A debate worth noting

A story universally missed last week was the extraordinary debate that occurred in Congress in advance of a vote on a resolution against the Goldstone Report. It may have been that this story not seen as newsworthy as others playing out at the same time: the fallout over Secretary of State Clinton’s “whip lash” performances in Jerusalem, Marrakesh and Cairo; Palestinian President Abbas’ announcement that he would not run in 2010; and Israel’s seizure of a ship it claimed was transporting weapons from Iran to Hezbollah.
Then again, the significance of the Congressional debate may have been ignored given what appeared to be the lopsided vote in favour of the anti-Goldstone resolution.
It will be recalled that when the report was first released, members of Congress were quick to denounce it using, at times, near hysterical language. Since Goldstone had no vocal champions, when Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman and ranking Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced their AIPAC supported anti-Goldstone resolution, one might have thought that the matter would be quickly resolved with a near unanimous vote.
But that was not to be the case.
For his part, Justice Goldstone mounted a vigorous defence of his work. In an open letter to the Congressional sponsors, the justice offered a point-by-point rebuttal of what he detailed as the misleading and factually incorrect statements in the resolution. In addition, two members of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Brian Baird (D-WA) who had visited Gaza after the war, wrote articles and pressed their colleagues urging a more thoughtful consideration of the Goldstone Report. And the NGO community (including leading human rights organisations, Arab American and American Jewish groups, and a coalition of Christian churches) mobilised their memberships and addressed letters to Congress.
As a result, instead of a quick and quiet vote, an extended debate took place. At least 16 members of Congress rose to speak eloquently and passionately about their opposition to the bill.
In their remarks, the members: defended the integrity of Justice Goldstone and the report; spoke of the importance of defending the rule of law; decried the efforts of some to cover up the horrors that occurred in Gaza; and expressed concern with the lack of any open and transparent process that rushed this anti-Goldstone measure to a vote.