Welcome, Matthew Yglesias, to the Zionist Fold. A Correction and an Apology

Again, for the rest of us who are not omniscient on all things Israeli, it would be helpful if someone here would list, say, the top ten things one MUST BELIEVE in order to qualify as being "pro-Israel".

Also, what are the top ten things that others claim reflect a pro-Israel stance that in fact qualify someone embracing them to be denounced as a Jew-hating Nazi instead.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the list of opinions that differentiates [down to the 4th decimal point I think we agreed] someone who is anti-Zionist from someone who is not pro-Zionist enough.

Ohevet Yisroel.

How does that translate against such nationalistic jingoism as, for instance, "my country right or wrong!"?

And is that applicable to all the people of Israel? Any exceptions?

george walton

Another ignorant post by George unambiguous Jew hater Walton.

The poor loony can't help himself. H emust post or he will die.

His post is another one of those, "I post therefore I am."

"Welcome, Matthew Yglesias, to the Zionist Fold. A Correction and an Apology"

I wish some other posters would acknowledge their ignorance once in a while, and apologize.

Spencer Ackerman has a post on Matthew Yglesias's experience at J Street that ends:

Unless a settlement is reached before there are more Arabs between the Jordan and the Mediterranean — which is, I don’t know, ten years away? — it will be the case. Even before then, the Palestinian national movement would have very good incentives to stop pursuing the cause of an independent state, because they’d feel themselves to be the majority in a binational state. If they can force Israel to choose between its Jewishness and its democracy — a choice that risks overwhelming and perhaps untenable diplomatic isolation.

So any group or individual that pushes Israel and the U.S. to take steps to avoid that overwhelming and horrific existential choice? I think he/she/they ought to count, objectively speaking as pro-Israel. I am not going to say that someone who doesn’t is anti-Israel, even though that may be the implication of my argument. And that’s because Israel is already so awfully isolated and needs all the friends it can get. We ought to confront people of bad faith. But maybe terminology isn’t actually the way to do it. It’s a big tent, and it covers the Shtetl.

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/10/27/pro-israel-pro-peace-conti...

It has only one condition and that is, "Ohevet Yisroel." is all very well and good, but you can love Israel and still have your head up your ass, as Yglesias has on a few occasions. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/bernstein-on-human-ri...

Look, I will be totally honest and say I don't love Israel anymore than I love the Netherlands or New Zealand. (that is loving all freedom loving democracies) My support is not predicated on affinity for customs or culture or what have you. And I am an Irish American Catholic, based on this I like to think my support of Israel is based on reason. You don't have to be a Zionist to acknowledge the right of Israel to defend itself against rocket attacks or unjust criticism. Or to acknowledge the weight of history that has borne down on the Jewish people.
This kind of love that Marty is accepting of ain't quite as grand as he imagines, unless he subscribes to the "you only hurt the one you love" line of thought. Not to toot my own horn, but Israel is better off with the support of fair minded people like myself.

Now I don't want to be too hard on Yglesias, I agree with a lot of others things he writes, and I am not attributing bad intentions towards him, just that he has had his head up his ass and I see no reason to sugarcoat this.

Tyoical mackenzie post:

"Spencer Ackerman has a post on Matthew Yglesias's experience at J Street that ends"

So why is ackerman's view any more true than Peretz' view?

Because mackenzie says so.

The issue isn't how many more Arabs there are than Jews, they issue is sovereignty. The Jews have one state the Arabs have more than a dozen. They can have one more if they decide to make peace with the Jews. If not they can produce as many offsprings as they with. It will not change anything.

There is no Arab State that is a democracy and for them to expect to benefit from the democracy in the Jewish State, in other words to defeat the Jewish State by outbreeding the Jews, is sheer lunacy.

It takes a genuine idiot to assert that Matthew Yglesias has "his head up his ass."

On the other hand, most of the denizens of this blog have their heads so far up Martin Peretz's ass that he speaks in tongues.

