Dershowitz: Goldstone is a traitor to the Jewish people

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Prominent political commentator Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday.

Dershowitz and Goldstone have been colleagues and close friends for many years before the UN Gaza probe, but once Goldstone published his report the ties between the two were severed. "The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man," Dershowitz said.

In an interview with Army Radio, Dershowitz said he is appalled by the report and can't fathom how it could have been written by a Jew. He said it is as if a Jew would have written the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that the jurist is using the fact that his last name is 'Goldstone' to substantiate the report's defamation against the Jewish people."

<snip>

"Former minister and Meretz chairwoman Shulamit Aloni responded to Dershowitz's comments, saying that Goldstone is far from a traitor. "Dershowitz's statements border on hate. Goldstone is a Zionist Jew who was simply doing his job," Aloni told Army Radio.

Aloni further went on to say that Dershowitz is a despicable man who opposes the left and supports the settlers. "His opinion doesn't count in my eyes, and the way he speaks of Goldstone is disgraceful," Aloni said."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146392.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Dershowitz is and always has been a self-serving piece of crap

His statements against Goldstone only enhance Goldstone's reputation in my mind.

[TomClash]

2. Deshowitz is engaging in anti-semitism

. . . among other things. When is ADL going to call him on it? Oh, I forgot . . . never mind . . . he's a member of "our crowd." That means he's immune.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Screw the ad hominum attacks, Counselor. Are Goldstone's contentions valid and true?

[shira]

9. they're not valid and true....they're willful distortions and here is the latest example

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/01/goldstone_ignores_his_own_evid.html

[Tripmann]

10. LOL, CAMERA! the pro-israeli group

Brilliant.

Wanna throw in a quote from an american comic for completeness sake?

[shira]

11. (edited) CAMERA nailed this one. Look at UNITAR's work and Mr. Hamada's testimony

Hamada's testimony (he was Goldstone's #1 witness) can be found in the 1st comment under the CAMERA article.

Simply put, Goldstone claims the IAF fired deliberately at the mill to punish Gazans and take away a source of sustenance for them. The fact is, the attack at the mill happened one week later and it was tank fire, not Apache missile strikes. The dead accounted for in that area were confirmed by PCHR to be all militants. Goldstone ignored UNITAR's findings (which he commissioned) and also ignored Mr. Hamada's testimony that is on record (about the tanks). The evidence wasn't juicy enough for Goldstone, evidently.

This episode has been repeatedly used by Goldstone as one of the prime examples of Israel's deliberate policy of harming civilians and their infrastructure.

I remind you that Goldstone's team concluded that Israel's war on Hamas had nothing to do with defense against rockets. Goldstone says that was only an excuse for Israel to attack and punish the people of Gaza.

There is no defending what Goldstone has done with this report.

[Tripmann]

12. I hope you understand shira

When you post an article from a group whose sole purpose is to discredit anything that paints Israel in a bad light, you have already shown an inability to make your case.

You may as well be quoting glen beck as proof obama hates america.

[shira]

14. if you're a true believer, no amount of evidence will be enough for you

You'll have to do better than attacking the messenger.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. When yr a True Beleiver, the most idiotic bullshit becomes *evidence*...

Wow, out of retirement already? That was really quick!

btw, did you happen to notice this? I'd like to see how someone who invested so much energy in insisting Israel did nothing wrong with its use of WP could spin this to give it a nice, shiny glow...


Israel: 2 IDF officers endangered human life in Gaza with white phosphorous use

An Israel Defense Forces brigadier general and another officer with the rank of colonel endangered human life during last year's military campaign in the Gaza Strip by firing white phosphorous munitions in the direction of a compound run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the Israeli government says.

The finding aknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations. It was contained in a report that the government provided to the United Nations over the weekend in response to last September's Goldstone Commission report.

Gaza Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka, were the subject of disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorus shells that endangered human life, the Israeli government report said.

The incident in question occurred on January 15 of last year, two days before the end of Operation Cast Lead, in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa, at a time when the Givati brigade and other Israeli forces were in the area.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146638.html

[shira]

34. Btselem's Jessica Montell & Yael Stein say Goldstone's main conclusion is nonsense

Montell:
"THE GOLDSTONE Report is unsettling. I was disturbed by the framing of Israel's military operation as part of "an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience."

Stein:
"Virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group BTselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack of civilian infrastructure, said Yael Stein, research director of BTselem. It is not convincing."

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Gosh, I hope Israel drops the nonsense charges against those soldiers!1 !

Quick! Send the Israeli govt a link to that 'goldstonereport.org' nonsense yr posting from! That will force them to drop those charges! See, that's the thing. Taking a completely out of context quote that says something generally has nothing to do with what yr replying to, seeing as how what I posted isn't about the goldstone report, but about in this case, Israel charging two soldiers with a crime, and in the other, the UN finding a shell that disproves the claims of the IDF...

But while we're on the subject of that 'quote' from Jessica Montell, why aren't you posting it so it's in context? What she actually said was very different altogether. I do consider those like 'goldstonereport.org' and anyone who continues to use that out of context quote after reading what she said in its entirety to be completely dishonest individuals....

The Goldstone Report on Gaza

Executive Director of B'Tselem
Posted: October 1, 2009 01:08 PM

JERUSALEM - For Jews around the world, the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur is the season of soul-searching, where we ask forgiveness both from God and from our fellow human beings for sins large and small. But this year the Jewish holiday season came just as the UN issued a scathing report on Israel's recent military operation in the Gaza Strip. And so, my government's representatives around the globe have turned the tradition upside-down; rather than taking responsibility and making amends, they spent the past ten days deflecting all accusation of wrongdoing.

The UN fact-finding mission headed by Richard Goldstone found that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes in last winter's military operation in Gaza. The report calls on both sides to launch criminal investigations into these allegations and to hold accountable anyone found to have committed these crimes. If either side fails to do so, the mission has requested various UN bodies to take measures to ensure such accountability.

Israel's response is a categorical condemnation of the report as biased and one-sided (Hamas has made a similar condemnation). Government spokespeople and major Jewish organizations claim the report is so fundamentally flawed as to be useless, or worse, a blood libel. The U.S. also criticized the report, dismissing calls for any serious international follow-up.

The full-throated, unequivocal denouncement is unsubstantiated: Israel claims the report ignores eight years of Hamas rocket fire at Southern Israel, though the report firmly denounces these attacks, calling them war crimes. Israel points to the one-sided mandate formulated by the UN Human Rights Council, though we know that Justice Goldstone accepted the offer to head the inquiry only on condition that its mandate was explicitly expanded to include all sides.

This is not to say that the report has no faults. I was disturbed by the framing of Israel's military operation as part of "an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience." The facts presented in the report itself would not seem to support such a far-reaching conclusion. In light of the sweeping conclusions regarding Israel, the very careful phrasing regarding Hamas abuses is particularly conspicuous. The mission did not find conclusive evidence regarding Hamas' use of mosques and civilian buildings for military purposes, nor does it criticize Hamas' firing from and shielding themselves within civilian areas. The evidence accumulated over the past eight months regarding both these phenomenon cannot be ignored.

Yet these lacunae are an indictment of Israel as much as of the UN report. Justice Goldstone all but begged Israel to cooperate with the mission and provide all the information it has to make its case. Israel refused, thereby dooming the report to a perhaps inevitable blind spot. I cannot avoid the feeling that Israel actually prefers this emphatically harsh, yet flawed report. Israel's generals and legal advisors will never acknowledge it publicly, but they must know their conduct in the Gaza operation did not accord with international requirements. This would also be reflected in the more measured, nuanced report that would have resulted from Israeli cooperation. Yet such a report would be much harder to denounce.

All the tendentious mudslinging and the more grounded criticism cannot delegitimize the report's central recommendation: that Israel itself must conduct credible investigations into its own conduct. The whole international system is based on the premise that justice should be done at home. Only in cases where there is no possibility of obtaining a domestic remedy does the international community step in to fill the vacuum. The Goldstone report reiterates this premise.

For months the Israeli human rights community has urged Israel to open credible, independent investigations into the hundreds of allegations of military misconduct. Israel has stubbornly refused, largely making do with military debriefings that categorically absolve Israeli forces of any wrongdoing. Only a handful of military police investigations have been opened, and the one criminal investigation to be concluded is the exception that proves the rule. A soldier in the Givati brigade was tried, convicted and sentenced -- for stealing a credit card.

After eight months of lobbying and advocacy, eight months in which B'Tselem sent dozens of cases to Israeli law enforcement officials, I must conclude that left to its own devices, Israel would never conduct the necessary investigations. Such an outcome is intolerable for the Palestinian residents of Gaza, who have no redress for all that they suffered. It is also harmful for Israeli society which has a right to know what was done in its name, and for Israeli democracy. And it is extremely damaging for the international legal system if such a high-profile case can be ignored. Under the circumstances, the international community cannot let this scenario occur.

So Israel now has a choice. It can continue to shoot the messenger and bury its head in the sand, hoping despite all signs to the contrary that this whole controversy will somehow disappear. Or it can initiate a genuine process of truth-telling and taking responsibility. Such a process may well be painful, but we will emerge stronger and healthier for it. As a friend and crucial supporter, the United States should not dismiss the report out of hand but rather encourage Israel to conduct serious investigations.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-montell/the-goldstone-report-on-g_b_306500.html

[shira]

38. claiming some of Israel's troops were careless and claiming they were ordered to punish Gazans....

...as some sort of pre-determined plot by Israel's highest leadership are 2 completely different issues.

Goldstone's main conclusion is considered false, not only by Montell, but by Yael Stein who was even more specific about no one in Israel (whether in Btselem or BreakingTheSilence) taking Goldstone's main conclusion seriously. If the main conclusion of the report is false, what does that say about the rest of the report? Yeah, that's right - it's shit.

Montell also mentioned that Goldstone was wrong on Hamas' human shields.

