(Another) open letter to Judge Goldstone

[shira]

(Another) open letter to Judge Goldstone
By RICHARD LANDES
12/05/2010 21:43

Why ignore the critique and preach only to the choir, because the choir was the worldwide community of human rights, who fete your accomplishment continuously.

Dear Judge Goldstone, I am one of those who have read your report, and have followed closely your (and your fellow mission members’) subsequent comments about it. I just read your most recent statements in The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Once again you repeat, unchanged, claims you’ve been making all along, including two prominent ones: 1) If only the Israelis had cooperated, things might have been different; and 2) that no substantive criticism has arisen to challenge your findings.

Now your first is counter-factual, hence open to considerable speculation, and even then it’s misleading. While Israel didn’t cooperate officially, through various channels (Israeli NGOs, even the visit of Daniel Reizer, the head of the international law department of the IDF) Israel submitted extensive evidence to your committee. You not only ignored it, but to this day refuse to put it up on the UNHRC Web site devoted to your mission.

Your second claim, however, is more concrete; and here the evidence against your is formidable. There is an extensive and substantive critique of your report which most close readers of it – even neutral ones – find shockingly below standard. These are easily available on-line (collected at a handy Web site), and your denial that they have any substance contradicts your second claim categorically. Why would it have made any difference if Israel had participated in the mission’s work since you seem so singularly uninterested anything that contradicts your findings?

TAKE, FOR example, the recent publication of a 350-page compilation of evidence that Hamas used human shields, which your report explicitly denies repeatedly. You, by your own admission, chose not to investigate Hamas’s misuse of Shifa Hospital, of mosques, of ambulances, etc. Indeed you found Hamas involvement in only one of the incidents you examined. Is this irrelevant to your crucial conclusions about Israeli “war crimes” and “possible crimes against humanity,” which depend on the IDF deliberately firing on civilians?

more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=175402

[shira]

1. article cont'd...

As one Gazan (who apparently did not testify before your mission), told a journalist: The Hamas militants looked for good places to provoke the Israelis. They were usually youths, 16 or 17 years old, armed with submachine guns. They couldn’t do anything against a tank or jet. They knew they were much weaker. But they wanted the to shoot at the houses so they could accuse them of more war crimes.”

By ignoring the issue, you have played into this cannibalistic strategy.

Certainly Hamas reads your report this way: All paragraphs in the Goldstone report convict Israel and totally exonerate Hamas from any misconduct. For instance, the report exonerates Hamas from the accusation of using civilians as human shields and attributes this accusation to Israeli forces. Even when the report is dealing with the rockets that were launched from Gaza, it speaks about military groups without naming Hamas.

These are terribly serious criticisms. They suggest that, far from supporting international human rights, your report allowed an organization which has no respect for them to victimize its own people in a PR campaign against Israel.

By only (and, as it noticed, indirectly) criticizing Hamas for war crimes in targeting civilians, you only charged it with deeds of which it is proud. The really embarrassing material – its targeting of its own civilians, its cruel engineering of a “humanitarian crisis” by, for example, blocking medical supplies and ambulances at the Egyptian border – you avoided. This suggests that what you wanted from the Israelis was not testimony about the way Hamas fought, but their defense against accusations you found, a priori, “entirely credible.”

If you have actually read any of the substantive critiques of your report, and really do think they’re “marginal,” it calls into question the soundness of your judgment. They may be wrong, but that is for you to show. You say Israel should want to be held to the highest standards of human rights; surely you wish to be held to the highest standards of legal reasoning, no?

And yet, you have avoided doing precisely that. CAMERA, one of your more severe and always substantive critics, actually submitted a formal inquiry to you about specific but vital aspects of your report. After repeated requests for acknowledgment, you responded, “I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your letter.”

This is part of a pattern in which you avoid either debates, or potentially critical interviews, a pattern followed by the other members of your mission. It is as if you felt you could safely ignore the critique and preach only to the choir, because the choir was the worldwide community of human rights, who fete your accomplishment continuously.

