I had a hard time finding a response from the U.S. to the Goldstone report. No statement of condemnation from Hillary Clinton did I find. No presidential expression of “deep disappointment” with the viciously one-sided attack on our ally Israel. A friend dug this up and passed it along:
Reporter: Madam Ambassador, do you have a comment in either your capacity as President of the Security Council or in your national capacity regarding the Goldstone report that just came out.
Ambassador [Susan] Rice: I’ll speak in national capacity. The United States is reviewing very carefully what is a very lengthy document. We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the Council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report. We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view. And most importantly our view is that we need to be focused on the future. This is a time to work to cement progress towards the resumptions of negotiations and their early and successful conclusion and our efforts, and we hope the efforts of others, will be directed to that end.
How positively, well, diplomatic. You’d think that if a close ally of the U.S. were subjected to an attack that in essence is an indictment of that ally’s ability to defend itself—something candidate Obama spoke tenderly about—we’d get a little more indignation, a tad more articulate defense from the U.S. government. But no. This is the conflict-avoidance crowd. Israel vilified? Time to move on. And the notion that the UN Human Rights Council is the place to address this is beyond laughable.
I wonder when Obama will decide there is enough “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. The gap between the two is certainly widening with each passing day.