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

[GeoffP]

Retraction of what? That he is a liar, an antisemite and a biased hater? Or that he is not?

He retracted.

Will you?

Spoiler

No.

 

[S.A.M.]

Apparently one can retract without actually retracting

There was no retraction

OR

Goldstone to AP: ‘I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time’

However it seems that other members of the UN fact finding mission [missing the essential ziocaine element] have no such seesawing opinions based on personal ideological epiphanies

In an exclusive interview given to the Middle East Monitor (MEMO), the internationally recognized human rights lawyer dismissed claims that the op-ed article by Judge Richard Goldstone in the Washington Post (1 April 2011) would make any difference to the report. She said, "Ultimately, the UN Report would not have been any different to what it was".

Jilani, it would be recalled, served as the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders from 2000 to 2008. She was also appointed to the UN International Fact-Finding Commission on Darfur, Sudan in 2006.

Ms Jilani denies Goldstone's op-ed article expresses any actual regret. "Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move".

Looking ahead, she insisted the Report "is and remains an important report." She added that the UN Security Council now needs to investigate further to see how both parties - Israel and Hamas - have violated international law: "The UN cannot allow impunity to remain," she stressed, "and will have to act if it wants to remain a credible international governing body."

Although the fact finding report is often referred to as the 'Goldstone Report', the mission was actually comprised of four members. In addition Goldstone and Jilani, other members were Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science and Desmond Travers, a former colonel in the Irish Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

Meanwhile an essay on intentionality and motivations

On the vital matter of terrorist chickens

"The term intentionality was introduced by Jeremy Bentham as a principle of utility in his doctrine of consciousness for the purpose of distinguishing acts that are intentional and acts that are not.[1] The term was later used by Edmund Husserl in his doctrine that consciousness is always intentional... It has been defined as "aboutness", and according to the Oxford English Dictionary it is "the distinguishing property of mental phenomena of being necessarily directed upon an object, whether real or imaginary..."

The IDF is a sensitive, phenomenologically questing sort of organization...very concerned with "aboutness" and the "I" and "Thouness" of things. The Israeli army is the unintentional intender and to the inattentive intendee they say, "Fuck Thou."

Clear anything up? If not, don't worry. Israel's intention in regard to Gaza was to generally bomb, shell, rocket, and spray with bullets the entire area. If anyone intentionally or unintentionally got in the way, c'est la vie.

 

[James R]

SAM:

So what happens if your Jewish mother converts to Islam? And the kid is an atheist? Does the Jewish descent get flushed out with a change in belief? Or is the kid Jewish because his mother was born to a Jewish mother and was Jewish for some time? Or does the kid lose status as a Jew when his mother converts? If the mother is not religious is the kid still Jewish?

Didn't I cover that in my previous post. Try to distingush:

(a) Jewish by birth - if you mother is Jewish, you are too.
(b) Jewish by religion - if you follow the religion of Judaism then you are a religious Jew.

Quick answers to your questions:
1. You mother becomes Muslim. She remains of Jewish descent by birth (assuming she had a Jewish mother).
2. If the kid is an atheist, he is not a follower of Judaism. He may still be of Jewish descent if his mother is Jewish.
3. Jewish descent by birth is not flushed by a change in religious belief.
4. Yes.
5. No. I don't think so.
6. By birth, yes. The child's religion will, of course, depend on his own beliefs.

What happens if the Jewish mother marries a Christian man and the kid is baptised and receives holy communion? Is the kid still Jewish?

Yes. The child is Jewish by birth. He has, however, been baptised into the Christian religion.

What does an atheist Jew believe in that makes him different from a non-Jewish atheist? That Jewishness is conferred by mother's blood (unless she converts)?

Atheists in general do not share a set of common beliefs. The only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is that they do not believe in gods. So, there may be many differences between an atheist of Jewish ancestry and an atheist of other ancestry - or not many.

Hindus have similar notions of religion by blood [hence the caste system - ie cannot change your caste] and so do Parsis so its not a novel belief

And so...?

However it is anachronistic in the modern world. Most educated people recognise the fact that religion is not racially conferred but is a choice which includes being non-religious.

You're still failing to grasp the fundamental difference between (a) and (b), above, it seems. What's so hard to fathom?

 

[S.A.M.]

So one could simultaneously belong to the Jewish race and any other religion. Or any other race and the Jewish religion

Thats interesting, I must see if I can contact people who are versed in halacha

You're still failing to grasp the fundamental difference between (a) and (b), above, it seems. What's so hard to fathom?

How one can simultaneously be both Jewish and non-Jewish, apparently - its like converting into the caste system which is determined by birth

Do Jewish atheists believe in the Jewish race even though they lack belief in the Jewish gods?