But this is the kind of behavior that leads to emperor’s new clothes scenario. If you just listen to those who flatter you and shun those who speak their mind freely, then you become a legend in your own mind, and you mistake your reputation for reality. You end up shoring up a grotesque parade of “international human rights” which actually promotes all the forces most hostile to your cause.

If international law is going to defend human rights, it must do so on the basis of a fair assessment of the evidence, not by following the latest fad of assuming the innocence and honesty of the Palestinian underdog. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, it’s a fallacy to assume the superior virtue of the oppressed, especially when their elite oppresses them and blames others.

If you have any respect for the biblical tradition of jurisprudential wisdom, you might spend some long hours meditating on the warning: “Do not favor either the powerful or the poor in judgment, but judge justly.”

If you have any respect for your own intellectual integrity, or for the global audience you address, you will take your critics more seriously, and respond to them, both in writing and in public exchanges.


The writer is a professor of medieval history at Boston University. He blogs at the Augean Stables and maintains two websites, one on the mainstream news media (Second Draft) and one on the Goldstone Report.

A version of this text appears on the Augean Stables.

[Tripmann]

2. About the author

"Landes who is known for his Pro-Israel views is notable for his denial of the UN report on the Gaza war. He has written articles denying that Palestinian civilians were actually killed in conflicts with Israel and coining the term Pallywood (Palestinian Hollywood), which is described by Ruthie Blum, writing in the Jerusalem Post, as a term coined by Landes to refer to "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda."

(another) reasoned open letter :eyes:

[aranthus]

3. More un-sourced ad hominem and no reasoning whatsoever.

How about actually refuting the letter . . . if you can?

On further investigation, the quote you posted is from Wikipedia, which means it could have come from anyone. More to the point, the claim that he has written articles denying that Palestinian civilians were killed in conflicts with Israel is dishonest in its generality. The implication of the quote is that he has either falsely claimed that in some instances Palestinian civilians were not killed, or worse, that he has claimed that no civilians were killed ever. Neither of those assertions is supported by his published work that I have seen. The articles of Landes' cited in the Wikipedia article argue that in some cases (the Al Dura hoax, for example), instances of civilian deaths were faked. That's a fairly well established hoax by now, and is hardly an unreasoned claim by Landes. And there simply isn't any basis to claim that he has denied all civilian deaths (he'd be a fool to do that). So all you have to support your snide comment about the reasoning of Landes' piece is that he's pro-Israel and has written that some Palestinians fake some atrocities for the media. Not worth much, but I suppose it's easier than coming up with a reasoned response of your own.

[shira]

5. From WIKI? Got anything substantive about the OP other than some baseless WIKI assertions...

....which misrepresent the author?

Denying Palestinians die in the conflict? :tinfoilhat:

[Tripmann]

6. Just pointing it out shira

Landes is the 'pallywood' guy, is he not?

If I was known for inventing a slang phrase like, say, 'Is-wail-i' to describe what I claimed to be israelis in sderot hamming up for the cameras their reactions to rocket attacks, my open letter to nethenyahu would be tainted with the reputation that precedes me.

It works both ways.

Oh, and aranthus, I tend to save my resoned responses for reasoned people.

[shira]

8. Still lacking in substance

You see, the reason Goldstone is pilloried in the Israeli/Jewish press isn't because he's merely critical of Israel. Landes shows convincingly in the above OP-ED that Goldstone's Report is a sham and THAT's why his character is attacked. In fact, the Goldstone Report is so bad that Goldstone has to lie, claim no substantive criticism of it exists, and avoid any tough interviews and debates.

You simply can't argue substantively so all you have are ad-hominems. As for Pallywood, you really need to google and see Landes' youtube video on that. Landes is no extreme nutcase by any means.

And if you had evidence like Landes has for Sderot Israelis hamming it up for the cameras, you could legitimately call it whatever you'd like.

[Tripmann]

11. I don't 'argue' about the contents of op-eds shira.

Just because you happen to post an opinion piece from somebody who agrees with you does not mean it contains anything worth discussing.

