Former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson has, with George Bizos, co-authored an article in defence of Richard Goldstone. The latter, as you probably know, was paid by the UNHRC, to write a report on Israel's "Cast Lead" Gaza military campaign.

Of course, it would be wrong to imagine that Chaskalson and Goldstone are thick as thieves. That would be totally impossible since they are both respected ex members of the South African judiciary. And even if Goldstone was an Apartheid Judge,he was never ever part of the system. He never colluded with the apartheid oppressor, and although paid by the state, he was effectively undermining it at all times. Tricky Dicky,I hear you say.

Now whatever you think about Ahmadinejad's UNHRC.... and whatever you think about the findings of Tricky Dicky's report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict... let me draw your attention to some facts that don't seem to bother the eminent Arthur Chaskalson.

Richard Goldstone did not draw up the report on his own. He was assisted, inter alios, by Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the LSE. However, on January 11th 2009, Professor Chinkin et al sent the following letter to the Sunday Times in London entitled:

Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime

"Israel has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.

Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas."

This letter was sent prior to Chinkin's appointment and prior to her investigation of Israel's Gaza War.

Now any idiot can see from reading this letter that Professor Chinkin had already decided that Israel was guilty as charged. So it would have been really easy for someone with Chaskalson's judicial background to spot it.However, in his article in defence of Richard Goldstone, there is no mention that Prof Chinkin should have recused herself. Why was it that Richard Goldstone was prepared to take advice from someone (Prof Chinkin) who had already publicly made up her mind?