The fact is, the UN through Goldstone uses critical Israeli leftwing sources like far-rightwing haters them - as a weapon against the Jewish state. The UN, through Goldstone, doesn't give a shit what Israel's left thinks about their crappy reports.


========

ETA.
You must have me confused for someone who believes Israel's soldiers were perfect during OCL and that they made no mistakes, were never careless, etc. FFS, the IDF is responsible for the friendly fire killings of their own troops!

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Why are you still making false claims about montell?

Did you read the article I posted that showed that you are taking her out of context?

[shira]

41. no false claims.....Yael Stein went even further and was more explicit, so why are you pretending...

...Btselem and BreakingTheSilence don't have major issues with Goldstone's main conclusions?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. The quote was taken out of context

Please read the article I posted. It's incredibly dishonest to use that quote out of context

[shira]

44. no it wasn't, and Yael Stein's comment just confirms exactly what I quoted - why pretend otherwise?

So leaders of Israel's leftwing human rights organizations think Goldstone's main conclusions are false.

What do you think about that?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Anyone with a basic level of comprehension can see it was taken out of context

it doesn't suprise me in the least that sites such as that one you quoted from are so dishonest and misleading

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Could you please post that second quote in its full context with a link?

Given the dishonesty surrounding the context of the first, I think it's a very reasonable request to make.

Just as an aside, I'm not entirely sure what yr point is, even if those quotes were in context.

[shira]

51. look at the end of the article....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24goldstone.html?ref=middleeast&pagewanted=all

Goldstone's main point was that Israel didn't attack Hamas in OCL for self-defense against rockets - rather, Israel used the rockets as an excuse to purposely target civilians and make Palestinians (in general) suffer. For evidence of this, he constantly points to his version of the Al Badr flour mill case (in which he suppressed evidence and made up a story that put Israel in the darkest light imaginable).

Leading Israeli leftists don't buy into his conclusion that Israel went into Gaza with very malicious intent.

So why do you feel you must believe Goldstone when they don't, and when you see for yourself via evidence from UN records that he lied (at least WRT the flour mill)?


-----------

ETA:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/01/24/idf-finally-to-engage-goldstone-day-late-and-dollar-short/

Note how the commenters are apoplectic WRT Stein and Btselem's views of Goldstone's conclusion.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. As I suspected, there's no context in that snippet...

Sorry, but yr making absolutely no sense at all here. You don't appear capable of reading that article I posted where the person quoted made her views very clear. Do I need to repost it in bold 24 point font for you to take any notice of what she said at all?

[shira]

54. I can't be held responsible for your denial

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Yeah, I'm denying you the chance to derail the discussion...

And you'll be happy to know I won't hold you responsible for hoping more people wise up to the derailing tactics. Better luck next time :)

[shira]

60. no derailment at all - the facts prove Dershowitz's allegations against Goldstone are on target

this thread is in response to #3. You derailed this discussion.

Now pretend my 'spamming' is on target and Goldstone has been a despicable lying POS throughout this process. Just pretend for now, even though it's true and you're in denial.

You'd still be just as vehemently against Dersh's attack on Goldstone?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. No, you replied to my post with nonsensical rubbish...

Whatever you were going on about had zero to do with what I'd posted, so why the fuck would you reply to me with totally unrelated crap?

Sorry, but I don't live in a delusional fantasy land where obsession and frothing at the mouth towards Mr Goldstone is viewed by the frothee as being 'on target' or rational. I also don't live in whatever fucked up alternate reality where antisemitism is justified if it's aimed at Mr Goldstone.


on edit: btw, you yet again totally ignored my request for you to back up that accusation you made about me posting antisemitic posts with links. Most people would have the decency to apologise for making a false accusation...

[shira]

75. the thread is based on #3 and you derailed it - don't deny it

The fact is the Goldstone Report consists of malicious and deliberate lies against Jews - much like the disgusting crap in the Iranian or Hamas press - only stamped with western approval. These disgusting lies tend to have negative effects on other Jews outside of Israel. If any non-Jew were to knowingly spew the same hateful slander, they'd be rightly labeled bigoted or antisemitic, so what gets Goldstone off the hook? You know damned well that if any writer were to deliberately and maliciously slander any Arab nation like Goldstone did to Israel, that person would not only be labeled far rightwing, but a hateful SOB.

And as you requested, here's an example of your bigotry against Haredi.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x216515#216783

FYI, unlike you I actually know, have grown up with and worked among some Haredi and although some can be classified as clear nutters, in general they don't fit your hateful stereotype....

And your bigotry against settlers...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x293555#293699

I don't know why you ask b/c you'll just deny it, but maybe I can point you to what the ADL considers hate speech WRT Israel/Jews?

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Are you for fucking real??

The Goldstone report isn't antisemitic, and those posts you linked to of mine weren't antisemitic either. And why are you linking to what another poster said to try to show something I said was antisemtic?? I hope everyone who clicks on those links reads the exchanges in full and realises how dishonest you are...

on edit: I just realised the second thread you linked to was the one where you displayed incredible intolerance against non-Jews in Israel by supporting lunatics who go out and try to stop Jewish girls dating non-Jewish boys. I guess yr support of antisemitism in this thread does prove the point made that many people who hate Muslims and Arabs will also hate Jews...

[shira]

94. I can't say your denial is a surprise

When you post articles by an antisemitic bigot like Ben White from Guardian's CiF, it's obvious you don't know what antisemitism is. Are you in any way aware of who Ben White is and what he is all about? He's a lot more hateful than rightwing nasties like Dan Pipes, and that's saying a lot!

You asked for links in which you stereotyped Haredim and settlers, you got them. I cannot be held responsible for your denial.

As for me, you clearly have no clue what I believe as I don't support Israelis stopping Jewish girls from dating non-Jewish boys. I don't support MEN of any religious affiliation preying on YOUNG GIRLS. The real question is - why do YOU support statutory rape - or deny that article in the OP (from the link in my last post) is about statutory rape?

[Violet_Crumble]

99. I know. I always deny it when complete lies are told about me...

Not a particularly surprising thing.

I'm not familiar enough with Ben White to know if he's any more or less an antisemite than you would be, but just like you, I post these things for the facts, not the opinions. Deal with it...

No, I asked you for links to posts of mine that you claimed were antisemitic posts. You didn't post anything of the sort, and I consider yr behaviour to be incredibly dishonest. Did you realise or even read through the exchange about the Haredi and spot that Pelsar was far more dispraging of them than anyone else there? Anyway, it's interesting to know (in a snickering sort of way) that you think pelsar has made antisemitic comments about the Haredi...

As for you, everyone can read that thread and make up their own minds, because the OP wasn't about any men being targetted, but men and boys who weren't Jews...

[shira]

106. would it help if I proved Ben White was a hateful POS?

Not long ago, Ben White wrote this doozy:

"I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons. One is the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians. It is because Zionists have always sought to equate their colonial project with Judaism that some misguidedly respond to what they see on their televisions with attacks on Jews or Jewish property.

Secondly, and related to the first point, is the widespread bias and subservience to the Israeli cause in the Western media…

I have just provided a by no means comprehensive list of reasons why “I can understand very well that some people are unpleasant towards Jews.” I do not agree with them, but I can understand."

What do you think of that one? What if he wrote, he doesn't consider himself a hater of Arabs or a hater of black people but he could understand why some people are?

===================

As for posting things for facts and not opinion, I'm not at all convinced you know the difference between the two. I posted facts WRT Goldstone and the flour mill and you confused those facts for nothing but opinion.

Also, since you believe I post from bigots, then you believe you're perfectly justified to do the same? And you're proud of this/

===================

As for your posts, the fact is that quite a few liberal Jews here have had problems with many of your posts and have called you out on them. It doesn't matter whether you wore them down with your rants in response, they still feel you're wrong. Does it matter one whit to you what the vast majority of Jewish liberal thinking is on what constitutes antisemitism? Or are you only interested in definitions of what constitutes antisemitism from a minority of Jews who agree with many of your twisted views on I/P?

===================

That OP was clearly about MEN stalking young girls. It says so in the article. Anyone with decent reading comprehension skills can see that.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. It'd help if someone who was rational and not a lunatic did so...

But yr someone who defends antisemitism when it suits yr purpose, and shrieks mindless and dishonest accusations of antisemitism at people in this forum for their legitimate criticism of Israel, so no...


As for posting things for facts and not opinion, I'm not at all convinced you know the difference between the two.

You've totally lost the plot now. I was referencing yr pathetic excuse why it's okay for you to link to hardline RW or bigoted sites. Or didn't you claim you read them for facts, not opinions?

Also, since you believe I post from bigots, then you believe you're perfectly justified to do the same? And you're proud of this/

Huh? I don't believe it's okay for anyone to post bigoted stuff, and have never said it was. Could you at least attempt to inject a bit of honesty into what you say?

As for your posts, the fact is that quite a few liberal Jews here have had problems with many of your posts and have called you out on them.

And who are these 'liberal Jews?' You mean like Sezu? So fucking what?

Does it matter one whit to you what the vast majority of Jewish liberal thinking is on what constitutes antisemitism?

Show me this website where liberal Jews are polled. Otherwise, how the fuck do you know what the majority of Jews think on anything?

Again, you were dishonest with those links you posted in yr pathetic attempt to show my posts were antisemitic. As I said and you totally ignored, pelsar was in the same thread saying much worse about the Haredi. So, like, isn't he a liberal Jew anymore? Do you want me to alert him to this exchange where yr labelling him antisemitic? ;)

That OP was clearly about MEN stalking young girls. It says so in the article. Anyone with decent reading comprehension skills can see that.

No, it wasn't. I'll copy and paste exactly what the OP was.

Kiryat Gat tells its school girls: No romancing with Bedouin

"A new program launched in Kiryat Gat schools has the expressed purpose of preventing Jewish girls from becoming romantically involved with Israeli Bedouin.

The program enjoys the support of the municipality and the police, and is headed by Kiryat Gat's welfare representative, who goes to schools to warn girls of the "exploitative Arabs."