You created a topic stating somebodys opinion. Big deal.

[shira]

12. There's a difference between fact and opinion and I'm not sure you can distinguish between the two.

One fact in the OP-ED is that extensive substantive criticism of Goldstone's Report exists and that Goldstone is lying by claiming none exists.

It appears you believe that's only an opinion, that Goldstone really isn't lying and really wants to honestly discuss the Report with his critics.

[Tripmann]

13. You've posted an open letter by one person

Whoop de doo.

Funny how you talk about facts but don't support an open and fully independent investigation of OCL, which would no doubt vindicate you calling goldstone a liar.

Funny also how the goldstone report is such a filthy fabrication of lies and deserves to be ignored, EXCEPT for the parts that criticise hamas. These parts are, strangely enough, factual and correct.

Oh, and I already told you my position on the goldstone report.YOU KNOW MY POSITION AS I POSTED IT ABOUT 2 DAYS AGO IN A REPLY TO YOU. So stop being so deceitful and implying what I believe when you know this is not the case.

[shira]

14. Again, there's fact vs. propaganda and it seems you have no clue as to how to distinguish

...between the two.

There's no point continuing when we're living in 2 different realities.

[Tripmann]

15. Why do you talk about facts but not support a full independent and open investigation?

[shira]

24. You don't realize what a bunch of crap an investigation would be.

Goldstone's UN report is so bad that it calls into question anything Israel does in response to it.

Will Goldstone and his UN cronies have to approve who heads this independent/open Israeli investigation?

What if the conclusions aren't that much different than what Israel has already concluded? Then what?

In the eyes of the UN, the same UN that just voted Libya into the UNHRC with 80% approval, Israel is guilty until proven innocent. Let's suppose this independent/open commission absolves Israel, how does Israel get its reputation back? Goldstone and the UN will never admit their report was complete horseshit and they'll just wait for the next opportunity to do the same. How's about Goldstone and the UN agree in advance that if the investigation absolves Israel, then they do something in return to make certain "Goldstone" never happens again? Like major reform to the UNHRC, never again voting in Libya or Mauritania to represent the UNHRC, admit they've been unfair to Israel.... ;)

I'm actually for an investigation but not to appease the UN or Goldstone. That simply cannot be done.

[Tripmann]

25. Y'see, this is why nobody backs your position

YOU CLAIM GOLDSTONES A LIAR BUT DISS ANY MENTION OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. IT WOULD JUST BE A JOKE. BOLLOCKS. THE FACTS COMING OUT IS A WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE SUPPORTERS OF OCL.

You: goldstones a liar etc.

Me: Lets hold an independent investigation. We'll find out whether he is or not.

You: No, it would just be a joke.

Guess the only people capable of investigating allegations of war crimes in shiraland are the people who are being accused of them :rofl:

It's EXACTLY as dumb as it sounds.

'The purpose' of the investigation would be to find the truth, not to appease anyone. Debate about one persons reporting of the affair pales in signifigance to the only question that matters.....

"Was it necessary to undertake OCL in the full knowledge that it would lead to the deaths of countless innocent women and children?"

Of course, its plain for all to see that those who call goldstone a filthy liar but who won't back an independent investigation are playing at. Pointing the finger and making every discussion about OCL into a debate about the goldstone report deflects nicely away from discussing the real issue...OCL itself and the alleged atrocities committed by both sides.

[shira]

26. I wrote at the end of the post that I'm for an open investigation

Maybe you should re-read that post again since it appears you saw only what you wanted to see in it.

Respond accordingly to my concerns, please.

[Tripmann]

27. You wrote at the start of that very same post.....

"You don't realize what a bunch of crap an investigation would be"

So, you're for an independent investigation that you've already decided , prior to its even being set up, would be a bunch of crap?

[shira]

28. I'm for the truth, and for Israelis knowing what to do going forward in future wars

...but I realize none of that matters to the UN, or you for that matter. If the investigation doesn't validate Goldstone's findings, you and yours will claim the commission was biased, its process rigged, etc.

