Krauthammer blasts Goldstone retraction: Ranks with the 19th century ‘blood libel’ against Jews

Jeff Poor Media Reporter
Font Size:

When Richard Goldstone penned an op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post retracting some of what was reported in the Goldstone Report, which has been used to condemn Israel for war crimes in Gaza, it caused quite a stir.

And although such a retraction is welcomed by many Israel proponents, Fox News Channel’s Charles Krauthammer came down hard on Goldstone for allowing it to go this far and for the “excuse-laden” language in the retraction. He noted Amnesty International’s statement on the op-ed, stating more evidence would be required for that organization to rethink their stance on the Goldstone Report.

“That Amnesty International reaction is indication of how much the Goldstone op-ed is retraction – this weasel-y excuse-laden retraction is too little and too late,” Krauthammer said. “What he did in this report, the one now saying wasn’t true, the incalculable damage to Israel by accusing it — remember, the only Jewish state on the planet is accused of carrying out a war in which it deliberately is a matter of its policy attacks innocents, which was never true.

Krauthammer likened Goldstone’s original report and subsequent retraction to the 19th century attacks on Jews for blood libel and he said Goldstone has much to do to correct the record.

“In its 62 years, Israel has been under continual attack by terrorist and by large army and has conducted itself with more restraint and more humanity and more care about civilians and combatants than any army anywhere in the world,” he continued. “That’s what is makes the original report blood libel ranking with the libels of the 19th century where Jews were accused of ritually slaughtering children in order to use the blood in rituals. This ranks with that because it delegitimizes Israel as a war crimes state and once it’s delegitimized, it legitimizes all those who want to destroy Israel. He should spend the rest of his life undoing the damage and changing and retracting that report. A single op-ed is certainly not enough.”