Israel and Apartheid Slander: Richard Goldstone
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
The usual gang only quotes or relies on Goldstone when it is critical of Israel.Richard Goldstone published this yesterday in the New York Times (Oct 31):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html
No, we rely upon the Goldstone Report, which is a 500 page investigation by a panel of human rights scholars that carried out a thorough investigation, including hundreds of on-site interviews and a review of first hand evidence.The usual gang only quotes or relies on Goldstone when it is critical of Israel.
Unfortunately, Richard Goldstone, the individual, has been the subject of a fatwa by many members of the Jewish community. That community has heaped humiliation and degradation on him for his participation in the investigation of the onslaught on Gaza. It seems that the Jewish community has trouble with a diversity of opinion and, like something out of the Middle Ages, has punished him for this independent thought. His current remarks have to be seen in this sad context.
LOL. You really are too too funny and entirely predictable. I guess now that Gaddafi is gone and soon to be followed by Assad you have more time on your hands.No, we rely upon the Goldstone Report, which is a 500 page investigation by a panel of human rights scholars that carried out a thorough investigation, including hundreds of on-site interviews and a review of first hand evidence.
Unfortunately, Richard Goldstone, the individual, has been the subject of a fatwa by many members of the Jewish community. That community has heaped humiliation and degradation on him for his participation in the investigation of the onslaught on Gaza. It seems that the Jewish community has trouble with a diversity of opinion and, like something out of the Middle Ages, has punished him for this independent thought. His current remarks have to be seen in this sad context.
You really are a pathetic clown and as your friend grog agrees a very sick puppy.
What's sad is a ton of people think the way you do. That is the biggest impediment to peace anywhere.No, we rely upon the Goldstone Report, which is a 500 page investigation by a panel of human rights scholars that carried out a thorough investigation, including hundreds of on-site interviews and a review of first hand evidence.
Unfortunately, Richard Goldstone, the individual, has been the subject of a fatwa by many members of the Jewish community. That community has heaped humiliation and degradation on him for his participation in the investigation of the onslaught on Gaza. It seems that the Jewish community has trouble with a diversity of opinion and, like something out of the Middle Ages, has punished him for this independent thought. His current remarks have to be seen in this sad context.
Hi Gryfin, how's the Jew hating going? Why not just admit that you rely on discredited documents because that's the only way you can prop up your thoroughly discredited view.No, we rely upon the Goldstone Report, which is a 500 page investigation by a panel of human rights scholars that carried out a thorough investigation, including hundreds of on-site interviews and a review of first hand evidence.
Goldstone's argument is now that the apartheid policies in the West Bank are not permanent so don't qualify as apartheid.
He's have a case if Israel was actually in the process of peaceful negotiations, which it hasn't been for some 20 odd years.
That's sounding pretty permanent to me, as those settlements and apartheid roads also look.
I don't think his argument holds water.
He's have a case if Israel was actually in the process of peaceful negotiations, which it hasn't been for some 20 odd years.
That's sounding pretty permanent to me, as those settlements and apartheid roads also look.
I don't think his argument holds water.
I am shocked. You disagree with Goldstone. You quote him in virtually every thread. LOL.. You and your friend gryf really are too funny and too predictable.Goldstone's argument is now that the apartheid policies in the West Bank are not permanent so don't qualify as apartheid.
He's have a case if Israel was actually in the process of peaceful negotiations, which it hasn't been for some 20 odd years.
That's sounding pretty permanent to me, as those settlements and apartheid roads also look.
I don't think his argument holds water.
His argument is that the policies are motivated by legitimate security concerns and not by racism, and that Israel recognizes the Palestinian right to an independent state.Goldstone's argument is now that the apartheid policies in the West Bank are not permanent so don't qualify as apartheid.
Read that again.His argument is that the policies are motivated by legitimate security concerns and not by racism, and that Israel recognizes the Palestinian right to an independent state.
His argument that its not apartheid lie only in the fact that its not permanent and uses temporary security as an excuse.
20 years of temporary security, my ass.
Bullshit:Read that again.
His argument that its not apartheid lie only in the fact that its not permanent and uses temporary security as an excuse.
20 years of temporary security, my ass.
This is the core of his argument and it doesn't even mention temporal connections or security.In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
On this one, you are not just biased, you are dishonest.
Are you stupid groggy? You do know that I pasted the article in post #1, people can read for themselves what it says. You can pretend it doesn't say what it says, but people can actually read it.
You are a buffoon.
You are a buffoon.
In short it's not apartheid because though oppressive they are legitimate security measures and your accusation that Israel is an "apartheid state" is a slanderous lie.Goldstone said:The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.
Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.
The selective reading ability of G&G is amazing.Bullshit:
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
This is the core of his argument and it doesn't even mention temporal connections or security.
On this one, you are not just biased, you are dishonest.
Even the claim of a fatwa is bogus as it is strictly an opinion of a writer and based on his description of his temporary banning from his g'sons bar mitzvah, for which saner heads prevailed and he attended.