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Anyway it's painfully obvious that the zionist apartheid regime of Israel has again succesfully managed to put political pressure on somebody to distort the facts.

 

[GeoffP]

Apparently one can retract without actually retracting

From the original article:

The 2009 Goldstone report initially concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed potential war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during three weeks of fighting.

We only hear about the one of course. But that just isn't so. From the op-ed piece:

That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Goldstone to AP: ‘I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time’

In the Post article, Goldstone lauded Israel for conducting dozens of investigations into alleged wrongdoing. In particular, he sighted evidence that a deadly strike that killed more than 20 members of a Palestinian family resulted from faulty intelligence and was not an intentional attack.

Nevertheless, Goldstone said, he did not intend to seek the report's nullification.

"As appears from the Washington Post article, information subsequent to publication of the report did meet with the view that one correction should be made with regard to intentionality on the part of Israel," the judge said. "Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."

Uh, except for that one you just mentioned.

“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,” Goldstone wrote in the Post. “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

:shrug: Which means exactly the same in your lexicon. I'd recommend you actually read the Goldstone op-ed in its entirety instead of lumbering well off the original to find a parsing that agreed with your preconclusions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Anyway it's painfully obvious that the zionist apartheid regime of Israel has again succesfully managed to put political pressure on somebody to distort the facts.

Yes of course, but that is not the main point.

Apparently, Israel is planning "Cast Lead II" and Gideon Levy believes that Goldstone has given the green light for it. I wouldn't want to be in Judge Richard Goldstone's shoes if his hasbara is used to justify even more killing.

A surprising and unexplained article in The Washington Post by Richard Goldstone caused rejoicing here, a Goldstone party, the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time. In fact, Israeli PR reaped a victory, and for that congratulations are in order. But the questions remain as oppressive as ever, and Goldstone's article didn't answer them - if only it had erased all the fears and suspicions.

Anyone who honored the first Goldstone has to honor him now as well, but still has to ask him: What happened? What exactly do you know today that you didn't know then? Do you know today that criticizing Israel leads to a pressure-and-slander campaign that you can't withstand, you "self-hating Jew"? This you could have known before.

Was it the two reports by Judge Mary McGowan Davis that led to your change of heart? If so, you should read them carefully. In her second report, which was published about a month ago and for some reason received no mention in Israel, the New York judge wrote that nothing indicates that Israel launched an investigation into the people who designed, planned, commanded and supervised Operation Cast Lead. So how do you know which policy lay behind the cases you investigated?...

Goldstone has won again. First he forced the IDF to begin investigating itself and to put together a new ethics code; now he unwittingly has given a green light for Operation Cast Lead 2.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...paved-the-path-for-a-second-gaza-war-1.354550

Will he be able to sleep at night then, do you think?

 

[spidergoat]

If he is telling the truth, why should he feel guilty?

 

[James R]

So one could simultaneously belong to the Jewish race and any other religion. Or any other race and the Jewish religion

What's a "race" in the sense that you're using the term here?

People of any race can convert to Judaism and start following the Jewish religion. I don't think that's controversial. Similarly, people who are Jewish by birth can have religious beliefs other than those sanctioned in Judaism. I don't see how that is controversial either.

How one can simultaneously be both Jewish and non-Jewish, apparently - its like converting into the caste system which is determined by birth

If the caste system is based solely on birth and not religious beliefs, then you're only capturing one sense of the meaning of being Jewish, while ignoring the other sense. I really don't see how I can be any clearer.

Do Jewish atheists believe in the Jewish race even though they lack belief in the Jewish gods?

I'm not clear on what you mean by the "Jewish race".

Certainly, Jewish atheists are often able to determine who their mother is.

 

[S.A.M.]

What's a "race" in the sense that you're using the term here?

People of any race can convert to Judaism and start following the Jewish religion. I don't think that's controversial. Similarly, people who are Jewish by birth can have religious beliefs other than those sanctioned in Judaism. I don't see how that is controversial either.


I'm not clear on what you mean by the "Jewish race".

Certainly, Jewish atheists are often able to determine who their mother is.

The problem is that "Jewish by birth" is determined by rules laid out by Jewish religious courts or Jewish religious authorities. So it would mean that those who do not subscribe to the Jewish religion but still follow rules of race as defined by Jewish religious laws.

If the caste system is based solely on birth and not religious beliefs, then you're only capturing one sense of the meaning of being Jewish, while ignoring the other sense. I really don't see how I can be any clearer.

The caste system is based on the same beliefs that the Jewish race is based on - that religion is determined by birth. While untouchables can "convert" to Buddhism/Islam/Christianity, they are still given a dalit certificate by the Indian government and are still considered as untouchables by those subscribing to the caste system.

