Does Judge Goldstone’s “reconsideration” of the Israeli-Gaza War conclusions go beyond the issues raised in his Washington Op-E? Some within Israeli political/diplomatic leadership circles have seized it as an opportunity to reassert charges of systemic anti-Israeli bias. However, going beyond could have the effect of backfiring when Israel faces even more serious challenges and needs to be seen as responsive to new opportunities as well as risks. Goldstone “Reconsideration”: Opportunity or Risk for Israel? Israeli initiatives on several fronts directly borne out of Judge Goldstone’s “reconsideration” Op-Ed have been frustrated at the UN. Noting that Israel has recently faced a significant hurdle (or as Israeli leaders assert: “bias”) to overcome at the United Nations, why did Israel opt to try to raise such issues before the international organization? Was Israeli politics/diplomacy overreaching and could it backfire? • Regardless of Judge Goldstone’s personal “reconsideration,” this does not have any legal effect on a Report adopted by a standing body, the UN Human Rights Council. • Further, Judge Goldstone’s 3 other Commission Members have not, at least as yet, shared Judge Goldstone’s “reconsideration” - those that have spoken since have continued to express their support for its overall conclusions and substance. • Judge Goldstone apparently is also inclined not to withdraw the conclusions/substance of the Report as a whole, regardless of his reconsideration on some specific issues. “Too Many Regrets” Israeli President Shimon Peres in concluding his visit to UN HQ in New York voiced annoyance that Judge Goldstone had not apparently gone beyond a statement in an Op-Ed, but stuck to endorsement of the Report as a whole. President Peres expressed his frustration in the following terms: “Goldstone published an article in the Washington Times where he expresses his regrets on the tone and the conclusion of the report. Then when he was asked if he would like, you know, to correct the mistaken conclusions he says no, he regrets his article. I think it’s a little bit too many regrets.” (April 8, 2011 News Conference at UN HQ See Report - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/israel-palestinian-divideshimon-peresun/26155 ) The Goldstone Report was already a paralyzed document one that could only be moved by the volition of outside forces before Judge Goldstone’s “Reconsideration” Op-Ed. It was effectively stalemated eventually to be perhaps recalled in a historical context but would have little or no functional effect. The efforts of some Israeli Government leaders may have though provided a new impetus, and especially where Israeli diplomacy may have looked to employ Goldstone’s “Reconsideration” to interrupt Palestinian diplomatic advances. Palestinian Admission to United Nations? This fall, it is all shaping up to be a battle over Palestinian admission to the United Nations as a full member state. (Palestine now has observer status and is represented already by an accredited Ambassador/Mission but without a right to vote. Switzerland and the Vatican are others with similar observer status, but of their own volition). Lacking any other avenues to advance the peace process and Israeli/Palestinian political reconciliation, it is more likely than not that Palestine will be admitted as a full new member this fall. Israeli efforts to try to frustrate that on basis of Judge Goldstone’s “reconsideration” Op-Ed have served more to refocus on alleged Israeli violations of UN/International resolutions/law now and in Gaza two years earlier. (Arguing the facts and substance of such is largely irrelevant as governments and public have already well established and rather intransigent views. Issue is largely relevant as to context of providing impetus/blocking as to any diplomatic process). Further, Israeli efforts to perhaps employ Judge Goldstone’s “Reconsideration” could be counterproductive at least in exposing that Israel also has not formulated an alternative to a status quo in an ocean of rapid change in the Arab World. President Perez has attempted to frame Israel’s objections to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank moving ahead with full UN membership by suggesting that: “We cannot leave places in the West Bank without making sure that this Gazan story will not be repeated there. That this again will become a ground for shooting missiles at us.” (See Report - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/israel-palestinian-divideshimon-peresun/26155 ) This can be characterized as a valid consideration for Israel. On the other hand though Hamas is more likely to be strengthened under a lingering and directionless status quo. Further, in relative terms the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, as the rival to Hamas there and in Gaza, would face a catastrophe and discrediting if its trust in US, EU and UN peace efforts were translated into only one tangible consequence – admission blocked to the UN. There are many practical considerations, which Palestine will have to overcome in its ambition for admission as full member state, including matters of what territory is encompassed by its sovereignty. Nonetheless, it would not be a positive for US, EU, UN or Israeli longer term interests to appear to be frustrating not only the inevitable but the minimum in this moment of change and newly forming perspectives in the Arab World. (See our Interview with the Palestinian Ambassador to the UN – Riyad Mansour – Parts 1 & 2 -http://unitednationswebtv.com/films/movie/palestine-statehood-at-unamb-riyad-mansour-interview-p1/24296 unitednationswebtv.com/films/movie/change-arab-world-egypt-tunisiagood-bad-for-palestinian-cause-interview-p2/24298 By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Face Book – find us at “Diplomatically Incorrect” Twitter - DiplomaticallyX More Reports at diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_posts Including Part 4 of “Goldstone Report Reconsidered” diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/part-4the-goldstone-report-reconsidered-by-ambassador-mo/27105