The program uses a video entitled "Sleeping with the Enemy," which features a local police officer and a woman from the Anti-Assimilation Department, a wing of the religious organization Yad L'ahim, which works to prevent Jewish girls from dating Muslim men."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x216515#216783

[shira]

121. it would help if you were honest

1. Why didn't you comment on that hateful, antisemitic quote from Ben White, who understands and gives reasons why people are antisemitic?

2. WRT antisemitism, it's not antisemitic to call out bigoted Jews who write hatefully against groups of other Jews. You can pretend that demonization is nothing but criticism but you know better.

3. When I presented 2 examples of your problems with Haredi and settlers, the liberal Jews who questioned you were Shaaktiman and Kurska. You wore them down and feel that you explained yourself well enough. You're wrong. It's still problematic. BTW, the ADL's views on antisemitism are accepted by the vast majority of Jews (including liberal Jews) with very minor exceptions (probably less than 2-3%).

4. The article in question is without question relating to statutory rape. Of course, you probably don't have a problem with 20 year old men stalking 11-12 year old girls - right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=290018&mesg_id=290067

At least be honest enough to quote from the right thread. I'm sure there are religious squads in Israel who don't want Jewish girls dating non-Jewish boys - just as there are orthodox Jews in my community here in the USA who try to prevent orthodox girls or boys dating non-orthodox Jews. THAT can be rightfully condemned. But you're trying to dishonestly accuse me of defending that. Is that really the best you can do? Do you support statutory rape?

[Violet_Crumble]

122. I always am - sometimes far too bluntly so...

1. I said why I wasn't the slightest bit interested in someone like you trying to prove anything, especially when you fling false accusations of antisemitism at me. I suspect that if I was any more clearer about it my post would be deleted..

2. You don't know what I know, so knock it off. Considering yr defence of Dershy's antisemitic comments and yr accusations against me, who you accuse of antisemitism is not something rational folk would take the slightest bit seriously...

3. My 'problems' with Haredi and settlers? No, you accused me of making antisemitic posts, so don't backtrack now. You can't seriously be sitting there insisting that to criticise the Hebron settlers and call them extremists is antisemitic?? And that you believe that pelsar is antisemitic???

4. I'm getting sick of yr offensive 'have you stopped beating yr wife' 'questions', Shira. Stop it. Also, that wasn't the article in question at all. The OP in that thread, and what you were defending was this:

Vigilantes Patrol For Jewish Women Dating Arab Men

by Sheera Frenkel

October 12, 2009

Throughout Israel, young Jewish men are forming vigilante groups to end interracial relationships between Arab men and Jewish women, which are occurring with increased frequency as Jewish settlements dig deeper into Arab territory. The vigilantes say Arabs lure Jewish women with money and "bad boy" personalities.

SHEERA FRENKEL: The small, white hatchback swings into a nearly deserted parking lot and does a quick look around. It's just after 10:00 at night, and the lot is clearly a prime destination for a teenage date night in the settlement of Pisgat Ze'ev. But David, a 31-year-old who lives here, is out for a different kind of prowl.

DAVID: (Through translator) Go down to that parking center. Stop, stop, one minute. That's them over there. Check if there is a Jewish girl in that car over there.

FRENKEL: Every night, David, who asked not to be called by his real name, patrols this and other neighboring Jewish settlements. His mission is to find Arab-Jewish couples and break up their dates.

DAVID: (Through translator) My heart hurts every time I see a Jewish girl with an Arab. It's extremely upsetting. I asked myself: How did we get to this situation? How did we descend to this level? It is a serious step backwards, in our eyes.

FRENKEL: David is the leader of a group of vigilantes that goes by several names, including Fire For Judaism and Love of Youth. They say they number between 30 and 40 men and patrol the streets each night. Officially, they're on the lookout for any mixed couples, but T.S.(ph) a member of the group who often serves as David's driver, says the problem lies solely with Arab men dating Jewish girls.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11...


Israel's Fear of Jewish Girls Dating Arabs; Team of Psychologists to "Rescue" Women

By Jonathan Cook, AlterNet. Posted September 25, 2009.

Youth counselors and psychologists are going after young Jewish women who are dating Arab men to "rescue" them.

A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counselors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and "rescue" them.

The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate -- and little discussed -- initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.

In a related development, the Israeli media reported this month that residents of Pisgat Zeev, a large Jewish settlement in the midst of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, had formed a vigilante-style patrol to stop Arab men from mixing with local Jewish girls.

http://www.alternet.org/world/142900/israel%27s_fear_of... ;_team_of_psychologists_to_%22rescue%22_women_

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=290018&mesg_id=290018

That OP was NOT about statutory rape and what was and still is disturbing is the way you made out that if it was men dating underage girls, then a group that only goes after non-Jewish men is totally acceptable to you. And the way you tried to pretend that if a mixed couple is dating, it must be an older non-Jewish male taking advantage of a younger Jewish female. There used to be a group in the US who operated like that, and I think it was called the KKK.

on edit: forgot to say something to yr bringing up Shakti and Kurska and claiming they find my posts 'problematic' which I now realise is a code-word for antisemitic, and that I 'wore them down'. How insulting are you planning on being, Shira? While there's times we nip at each others heels, I respect both of them and would hope the sentiment is reciprocated. Both of them are strong when it comes to arguing their points and neither of them have a tendency to back down when they feel they're right. And unlike you, I'm not obsessed over whether posters here at DU are Jewish or not. I'm finding yr insistance on focusing on who's Jewish and who isn't to be just a bit creepy...

[azurnoir]

107. what I find most interesting is how she managed to

dig up a thread from a year and a half ago that she herself did not even post on

[shira]

108. it's not hard googling haredi, settlers, violet and doing a few minutes research

what's odd is that I remembered something more recent but couldn't find it, so googling helped find something else.

[azurnoir]

110. aha lol n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I was impressed how she didn't even bother reading what she posted a link to...

Apparently if I mention settlers or the Haredi, that's antisemitic. All you have to do is google it! ;)

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

25. Er...no...CAMERA is not "the pro-Israeli group".

CAMERA is "The anti-reality group".

The line CAMERA takes on the Israel-Palestine dispute(I.E., that Palestinians have no legitimate grievances against Israel, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, that the whole thing is just the mythical "unrelenting Arab campaign" to destroy Israel and that Palestinians and other Arabs are driven by NOTHING but "hatred of the Jews")is a position to the right of ANY party that currently sits in the Knesset. On a good day with a following wind, CAMERA might be a millimeter to the left of Kach. But that's on a GOOD day.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. CAMERA is so loony that they attacked Spielberg's rabidly pro-Israeli film Munich - a film praised

by the ADL and Abraham Foxman. Apparently CAMERA took great offense at the idea of at least some Palestinians being portrayed as educated people with family lives - nothing short of blatant racist stereotypes would satisfy the hate-filled and bigoted rejectionist nuts at CAMERA. Even the suggestion that some Israelis might legitimately question the whole policy of assassinations and wonder if they were really doing the right thing and getting the right people - even though the film Munich clearly defended Israel's assassination policy and promoted the Israeli narrative in every single significant detail. That was simply not good enough for those extremist.

If the highly dubious site ifamericansknew is viewed as unacceptable and is not allowed as a source on this forum - and I gather from reliable sources that is a wise decision - why on earth are the extremist rejectionist and hatemongers of CAMERA allowed as a source on this forum as if it is some kind of legitimate source, when obviously they are not?

[azurnoir]

13. so that must go for what Goldstone had to say about Palestnian

rocket fire too, right?

[shira]

15. you mean rocket fire by Palestinian groups? Hamas just being one of many?

And nothing about Hamas use of shields, which accounts for most of the civilian casualties?

Look, it would have been even more ridiculous if Goldstone didn't mention the rockets. That doesn't mean the report is credible.

[azurnoir]

16. So the part about the rocket is not credible either? n/t

[Tripmann]

17. That is what i have to laugh at Azurnoir,

The cherrypicking of accusations made in the report. How some people can attack goldstone, attempt to discredit the report but glance over discrediting the accusations that suits their argument.

Even the very attempt to discredit the flour mill findings is ridiculous. There has been a siege of gaza for two years and the palestinians are being denied the ability to rebuild infrastructure properly. The people doing this deny targetting infrastructure.

Can anybody see the absurdity of this? i.e.

"We are the israeli government, we have laid siege to gaza for two years and are preventing the gazans rebuilding their infrastructure after our bombardment. By the way, we deny deliberately targetting their infrastructure."

Outside of the I/P squabble, there is a world watching denial of war crimes by a government currently continuing an act of war against others.

[shira]

18. (edited) compare Goldstone to his main witness and to the UNITAR investigation he ordered

Goldstone:

919. On 9 January, at around 3 or 4 a.m., the flour mill was hit by an air strike, possibly by an F-16. The missile struck the floor that housed one of the machines indispensable to the mill’s functioning, completely destroying it. The guard who was on duty at the time called Mr. Hamada to inform him that the building had been hit and was on fire. He was unhurt. In the next 60 to 90 minutes the mill was hit several times by missiles fired from an Apache helicopter. These missiles hit the upper floors of the factory, destroying key machinery. Adjoining buildings, including the grain store, were not hit. The strikes entirely disabled the factory and it has not been back in operation since.