Again, please address my concerns regarding:

a) Who from the UN will approve of the head of this Israeli commission?
b) What if the results mostly exonerate Israel?

[Tripmann]

29. I think claiming that 'you and yours' will claim bias

is a bit disengenuous considering I'm the person around here that has neither supported or refuted goldstones claims, and has always called for an independent investigation.

The flip side is of course true, that whoever would be appointed would be subject to the vilest character assasination by 'YOU AND YOURS'.

To answer your questions:

a) Ban Ki Moon gets to choose. Israel or the Palestinians do not get to have a say, no more than anyone else gets to choose who conducts an investigation against them.

b) Having conducted an open, full and independent investigation into OCL, having been granted access to all required information, israel should be exonerated of the things it did not do wrong, and not exonerated of the things it did do wrong.

The question then is whether or not OCL was necessary in the first place.

[shira]

30. How can you neither support or refute Goldstone's claims? They are what they are.

They've been reported everywhere. Israel is to open an investigation based on that report. And then there's the UNHRC's historically slanderous accusations against Israel. Israel has to deal accordingly with every new accusation, so how can you have no opinion on them? Obviously, you believe there's good reason to generally trust Goldstone's findings, otherwise you wouldn't be calling for an open investigation. I think you realize Goldstone's Report is complete shit, but you can't admit it.

Question to you: Do you believe the UNHRC needs to reform itself, and if so, how?

Also, why would you think I'd have a problem with whoever Israel agreed to head the investigation?

As to your suggestions,

a) Ban Ki Moon doesn't control the UNHRC. While Moon may agree with Israel's choice to lead the inquiry, why trust that the UNHRC would agree with that choice? They chose Goldstone and his team for a reason. They knew the outcome in advance. Why would the UNHRC agree to a commission that could very well exhonerate Israel?

b) As to the things Israel did not do wrong, how does Israel gain its reputation back after all the libel? Does the UNHRC just shrug and get a do-over in the future, pretend this never happened, and do it all again, accusing Israel of whatever they wish and presuming Israel guilty until proven innocent? When will this nonsense end and they stop their bigoted singling out of the Jewish state?

As to OCL being necessary, how many more thousands of rockets should Israelis have endured? How's about after an open and independent investigation, the UNHRC actually provides countries like Israel actual guidelines as to how to effectively, practically, and morally fight an asymmetrical war against an opponent that hides within its own population? It's one thing to rule what Israel cannot do in defense, it's another to provide countries like Israel practical and efficient ways to defend humanely. Incidentally, Israel fights within the law just as well as the USA, UK, etc. If Israel is committing warcrimes, so are the UK and USA.

Do you think the USA and UK should open investigations WRT Iraq and Afghanistan? Should the UNHRC be calling for it?

[Tripmann]

33. Being dishonest again shira?

Every few days I explain to you my position on goldstone. I don't need to do it again.

Ban ki moon is top dog at the UN. The buck stops with him. You want any investigation to have a foundation of integrity you ask the UN secretary general. End of.

As for your other bullshit contention...

"how does Israel gain its reputation back after all the libel"

Israel has created as much libel as it has received in relation to this. You of all people should realise that fact.

How does it gain its reputation back? By proving the libel accusations against it are false via an open, independent and full examination of all evidence.

Simple

"As to OCL being necessary, how many more thousands of rockets should Israelis have endured?"

How many bites should the owner who beats and starves his dog have to endure. Rhetoric doesn't work when you're defending the abuser shira.

You really do insult the intelligence of people around here though. OCL was executed weeks before a general election at a time when the israeli admin was being accused of being weak on hamas. Contending that ANY government ANYWHERE in the world would blow the shit out of ANYONE weeks before a general election and not build that election into their decision making process to bomb in the first place is beyond absurd.

I remember hearing about OCL on the news, my first thought was 'there must be an election of some description coming up.' Not exactly rocket science

Oh, and...

"Do you think the USA and UK should open investigations WRT Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Yes. Especially Iraq. Do you not??