From; http://jfjfp.com/?p=15608
The chief rabbi owes Judge Goldstone an abject apologyAllister Sparks, 21 July 2010[You can find the latest Israeli military update here]
It has confirmed the fatal shooting by a marksman of an unarmed man (the Goldstone commission said a man and a woman were killed) walking with a group of Palestinians waving a white “surrender” flag; the shelling of a mosque during a prayer service, causing casualties among the worshippers; and the ordering of a criminal investigation into a fatal air strike on a house where about 100 members of an extended Palestinian family, the Samounis, were sheltering on the advice of the Israeli Defence Force.
The Samouni case caused particular outrage worldwide because Israeli forces prevented Palestinian paramedics from entering the house for days after the strike.
When Red Cross workers eventually got into the house, they found four emaciated Samouni children, who had been trapped there for days with their mothers’ corpses. In all, 30 Samounis died.
The Israeli military has also indicted a battalion commander for authorising Israeli troops to use a Palestinian man as a human shield when entering a Gaza house.
The military report gives few details of its findings in these cases and goes to some lengths to minimise the culpability of its soldiers, saying for example that the shelling of the mosque had been aimed at an individual “terror operative” who was standing outside the mosque and that the injuries to the worshippers had been “unintentional and caused by shrapnel that entered the mosque”. It gives no casualty figures, but the Goldstone commission said 15 civilians died.
Similarly, the charges and disciplinary action appear mild. Deliberately shooting an unarmed civilian waving a white flag is normally regarded as murder or, in formally declared wartime, a war crime. But the sniper is being charged with “manslaughter” and will be tried by a military court.
A battalion commander who authorised the human shield has been indicted for “inappropriate Israeli Defence Force behaviour” and deviating from authorised procedure. The officer who ordered the shelling of the mosque has been “rebuked” and will not be allowed to serve in a similar position of command again.
But the real importance of this military investigation is that it vindicates the Goldstone commission. It is worth recalling that Israel refused to co-operate with the commission. It also resisted calls by Israeli and international human rights organisations for an independent Israeli investigation outside the military framework.
In the circumstances, the four members of the fact-finding mission, which Goldstone chaired, called on the Israeli government and the Palestinian authorities to use the information they had gathered to carry out serious independent investigations — failing which the matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court. One can only wonder how much of a whitewash there would have been had the Goldstone commission never done this preliminary work.
For Judge Richard Goldstone, particularly, this is a personal vindication, for he was excoriated by leading members of the local Jewish community for chairing the commission. He was told his commission’s findings were lies; that he was naive and gullible for accepting the version of events given by terrorists; and that, since he is a Jew, he was a traitor to his people.
His critics were given support by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, who chastised Goldstone for “doing great damage to the state of Israel”. He should have recused himself instead, Goldstein said, and taken no part in the investigating mission.
I have had difficulty understanding what the chief rabbi meant by this.
Goldstein is a trained lawyer as well as a rabbi. Did he mean that no Jew, however professionally disciplined — and Judge Goldstone’s legal reputation is among the highest in the world — can be objective when it comes to a matter involving Israel?
And if so, does that involve Jews individually or collectively as well, or just the interests of the state of Israel? Or did he mean that it is a Jewish person’s inherent duty either to set aside his professional ethics and find in favour of the state of Israel regardless of the merits of a case or, if that is unacceptable, to recuse himself? But that for a Jew to find against Israel is traitorous?
What are the moral priorities being expressed here?
We are not dealing with an ordinary individual in this matter, but with the head of a major religion in a multiracial, multireligious and constitutionally secular state.
We secularists need to know what a religious leader in our community means when he seeks to impose such an ethical dictum on a prominent member of his faith — someone who was a founding father of our Constitutional Court and an interpreter of our infinitely important national constitution in this new democracy.
I am reminded here of the conflict between the Dutch Reformed Church and Beyers Naude over the issue of apartheid.
I attended the Dutch Reformed Church service in Linden, Johannesburg, at which Naude had to respond to the church leaders’ demand that he choose between the church’s doctrine of support for apartheid and his commitment to the nonracial Christian Institute he had founded.
In other words, Naude was forced to choose between his moral principles and his loyalty to his own people and their church.
I heard Naude announce his decision that memorable day before the glitterati of Afrikaner nationalism in the packed pews before him. Smilingly, boldly, he told them simply: “I choose God before man.”
In other words, principles, truth and justice before ethnic or group loyalty. It was the defining moment of that great man’s life.
So I ask the chief rabbi that same question today: what is your choice? Then, at the level of plain human decency, don’t you think, Chief Rabbi Goldstein and those members of the Orthodox Jewish community and the South African Zionist Federation whom you lead, that you owe Judge Goldstone an apology? A public, abject apology.
Leaders of the federation went to the extremes of cruelty when they took their religious war against Judge Goldstone (dare I call it a fatwa?) into the heart of his family by trying to ban him from his grandson’s bar mitzvah. Eventually, but it seemed to me somewhat reluctantly, negotiations enabled the family to celebrate this important event together.