922. The Mission found the Hamada brothers to be credible and reliable witnesses. It has no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony

»929. The only issue that remains to be examined is whether there was any reason for the flour mill to have been deemed a military objective on 9 January. The building was one of the tallest in the area and would have offered extensive views to the Israeli armed forces. The Mission notes that taking control of the building might be deemed a legitimate objective in the circumstances. However, by 9 January the Israeli armed forces were fully aware that the flour mill could be evacuated at short notice by using the warning message system. If the reason for attacking the mill was to gain control of it for observation and control purposes, it made no sense to bomb the principal machinery and to destroy the upper floors. There is also no suggestion that the Israeli armed forces considered the building to be a source of enemy fire.«

»930. The nature of the strikes on the mill and in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery on one of the mid-level floors suggests that the intention was to disable its productive capacity. There appears to be no plausible justification for the extensive damage to the flour mill if the sole objective was to take control of the building. It thus appears that the only purpose was to put an end to the production of flour in the Gaza Strip.«

»937. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission finds that the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of customary international law as reflected in article 54 (2) of Additional Protocol I and may constitute a war crime.«

Now for Mr. Hamada, the main witness:

»On the dawn of the tenth of January, we received a call from the guard telling us that the factory was targeted by air with a missile and that it had caught fire. After 15 minutes, he called us again and told us that there are tanks approaching the area and that the factory was targeted with tank fire. We immediately informed the ICRC and the Civil Defense in order to put out the fire in the mill. At 11:00 a.m., we were told by the Civil Defense that the fire had been put out and that the guard had been evacuated from the surface area of the factory.«(x)

Notice anything fishy yet? Compare Hamada's account to Goldstone's. What do you notice, hmm? Nothing to see here? :)

UNITAR:

The Al-Badr Flour Factory of Sudaniyya appears in the satellite imagery to be composed of multiple building sites situated along the north side of El-Bahar Street. Based on the detailed assessment from the imagery, the only visible damages detected to the factory complex are to the southernmost building which was severely damaged along the southeastern side. The damages appear to have occurred between 16 and 18 January 2009. Within the immediate 500m vicinity of the factory complex there are a total of 43 detected damage sites, including 33 destroyed or severely damaged buildings. The majority of this identified damages occurred between 10 and 18 January 2009. There are clear indications in the imagery of extensive IDF tank movement and related damage to both buildings and vegetation cover in this area during the last three days of the conflict. It is probable, given the damage signatures, that the majority of damage in this area was caused by intense IDF ground fire. It is important to note that because of the angle of satellite imagery acquisition, it is possible that severe damage to the north and eastern side of the flour factory buildings has not been detected.

Notice anything here that contradicts Goldstone? :eyes:

Here's more...

Mr. Goldstone,
At the debate, you mentioned the damage to a flour mill in Gaza (the al Bader flour mill) as one of the incidents that convinced you that civilians were intentionally targeted. The Report is more specific, stating that the mill was attacked "for the purposes of denying sustenance to the civilian population" – which it charges may constitute "a war crime."

A) How can you reconcile this imputed motive with Israel's act of transferring 14,208 tons of flour into Gaza during the war – an average of 618 tons/day which is not only significantly more flour than the 220 metric tons the Al Bader mill could have produced in a day; but well over the 450 tons/day that the UN and the World Food Programme says Gaza needs?
Clearly if Israel's intention was to deny flour to Palestinian civilians, it would not have facilitated the import of almost triple the amount produced by the mill that was damaged.
B) And more broadly, how can you reconcile the imputed motive of purposefully denying sustenance to the civilian population with Israel's implementation of a daily humanitarian recess during the war in order to facilitate the transfer of humanitarian supplies?
C) Why did the mission fail to investigate or mention the fact that Hamas repeatedly seized shipments of humanitarian goods that were sent into Gaza from Israel and interfered with their distribution to the point where UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon issued a demand to Hamas to release the goods? Why did the Mission avoid charging Hamas with "denying sustenance to the cvilian population"? (See, for example, " Hamas raids aid trucks, sells supplies" and "Statement by UN Secretary-General Demanding Immediate Release of Humanitarian Goods Seized by Hamas

http://www.goldstonereport.org/open-letters-to-goldstone/442?task=view

Goldstone read that particular letter and here was his response...

Dear Ms. Hollander,

I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your open letter.

Sincerely,Richard Goldstone

:eyes:

===============

In interviews since the Report was released last summer, Goldstone has repeated this lie that is supposed to prove Israel's evil intent.

But the facts don't matter to you, do they?

And you wonder why Dershowitz has a problem with Goldstone? This is but one example of Goldstone's thoroughly unprofessional, dishonest, and shoddy effort.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Anyone who thinks Dershowitz's hatred and ugliness is okay is as loony as he is...

Seriously. What Dershowitz said about Mr Goldstone did come across as antisemitic. That you'd sit there and justify that sort of ugly and revolting outburst and such hatred does come as no surprise to me, however...

[Violet_Crumble]

28. UN find challenges Israeli version of attack on civilian building in Gaza war

A new Israeli report defending the military's conduct in the Gaza war was challenged tonight after evidence emerged apparently contradicting one of its key findings.

Israel submitted a 46-page report to the UN on Friday saying its forces abided by international law throughout the three-week war last year. It was meant to avert the threat of international prosecutions and to challenge a highly critical UN inquiry by South African judge Richard Goldstone, which accused both Israel and Hamas of "grave breaches" of the fourth Geneva convention, war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

The Israeli report looked in detail at a handful of incidents, including the attack on the al-Badr flour mill in northern Gaza, which was severely damaged.

The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January. Photographs of the front half of the bomb have been obtained by the Guardian.

This evidence directly contradicts the finding of the Israeli report, which challenged allegations that the building was deliberately targeted and specifically stated there was no evidence of an air strike. Goldstone, however, used the account of the air strike as a sign that Israel's attack on the mill was not mere collateral damage, but precisely targeted and a possible war crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/gaza-war-report-accuses-israel

[shira]

35. see post #11 re: Goldstone's claim that IDF hit factory to deny sustenance to Gaza population

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Did you bother reading the article I posted? It appears not...

A shell was found which has shown the claims of the IDF to be full of holes. NOthing to say about that?

[shira]

39. Goldstone lied when he claimed there was no reason militarily for Israel to strike at the mill

As proof, Goldstone's main witness (Mr. Hamada) and UNITAR both claim there was a ground battle with tanks. UNITAR confirmed that the damage was from tanks and small weapons, not an air strike.

Also, if Israel really wanted to deny Gazans sustenance, they wouldn't have allowed 3 times the daily output of the Al Bader flour mill throughout all of OCL.

Goldstone lied.

Deal with it.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. The UN found a shell that disproved the IDF story

That's a fact. You saying something is so that you read at some partisan site isn't a fact

[shira]

45. Goldstone suppressed evidence that at the very least shows legit military actions in that area

UNITAR is not a partisan source, and neither is the public testimony from Mr. Hamada that Goldstone ignored.

Here's UNITAR...
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNITAR_UNOSAT_FFMGC_31July2009.pdf

Here's Mr. Hamada's testimony...
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:yRYpRZMwJD0J:www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.06.29PM_Session.doc+%22after+15+minutes,+he+called+us+again+and+told+us+that+there+are+tanks%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

=======

Those are facts, not opinion.

Goldstone lied.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. According to you and that bunch of liars at camera

It's them who are the lying partisans as that's the site you've been linking to.

I think everyone here is aware of yr obsessive and irrational hatred of mr goldstone. I still can't believe u actually justified dershys ugly and antisemitic attacks on him.

[shira]

52. facts don't lie - Goldstone ignored his own sources so that he could villify Israel

Do you deny those facts?

Goldstone lied about there being no evidence of Hamas using human shields. Jessica Montell brought this up in her article that you posted and implied that you just can't ignore what Hamas did by using Palestinians as shields. Who do you believe WRT Hamas shields, Goldstone or Btselem?

Goldstone also lied about responding to any reasonable criticism of his report. He has ignored all the substantive criticism and claimed that all criticism has consisted only of personal attacks (another lie).

Facts don't lie, but Goldstone does.

=====

ETA:

There's nothing "irrational" about my views on Goldstone. Those views are based on facts. Why are you irrationally defending this liar?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. You and CAMERA saying something doesn't make it a fact...

It's a fact that a shell was found that shows the story from the IDF to be untrue...

Facts don't lie, but the IDF and its zealoted and irrational supporters do...

Also, yr behaviour when it comes to Mr Goldstone is incredibly irrational. You have absolutely no grasp of the difference between fact and opinion, and that you sat there and defended Dershy and his antisemitic attack on Goldstone speaks volumes as to the level of irrationality. Do you think yr going to get some sort of award if you spit out 1000 times that you think Mr Goldstone is a liar?

btw, speaking of dishonesty. I'm still waiting for you to provide links to back up the claim you made in a recent thread that I made antisemitic posts about settlers and the Haredi. If someone makes an ugly accusation like that, they should put up or apologise for making a false accusation...

[shira]

56. so UNITAR and the public testimony from Mr. Hamada to Goldstone....don't count as facts?

I'll remind you what Goldstone has said about his own report.

"We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.

We couldn't use that report as evidence at all.

And I wouldn?t consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved."

Why are you putting more stock into Goldstone's dreck than he does?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. What counts as a fact is the IDF's claim was shown to be false...

That's what the article I posted was about, and you seem intent on trying to talk about anything else but that. Go back, read the article, and try and add something that doesn't involve obsessive mouth-frothing about Mr Goldstone...

[shira]

61. so you derailed the thread....the OP is about Dersh attacking Goldstone and his made-up facts

Now back to the alleged 500 pound bomb. Why are we hearing about this only now? It landed inside the flour mill, but how did it do that if UNITAR and IAF photos don't show damage to the roof? Did it just fly in through a window? :)

Further, even if the IDF dropped that bomb - the fact remains there was ground fighting in that neighborhood (tanks, Hamas casualties) and the bomb was not a result of malicious intent or deliberate destruction to a civilian structure.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. No I didn't. Are you denying the bomb exists?

You certainly appear to be doing so...

[shira]

74. You clearly did. And how do you know the bomb exists? Have you seen it?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. No I fucking well didn't. Are you denying the bomb exists?

[azurnoir]

26. Changing the subject-again

you did not answer the question

[aquart]

4. Oh, piffle.

If you're looking for people who would painstakingly document their own war crimes and feel guilty about them, you know they're gonna be the Jews.