A genuinely important editoril from the Forward on J Street:

http://forward.com/articles/117876/

"But the challenges don’t end there. If J Street is to be taken as a serious, pragmatic player in influencing American policy and debate, then it has to be unafraid to live up to its promise to be pro-peace and pro-Israel. Ben-Ami said before the conference that he hoped the group would be attacked from the left, because that would prove its centrist standing. Actually, it’ll take more than that to prove those credentials.

J Street’s aversion to labels — its board is discussing whether to call itself Zionist, while its college arm controversially decided to allow its individual campus affiliates to omit the phrase “pro-Israel” from their self-descriptions — may be a tactical strategy to enlarge the tent. But it hints of an unwillingness to forthrightly trumpet its core values, even at the risk of making potential supporters uncomfortable. As Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “this is no time to go wobbly.” Support for the notion of Israel as a Jewish and democratic homeland that is couched in terms of ambivalence or embarrassment is, in the end, no support at all.

The established Jewish community has choices to make, and so does J Street."

Yeap, Matthew Yglesias has "his head up his ass" and the n d mackenzie is an ass.

Like his twin George walton he thinks that all Jews who support Israel are alike. This is the poster who calls such Jews "zionazis." Like George he is a real antisemite masquerading as a liberal.

"And I am an Irish American Catholic, based on this I like to think my support of Israel is based on reason."

gw:

Based on that, eh?

Okay, note the top ten reasons being an Irish American Catholic inclines someone to be reasonable about Israel. After, of course, you note the top ten points of view one must embrace in order to be construed AS a reasonable observer of Israel.

Can't we first pin this all down to the fundamentals?

george

nd, an insult from you is a compliment. Can you even read? I said I agree with Yglesias a lot of the times, just that he has his head up his ass on some issues. What, I can't disagree with him, is he some kind of church I should worship at? (word play)

"On the other hand, most of the denizens of this blog have their heads so far up Martin Peretz's ass that he speaks in tongues." is ridiculous. Nearly everyone here has jumped down Marty's throat at one time or another. On the other thread I ripped him one about the use of his language and his logic regarding the Palestinians, the problem is you are so far out of the ballpark you view everyone inside it as being in the same place. In fact, you can't name one poster here who is a sycophant. I make up my own mind, that is not to say I can't be persuaded (as I have been about gay marriage), but sycophantic, no fucking way.

"Look, I will be totally honest and say I don't love Israel anymore than I love the Netherlands or New Zealand. (that is loving all freedom loving democracies) My support is not predicated on affinity for customs or culture or what have you. And I am an Irish American Catholic, based on this I like to think my support of Israel is based on reason." Full quote.

yeesh, talk about taking things out of context, just quote one part of it you schmuck. I am Catholic, ie. my support of Israel is not based on any religion, culture, custom, etc. I supported the Kosovars when the Serbians were attempting to ethnically cleanse their land. Do I have to delineate where that support came from? I will also say the same about the Kuwaitis when Iraq invaded them, or the Timorese, or the Georgians, etc.

And screw you if you think I am going to explain concepts of Catholic social justice to you. Really, how fucking dense.

Again, I try to look at things as objectively as I can. I have lived in 5 countries, speak 4 languages (though my German is now sehr schlechtes), and have spent the majority of my adult life outside the US, all in either the third world or rural Oaxaca, so yeah, I think I have shed whatever cultural baggage I might have brought with me. In any event, prove me wrong, explain how supporting a nations right to self-defense is unjust, or how in the pursuit of their self-defense they must never, ever hurt any living thing, not even a butterfly, only shoot the weapons out of the hands of the people who are trying to kill you, and then go give them a big hug.

So here we go again, the lying turd Walton said that he wouldn't read Blackton's post any more than mine, but here is answering a post by Walton.

The answer is typical. Not a word on the issues, he just wants to talk fundamentals.

Talking fundamentals to a man who says he believes only in "ambiguity" is like talking to a mental case.

