Going on offense?Victor Shikhman writes a lengthy post in which he argues that the pro-Israel community must use Richard Goldstone's retraction to go on offense. I'm all in favor of going on offense, but I don't see Goldstone's retraction as being of much use in that regard.
Those who want to continue to use the Goldstone Report (the 'Palestinians,' the Arab countries, the United Nations) continue to use the report, and discount the retraction as having been brought about by pressure from the Jewish community, including Goldstone's ostracism.
Goldstone himself did not admit outright that he was wrong. He continues to blame Israel's 'lack of cooperation' for his report's conclusions. It's not like he's going to go on a speaking tour on our behalf.
But what we can do is to decide that we are going to view Goldstone's retraction as an admission that he was wrong, and use that to get a little aggressive. For example, I would announce that Israel will no longer accept any member of the 'quartet' as an impartial mediator unless they repudiate the Goldstone Report. That would place pressure on the EU and the UN to do the right thing.
Of course, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the 'Human Rights Council' will do nothing of the sort, and I would announce that after a date certain, Israel will no longer cooperate with them as a result.
I would consider withdrawing from the UN. After all, the UN is in the final analysis the party that stood behind the Goldstone Report.
I would also go after organizations like J Street, who used the Goldstone Report to sully Israel's reputation and demand that they either retract or face a boycott by the Israeli government.
I would go aggressively after the New Israel Fund and its constituent organizations that provided false material for Goldstone. Now is the time to go back to the original formulation demanding that NGO's disclose their foreign sourced money.
Hmmm. Maybe Shikhman is right after all. We just need to think a bit out of the box.