcome.
Obama is anti-Israel. Bolton writes, "the Goldstone Report thus provides a stark test of Mr. Obama's analysis". Just the opposite, Mr. Ambassador, it provides a jihad sympathetic President with the international legal rope in which to hang Israel. On this, he is not naive. You'd have to be living in a cave (in Tora Bora) to believe that.
By John Bolton
Joining the U.N. Human Rights Council was a mistake Obama should correct.
The U.N.'s Human Rights Council (HRC) voted overwhelmingly on Friday to endorse the recommendations of the lopsidedly anti-Israel Goldstone Report. The report, named for former South African judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the underlying investigation, concluded that Israel's 2008-2009 military campaign against the terrorist group Hamas was actually aimed against Gaza's residents as a whole. Thus it was an illegitimate exercise of "collective punishment," an extraordinarily amorphous legal concept.
The report alleges numerous specific human rights violations by both Israel and Hamas. But by attempting to criminalize Israel's strategy of crippling Hamas, the report in effect declared the entire antiterrorism campaign to be a war crime. Mr. Goldstone recommended that Israel and the Palestinians should each conduct their own investigations, failing which the Security Council should refer the entire matter to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution.
In the month since the report's release, it has roiled the Middle East peace process. An Israeli spokesman said "it will make it impossible for us to take any risks for the sake of peace," perhaps foreshadowing Israeli withdrawal from negotiations while the report remains under active U.N. consideration.
The HRC resolution endorsing the report's recommendations repeatedly lacerated Israel, leading Mr. Goldstone himself to cringe, saying he was "saddened" the resolution contained "not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report." A U.S. State Department spokesman conceded that the adopted text "went beyond even the scope of the Goldstone Report itself."
The U.N. General Assembly created the HRC on March 15, 2006, to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, which had spent much of its final years concentrating on Israel and the U.S. rather than the world's real human rights violators. The Bush administration voted against establishing this body and declined to join it, believing, correctly, that it would not be an improvement over its predecessor. President Barack Obama changed course, and the U.S. won election to the HRC in May. Mr. Obama argued that engagement would be more effective than shunning the HRC and attempting to delegitimize it.
The Goldstone Report thus provides a stark test of Mr. Obama's analysis. Predictably, the administration blamed the report's underlying mandate and its stridently anti-Israel tilt on America's earlier absence from the HRC when the investigation was authorized and launched. Yet the new administration's diplomacy had no discernible impact on the HRC's disgraceful resolution.
Although it will be hard for Mr. Obama to swallow, the logical response to Friday's debacle is to withdraw from and defund the HRC. Otherwise the Goldstone Report will merely be the beginning, next time perhaps with Washington as its unmistakable target.