 

[James R]

The problem is that "Jewish by birth" is determined by rules laid out by Jewish religious courts or Jewish religious authorities. So it would mean that those who do not subscribe to the Jewish religion but still follow rules of race as defined by Jewish religious laws.

It's not really a matter of "rules". It's a matter of how an individual chooses to identify him or herself. Conventionally, if you have a Jewish mother, you are entitled to identify yourself as being of Jewish descent. If you claim Jewish descent without a Jewish mother, then it's possible that you won't be recognised by other people as being a "true blood" Jew (for want of a better term). Suppose your father is Jewish but your mother is not. Are you Jewish by birth? The conventional answer would be "No". That is a completely separate question of whether you are brought up steeped in the culture of Judaism and of whether or not you believe in the Jewish religion.

The caste system is based on the same beliefs that the Jewish race is based on - that religion is determined by birth. While untouchables can "convert" to Buddhism/Islam/Christianity, they are still given a dalit certificate by the Indian government and are still considered as untouchables by those subscribing to the caste system.

So what you're saying is that the Indian government doesn't recognise freedom of religion. Religion is a belief; birth is a simple matter of fact. Maybe you need to start voting in some politicians who can tell the difference.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's not really a matter of "rules". It's a matter of how an individual chooses to identify him or herself. Conventionally, if you have a Jewish mother, you are entitled to identify yourself as being of Jewish descent.

Can a person born to a Jewish mother identify as a non-Jew? In Israel, the Rabbinical courts determine Jewishness based on the Talmud. Outside Israel, it is still religious rulings which state that Jewishness is descended from the mother. Why not the father? Because the Jewish religion does not recognise Jewish descent from the father. All people who believe in the Jewish race trace their beliefs to the Jewish religious laws on this issue - hence the lack of Jews tracing descent from the father.

The petitioner before the judges was Benjamin Shalit, 33, a psychologist and a lieutenant commander in Israel's navy; the respondent was the Minister of the Interior. Israeli law requires all parents to register their newborn children by religion and nationality. Though a sabra (native-born Israeli), Shalit is a professed atheist, and after the birth of his children—Oren, now four, and Galia, 20 months —he tried to register them as Jews by nationality but nonbelievers by religion.

Each time the Interior Ministry refused to permit distinction between Jewish faith and Jewish nationality.

The Ministry's reasoning was based on Halakha (religious law), which says that to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother or be a convert to the faith. Shalit's wife Anne is a Scottish gentile who immigrated to Israel in 1960. Like her husband, she is an atheist, and she was never converted to Judaism.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841529,00.html#ixzz1JBwk4wpy

Interestingly Israeli religious courts also reject Jewish descent by mother in case of conversion

One precedent for his case, says Shalit, was the court's decision regarding Father Daniel (TIME, Dec. 14, 1962), a Carmelite friar who sought admission to Israel under the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew who wants to live in the country. A convert to Roman Catholicism, Father Daniel was born of a Jewish mother. In his case, the court ruled that Halakha did not apply and that on the basis of secular law and the common-sense opinions of men he would no longer be regarded as a Jew.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841529,00.html#ixzz1JBx38Dxx

So what you're saying is that the Indian government doesn't recognise freedom of religion. Religion is a belief; birth is a simple matter of fact. Maybe you need to start voting in some politicians who can tell the difference.

Like Judaism the caste system is both a race and a religion. Regardless of their religious affiliation, dalits are racially still a lower caste.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Can a person born to a Jewish mother identify as a non-Jew?

They can identify as not believing in the Jewish religion.

In Israel, the Rabbinical courts determine Jewishness based on the Talmud. Outside Israel, it is still religious rulings which state that Jewishness is descended from the mother. Why not the father? Because the Jewish religion does not recognise Jewish descent from the father. All people who believe in the Jewish race trace their beliefs to the Jewish religious laws on this issue - hence the lack of Jews tracing descent from the father.

Fathers of children tend to be harder to identify than mothers; that's why the rule is the way it is.

.... Each time the Interior Ministry refused to permit distinction between Jewish faith and Jewish nationality.

You're telling me the legal definition of "Jew" that is used in Israel.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. If your claim is that Judaism is not a religion, then you are wrong. If your claim is that Jewish descent has nothing to do with being labelled a Jew, then you're wrong. But perhaps you're making some other claim.

Interestingly Israeli religious courts also reject Jewish descent by mother in case of conversion

Yes. Interesting. And so...?

Like Judaism the caste system is both a race and a religion.