For Dershowitz to get all panicky after the 3,000 deaths of 9/11 when we lost six million and kept on ticking is just silly. The thing about living on a globe, you can go so far left you wind up on the extreme right.

The Israelis and the Palestinians really, really, really hate each other for valid reasons. When they get together it isn't going to nice and it isn't going to be pretty. Stop pretending to be shocked.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. "Jews" are not a gestalt entity; Goldstone did not document his own war crimes.

The fact that some of the people documenting Israel's war crimes are of the same ethnic origin as the people committing them is not terribly unusual.

[azurnoir]

5. Dersh goes for the usual default position

it's about the Joooos no it's about Israel as to his long winded whine if Goldstone was so wrong he must have been wrong on this part too

Richard Goldstone's UN fact-finding mission offers a damning indictment of Palestinian projectile fire, of which his mission found evidence was often directed toward civilians rather than military targets during the winter assault. "The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, the mortars fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and have been fired into areas where civilian populations are based.

"The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that, where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.

"Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror among the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.

more at link

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=250397

but wait I suspect we're not supposed to know that part even exists

[IndianaGreen]

6. Alan Dershowitz is a crypto-nazi!

He is a turd that continues to support Bush's infringement on human rights, including rendition and torture.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Good lord, they don't mince their words!

As I said on another thread, I have not read the Goldstone Report carefully enough to judge the accuracy of every word (and don't think it's going to make much difference in the long run); but I have read enough to know that it is crazy to compare it with the Protocols! Especially as there is enough REAL Protocols-type propaganda readily available (see such sites as Rense or WhatReallyNeverHappened or IfAmericansKnew) to make this a dangerous sort of crying wolf. 'Evil, evil man' - that is not a refutation; that is a tantrum.

I said on the other thread that Dershowitz can't be *all* bad as Melanie Phillips hates his guts; but if reported accurately, he is being a complete fool here.

I adore Shulamit Aloni, but calling Dershowitz 'despicable' is just joining in with his mudslinging game. Better just to point out that he's going over the top and making unjust accusations.

(Having said that, there are exceptions to all rules, and I will certainly call the aforesaid Melanie Phillips evil and despicable any day of the week!)

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Is calling Dershy a nutjob mudslinging?

Because after reading what he had to say, he's either a complete nutjob or he actually is a dispicable person. I don't think there's any mudslinging in saying that, either. If the following is correct in reporting what he said, I think he's coming across just a bit antisemitic...


'In an interview with Army Radio, Dershowitz said he is appalled by the report and can't fathom how it could have been written by a Jew. He said it is as if a Jew would have written the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that the jurist is using the fact that his last name is 'Goldstone' to substantiate the report's defamation against the Jewish people."

[blueworld]

8. My contempt for Dershowitz began nearly as soon as I became aware of him

And like most unreasonable zealots, his own words describe him better than anyone else could. He "can't fathom how it could have been written by a Jew"? Why? Because all Jews are the same? Because all Jews think & act & speak as one all the time? IMO, he's a small, nasty, arrogant man. His education hasn't improved that condition much, apparently.

[Jefferson23]

19. "Goldstone is an evil, evil man." He had to say that word twice, lol

I'm thrilled to see the level of threat that Dershowitz sees in the Goldtsone report, he keeps needing to defend against it for some odd
reason..bwah! He reminds me of Cheney, who kept throwing mud at Obama because he knows his own record is shameful to say the least.

[bemildred]

27. "Dershowitz is a despicable man who opposes the left and supports the settlers."

Who are you going to choose? Me, I think Dershowitz has beshit himself once again. He ought to at least moderate his rhetoric in hopes of doing less damage to his credibility.

[cqo_000]

29. the personal attacks on Goldstone are really uncalled for.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Yeah, it's nothing more than bullying...

Dershy must come from the school of thought that yelling abuse loudly enough and often enough will drown out those they're yelling at...

[Tripmann]

31. We'll probably see increased attacks on goldstone rather than the report itself

as more evidence supporting claims in the report come to light.

[shira]

32. Dershowitz, Jan 2010: Case against the Goldstone Report (49 pages)

For those wanting to see a substantive critique from Dershowitz...
http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/517-alan-dershowitz-the-case-against-the-goldstone-report-a-study-in-evidentiary-bias-270110

[shira]

33. Ami Isseroff (ProgressiveZionism) beat Dersh to the punch last May '09

"Beyond all its irregularities, the Goldstone report made one claim that cannot be refuted: That Israeli policy and war tactics were deliberately designed to kill civilians. It can't be refuted because it is not logical or based on any facts. Like medieval accusations of well poisoning or the blood libel, it is obvious that the persons making the accusation already have all the information needed to refute it, and simply ignore it because of malevolent mendaciousness. The man claims your sister is a lady of easy virtue. But you have no sister, and he knows it.....

...The claim that the IDF or the Israeli government had a deliberate policy of harming civilians is therefore malicious nonsense. There are no additional facts that any Israeli investigation or any other investigation could unearth that would "disprove" it, because the claim doesn't depend on any facts. In the same way, those who made the blood libel accusation knew that Jews are forbidden to consume any sort of blood and especially human blood. They knew the accusation had to be false, and Goldstone knows this accusation is false. Those who believe this claim do so because they are evil and uninterested in truth. Proving that this or that incident described by the Goldstone mission did or did not occur, or that this or that officer was or was not guilty of war crimes, could never erase the terrible false accusation that Israel deliberately set out to kill civilians..."

more...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000719.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. Dershowitz words, "a traitor against the Jewish people " implies that a good Jew, a non-traitorous

Jew would consciously skew their findings and would be under obligation to be consciously biased in favor of Israel and against the Palestinians. Dershowitz's words implies that non-traitorous Jews must be in ideological lockstep who put ethno-religious loyalty above all else. Dershowitz's words, "a traitor against the Jewish people" rejects the long held tradition of Jewish dissent even within their own community. Whether Dershowitz realizes it or not, he is implying the idea that a good Jew or a non-traitorous Jew is very similar to a crude anti-Semitic stereotype. It would be very hard to find anything that would do more to reinforce the message of anti-Semites then if Jews as a people embraced Dershowitz's narrow definition of what he is implying a good, non-traitorous Jew would do.

[shira]

50. wrong, Doug - as you can see above, the leaders of Btselem and BreakingTheSilence don't buy into....

....Goldstone's main conclusions in his report. WRT the flour mill incident, as one example of many, he suppressed evidence and lied. It's not a matter of being "loyal to the tribe".

What he did was malicious and disgusting, and if he had done it against any Arab or Muslim nation you wouldn't hesitate labeling him a bigot or racist.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. No, Doug's right. You didn't even try to argue *why* such attitudes aren't antisemitic...

Instead you've totally ignored what Doug said and spammed the thread with more of the same stuff that has zero to do with what he said in his post.

What Dershy said was antisemitic and I find it appalling that in this very thread you've tried to justify his vicious attack on Mr Goldstone

on edit: Just in case you've forgotten, Doug's had you on ignore for a long time now, and unlike you, when he says he's doing something, he actually does it. Just thought I'd let you know that he can't see what yr saying in reply to him, that's all :)

[shira]

63. regarding the antisemitic implications...

Doug thinks Dersh is claiming that Goldstone must "stick to the tribe and swear allegiance" despite the evidence. That assumes Goldstone did what he did in good faith. The facts show Goldstone lied and that his motives are not significantly different than all other hating bigoted posers who pretend to be for human rights but are not.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Yr denying that what Dershy said was antisemitic??

Go back and read what he said about Mr Goldstone. How is a comment like that not antisemitic? Does it all depend on whether you judge the person making the comment to be 'pro-Israel' or not? That's certainly how it appears...

[shira]

68. no, it's not.....Goldstone's lies are an attack on Jews, in the interests of Hamas, Iran, etc..

The fact is almost NO Israelis buy into Goldstone's biggest lies in his report, including the leadership of Israel's most leftwing human rights institutions. What Goldstone is clearly implying is that either all IDF personnel were "in" on this deliberate strategy by the government to punish Gazans or they're ignorant sheep who don't know what the hell they're doing while in combat.

Goldstone's attacks on Jews (and yes, this has antisemitic repurcussions worldwide) is malicious and disgusting and he is totally deserving of condemnation.


ETA:

NON Jews like yourself do not get to decide for the vast majority of Jews what constitutes antisemitism. Leave that one to ADL and other real human rights groups, okay?

[Violet_Crumble]

71. You still haven't explained how what Dershy said wasn't antisemitic...

All you keep on doing is shrieking that Mr Goldstone is a liar and antisemitic. How can someone who throws around accusations of antisemitism at the drop of a hat at people they don't agree with (eg the false accusation of antisemitism that you threw at me and still haven't apologised for) suddenly start justifying it if it's coming from a zealoted 'supporter' of Israel? That makes no sense...

WTF was that last line about? I'm not deciding anything for anyone, and it's actually coming across as just a bit bigoted of you that yr clearly a bit obsessed about whether anotehr poster is Jewish or not.

[shira]

73. be very clear - what is antisemitic about Dersh's attack on Goldstone?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. It's stunning how that sensitivity to antisemitism you have totally dries up all of a sudden...

Did you even read what he said? 'He said it is as if a Jew would have written the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that the jurist is using the fact that his last name is 'Goldstone' to substantiate the report's defamation against the Jewish people."' Do you really need it to be spelt out to you why that comment is antisemitic and bigoted?

[shira]

95. if Dersh had written that about haters like Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shahak, both Jews....

...there is no one (aside from loons or haters) who would label such a personal attack as "antisemitic". The facts show that what Goldstone has done, and is still doing, with his report is not different than what Atzmon and Shahak have done with their works of hate, masquerading as legit criticism.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. What?? It'd be antisemitic no matter which individual it's aimed at...

You seem to be really struggling with the concept that it doesn't matter what the views of the subject of the attack is, if they're Jewish then the attack is antisemitic...