[shira]

34. You're projecting again

Dishonesty sums up your body of work here.

Ban ki moon is top dog at the UN. The buck stops with him. You want any investigation to have a foundation of integrity you ask the UN secretary general. End of.

As you were told, Ban Ki Moon doesn't control the UNHRC. It's controlled by gross HR violators like Libya, S.Arabia, and N.Korea and it appears you have no problem with this. Kofi Annan often spoke out against the UN's bias against Israel and actually terminated the UNHRC's predecessor. Lots of good that did, huh? The point being the UN Sec. General cannot control the UNHRC, which for some reason you trust implicitly.

How does it gain its reputation back? By proving the libel accusations against it are false via an open, independent and full examination of all evidence.

Simple

Can you admit the UNHRC is hopelessly biased and bigoted towards Israel? That they practice a special kind of apartheid justice against Israel which is not practiced against any other country? And that they fabricate or exaggerate claims in order to bash Israel? That said, David Duke does the same thing. Israel isn't required to prove its innocence against David Duke's antisemitic blather, so why should they feel obligated to answer to the bigots running S.Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and N.Korea? Oh yeah, the UNHRC isn't run by bigoted antisemitic nations, is it?

:rofl:

Also, why wait for an open/independent investigation to prove Goldstone wrong? Why not judge the empirical evidence now to ascertain whether or not the Goldstone findings merit an investigation that the UN is unlikely to recognize anyway? Especially if it exonerates Israel.

I remember hearing about OCL on the news, my first thought was 'there must be an election of some description coming up.' Not exactly rocket science

Your grasp of recent history is deplorable. In the weeks leading to OCL, do you know how many rockets Hamas fired at Israel? Give a guess.

"Do you think the USA and UK should open investigations WRT Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Yes. Especially Iraq. Do you not??

That's an easy out for you, and of course I'm for it too. Does it bother you that the UN isn't pressuring the USA and UK to open investigations? Maybe the UN needs to write up some ridiculous libel against US and UK forces and challenge both nations to prove their innocence? You wouldn't have a problem with the UN deliberately slandering US and UK forces in an effort to pressure the 2 countries into opening investigations, would you?

I await your very honest response.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

35. The UNHRC is part of the UN, of which Ban Ki Moon is the secretary

They are the facts shira.

As for the rest of your post, its just the tired old 'everyone hates israel' bollocks over and over again. Blah blah blah, david duke, Blah blah blah, goldstone Blah blah blah, hamas

Maybe you'd like to tell us who you'd recommend to hold the inquiry?

[shira]

36. Ban Ki Moon doesn't control the UNHRC

Neither did Kofi Annan, and are you aware of Annan's views on the UNHRC and its obsession with Israel?

Probably not. That's irrelevant. It's just a "Jewish" argument.

No point continuing when you refuse to debate honestly all the relevant "blah, blah, blah" arguments. Your MO here appears to be that you'll throw as much shit against the wall as possible, hoping some will stick. When refuted, it's all "blah, blah, blah" Jewish arguments. Wait a few days. Repeat.

Pathetic.

[Tripmann]

37. Maybe you'd like to tell us who you'd recommend to head the inquiry?

[shira]

38. Aharon Barak. A real judge.

[Tripmann]

39. Yes, yes, yes

Lets ask the UN to appoint zionist israeli judge to head an investigation into allegations of war crimes against israel.

Lets also ask scalia to head the investigation into the invasion of Iraq.

You see shira, this is the natural conclusion of your relentless goldstone = evil crap. All it takes is for somebody to say 'lets get everything out in the open and independently investigated which will prove whether or not he's a liar' and you practically soil yourself. Somebody asks 'Who do you want to lead the open, full and INDEPENDENT investigation' and all you can pick is an israeli zionist judge, such is your fear of the complete truth ever being known.

This is why nobody takes you serious.

[shira]

40. What a disgusting trollish response

You deride me for using "Jewish" sources or quoting from "Jewish" people, no matter how accurate and reliable the source and NOW you've ripped that mask off once again because it's quite obvious that you simply do not trust ANY Zionists or Jews.