I'm still not quite clear on how you're defining "race". In fact, you haven't defined it, as far as I can see. But I think we are now in agreement that you can be Jewish by birth, by religion, or both.

Are we done?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm still not quite clear on how you're defining "race". In fact, you haven't defined it, as far as I can see. But I think we are now in agreement that you can be Jewish by birth, by religion, or both.

Are we done?

Thats not how I see it. I see that Jews are defined ONLY by the Jewish religion not by "convention" or "self-identification" and hence all people who are Jews are believers in the Jewish religion.

I'm not a believer in the Jewish race anymore than I am in the caste system.

 

[James R]

Thats not how I see it. I see that Jews are defined ONLY by the Jewish religion not by "convention" or "self-identification" and hence all people who are Jews are believers in the Jewish religion.

Well I think you'll find, without too much trouble, people who describe themselves as "culturally Jewish but non-religious" or as "a Jewish convert to Christianity" etc. So we can only conclude that how you choose to define what a Jew is doesn't necessary determine how they define themselves.

I'm not a believer in the Jewish race anymore than I am in the caste system.

Fine. So why keep using the word "race" in regard to Jews?

 

[Tiassa]

It's an interesting question

So why keep using the word "race" in regard to Jews?

Do you think S.A.M. is somehow unique in her use of the word race? Her question is actually compelling. American antisemites don't give a damn if one is a practicing Jew or not. Indeed, one need only be presumed Jewish, whether for the dimensions of the nose, or if one has a Jewish-sounding name, or whatever criteria the bigot demands.

The idea of the Jewish race is important to two groups of people in general: Israeli supremacists and antisemites.

It's an interesting question: If one sets aside the religious consideration, what remains of the Jewish identity?

 

[spidergoat]

It's not a race, but it is an ethnic group of which there are many exceptions. I'm Jewish because my family is Jewish, but I'm also an atheist and think the Torah is bullshit.

 

[quadraphonics]

so it ok to make shit up to steal peoples rights?

Not what I said, no.

But what I did point out is that the entities that (putatively) possess such rights - nations - are themselves inventions in the first place.

no they don't. and its not about identity politics is about the definitions of words and facts. Your as ignorant of self determination as all the other suppoortes of ISrael's crimes. the jews are a religion.

You can say things like that all you want, but - untethered from reality as they are - they have no force.

and the very parts of international law describve nations as being the people of a terriory not some religios groups.

I'm not aware of any place wherein international law attempts to define what a nation is or is not. If you think about it for about 3 seconds, you'll realize that such would be ill-posed anyway: international law presumes that nations already exist in the first place, and deals in agreements between them.

wrong the jews are not entiled to self detemination in palestine.

Did I say they were somewhere?

I knoe what the language means.

I don't think you do. Maybe you just can't write worth a damn, but that's a distinction without a difference here anyway.

fuck you you don't get to repeat bigoted slurs against a people and than tell me to try harder.

LOL

when you and fraggle and quit claiming all poles hate jews than you can tell me to try harder.

Neither of us said that.

true but at the same time the recognizition remains that it was the palestinians terriory no matter how much Israel apoligist are anti arab people say other wise.

In what sense?

Geopolitical control of territory is determined by power. The world is not governed by any system of principled laws, on that level.

 

[quadraphonics]

Fine. So why keep using the word "race" in regard to Jews?

A rhetorical question, surely?

But, why is anyone still spending time trying to explain to S.A.M. how Jewish identity operates? It's been done over and over and over, and never produces any results. She obviously doesn't want to understand. A few minutes on Wikipedia would suffice, if she did. It's just an excuse for endless diversions and posturing - down to the basic stilted demand that whoever explain all this stuff to her, yet again. That sets you up as the Joo proponent, allowing her to play cheap revolutionary, see? And she evidently cares more about running that game, than evincing any kind of coherent understanding of how national identity politics operate.

At the end of the day, the fact that S.A.M. doesn't want to understand this stuff isn't a problem for the rest of us, unless we keep allowing every thread to become all about addressing her (constructed, bad-faith) misconceptions.

 

[quadraphonics]

It's an interesting question: If one sets aside the religious consideration, what remains of the Jewish identity?

About the same as would be left of American identity if you were to somehow subtract out the ideological component.

All national identities exhibit both an ideological component (religion, national mythology, culture, whatever) and an ethnic component. These components are integral: they cannot be subtracted out. The question of what you'd be left with if you could remove integral components is not interesting: it is meaningless.

To your examples: that bigots don't bother to check whether somebody is a practicing Jew before discriminating doesn't mean that Judaism is functionally a race - the judgements applied to Jews by said bigots still have much to do with the ideological component, even if such does get routinely misapplied. Bigots are inconsistent like that, as we regularly see here.