Israel and Apartheid Slander: Richard Goldstone
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
I would say he is anti-Israel notwithstanding the Camp David Accord.If you say using the word apartheid is anti Israel, then is Carter anti Israel despite his legacy of the Camp David Accord?
That he is lyng is a fact. Why he is lying is a question. You're assuming that the only reason why he would lie about this would be that he is anti Israeli.See post #39.
Maybe he believes that lying about this issue will force Israel back to the bargaining table, that this would be good for Israel, and therefore somehow justifies the lying. I don't know. Or maybe he has become anti Israeli since way back then. Or maybe he always was, but didn't express his true feelings because he needed the support of AIPAC while he was President.
Whatever the reason is--he's lying.
Carter lying?
That would require some evidence.
Meanwhile, Goldstone may be just showing proof on how Israel cannot be trusted to judge itself. Goldstone's turn of opinion reeks of bar mitzvah pressure from the community, as has his total silence except for these two 'opinion pieces'. Here's how Richard Falk and Al Jazeera see it.
There are so many flaws in Goldstone's argument as to see it as just a sad end to a good career.
That would require some evidence.
Meanwhile, Goldstone may be just showing proof on how Israel cannot be trusted to judge itself. Goldstone's turn of opinion reeks of bar mitzvah pressure from the community, as has his total silence except for these two 'opinion pieces'. Here's how Richard Falk and Al Jazeera see it.
Falk sees it as Goldstone succumbing to political pressure to defend Israel in the face of the upcoming Russell Tribunal on Israel's apartheid policies.With shameless abandon, Goldstone's diatribe relies on another debater’s trick by insisting that apartheid is a narrowly circumscribed racial crime of the exact sort that existed in South Africa is certainly disingenuous. Goldstone takes no account of the explicit legal intent, as embodied in the authoritative Rome Statute and in the International Convention on the Crime of Apartheid, to understand race in a much broader sense that applies to the Israeli/Palestine interaction if its systematic and legally encoded discriminatory character can be convincingly established, as I believe is the case.
The sad saga of Richard Goldstone’s descent from pinnacles of respect and trust to this shabby role as legal gladiator recklessly jousting on behalf of Israel is as unbecoming as it is unpersuasive. It is undoubtedly a process more complex than caving in to Zionist pressures, which were even more nasty and overt than usual, as well as being clearly defamatory, but what exactly has led to his radical shift in position remains a mystery. As yet, there is neither an autobiographical account nor a convincing third-party interpretation. Goldstone himself has been silent, seeming to want us to believe that he is now as much a man of the law as ever, but only persisting in his impartial and lifelong attempt to allow the chips to fall where they may. The polemical manipulation of the facts and arguments makes us doubt any such self-serving explanation based on the alleged continuities of professionalism. It is my judgment that enough is known to acknowledge Goldstone’s justifiable fall from grace.
There are so many flaws in Goldstone's argument as to see it as just a sad end to a good career.
Try post #1.That would require some evidence.
As for Richard Falk, talk about a discredited individual. Would you like a little recap of some of the lunatic things that guy believes?
What the hell are you talking about?
And no you don't get to go on slandering and lying until some tribunal has its say. You need you statements to be based on facts, not lies and inventions. Your claims that Israel is an "apartheid state" is lying slander.
And no you don't get to go on slandering and lying until some tribunal has its say. You need you statements to be based on facts, not lies and inventions. Your claims that Israel is an "apartheid state" is lying slander.
Is this the Richard Falk that claimed the Ayatollah Komeini was just misunderstood by the world?Carter lying?
That would require some evidence.
Meanwhile, Goldstone may be just showing proof on how Israel cannot be trusted to judge itself. Goldstone's turn of opinion reeks of bar mitzvah pressure from the community, as has his total silence except for these two 'opinion pieces'. Here's how Richard Falk and Al Jazeera see it.
Falk sees it as Goldstone succumbing to political pressure to defend Israel in the face of the upcoming Russell Tribunal on Israel's apartheid policies.
There are so many flaws in Goldstone's argument as to see it as just a sad end to a good career.
Oh, better take me to court.What the hell are you talking about?
