Is Richard Goldstone a liar, an antisemite and a biased hater?

Should his career be scrutinised and his previous investigations reviewed for false conclusions?

Is he an unacceptable authority to investigate war crimes?

Should prior mandates given to him be rejected because he is unbalanced and inept?

Has the report submitted by him on Gaza proved him to be ethically compromised?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but this thread should be locked.

Had you listened to the speech I posted, you wouldn't hold this view...because you would know that Netanyahu called for none of the above.

I've met the UN members in Israel...they're all Iranians, Saudi Arabians...and Muslims. They pick fights break laws and intentionally stir up commotion. Most people spit at them there now for all the trouble they cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say he did. I am questioning his credentials myself.

Should he be disbarred and kicked out?

He's clearly a useless and inept judge who has no clue what he is doing.

Everyone is rejecting his work as shoddy and substandard. Why keep him on?

Dismissing him would be better to avoid a repetition of such pointless work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're asking if a well known Jew is an anti-semite. You're clearly baiting for petty arguments.

 

There are many self hating Jews.

See Goldbergs report on Goldstone

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/on_that_united_nations_report.php

And a response to it here:

http://thefastertimes.com/diplomacy/2009/09/18/is-richard-goldstone-an-anti-semite/

So, what do you think, is he an antisemite?

 

I think you are.

 

What is your opinion of Goldstone?

Is he biased? Is he a self hating Jew? Is he inept? unbalanced? incapable of sound judgment? what?

What do you think the world should look upon him as? How should his work on Gaza be treated?

As the mutterings of a senile unbalanced idiot?

Or as the work of an honorable human rights judge with experience in investigating similar war crimes?

What will his legacy be? Will his work and honor be trashed or will it be given due consideration?

 

Valid and important

The question has certain validity. After all, even Israeli newspapers are accusing Goldstone and the report of anti-Semitism.

The report provoked furor in Israel, whose Foreign Ministry said it was "appalled and disappointed." Radio stations devoted heavy chunks of air time to interviews with outraged officials and critical legal experts. "Classic Anti-Semitism," blared the headline of an opinion piece in the Israel Hayom daily.

(Associated Press)​

I think one of the most dramatic results of the criticism is that, given the notion that a Jewish lawyer with a reputation as a Zionist wrote a report that is denounced as anti-Semitic, a lot of people are going to wonder what, if any, criticism of the Israeli government isn't anti-Semitic.

Now this is a problem. Because there is still real anti-Semitism in the world. And this sort of uproar only undermines other, genuine claims of anti-Semitism. In other words, Israel Hayom is encouraging anti-Semitism indirectly by complicating the consideration extraneously.

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Yisrael Hayom avers that "The UN report on Operation Cast Lead is classic, liberal-style anti-Semitism," and derides Richard Goldstone as a kind of Jewish Uncle Tom "who met all expectations. What is better for the anti-Semites than a judge whose daughter lives in Israel?" The author believes that "All sane people – as opposed to members of the biased commission – know that Israel did its utmost to avoid embarking on Operation Cast Lead," and declares that "The Goldstone Commission's actions are an additional step in Ahmadinejad's plan to undermine the legitimacy of Israel's existence." The paper suggests that international law regarding war is badly out of date and has failed to keep pace with terrorists' penchant for using captive populations as human shields while the terrorists themselves "are protected by the flak jacket of irrelevant international law."​

That's pretty heavy. The U.N. is facilitating "Ahmadinejad's plan to undermine the legitimacy of Israel's existence"?

That's a pretty striking allegation.
_____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Gazans welcome UN war crimes report". September 16, 2009. NPR.org. September 29, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112664856

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Summary of editorials from the Hebrew press". September 16, 2009. MFA.gov.il. September 28, 2009. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Editorials/2009/Editorials-16-Sep-2009

 

Yeah Sorry if I got a little emotional there. I'm incredibly pissed with what is being done to Richard Goldstone and incredibly outraged and saddened how little truth matters in such cases.

I am however not in the least surprised that the Americans are on the wrong side as usual; I would be majorly surprised if the report even made the news there.

 

Thanks SAM! I now understand the best solution is for Isreal to begin implimenting the "final solution" to the Palistinian problem.

 

Hadn't noticed

I don't know, I hadn't noticed.

One thing I would suggest—unsolicited—is that you preface or follow your questions with a little bit of detail about why. The Ha'aretz article you provided says nothing about anti-Semitism, and while most people who are even paying attention to the story are aware that the charge has already entered the broader public discussion, well ... how do I say this gently?

I think you and I both know that, around here, some things that we might take for granted if discussing the story over a drink simply aren't on some people's radar. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone remotely following the story isn't aware that anti-Semitism is on the table, but I'm obviously not imaginative enough, as suggested by at least one response in this thread.

