Commentant la rétractation du juge
Richard Goldstone, le CCLJ (Centre Communautaire Laïc Juif, belge francophone),
sous la plume d'Ouri Wésoly se moque de la réaction les Juifs, qu'il qualifie de droite. Rappelons que le CCLJ a toujours défendu le Rapport Goldstone tout comme il défend bec et ongles
Charles Enderlin et sa version de
l'affaire al Durah. Extraits:
"Dans un texte, qui avait fait scandale dans le monde juif à l’époque, le juge accusait tant Israël que le Hamas de crimes de guerre et/ou contre l'humanité durant l’opération «Plomb durci» (déc. 2008-janv. 2009). Il vient d’exonérer Israël d’avoir délibérément pris des civils pour cible. C’est une bonne nouvelle. Petite mais bonne: le juge Goldstone, auteur d’un rapport de l’ONU sur l’opération «Plomb durci» lancée par Israël début 2009 contre la bande de Gaza est revenu sur une partie de ses propos. Il n’accuse plus l’Etat juif d’avoir attaqué volontairement des non-combattants. Une évolution due aux enquêtes menées par Israël sur 400 de ces accusations [...].
La nouvelle a bien sûr fait hululer d’enthousiasme nos amis de droite, en Israël comme en diaspora. Après avoir roulé dans la boue le juge et l’avoir traité sur tous les tons de menteur, ils découvrent tout à coup, que chacun des mots qu’il vient d’écrire sont corrects, justes et véridiques."
La violence et le mépris de ce texte paru dans un site communautaire juif est à mettre en parallèle avec celui, lucide, de
Jonathan Freedland, journaliste, juif également et de gauche,
The Guardian, quotodien britannique de gauche et connu pour ses positions critiques d'Israël, mais ce qui est un comble plus modérées que la ligne des JCALListes du CCLJ. Extraits:
Where's the Goldstone report into Sri Lanka, Congo, Darfur – or Britain? The Arab spring proves that Israel is not even the biggest issue in the Middle East – yet it gets all the attention
"That particular battle has been reignited by the op-ed piece the judge wrote last week in the Washington Post "reconsidering" his own report and withdrawing what had been his most devastating finding. Goldstone wrote that the latest evidence
"indicate[s] that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy".
The import of that sentence can hardly be exaggerated. His original suggestion that Israel had been guilty of
"wilful killings" of
"protected persons" had been received as the most damning indictment possible, an international mark of
Cain on Israel's forehead. Anti-Israel activists had seized on it; many Israel supporters branded Goldstone a traitor, ignoring his own description of himself as a proud Zionist. [...]
For who was it that commissioned Goldstone and his team to look into Gaza? It was the UN Human Rights Council. That sounds like an eminently respectable body – until you look at its record. A 2010 analysis showed that very nearly half of all the resolutions it had passed related to Israel: 32 out of 67. And guess which country is the only one to be under permanent review, on the agenda for every single meeting? Israel. There is only one rapporteur whose mandate never expires. No, it's not the person charged with probing Belarus, North Korea or Saudi Arabia, despite the hideous human rights records of those nations. It is Israel. The UNHRC, whose predecessor body was once, laughably, chaired by Libya, had originally asked Goldstone to probe just one side of the Gaza war: it was only the judge's own insistence that he investigate Hamas too that widened his remit. No wonder Goldstone says now of the body he served that its "history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted".
We can laugh at an organisation so potty it would put a murderous tyrant like
Muammar Gaddafi in charge of monitoring human rights around the globe. But in its belief that no country in the world behaves worse or matters more, a belief expressed by the sheer volume of attention it pays to Israel, it reflects a view that is alarmingly widespread.
.jpg)