They're de facto dishonest and biased and cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial.

:puke:

What's sick is you actually trust an unapologetic apartheid Judge who in the 90's indicted a fictional Serbian character OVER one of the most honored liberal Israeli Judges in the history of Israel.

====

ETA:
This should be good for shits and giggles. Who's YOUR choice to lead this open investigation?

[Tripmann]

41. Fail

You would agree to an open, full independent investigation into israels war crimes.........but you want it headed by an israeli zionist judge.

Why not a palestinian judge in that case?

Like I said, its why nobody takes you seriously. Its also why when Israel stated that they have investigated themselves, and found themselves to be whiter than white, the world collectively rolled its eyes.

And again, you revert to your filth tactics. I never said I trusted or believed goldstone. I've stated this on several occasions. Says a lot when you knowingly have to be dishonest to debate your point.

[shira]

42. Yes, fail - you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole

How's about naming an actual Palestinian Judge, or are all Palestinians the "same" to you? If just any Palestinian Judge, can Hamas just send one of their own Judges into Israel? That'll do for you, right?

You should do some research into Aharon Barak, who had ruled that torture is illegal in Israel and stated just a few months back that the IDF was incapable of investigating itself.

In 1995 Barak was appointed as President of the Supreme Court of Israel, and during his term, the Court proved to be less activist than before, showing more restraint and caution in political matters. Yet, Barak was involved in several major decisions, among them the KA’ADAN case (HC 6698/95) according Israeli Arabs the same rights accorded to Jews to live in a communal settlement located on state land; the decision to outlaw torture during security related investigations (HC 5100/94); a decision to release Lebanese detainees imprisoned in Israel as “bargaining chips” for securing the safe return of a captured Israeli pilot (FH 7048/97); redrawing the lines of the security fence in the West Bank (HC 2056/04) by taking the approach that the army’s discretion in lands under “belligerent occupancy” is not unlimited, and that the fence’s route must balance security considerations against the needs of local residents. In May 2006 Barak wrote the main minority opinion in a 6 to 5 decision (HC 7052/03) rejecting several petitions against an amendment to the Citizenship Law, which prevents Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs from becoming Israeli citizens or permanent residents (translation to English of several of those decisions and others can be found at the Supreme Court website: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/verdict/search_eng/verdict_by_misc.html ).

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/barak1006.htm

That record doesn't speak for itself?

Ex-justice Barak urges probe into Cast Lead report claims

Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has advised Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to support the setting up of a state investigative committee or a governmental inquiry committee to look into the claims raised against Israel by the Goldstone report.

Barak, whose opinion and international prestige carry considerable weight in the matter, told Mazuz recently that the report must be countered by such a committee, endowed with investigative and subpoena powers.

The chair of a state investigative committee is appointed by the president of the Supreme Court, while a governmental committee is appointed by the relevant minister. The latter body can be given investigative powers if it is chaired by a retired senior judge.

Barak appears to have rejected every other method for investigating the claims brought up by the report, into Israel's conduct during last year's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, but Defense Minister Ehud Barak has already said he opposed any outside investigations into the IDF.

The options open to Mazuz include the two types of committee suggested by Aharon Barak, some other investigatory panel without powers of subpoena, or not launching a new investigation at all, making do with internal reviews conducted by the IDF.

A source close to the deliberations told Haaretz that the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and the Military Prosecutor's office have all shown interest in drafting former Justice Barak to criticize the legal basis of the Goldstone report and to endorse the internal investigations of the IDF without a new inquiry.

Barak, however, is said to believe that nothing but a committee with investigative power would be an appropriate response to the claims of Israeli war crimes made in the report.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestinian-activists-urge-hamas-to-probe-own-gaza-war-crimes-1.261642

You're also full of shit WRT Goldstone. You neither trust or believe in him. Why not? What are you basing your knowledge of OCL on if not his report?

[Tripmann]

43. Theres the difference shira

I don't think its appropriate for an israeli OR palestinian judge to head any investigation into OCR.

and I've told you several times of my views about goldstone.