[LeftishBrit]

77. Shira...

I'd like to ask you a very blunt question. Do you think that ANYONE who condemns OCL is by definition an antisemite (if not Jewish) or a traitor (if Jewish)?

Is your objection to Goldstone based on specific assertions that you consider to be untruthful; or do you consider his fundamental political viewpoint to be evil, over and above specific statements?


'What Goldstone is clearly implying is that either all IDF personnel were "in" on this deliberate strategy by the government to punish Gazans or they're ignorant sheep who don't know what the hell they're doing while in combat.'

Would you say that someone who condemns the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 'is clearly implying is that either all British and American troops were "in" on this deliberate strategy by their governments to punish Iraqis and Afghanis or they're ignorant sheep who don't know what the hell they're doing while in combat'? And the implication would be at least a little stronger for the latter, as Britain and America currently have all-volunteer armies; Israelis have relatively little choice about serving.

I have often objected to people condemning Israel when they don't ALSO condemn America and Britain for killing far more people - but this does not make it evil or treacherous to condemn any and all of these countries' actions (and those of many more countries all over the world).

[shira]

80. LB, I seriously can't believe you asked that.

I don't consider honest, measured criticism of Israel antisemitic, evil, or anti-Jewish, whether from Jews or non-Jews. And neither do organizations like ADL.

But if you can't distinguish between the legitimate and serious criticism of Carlo Strenger and David Hirsch from haters like Neve Gordon and Seth Freedman, then it's no wonder you asked me that question. There's no way I would attach the evil, antisemitic label to people like Strenger and Hirsch.

You realize the Israeli leftist leadership of Btselem and BreakingTheSilence, among other groups, has a major problem with Goldstone's main conclusions in his report (Israeli intent, Hamas shielding)? Do you not realize the difference between Btselem's criticism and Goldstone's? Big difference between the two! Consider that HRW and AI agree with conclusions Btselem and other leftist Israeli groups reject!! It can be reasonably argued that Israel's leftist groups criticize (whether they're right or wrong) for noble reasons while other organizations use that criticism to trash Israel internationally. If the international organizations had the same goals as Israel's leftwing HR groups, they'd be on the same page WRT the most important conclusions of the Goldstone Report. The fact is, these international organizations only use Btselem, etc.. to trash Israel and ignore anything that puts Israel in a good light (or Hamas in a bad light)....much like the Iranian regime. Why else would Goldstone accept testimony from BreakingTheSilence WRT Israeli infractions but ignore them on the issue of Hamas boobytrapping civilian homes, schools, etc? That's the MO of Iran's PRESSTV.

[LeftishBrit]

90. To clarify...

I did not ask whether you consider all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Obviously you don't. I was asking whether you consider public condemnation specifically of OCL as antisemitic or supporting the enemy, etc. Sorry, but the post to which I was replying did remind me very strongly of accusations that Iraq war critics don't support the troops, hate Britain or America, want the terrorists to win, etc.

If you said that Goldstone was WRONG, without constantly ascribing evil, antisemitic or treacherous motives to him and to people who support him, I would never have asked you such a question.

[shira]

96. no...there is legit condemnation and criticism of OCL and then there is demonization

Can you tell the difference between Goldstone's criticism (at least what you know about it) of OCL and that of Btselem, for example? To me, the difference is like night and day.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. considering Mr.Goldstone is after all a Zionist-Jew with an impressive judicial record

and that Mr. Goldstone was highly, highly critical of Hamas and everyone else who contributed to the terrible situation in the Gaza - it is especially nasty and dishonest to describe as quote, "an enemy of the Jewish people" - a good and decent man who was trying his best to carrying out both ethically and factually, a task that was bound to infuriate a lot of people on all sides of the issue.

some more info. about Richard Goldstone and some other work Mr. Goldstone has done:

Richard J. Goldstone at Beloit College

Family life and religious background

Richard Goldstone is a Jewish South African,<3> who is married to Noleen Goldstone. They have two daughters (Glenda and Nicole) and four grandsons (Jason, Sean, Ben and Jordan). According to his daughter Nicole, Goldstone "is a Zionist and loves Israel."<4> Goldstone himself, in a 2000 speech in Jerusalem, noted that "bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust".<5>

Law

South Africa

In the latter years of Apartheid in South Africa, Goldstone served as chairperson of the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, later known as the Goldstone Commission.<1> The Commission played a critical role in uncovering and publicizing allegations of grave wrongdoing by the Apartheid-era South African security forces and bringing home to white South Africans the extensive violence that was being done in their name. The Commission concluded that most of the violence of those years was being orchestrated by shadowy figures within the Apartheid regime, often through the use of a so-called "third force." The Commission thus provided a first road map for the investigations into security force wrongdoing that, after democratization, were taken up by the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. His work was criticized for refusing to investigate the African National Congress’ armed wing.<6>

Goldstone also served as a judge on South Africa's Transvaal Supreme Court from 1980 until he was appointed judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989. As a judge, Goldstone enforced the draconian "emergency laws" of the Apartheid regime.<7><8>

After South Africa's first democratic election in April 1994, Goldstone served as a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, from July 1994 to October 2003,<1>. The Court was entrusted with the task of interpreting the new South African Constitution and supervising the country’s transition into democracy. His service there was criticized for taking the government’s side in the incident where allegedly millions of voters (mainly from minorities supporting the opposition) were excluded from the franchise by a technical change in ID documents.<6>

He also served as national president of the National Institute of Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO); chairperson of the Bradlow Foundation, a charitable educational trust; and head of the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA).<9>

Chief UN Prosecutor in Yugoslavia and Rwanda
In August 1994, Goldstone was named as the first chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by a resolution of the UN Security Council in 1993. When the Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in late 1994, he became its chief prosecutor, too. In those roles he had to design prosecutorial strategies for both those ground-breaking tribunals, from scratch. In doing so, he sought to be scrupulously even-handed—a goal he was more easily able to achieve at ICTY than at ICTR. He built his strategy at both courts to a large degree on that pursued by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46. He served as the chief prosecutor of the two tribunals until September 1996.<1> R.W. Johnson, a South African journalist and historian, criticized his work at the ICTY.<10>

Argentina
He was a member of the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA) which was established in 1997 to identify Nazi war criminals who had emigrated to Argentina, and transferred victim assets (Nazi gold) there.<11>

Kosovo
Goldstone was chairperson of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo from August 1999 until December 2001.<1>

Member of Volcker Committee
In April 2004, he was appointed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Independent Inquiry Committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, to investigate the Iraq Oil for Food program.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldstone

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Little things like that get ignored in favour of shrieking insults about him...

Dershy and those like him are really revolting individuals to attack him in such a way and totally ignore his outstanding record when it comes to human rights. I have a vague recollection that when it was first announced that he'd be heading the investigation, there were attempts by some of the more zealoted 'supporters' of Israel in this forum to attack his character, though it was much more low key than it's grown into now...

[shira]

69. LOL...predictable, you're making an appeal to authority and not judging the report on its merits

You don't see how wrong it is to embrace the report only because a Jew is behind it.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. No, I'm having my say about fucking hateful morons who personally attack Goldstone...

Huh? I didn't realise I was first embracing anything, or secondly embracing anything only because a Jew is behind it. Please show me where I've written anything of the sort. Let's clear up one thing here. Yr the only poster in this thread who is trying to justify the antisemitic comments of Dershy, and it's only you and Dershy who seem to be obsessing over whether someone's Jewish or not (see that last ugly post of yrs to mine, where you don't seem to realise it's none of yr fucking business if I'm Jewish or not)

[shira]

78. you don't get it, there's nothing antisemitic about Dersh's remarks against Goldstone

Neither you or Doug are fit to define what constitutes antisemitism according to the majority Jewish view. When you see the ADL or any other major Jewish group slamming Dersh for making antisemitic remarks, let me know. Good luck on that. Until then, you should realize you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The ADL is probably the most authoritative and respected source in the world WRT what constitutes antisemitism or hate connected to the demonization of Israel. Not that you give a flip, but you should if you're so interested in antisemitism. I suggest you go to their website and learn some things about antisemitism before you embarass yourself further here.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Of course what he said was antisemitic...

Someone who attacks another person and focuses on them being Jewish is being antisemitic. Why does it now change because the person doing the attacking is a zealoted 'supporter' of Israel?

Neither me nor Doug are trying to define anything for a majority of anyone. But let me repeat again that I'm finding yr fixation on whether or not I'm Jewish to be just a tad bigoted. Do you also believe that if someone's not a woman, they shouldn't speak out against misogyny, and if someone's not African-American, they shouldn't speak out against racism when they see it? If they're not gay or lesbian they shouldn't speak out against homophobia when they see it? What you said was totally revolting. According to you we must wait for the ADL to announce something someone's said is antisemitic before we can say anything? That never stops you and yr incessant and false accusations of antisemitism against posters at DU and a wide range of people who dare to be critical of the Israeli govt...

Embarress myself? I'm not the one who's justifying antisemitism the way you are...

[shira]

97. so if Dersh wrote the same of Gilad Atzmon, that would be antisemitic to you?

As for what you believe antisemitism to be, that's not for you or other partisans to decide. Antisemitism is defined by the vast majority of Jews and that's all there is to it - just as any other definition of bigotry is defined by groups who are offended and persecuted.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. If the person it's aimed at is Jewish, then it's antisemitic...

You didn't bother reading the post you replied to. Here it is again. This time read it and try to address what I said instead of totally ignoring it and repeating the same thing you'd already said...

'Someone who attacks another person and focuses on them being Jewish is being antisemitic. Why does it now change because the person doing the attacking is a zealoted 'supporter' of Israel?

Neither me nor Doug are trying to define anything for a majority of anyone. But let me repeat again that I'm finding yr fixation on whether or not I'm Jewish to be just a tad bigoted. Do you also believe that if someone's not a woman, they shouldn't speak out against misogyny, and if someone's not African-American, they shouldn't speak out against racism when they see it? If they're not gay or lesbian they shouldn't speak out against homophobia when they see it? What you said was totally revolting. According to you we must wait for the ADL to announce something someone's said is antisemitic before we can say anything? That never stops you and yr incessant and false accusations of antisemitism against posters at DU and a wide range of people who dare to be critical of the Israeli govt...