Even if we stop to consider other factors that might affect people's perception of what you're asking, you don't do much on the front side to disarm the nearly inevitable accusations. And while there is an argument of principle that perhaps you shouldn't have to, there is also a practical suggestion that it is, to a certain degree, necessary.

On the one hand, it's to be expected, as it's sort of our agreed duty. To the other, there are many Americans wondering if we haven't gone a bit too far with it. And, of course, we still have our own homegrown anti-Semite/white supremacist faction that thinks the whole "Israel" thing never should have happened in the first place.

 

You mean I should not assume that the biggest event of the year is front page news everywhere?

Okay.

Basically, the stage right now is split in two

On the one hand, you have Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, who is putting his reputation on the line by seeking to impartially lay bare the evidence of what has happened in Gaza, January 2009. He isn't, of course, impartial. As a Jew and a Zionist, as a a trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a president emeritus of World ORT, he is someone who would not have been acceptable if he held similar qualifications for the other side. His bias is quite clearly towards Israel.

Even then, with all his inherent bias and his desire to make this report as easy for Israel as possible [according to his daughter, who made aliyah to Israel], the least devastating report he could come up with has painted not just the Gaza war, but the entire Israeli policy over the last two years as well as post war, as a "crime against humanity".

This is the softest lowest and least crime he could impute to Israel.

And how has this report been greeted?

This brings us to the second part of the stage, the detractors:

The US has concerns that it is unbalanced. Really? 13 Israelis [3 civilians including one Arab farmer, the rest IDF troops out of which 4-5 were killed in friendly fire] against 1400 Palestinians [including 452 children] is unbalanced? No kidding.

But of course the American logic is that it is unbalanced towards Israel.

The Jewish world has responded overwhelmingly by trashing and rejecting the report and astonishingly, omitting Richard Goldstone from any mention from it, with the result that unless one actually looked at other news sources, you'd never know that Goldstone was heading the mission.

Just listen to what prominent spokesman for the Israel Lobby has to say about it:

Really? The report does all that?

The Israelis of course, have made it clear with Yahoo waving the Auschwitz reports at the UN, what line of attack they would be taking

And there you have it.

On the one hand, there is Richard Goldstone, antisemite, on the other, the moral leaders of the free world.

An easy choice.

 

I know, I know, I know.

Perhaps a bit time consuming, but I hope worth the effort.

I mean, weren't you recently asked to provide evidence that Israel was denying Palestinain refugees' right of return? I mean, sure, maybe it would help to have thrown in a link on that occasion, but it's not like you made a particularly extraordinary assertion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is on the record opposing Palestinian return. Or I might simply say that if a supported fact is included in Wikipedia, it's not so extraordinary an assertion. (What? That's where I got those two links.)

But still, you were challenged to provide evidence of something that is fairly obvious. I haven't had to do that much lately, but it comes up from time to time. Frankly, I think if people took an objective look at the sources I list, every once in a while they ought to feel insulted that I bothered to back a certain assertion of fact insofar as they probably already knew it is true.

It happens, though. You think it's self-evident, or at least well-established, and there's always going to be someone who didn't get the memo. I mean, I've had to cite freakin' dictionary definitions before. It's how my posts get to be so long sometimes; I'm just covering the predictable questions.

Sometimes.
____________________

Notes:

Lapidoth, Ruth. "Do Palestinian Refugees Have a Right to Return to Israel?" Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. January 15, 2001. MFA.gov.il. September 29, 2009. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace pro...alestinian refugees have a right to return to

"Livni's mission". Editorial. Jerusalem Post. October 15, 2007. JPost.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1192380561934

Wikipedia. "Palestinian right of return". September 7, 2009. Wikipedia.com. September 29, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

 

I see what you mean, in fact I've already had a glimpse of that revelation which I disclosed here.

 

Returning to our regularly-scheduled program

And then wait until you get to the point where someone thinks the article you provided is the only one you read, or the only one out there.

But, getting back to Goldstone, I can only reiterate that accusing him of anti-Semitism hurts Israel and all Jews everywhere. There is enough genuine anti-Semitism in the world that I just don't see how crying wolf on this report will be of any help in that broader context.

 

Is that a serious comment? Because, other than this thread, I've heard absolutely nothing about this topic.

 

A major US ally accused of war crimes by the UN and a renowned Jewish Zionist jurist who also investigated Rwanda and Yugoslavia and was responsible for the Truth and Reconciliation movement in post-Apartheid South Africa?

Funded and armed with American taxpayer money?

With no response or repercussions from the US?

You ever wonder what your media's job is supposed to be?

 

Then again, this is America

How much international news to you follow? S.A.M. may well be forgetting to account for inferior journalistic standards in American news.