Stop being so dishonest.

[shira]

44. So who do you recommend to lead this investigation from outside Israel and the territories?

[Tripmann]

45. I told you already

Ban Ki Moon should be charged with picking somebody to head up the investigation. As the secretary general of the largest coalition of nations on the planet, he would be the most acceptable to pick an investigator of crimes against humanity.

[shira]

46. And who should he pick?

[Tripmann]

47. Thats a matter for Ban Ki-Moon

But to maintain credibility I would not use anyone from a country involved in the colflict including by proxy.

[shira]

48. And anyone Ban Ki-Moon selects is okay by you?

I'd say Israel gets to decide who it is. They provide a list of several names and Ban Ki-Moon picks someone from that list.

If you know anything about the UN, you should know that it cannot be trusted to fairly judge Israel. The UN practices apartheid justice against Israel. As a liberal, you surely cannot be in favor of that, can you? ;)

[Tripmann]

49. Ban Ki-Moon isn't the UN

And, again, heres why no-one takes you seriously.....

You want an independent, full investigation of allegations of war crimes against israel and hamas. But Israel gets to pick the shortlist for who heads the investigation.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Did the nazis get to pick their judge at the nuremberg trials? Do war criminals get to choose the prosecution in the hague? Does anyone get to choose their investigators?

Beyond ridiculous.

[shira]

50. No one takes the UN seriously when 155 of 192 nations vote Libya into the UNHRC

You can't even admit that the UN practices special apartheid justice against Israel and therefore cannot legitimately judge Israel fairly.

Neither are you aware of your many logically fallacious arguments.

So really, who's being ridiculous here?

:)

[Tripmann]

51. What part of Ban Ki-Moon isn't the UN is too difficult for you to comprehend?

Are you contesting that he's not a man of integrity?

Come on shira, tell us a story about his anti-semitism.......

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[aranthus]

9. No you weren't.

You were engaging in backhanded dishonest character assassination. The difference between Pallywood and your Is-wail-i, is that Pallywood is documented and videoed, while Is-wail-i is just another of your unsupported smears. The problem is that you don't have a reasoned response3 to Professor Landes' piece so you resort to innuendo.

[Tripmann]

10. Aranthus

Would you like to show my other 'unsupported smears'?

Ta

[aranthus]

16. Here's one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311362#312060

[Tripmann]

17. And how is that an 'unsuported smear'?

Was shira not posting the opinion of another jewish peoson that agrees with her?

FYI :

Smear: To damage someone's reputation by slandering, misrepresenting, or otherwise making false accusations about an individual, their statements, or their actions.

This is what you accuse me of. So show where I'm 'damaging someone's reputation by slandering, misrepresenting, or otherwise making false accusations about an individual, their statements, or their actions.'

I hope that the irony isn't lost on you that by accusing me of smearing but not able to back it up you are in fact 'smearing' me.

[aranthus]

18. Dsiparaging the opinion because it's by a Jew isn't a smear?

Get real.

[Tripmann]

20. Show me where I 'disparaged the opinion because its by a jew'

I disparaged shiras constant 'heres a jewish website/person/newspaper that agrees with me' method of 'proving' her claims, not the opinion itself.

Its not the same thing, but we already know that don't we?

Now, if you knew I was disparaging shiras methods, but accused me anyway of disparaging someones opinion because they're a jew, THAT would be a smear :)

[Dick Dastardly]

22. Arthur Goldberg was a liberal Democrat, A US Supreme Court Justice, A US Secretary of Labor,

the US ambassador to the Belgrade Conference on Human Rights, a US Presidential Medal of Freedom recipiant, the US Ambassador to the UN and a key drafter of Resolution 242.

Shira posted what Goldberg said as one of the many supporting proofs to rebut your claim that the occupation was illegal which you never give any supporting evidence of. Instead of refuting the evidence you dismiss it simply because Golberg is Jewish despite his impecable credentials.

Your actual response is

"So now its a jewish guy that agrees with you. as well as a jewish website.
Well that settles it!"