Embarress myself? I'm not the one who's justifying antisemitism the way you are...'

[shira]

104. it's not antisemitic - both the UN and Goldstone use his ethnic identity to lend credibility

....to a malicious report. THAT is disgusting, and it deserves to be condemned.

You'll find nothing by the ADL or any other mainstream Jewish organization tearing into Dershowitz or any other person (Jew or not) who calls things as they are - and in this specific case that means any Jew who uses his/her ethnic identity to purposely and maliciously slander or demonize other groups of Jews needs to be outed as a bigot deserving of condemnation for inciting others to hate and act upon that hate.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. How can one not be while the other is? That makes no sense at all...

So what you appear very much to be claiming is if someone mentions that they themselves is Jewish, then that's antisemitic if they're doing it in any context where there's criticism of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, and if someone focuses very negatively and abusively on that same person, and the abuser is a zealoted 'supporter' of Israel, then it's not antisemitic.

Yr also still making no sense at all. You certainly have claimed things are antisemitic before that the ADL hasn't said is antisemitic, so why are you insisting that me and others must do so?

...and in this specific case that means any Jew who uses his/her ethnic identity to purposely and maliciously slander or demonize other groups of Jews needs to be outed as a bigot deserving of condemnation for inciting others to hate and act upon that hate.

Well, Dershy's sure focusing on Mr Goldstone being Jewish to demonise him, so I'm glad you finally agree that Dershy's a bigot...

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. You still haven't explained how one is antisemitic while the other isn't...

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that it's not antisemitic for Dershy to viciously attack Mr Goldstone and focus on him being Jewish, yet claim that it is antisemitic for someone to mention they're Jewish if they're criticising Israel, as you have when it comes to Goldstone? That makes no sense at all, and you appear to be very reluctant to attempt to explain why you consider one thing to be antisemitic while the other isn't...

btw, I didn't claim you had a problem with all Jewish critics of Israel, and I apologise if you've misread what I've said. I should have been clearer and added that if it's someone who's critical of Israel who you disapprove of...

Also, you didn't answer the question I asked you about what you said about the ADL, so here it is again: 'You certainly have claimed things are antisemitic before that the ADL hasn't said is antisemitic, so why are you insisting that me and others must do so?'

I find it a bit disturbing that you raced in to defend a comment of Dershy's that was so vicious and so focused on attacking Goldstone based on his ethnicity, and also that you appear to be rather fixated on who is and isn't Jewish in this forum....

[LeftishBrit]

79. By the same token...

Dershowitz is *objecting* to the report as particuarly treacherous because the author is a Jew; and is not judging the report on its merits.

If he were, he would say that the report is 'unjustified and wrong or that the evidence does not support it -not that Goldstone is an 'evil evil man'. Dershowitz is a lawyer; I doubt that he wins his cases in court by denouncing his opponents as 'evil evil people'.

[shira]

81. Dershowitz wrote a 49 page paper, all substantive criticism. He bases his outrage against Goldstone

...on that.

http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/517-alan-dershowitz-the-case-against-the-goldstone-report-a-study-in-evidentiary-bias-270110

The report is clearly one big pile of shit that may as well have been crafted by the Iranian propaganda machine.

BTW, Goldstone even lies about the lack of substantive criticism of his report, leading ignorant people to believe all his critics can resort to nothing more than ad-hominem. That website where Dersh's report is shows there is no lack of substantive criticism against Goldstone's report.

[Ken Burch]

83. Denouncing your opponents as "evil, evil people" tends not to work too well

When you're counsel for the defense.

And it really would not have helped if he'd said that about Sunny Von Bulow or Nicole Simpson.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Just curious, but do you consider his attack on Goldstone to be a bit antisemitic?

I'm just curious to know because I recall a few threads in the past where the author has focused on Mr Goldstone being Jewish (though not attacked him in the same way as Dershy did), and they were full of 'supporters' of Israel who were saying it was antisemitism then. I wouldn't be able to see any way those earlier ones could be seen as antisemitic while Dershy's comments aren't...

[Violet_Crumble]

91. Kick for LB n/t

[LeftishBrit]

93. I think it stops short of antisemitism here...

I think there IS a certain attitude among sections of the pro-Israel right which DOES border on antisemitism. They consider that left-wing Jews as a group are having a baleful influence on the world as a whole; are spreading a 'virus'; have the 'Jew flu'; that Obama is being overly influenced by 'self-hating Jews'; etc.

This seems to me to be not that different from the view of some anti-Zionists that pro-Israel Jews have a baleful influence on the world as a whole; that Obama is being overly influenced by AIPAC and 'Zionists'; etc. Both types of view border at least on forms of antisemitism.

However, I don't think that saying that Goldstone is a 'traitor' to Jews is antisemitic, any more than saying that critics of the Iraq war are 'traitors to America or Britain' is itself anti-American/anti-British. It is based on a tribalist view of the world that I don't share or like; but it isn't *anti-semitic*.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Thanks. I disagree coz he said a bit more than just calling Goldstone a traitor...

I went back and reread it, and if what he said about it being like a Jew had written the Protocols and focusing on his last name and saying that he's using his last name to defame the Jewish people, then it's very ugly and focusing far too much in a negative way on someone being Jewish. I read somewhere last night that Dershy was now backtracking over what he said in that interview and had said he hadn't meant to call Goldstone a 'mosa' (don't know if I spelt it right but it's a word that has a really dark meaning), but thought the interviewer was asking him if he thought Mr Goldstone was a 'monster'...

All in all, Dershy is a really nasty individual who seems to revel in engaging in hysterical and hyperbolic attacks on other people...

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. Tony Judt: We Jews should be very proud of Richard Goldstone.

Justice Goldstone and the Jews

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-judt/justice-goldstone-and-the_b_339077.html

We Jews should be very proud of Richard Goldstone. In an ancient tradition of Jewish self-questioning and uncomfortable truth-telling, the author of the recent report from the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has braved personal vilification and institutional mendacity to describe the crimes committed by Israeli forces in the course of their invasion of Gaza in December 2008.

To be sure, the Goldstone Report also itemizes the crimes of Hamas, notably in its campaign of rocket-firing into Israel. But the scale of human rights abuses by Israel vastly outdoes anything Hamas could hope to have achieved: Israeli civilian victims of Hamas rocket attacks numbered less than ten. The attack on Gaza by the IDF resulted in at least 1,100 Palestinian civilian deaths. The major perpetrator of human rights abuses in this conflict is without question the State of Israel, and Justice Goldstone records as much.

That the Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen to conduct an international campaign against Justice Goldstone and his report need not surprise us. Israel refused to cooperate with the UN investigation; long before its conclusions were published, Netanyahu had set in motion a campaign to deny and denigrate them. More dispiriting, and of greater political consequence, is the pitiful and humiliating response of the Obama Administration. The "fierce urgency of now" apparently required that Washington join Tel Aviv in discrediting the Goldstone Report, and with it the UN inquiry.

This response is of course in keeping with America's long-standing determination to protect Israel against the consequences of its actions at home and abroad; but the universal international condemnation of the destruction of Gaza renders the Obama Administration's response peculiarly self-defeating -- everyone knows what happened in Gaza, so Washington's collusion in covering it up merely draws further attention to the discrediting of U.S. foreign policy and moral standing brought about by our unhealthy relationship with Israel.

There is a special irony to the public slandering of Justice Goldstone now under way. In the first place he is not only Jewish but has close family links to Israel and the Zionist ideal. Secondly, Richard Goldstone has an impeccable resumé as a critic of racism, prejudice and repression -- most notably as an active opponent for many years of the apartheid regime in his native South Africa. During the '90s he served as Chief Prosecutor at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals dealing with human rights abuses, crimes and genocide in the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. It would be hard to fictionalize a more convincing biography for an engaged and ethically uncompromising jurist in the great tradition of Jewish political activism. Goldstone's standing in the world will only rise as a consequence of Israel's short-sighted attempts to discredit the man, the report and the facts. That our own government has chosen to join in this unworthy exercise should be a source of deep embarrassment and shame.

Please join me and Jews from all over the world in signing the Jewish Appeal Letter in Support of the Goldstone Report written by Jews Say No an organization in NY. Go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/UNreport/petition.html

[shira]

82. Judt? Great scholarship. Who's next, Shlaim or Finkelstein?

FYI,

Did you know that Finkelstein (who you've touted here many times) believes David Irving's Holocaust revisionism to be good scholarship? Ernst Zundel's wife calls Finkelstein the jewish David Irving FFS! Shlaim and Judt (Israel Lobby true believer) have bent over backwards kissing Finkelstein's ass, supporting his shoddy, unprofessional bigoted writings that pose as pseudo-scholarship. My personal favorite is Finkelstein's lunatic rant WRT the Lebanon 2006 war. Google for all this, as it's all over the web. This trio that you think so highly of is OTT hateful.

ADL on Finkelstein...
http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Holocaust/20051031-JewishStandard.htm

For someone who advocates anti-racism and anti-bigotry, it's pretty bad for you to prop up bigoted haters like the trio above.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Doug can't see what yr saying. He's had you on ignore for ages...

Great job on attacking the messenger by association! Whatever happened to that dribble about only reading things for the facts. Does that only apply to you when yr posting links to RW extremist anti-Muslim stuff?

What you posted had nothing to do with what Doug posted anyway. Is there a chance you'll ever actually address the posts yr replying to instead of going off on tangents...

btw, yr in no position to talk about bigotry, given yr enthusiastic support of antisemitic comments made by Dershy in the OP...

