http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/47497/foreign-office-still-backing-goldstone-report) that Goldstone's comments in the Washington Post are due to "the process that was set in train by his fact-finding mission" and that since Goldstone hasn't elaborated "on his views on the various other allegations made against Israel in his report," or called for the report's retraction independent investigations of claims against Israel should continue.
Declared the spokesman:
"Allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law made against all parties to the Gaza conflict are not limited to the Goldstone Report, and have arisen from certain other credible organisations.
We firmly believe that any and all such allegations must be met with credible and independent investigations by the parties to the conflict."There is a similar, amplified, report in the Jerusalem Post regarding Britain's perfidious stance. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=215275&R=R1
They evidently have a well-planned agenda.
The Jewish Chronicle (25 February 2011) carried a front page article headed "UK pushes for 'two states by September'", and as Caroline Glick observes in her recent Jerusalem Post piece regarding Goldstone's volte-face, the "denoument" of current trends is likely to be the recognition by the United Nations in September of a Palestinian State comprising the West Bank, Gaza, and all of Jerusalem but the western portion.
Continues Ms Glick, who justifiably calls the Goldstone Report an "eponymous blood libel":
'The fact is that while acceptance of "Palestine" as a UN member state will be a blow, it will mark an escalation not a qualitative departure from the basic challenges we have been facing for years.
Europe already claims that by maintaining sovereignty over its capital and control over its heartland in Judea and Samaria, Israel is illegally occupying the Palestinians' land. So does the Obama administration.
As we approach the September deadline, the question we need to consider is what the concrete consequences of Palestinian membership in the UN would be? What new anti-Israel activities will international organizations and states engage in following such a move? And how can we meet those challenges? In general, the acceptance of "Palestine" will present us with new threats from three different actors: the International Criminal Court, the EU and the US.
If "Palestine" is accepted as a UN member nation, we have been warned, it will join the International Criminal Court and file war crimes complaints against us. While this is probably true, the fact is that even without the prerequisite UN membership, the Palestinians have already filed war crimes complaints against us at the ICC. Although "Palestine" must already be a state for the ICC to entertain the complaints, it has not rejected them.
But two can play this game. Say "Palestine" joins the ICC. Even if Israel remains outside the treaty, it can use the Palestinians' membership against them. Both Fatah and Hamas have committed innumerable war crimes. Every terrorist murder and attempted murder, every missile, mortar shell and rocket fired is a separate war crime. And every terror victim has the right to file war crimes complaints against "Palestine" with the ICC prosecutor.
As to the Europeans, the fact is that they have already joined the Arab onslaught on the international diplomatic stage and they have already imposed limited economic sanctions. They have set aside negotiations on upgrading the EU-Israel Economic Association Agreement. Several EU member states have unofficially enacted trade boycotts. Britain, for instance, implemented an unofficial arms embargo several years ago.'Read all of Caroline Glick's piece here: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/04/richard-goldstone-and-palestin.php