If that isnt disparging an opinion because its by a Jew then I dont know what is.

[Tripmann]

23. Read the thread dick

[aranthus]

31. Re-read your post.

"So now its a jewish guy that agrees with you
Edited on Mon May-03-10 05:05 AM by Tripmann
as well as a jewish website.

Well that settles it!

Brilliant .

By the way, you still haven't answered.

Is the israeli occupation lawful?"

Shira posted the opinion of a Jew, and you suggested that was worthy of derision. You didn't actually refute the opinion, so the only reason your post gives for the derision is that the opinion is by a Jew. Of course that's a smear. Now you claim that you were actually disparaging Shira for posting the opinions of Jews who agree with her. Well it's your post, so I suppose that you can spin it how you want. However, you should at least admit that what you posted is highly susceptible of the interpretation that I, Shira, and others have given it. In fact, it's so susceptible of that interpretation, and your alleged actual meaning is so obscure in the post, that I didn't even think that's what you were doing until after your most recent post.

Even if that's what you were doing, why would Shira's resort to opinions of Jews who agree with her be worthy of disparagement? Because she posts the opinions of people who agree with her in order to make her point? Of course not. What else is she supposed to do, post opinions of people who disagree with her? No, the only reason suggested by you for disparaging her method of argument is because she posts the opinions of Jews. That takes us about right back where we started. Yes it's not quite the same thing as disparaging the opinion because it's by a Jew (though that is a prerequisite to your point). It's the difference between booing Jackie Robinson because he's black and booing the Dodgers for hiring him.

[Tripmann]

32. My derision, AS WELL YOU KNOW,

was towards shiras default position of posting op-eds and opinions jewish websites, people and newspapers that happen to agree with her, which she thinks proves her point.

But how about you, aranthus, smearing me by claiming I derised this judge because he's jewish, when in fact I never did.

[aranthus]

53. So now I'm a mind reader?

Or can you read my mind and declare what I know and don't know? Because from your post that we have been talking about it's far from apparent that you were deriding shira' posting of opinions and not the opinion itself. Besides, as I pointed out (and to which you haven't responded), the deriding of the opinion was a necessarily included implication of your post, even as you now frame it.

[IndianaGreen]

4. My open letter to the Zionbots

FRAK!

[bemildred]

7. Yawn. nt

[azurnoir]

19. a thank you to Yediot Aharonot, and shira

we had all but forgotten about Goldstone and as to this latest episode Larry Derfner has a reallt IMO spot on commentary from JPost

Desperately smearing Goldstone

Inside the Israeli echo chamber, it’s now “case closed” on the war in Gaza. The country’s biggest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, has “exposed” Judge Richard Goldstone as an apartheid-era hanging judge. This proves he’s a huge hypocrite whose word means nothing, which proves his report on the war in Gaza means nothing, which proves Operation Cast Lead was every bit the shining example of restraint and purity of arms Israel says it was.

That’s the verdict in here. Outside the echo chamber, though, in the saner parts of the world, this episode can only make us look even guiltier. To any but a brainwashed Israeli or “Israel advocate,” this Goldstone ploy is so transparent, so pathetic. All it proves is how desperate this country has become, how blind we are to ourselves and to how others see us.

Israel is accusing Richard Goldstone of having been an enforcer of apartheid. The word “chutzpa” doesn’t get it. The word “gall” doesn’t get it. The closest word I can think of to describe this is “grotesque.”

<snip>

But in all, he was one of the good guys of that terrible time.

NELSON MANDELA knows it. After Mandela was elected president in 1994, he appointed Goldstone to South Africa’s highest court. Earlier, during the transition to democracy, Mandela concurred in Goldstone’s appointment to head an extremely explosive inquiry into regime-sponsored murder (in which it was found that Goldstone himself had been on the hit list).

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=175401

[Eg-ptiangirl]

21. It is not about Goldstone

It is about Goldstone report which Goldstone headed. It is disgusting to make things personal. People are not that stupid either to take all this serious.