And no you don't get to go on slandering and lying until some tribunal has its say. You need you statements to be based on facts, not lies and inventions. Your claims that Israel is an "apartheid state" is lying slander.
Ha ha ha ha .
I'm sharing that opinion with Carter, Alice Walker and the Rev Tutu.
Better start printing up a pile of those slander charges, the list could get pretty big after the weekend.
Ah, down to just insults.You're a clown.
Hey, why don't you hunker down and watch the livestreaming of the Russell Tributes, I'm sure you'll have a fun time.
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/1399/south-africa-session-preparations
There you can see whether the world thinks that Israel practices
apartheid
whoops, my font slipped.
Ooops,you slipped. The 'world' doesn't think so. From; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_TribunalAh, down to just insults.
Hey, why don't you hunker down and watch the livestreaming of the Russell Tributes, I'm sure you'll have a fun time.
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/1399/south-africa-session-preparations
There you can see whether the world thinks that Israel practices
apartheid
whoops, my font slipped.
Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided and the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known. In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute."[SUP][11]
[/SUP]
South African journalist and human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund described the Cape Town Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine as "It's theatre: the actors know their parts and the result is known before they start. Israel is to be dragged into the mud."[SUP][12][/SUP]
The hearing were widely seen by many as 'kangaroo courts' and received little attention from the mainstream press. Incidents like the Russell Tribunal were described by historian Guenter Lewyas part of a “veritable industry publicizing alleged war crimes”[SUP][13][/SUP] and anti-war activist Richard Falkdescribed the finding as a “juridical farce”.[SUP][14]
[/SUP]
also
Staughton Lynd, chairman of the 1965 “March on Washington”, was asked by Russell to participate in the tribunal and rejected the invitation. Staughton’s objections and criticism of the Tribunal were based on the fact that Russell planned to investigate only non-North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front conduct, sheltering Hanoi from any criticism for their behavior. Lynd wrote that “in conversation with the emissary who proffered the invitation, I urged that the alleged war crimes of any party to the conflict should come before the Tribunal. After all, I argued, a "crime" is an action that is wrong no matter who does it. Pressing my case, I asked, "What if it were shown that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam tortures unarmed prisoners?" The answer, as I understood it, was, "Anything is justified that drives the imperialist aggressor into the sea." I declined the invitation to be a member of the Tribunal.”[SUP][15]
[/SUP]
David Horowitz was then a member of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. He confirms that the Russell Tribunal never held any intention of investigating alleged Communist atrocities. In his memoirs, Horowitz describes overhearing Jean-Paul Sartre insist that the North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front were, by definition, incapable of committing war crimes. "I refuse to place," said Sartre, "in the same category the actions of an organization of poor peasants... and those of an immense army backed by a highly organized country."[SUP][16][/SUP]
I see you've doubled up on your dose of Hyperbole R Us
LOL you don't even know that it is the "Russell Tribunal" and not "Tributes", although "Tributes" is probably more accurate.Hey, why don't you hunker down and watch the livestreaming of the Russell Tributes
You're also too dumb to realize that this has already been dealt with in post #1:
Goldstone: "One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known."
Why would any serious person lend any credibility to a joke like that?
Well, excuse my typo.LOL you don't even know that it is the "Russell Tribunal" and not "Tributes", although "Tributes" is probably more accurate.
You're also too dumb to realize that this has already been dealt with in post #1:
Goldstone: "One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known."
Why would any serious person lend any credibility to a joke like that?
The evidence is only one sided because Israel refused to come to defend themselves and there is nobody in the world who would do that for them.
Goldstone's defense is just sad.
Why don't you start off with a little primer before Monday's results from the Russell Tribunal are released.
Have a look at the Human Sciences Council of South Africa's report that finds Israel's policies to be apartheid:
HRSC report
Or perhaps you should read Jimmy Carter on the issue.
Its really not surprising at all, how can you possibly create a Jewish state without the use of racist policies are in fact apartheid.
The country had a choice between a Jewish apartheid state or a democratic state and it decided to go with apartheid.
So you know better than Goldstone, someone who report you cling to as gospel, but whose opinion you hold ever so close as long as it agrees with your warped sense of reality and ignore it when it doesn't.Well, excuse my typo.