Then again, it could be the American news sources you're following. BBC World Service isn't the only team to bring me the news over my car radio. NPR has covered it as well. And as far as print journalism goes, so has the Associated Press (see my first post in this thread).

I just checked the Washington Post, and came up with five hits:

• September 16 (withdrawn or relocated)
• September 16 (staff writer)
• September 17 (Reuters wire story)
• September 17 (staff writer)
• September 18 (A section)​

At this time, the only one I can verify being in the print edition is the September 18 story; the World Digest, however, is not a front-page item. I would imagine the staff articles made it, too, but WaPo appears to have dropped its practice of including print edition page numbers with the online articles.

Out in the wide world that isn't the United States of America, this seems to be a pretty important story.

However, more to S.A.M.'s point, as I said earlier, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone remotely following the story isn't aware that anti-Semitism is on the table.

I mean, anybody is welcome to pick through the New York Times, or Los Angeles Times, or whatever, but my opinion on S.A.M.'s point is split. This is front-page news elsewhere in the world. But she appears to have overlooked the fact of American news. Either that, or she thinks highly enough of our journalistic establishment that she erroneously presumed the story was getting the same coverage here.
____________________

Notes:

Lynch, Colum. "U.N. Panel Accuses Israel, Hamas of War Crimes". Washington Post. September 16, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503499.html

—————. "U.S. Rejects U.N. Proposal to Compel War Crimes Probes of Gaza Conflict". Washington Post. September 17, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704278.html

—————. "U.S. Rejects Proposal By U.N.'s Gaza Panel". Washington Post. September 18, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704610.html

Charbonneau, Louis. "U.S. doubts U.N. report on possible Israel war crimes". Washington Post. September 17, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091702943.html

 

Not at all. I was there during the Gaza war, if not for Livestation and al Jazeera, I might have missed that there was a war [although to be fair, at one point there was some coverage and I even saw American Palestinians like El-Haddad speaking to her "trapped in Gaza" father on CNN, amazing!]

I merely overestimate other peoples interests in such matters, if only because the internet is, for now at least, a place where partisan politics cannot control what you know.

 

Flip a coin, maybe

Flip a coin, I suppose. I can actually believe that our friend Madanthonywayne has heard next to nothing about the story. The absent Mr. Chips, however .... I have a harder time believing he was unaware of the anti-Semitism charge. I first caught the story on All Things Considered, and heard discussion over the next couple days through PRI's The World, BBC World Service, and, even the Tavis Smiley Show. On September 19, an opinion column for the New York Times by former Ha'aretz editor in chief David Landau blasted the report. Even by the disreputable standards of American free-market journalism, the anti-Semitism argument was on the table from the outset, such as the Associated Press article from September 16 I cited earlier in this thread.

Frankly, if I can't give you the blow-by-blow of news stories I encountered over the next few days, it's because I can't remember them all. The story has gotten play, but not like you'd expect for something of this magnitude.

If, as many Americans do, one limits their news intake enough, it is possible to miss a hell of a lot.

There's no real question about it. Our media's job is to make money. And that's all it's supposed to be in America because that's the only important thing here. Yes, yes, I know. Fourth estate, journalistic principles, and all that.

One of my favorite stand-up jokes—and I'm going to go with Wayne Kotter, Drake Sather, or, most likely, Jake Johannsen; it's been twenty years at least—was about the AIDS drug AZT being derived from a compound in herring sperm. Something about how that decision came about: "Wait, wait. Has anyone thought of, you know, whacking off a herring?" And the punch line was that some poor sod in the back of the room was thinking, "That's going to be my job. God, why didn't I listen to Mother and go to law school?"

In the days of wars and rumors of wars, I once saw that look in the eyes of a CNN reporter, who attended Headline News in the weeks before Christmas to show off the latest in dog sweaters. Probably would have been '03 or '04.
____________________

Notes:

Block, Melissa. "Israel Rejects U.N. Report On Gaza Conflict". All Things Considered. September 16, 2009. NPR.org. September 29, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=112888846

Gradstein, Linda. "Israeli military accused of war crimes by UN". The World. September 17, 2009. PRI.org. September 29, 2009. http://www.pri.org/world/middle-east/israel-military-war-crimes1614.html

Smiley, Tavis. "President Obama at the UN General Assembly". The Tavis Smiley Show. September 18, 2009. TavisSmileyRadio.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.tavissmileyradio.com/guests09/092509/PhyllisBennis_JamieFly.html

Landau, David. "The Gaza Report’s Wasted Opportunity". New York Times. September 19, 2009. NYTimes.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20landau.html

Associated Press. "Gazans welcome UN war crimes report". September 16, 2009. NPR.org. September 29, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112664856