The BBC website rounds up some Middle East press reaction to Richard Goldstone's rethink over Operation Cast Lead. Two comments from Arab papers:
The last chapter in the conspiracy started with Judge Goldstone succumbing to the Jewish-Zionist pressure on him and to the feelings of loyalty he has amid local and international conditions unfavourable to Israel.
One can only feel sorry for Richard Goldstone. His backtracking, under whatever compulsions [sic], is indicative of the fact that he has succumbed to pressure.
Marvellous, isn't it, how if a Jew is critical of Israel, her view is widely held to carry special authority for being the judgement of a Jew; but if he isn't critical of Israel, then you won't have to wait long for the suggestion, 'Well, what did you expect?'
In a part of the woods not too distant - you should read Jonathan Freedland in today's Guardian. He has some very pertinent observations about the UN Human Rights Council. You might also note the bit about bias in 'the academic, cultural and, yes, the media sphere', and then take a look at the editorial on Goldstone in the same edition of the same newspaper. This makes the point that there are matters yet undealt with by Israel, Goldstone's retraction notwithstanding - a point that has been made by others. Those matters need, then, to be dealt with. But note the balance: three substantial paragraphs on the case against Israel, eleven words about the charge against Hamas, and nothing at all about the nature of the UN Human Rights Council. I think it fair to say that this is about typical for the paper. Bias? Search me. (Thanks: E.)