But I’m sorry, that wasn’t enough. In this land of ubuntu, this land of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you must stand up, Chief Rabbi Goldstein, and on behalf of the co-religionists you supported in this calumny, bow your head, apologise and, like the man of God I’m sure you are, beg forgiveness of Judge Richard Goldstone.
- Sparks is a veteran journalist and political analyst.
If G&G (sounds like a garbage collection company) could provide another report on this fatwa on Goldstone, it would be welcome.
As I said, reread the article.Are you stupid groggy?
Was that question really necessary?
First off, everyone here ignores the Israel controlled West Bank.
And Goldstone says:
So Goldstone says apartheid in the West Bank doesn't count if Israel is actively working towards a peaceful settlement with a viable Palestinian state.he situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
Well, that's not happening, hasn't happened for years and isn't too likely to happen in the near future.
Calling apartheid roads and 20 years of occupation puts Goldstone's opinion on the line.
Learn to read Groggy. He does not say "actively working towards a peaceful settlement with a viable Palestinian state". He says "agreed to the concept" and points out that their intent is Israeli security:
Goldstone: "until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense".
That does not say, imply, or mean that Israel has to be "actively working towards a peaceful settlement", although I think Israel is actively working for one, and has been, it's not what Goldstone said. What it says very clearly is that Israel's restrictions on Palestinians are motivated by self-defense concerns, and not institutionalized racism.
Goldstone: "until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense".
That does not say, imply, or mean that Israel has to be "actively working towards a peaceful settlement", although I think Israel is actively working for one, and has been, it's not what Goldstone said. What it says very clearly is that Israel's restrictions on Palestinians are motivated by self-defense concerns, and not institutionalized racism.
How about concentrating on:As I said, reread the article.
First off, everyone here ignores the Israel controlled West Bank.
And Goldstone says:
So Goldstone says apartheid in the West Bank doesn't count if Israel is actively working towards a peaceful settlement with a viable Palestinian state.
Well, that's not happening, hasn't happened for years and isn't too likely to happen in the near future.
Calling apartheid roads and 20 years of occupation puts Goldstone's opinion on the line.
"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs - 20% of Israel's population - vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment."
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/call+apartheid/5642557/story.html
Fortunately for the Richard Goldstone that has been denigrated and humiliated by the Jewish community, the thoroughly researched Goldstone Report pre-emptively refutes the statement he has made under duress.How about concentrating on:
"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs - 20% of Israel's population - vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment."
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/call+apartheid/5642557/story.html
Goldstone op-ed: "Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for its self-defense."
Goldstone Report:
"Israel's restrictions on movement in the West Bank "are disproportionate to any military objective served". They are intended to "consolidate its permanent hold on the West Bank" and amount to "a deliberate policy of closely controlling a population in order to make use of areas of its land". [335] Despite "the claim by Israel that restrictions of movement within the West Bank are imposed on Palestinian residents for security purposes, most of these internal restrictions appear to have been designed to guarantee unobstructed travel to the Israeli inhabitants of the settlements." [54] They therefore constitute "violations of fundamental rights", including the Palestinians' "right to self-determination". [335]"
The cumulative effect of the restrictions on movement has been to "effectively split" Palestinians in the West Bank from their families in Israel, from Gaza, and from East Jerusalem. [57]
Or how about this:How about concentrating on:
"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs - 20% of Israel's population - vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment."
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/call+apartheid/5642557/story.html
Goldstone op-ed: "The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks".
Goldstone Report:
The route of the wall is "to a great degree determined by the objective of incorporating settlements into the Israeli side" and has "contributed to the fragmentation of the West Bank into a series of enclaves". [54] Where located on Palestinian territory (as "some 85 per cent" of it is [329fn873]) it is contrary to international law; is part of a policy aimed at (quoting an EU report) "the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem [53]; and amounts to "the de facto annexation" of 9.5% of the West Bank. It therefore constitutes "acquisition of territory by force", a violation of the UN Charter. [335]
And this:How about concentrating on:
"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: "Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Israeli Arabs - 20% of Israel's population - vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment."
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/call+apartheid/5642557/story.html
Goldstone op-ed: Israel has "no intent to maintain 'an institutonalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group'". In Israel, "equal rights are the law".
Goldstone Report:
Israel's "systematic discrimination, both in law and in practice, against Palestinians" violates international law, and possibly amounts to a crime against humanity [324]. In the West Bank, "a two-tiered road system has been established" with the main roads are reserved for Israelis. [55] Israel's legal practice in the occupied territories has resulted in "institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians... to the benefit of Jewish settlers". Domestically Israel's legal regime is "two-tiered", granting Jews "superior rights and privileges"; meanwhile Palestinian inhabitants of occupied territories are categorised as "alien persons". [57] The Report notes the conclusions of a study by the respected Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) that Israel's "discrimination in planning and building" and other policies in Jerusalem "are concrete expressions of an Israeli policy designed to secure a Jewish majority in Jerusalem and push Palestinian residents outside". [332]