The evidence is only one sided because Israel refused to come to defend themselves and there is nobody in the world who would do that for them.
Goldstone's defense is just sad.
Why don't you start off with a little primer before Monday's results from the Russell Tribunal are released.
Have a look at the Human Sciences Council of South Africa's report that finds Israel's policies to be apartheid:
HRSC report
Or perhaps you should read Jimmy Carter on the issue.
Its really not surprising at all, how can you possibly create a Jewish state without the use of racist policies are in fact apartheid.
The country had a choice between a Jewish apartheid state or a democratic state and it decided to go with apartheid.
I'm quite clear on the matter.
Judge Goldstone's work was quite reputable up until the last year, since then he's taken a drastic change in opinion, quite probably under community pressure, and his work is no longer trustworthy.
Happens all the time.
I back pre-2011 Goldstone.
By the way, how do you feel about spitting?
Seems like some priests in Jerusalem are getting all upset over Orthodox Jews spitting at them.
Shocking isn't it, that racist face?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/ultra-orthodox-spitting-attacks-on-old-city-clergymen-becoming-daily-1.393669
Oh, and also shocking is that an Israeli organization has found that Israeli doctors have stopped reporting torture when they find it.
So not only aren't the police trustworthy, but now its doctors as well.
Judge Goldstone's work was quite reputable up until the last year, since then he's taken a drastic change in opinion, quite probably under community pressure, and his work is no longer trustworthy.
Happens all the time.
I back pre-2011 Goldstone.
By the way, how do you feel about spitting?
Seems like some priests in Jerusalem are getting all upset over Orthodox Jews spitting at them.
Shocking isn't it, that racist face?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/ultra-orthodox-spitting-attacks-on-old-city-clergymen-becoming-daily-1.393669
Oh, and also shocking is that an Israeli organization has found that Israeli doctors have stopped reporting torture when they find it.
So not only aren't the police trustworthy, but now its doctors as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-doctors-report-torture-palestinianMedical professionals in Israel are being accused of failing to document and report injuries caused by the ill-treatment and torture of detainees by security personnel in violation of their ethical code.
A report by two Israeli human rights organisations, the Public Committee Against Torture (PCAT) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), claims that medical staff are also failing to report suspicion of torture and ill-treatment, returning detainees to their interrogators and passing medical information to interrogators.
As I said he was your hero until he didn't agree with your position.I'm quite clear on the matter.
Judge Goldstone's work was quite reputable up until the last year, since then he's taken a drastic change in opinion, quite probably under community pressure, and his work is no longer trustworthy.
Happens all the time.
I back pre-2011 Goldstone.
By the way, how do you feel about spitting?
Seems like some priests in Jerusalem are getting all upset over Orthodox Jews spitting at them.
Shocking isn't it, that racist face?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...on-old-city-clergymen-becoming-daily-1.393669
Oh, and also shocking is that an Israeli organization has found that Israeli doctors have stopped reporting torture when they find it.
So not only aren't the police trustworthy, but now its doctors as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-doctors-report-torture-palestinian
You are pathetic. It's biased because they hand picked people to be "jurors" who are well known for their anti-Israeli views. The only way it could be more biased is if they made membership in Hamas a precondition of participation in the "tribunal".The evidence is only one sided because Israel refused to come to defend themselves
Why do you dredge up this garbage? It only shows everyone here how extraordinarily biased you are, that you go around pretending this stuff has any credibility.
Israel was invited, and could have presented criticisms there if they liked.You are pathetic. It's biased because they hand picked people to be "jurors" who are well known for their anti-Israeli views. The only way it could be more biased is if they made membership in Hamas a precondition of participation in the "tribunal".
Why do you dredge up this garbage? It only shows everyone here how extraordinarily biased you are, that you go around pretending this stuff has any credibility.
Hey, by the way, congrats to your sabotaging friends, seems like they've hacked the Russell Tribunal website for the day.
That ought to show how open Israel is to criticism.
Nicely done.
You know, Israel is really starting to borrow a lot of tactics from South Africa just before it fell.
That's smart thinking, it is.
