While Goldstone defends his controversial report on many counts, he concedes to his critics on the central issue of whether the Israeli Defense Forces intentionally killed Palestinian citizens in its efforts to suppress Hamas missiles aimed at Israeli civilian areas. At a time when Israel feels besieged by democratic revolution in the Arab, Goldstone’s mea culpa will provide a measure of vindication. In Washington, it will disarm critics of the Israeli government and discourage those in the Obama administration who have doubts about the wisdom of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Just as his report had impact, so too will his change of mind.

Goldstone writes:

“We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

You can’t see he was misquoted or pressurized to change his tune. He seems to have been persuaded by the work of another U.N. commission, tasked with following up on his report.

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

Goldstone blames lack of Israeli cooperation for his initial mistake.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

Like it or not, this seems like the honest conclusion of a fair-minded man, and a vindication of the Israeli Defense Forces tactics. It doesn’t change the reality of the situation on the ground where Palestinian survivors can take little comfort in the conclusion that Israel did not intended to kill their loved ones. It   doesn’t change reality of Washington where pro-Israeli forces are dominant. It changes the reality of Israel’s critics.

Thus heavy moral burdens of the Washington reporter are eased. You don’t have to get familiar with the question of justice in Israel and Palestine. Just get your talking points and move on. On four key points, Kenner compares the South African jurist’s scathing report on Israeli Defense Forces actions during the Gaza war with Israel’s stout defense.

Guess who comes out ahead?

Use of white phosphorous: The IDF barely bothers to deny it used the deadly inflammatory that extinguished several Palestinian families in flames. If that isn’t a war crime, there’s no such thing. Advantage Goldstone.

Destruction of a flour mill. Israel says Hamas soldiers operated in the area. There’s little dispute about that. Do you need to destroy a source of food while pursuing armed combatants? If your war is just,  maybe. Advantage Israel.

Destruction of a water well. Israel says it had no knowledge that there was a key water source in the vicinity of Hamas command post. How likely is that? Not very. Advantage Goldstone.

Destruction of the House of Abu Askar and the Death of His Two Sons: Israel warned a Hamas commander to evacuate his house. He did and seven minutes later Israel bombed.. The family later returned to pick through the rubble; Israel bombed again. Two of the man’s sons, 13 and 19, were killed. Israel admits dropping high explosives in a crowded urban areas without a second warning to non-combatants. Israel says the two young men were legitimate targets. I am sure there are 13 year old Hamas militants who pose some kind of threat to Israeli Jewish civilians. I’m sure IDF commanders in Gaza hoped to kill them, knowing that non-combatants would likely be killed in the process. They didn’t care enough not to push the button. Advantage Goldstone.

Of course, Goldstone’s report deserves less cursory treatment than this crude scorecard, but Kenner has performed a public service. A complex and compehensive document, the Goldstone report poses that most poignant of questions for the contemporary journalist: if you can’t tweet about it, does it exist?