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. yes, and I don't take someone off ignore (there is only one on it) just to see what they said to me

when it becomes clear to me that someone, anyone on either side is flat out against peace under any circumstances - they do not and will not under any circumstances support any solution; not any plausible two-state solution, not a one state solution - when it becomes clear that they barely regard either side; Arabs or Jews as people - then I figure there is nothing to discuss. If such a poster ever changes their attitude, then there may be something to discuss. Then I might take them off of ignore to find out what they have to say.

[shira]

98. It doesn't matter whether he sees it or not, he's posting many articles from bigots

Are you even vaguely familiar with Muslim "critics" like Robert Spencer, Dan Pipes, Geert Wilders? What would be the point of posting their articles here? Is there really anything good or noteworthy that can be taken from their drivel? For that matter, why would anyone post crap from David Duke, Pat Buchanon, or Ben White here?

Also do you agree with Doug's description of my views on I/P, the reason he has me on ignore?

[Violet_Crumble]

101. No, he's not. Anyway, you've posted articles from bigots...

And when pulled up about it, you insisted it was okay to do because you read that stuff for the facts, not the opinion. So why does that only apply to you, Shira?

Instead of shooting the messenger, why don't you try addressing the points made in the article Douglas posted? You've been asked to do it already, so I'll take yr silence as a total unwillingness to do anything but attack the messenger...

Why are you asking me what I think about you and yr views on I/P? Me saying what I think of you would result in a swiftly deleted post and more than likely my tombstoning, and yr just not worth that. You should be able to work out what I think about you from what I've already said to you on the subject. Nothing's changed and I have no intention of adding to it and getting myself into trouble with the mods...

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. deleted

[shira]

120. Finkelstein, Ben White, etc... are bigoted haters and please show me where I've posted from bigots

1. If I've posted ever posted from proven bigots, at least I'm honest enough to never do so again. At the very least, I'll try contacting whatever source I once respected to see whether they realize what they wrote was/is bigoted. Perhaps we should all try to weed out hateful commentators and resolve not to post their bigotry here.

2. As for the article by Judt that Douglas posted, what's to be proud of WRT Goldstone? In an example you've read for yourself, we can all see that from Goldstone's own sources (public testimony and UNITAR), it's obvious Goldstone deliberately lied by ommission while maliciously slandering Israel. What's there to be proud of about that?

[Violet_Crumble]

123. Are you going to address the article instead of shooting the messenger by association?

I suggest that you go back and read the article and if you feel you have anything to say, address the substance of the article rather than attacking the messenger.

As for the rest, why do you want me to go and show where you have posted links to sites that contain bigotry against Arabs or Muslims, when I recall you acknowledging in at least one case at the time that you'd done it? Also, given yr 'argument' further upthread that one has to be Jewish to have an opinion on what is and isn't antisemitism, surely that same logic would be applied by you to other forms of bigotry, and seeing yr not Arab or Muslim, you aren't equipped to say what's bigoted when it comes to those two groups?

2. Why are you asking me that question when the article you so far have refused to address spells it out? Also, yr interpretation of information is not proof of anything, and most definately doesn't qualify as a fact, so please don't say things like 'we can all see' when you actually mean 'this is what I see and if you don't I'm going to make out everyone else but you does!'

[LeftishBrit]

109. I dislike Finkelstein and consider him mean-spirited, essentially RW and at least bordering on

antisemitic for his statement that 'the Holocaust Industry is one of the main causes of antisemitism'.

However, I do not think there is any real evidence that he has 'praised Irving's scholarship'. He has defended Irving's right to speak, but he has not said that it was good scholarship. Apparently he described *someone else* (Gordon Craig) as praising Irving's scholarship; and this has been garbled as that Finkelstein himself praised Irving.

I don't consider Zundel's wife's opinion as particularly valid one way or another!

Once again, I do NOT like Finkelstein, and I don't think he is an appropriate authority to quote on a liberal board, any more than Robin Shepherd is; but we have to be careful to avoid guilt-by-association.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. Norman Finkelstein's exact words about Irving were, "Personally I don't like him. I think he is a

Nazi." He then went on to say that some of Irving's earlier work, stuff not remotely related to the holocaust or holocaust denial, is respected by some experts in World War II history. Dr. Finkelstein then states that War history is not his area of expertise, so he cannot judge that question. That is a far cry from the representation of Finkelstein's views that some have manufactured.

Norman Finkelstein is an unabashed leftist in almost all respects. As the son of two parents who were both survivors of the Nazi death camps, and someone one who lost every single relative; aunts, uncles cousins...every single one to Nazi extermination, Dr. Finkelstein is personally infuriated that this holocaust has been used and used and continues to be used over and over again by certain professionals; both for personal gain and for political exploitation.

The worst that anyone can honestly say about Norman Finkelstein was probably said by the great Israeli historian from Oxford, Avi Shlaim, "I would like to make one last point, which is that his style is very polemical, and I don’t particularly enjoy the strident polemical style that he employs. On the other hand, what really matters in the final analysis is the content, and the content of his books, in my judgment, is of very high quality.

The world's leading holocaust scholar and the father of holocaust studies and one of the world's leading Israeli historians on the subject of the Arab/Israeli conflict defend Norman Finkelstein and praise his scholarship:

(one note: This aired on May 9, 2007. The holocaust historian Raul Hilberg sadly passed away On August 4, 2007.)

link to full interviews/listen or watch online or download or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of


"Finkelstein’s two main topics of focus over his career have been the Holocaust and Israeli policy. Today we are joined by two world-renowned scholars in these fields:

Raul Hilberg. One of the best-known and most distinguished of Holocaust historians. He is author of the seminal three-volume work “The Destruction of the European Jews” and is considered the founder of Holocaust studies. He joins us on the line from his home in Vermont.

Avi Shlaim. Professor of international relations at Oxford University. He is the author of numerous books, most notably “The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.” He is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

______________

"AVI SHLAIM: Yes. I think very highly of Professor Finkelstein. I regard him as a very able, very erudite and original scholar who has made an important contribution to the study of Zionism, to the study of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, in particular, to the study of American attitudes towards Israel and towards the Middle East.

Professor Finkelstein specializes in exposing spurious scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict. And he has a very impressive track record in this respect. He was a very promising graduate student in history at Princeton, when a book by Joan Peters appeared, called From Time Immemorial, and he wrote the most savage exposition in critique of this book. It was a systematic demolition of this book. The book argued, incidentally, that Palestine was a land without a people for people without a land. And Professor Finkelstein exposed it as a hoax, and he showed how dishonest the scholarship or spurious scholarship was in the entire book. And he paid the price for his courage, and he has been a marked man, in a sense, in America ever since. His most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah, follows in the same vein of criticizing and exposing biases and distortions and falsifications in what Americans write about Israel and about the Middle East. So I consider him to be a very impressive and a very learned and careful scholar."

RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items. I was in Switzerland at the height of the crisis, and I heard from so-called forensic accountants about how totally surprised the Swiss were by this outburst. There is no other word for it.

Now, Finkelstein was the first to publish what was happening in his book The Holocaust Industry. And when I was asked to endorse the book, I did so with specific reference to these claims. I felt that within the Jewish community over the centuries, nothing like it had ever happened. And even though these days a couple of billion dollars are sometimes referred to as an accounting error and not worthy of discussion, there is a psychological dimension here which not must be underestimated.

I was also struck by the fact that Finkelstein was being attacked over and over. And granted, his style is a little different from mine, but I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.


"RAUL HILBERG: However, leaving aside the question of style -- and here, I agree that it’s not my style either -- the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost. "

link to full interviews/listen or watch online or download or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of

There is now a new documentary about Norman Finkelstein, American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein

link to trailer and more information about the film:

http://www.americanradicalthefilm.com/trailer.html


.

[Jefferson23]

116. I'm going to see the film next week in NYC, I admire him a great deal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. I do too although it is true that he is a bit hyper and can be a little over the top at times

I saw him completely go off on Ali Albunimah. In this case, Ali was arguing in favor of the one-state solution and Norman stuck fiercely and uncompromisingly to the two-state position. He is someone who knows exactly what he believes, lays it out factually and systematically and from his own perspective, he is someone who "does not suffer fools gladly".

[Poll_Blind]

125. Which also acts like a dog-whistle "din rodef" among the orthodox settlers: Justified murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodef

Tagging Goldstone as rodefim is the same as a fatwa calling for the death of Salmon Rushdie. Extremists, even diametrically-opposed extremists, work pretty much the same.

PB

[Jim Sagle]

126. The Dersh Man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place.

You RRRRRRRRRRRRRAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWK, Alan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:loveya: :donut: :pals: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :applause: :patriot: :party: :toast: :bounce: :beer:

[Jefferson23]

127. Dershowitz Explains Critical Goldstone Remark

Alan Dershowitz says it was all a misunderstanding.

The outspoken Harvard Law School professor has told the Forward that he didn’t intend to call the lead author of the controversial Goldstone Report a moser, a Jew who informs on other Jews, in a recent interview on Israel Army Radio.

Indeed, Dershowitz, who graduated from a Jewish elementary school and high school, says that he does not even know the meaning of the word — a term from Jewish religious law that the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin cited to describe why the Israeli leader deserved to die.

Instead, Dershowitz claims that he thought he was telling his interviewer that the South African jurist was “absolutely” a “monster.”

Dershowitz’s harsh criticisms of former South African Supreme Court Justice Richard Goldstone made news in Israel after selections of the interview were aired on the popular morning news program “Ma Boer” (“What’s Burning?”) on January 31. After calling Goldstone “an evil, evil man” and “an absolute traitor” for his role in a United Nations report charging that Israel’s military deliberately targeted civilians, Dershowitz now claims to have stepped back from some of those comments.

“I wrote to the broadcaster, retracting my word ‘traitor,’” Dershowitz told the Forward. “But if you’re asking me deep in my heart and soul do I believe that the word fairly characterizes him, in light of the way he’s used his Jewishness, both as a shield and a sword? You know, if the shoe fits.”

Goldstone declined to comment for this story.


http://www.forward.com/articles/124867/