Justice Goldstone retracted the core accusations against Israel, confirming that the military did not deliberately target civilians as a matter of policy.

Retraction of the United Nations Gaza Inquest Findings

The allegation that Justice Richard Goldstone still stands behind the accusations published in the United Nations inquiry bearing his name is refuted by his own published admissions. In an editorial published in the Washington Post on April 1, 2011, Goldstone explicitly walked back the claim that Israeli forces intentionally attacked noncombatants during the December 2008 fighting in Gaza. As the lead author of the 575-page report commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council, Goldstone admitted that the inquiry had operated with incomplete details, leading to unfounded accusations against Israel.

Goldstone conceded that greater knowledge would have transformed the conclusions of the inquiry. The original publication had asserted that Israeli forces executed an intentionally disproportionate offensive aimed at humiliating and punishing civilians. In his reconsideration, Goldstone affirmed that Israeli policy did not involve purposeful assaults against civilians, recognizing that the nation possessed both the legal entitlement and the duty to shield its population from thousands of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza.

Evidence Concerning Combat Operations and Casualties

Subsequent casualty accounting and operational assessments substantiated Israel's account of the hostilities rather than the initial conclusions of the inquiry. Goldstone acknowledged that the casualty totals compiled by the Israeli military matched admissions later made by Hamas, which revealed that the substantial majority of fatalities in Gaza were armed fighters rather than civilian bystanders.

Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces deployed in Afghanistan, appeared before the inquiry committee in 2009 and testified that the Israel Defense Forces implemented unprecedented measures to protect innocent life within combat areas, surpassing the standards of other conventional armed forces.

Structural Bias and Investigative Disparities

Goldstone identified institutional partiality within the United Nations Human Rights Council, noting that the mandate initially assigned to the inquiry was inherently tilted against Israel. While he initially sought to encourage a balanced approach within an agency historically recognized for bias, subsequent developments underscored profound differences in how the parties handled allegations of misconduct:

• Accountability and internal reviews: Goldstone acknowledged that the Israeli government committed considerable institutional resources toward reviewing and investigating specific operational allegations.
• Terrorist criminality: Goldstone condemned Hamas for executing calculated, indiscriminate bombardments against civilian communities, emphasizing that fewer Israeli casualties did not diminish the criminal nature of those launchings.
• Refusal to investigate: The inquiry's lead author censured Hamas for completely failing to inspect or account for the crimes committed by its fighters.

Despite Goldstone's public disavowal, the initial report inflicted profound reputational damage on Israel, serving as source material for delegitimization campaigns across academic forums and public venues. The author's formal retraction established that Israel acted in lawful defense of its citizens and did not pursue a doctrine of harming noncombatants.