A position is only solid when it can be tested, when evidence against it can bring it down.

So I will here publish my standard for testing my position.

These are my requirements for accusations against Israel that I will believe.

1. The accusations must not be part of a series made every year but must appear after several years of quiet; the accusations must stand out.

2. The accusations must refer to international law that applies to Israel as well as to other countries and has already been tested and is not used for the first time in the case against Israel.

3. The time and other resources spent on the case against Israel must be roughly proportional to the time and other resources spent on cases against other accused parties. No vastly disproportionate amount of time and other resources must be spend on prosecuting Israel.

4. There must be some sort of evidence and not just allegations. Anonymous sources are not to be treated as evidence.

5. It must be understood that the accuser has to prove that Israel is guilty but that Israel does not have to prove her innocence.

That's all. Any accusation hurled against Israel that satisfied these five points I will accept as valid and worthy of further investigation.

The Goldstone "report" does not satisfy any of these points.

It does not stand out.

It does not refer to the breaking of any law that also applies to other countries and not just Israel.

It was not discussed by the UN and other parties in proportion.

Goldstone didn't provide any evidence.

The UN "human rights" council judged Israel guilty anyway.

Very simple.