Unless one believes in ambiguous fudamentals.

There is nothing ambiguous about this loony.

blackton you don't have to prove anything to mackenzie or Walton.

These two are the least indpendent poster here.

mackenzie borrows all his posts from different Jewish posters he thinks are anti-Israel. He does this because he doesn't trust himself to post anything he thought up lest his nazi like antisemitism would slip out.

George Walton borrows all his "ambiguity" from the lastest academic fashion and pretends that he is an independent thinker. He is no thinker at all.

So, I agree with Marty on most things he says about Israel. Just as in the 40's had I been alive I would have agreed with him on most things he would have said about Nazi Germany.

So, sue me.

mackenzie, on the other hand, would have agreed with people like Charles Lindbergh on these issues, just as he agrees today with people like Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski on Israel.

Can't we first pin this all down to the fundamentals?

Interesting. George wants to get a handle on the "fundamentals." But george has already declared that, according to his very own philosophical position on language and meaning, the above could signify anything, so we have no chance of accessing any fundamentals we could pin anything down to, even if we were in the mood for pinning stuff. For example, his comment could mean:

"Unauthorized copying or sale of the content of this DVD is a federal offence" or perhaps "Call me Ishmael."

As it happens, blackton, I think you are usually one of the more sane commenters on The Spine - although given the competition that in itself would not be high praise.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with Matthew Yglesias - but the assertion that he has "his head up his ass" is ludicrous. He is clearly in the middle of any rational opinion of Israel - as is Spencer Ackerman - and that is precisely where J Street claims to sit. What they expose is just how far out of mainstream rational thought are AIPAC and Martin Peretz. The situation with Israel has got so bad that even Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of The New Republic, has jumped ship. Of course, Peretz and his denizens are going to complain because they don't like being recognized as the racist extremists they are.

I believe in and support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders with small mutually-agreed land exchanges. This is about as mainstream as you can get but even so I am routinely abused for holding this opinion by the racist extremists who are the principal posters on The Spine. That is the price paid by anyone who dares differ from the orthodoxy of The New Republic. It is a small price to pay for the privilege of speaking truth in the face of a wanton and racist stupidity.

It is just so much fun watching commenters on The Spine falling over themselves trying to outdo each other with their own sanctimonious stupidity that I rarely comment here anymore. basman has gloated a couple of times that comments on The New Republic have pretty much fallen away since the redesign except on The Spine. Some people have obviously not discovered Google Groups.

ndmackenzie
"As it happens, blackton, I think you are usually one of the more sane commenters on The Spine - although given the competition that in itself would not be high praise."

mackenzie talking about sanity is like george walton talking about truth.

"Ahavat Israel" does not mean love of Israel, the country. 'Israel" is the collective name for all Jewry. And "Ahavat Israel" means the bonds that connect each Jew to his fellow Jews, mutual responsibility, etc.

The most famous case involving "lack" of "ahavat Israel" was in the debate between Gershom Sholem and Hannah Arendt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_Scholem#Debate_with_Hannah_Arendt

One of the judges in Kastner's appeal said:

“A most difficult task has been imposed upon us in this appeal - to scrutinise deeds and occurrences which seem to have happened on a different planet, and to pronounce judgment on the behaviour of men, hovering in the claws of Satan himself.”

Obviously, the second part of my post escaped from the thread next door.

ND--What exactly do you mean by "jumping ship." I read Sullivan on a daily basis, and he is hardly anti-Israel. Sorry, but your wet dream will not reach a climax.

Sullivan has been critical of Operation Cast Lead and critical of possible war crimes--and critical of the settlements. But in no way has he said he's "jumped ship" or that Hamas Israelis are moral equivalents. Pretty much how I feel. So you see, it's possible to criticize Israel and love it or like it at the same time. But it seems you're too simple-minded for that kind of complexity. It involves being able to hold two ideas in your mind at once.

And if you think J Street's followers are mainstream (have you actually read what went on there?) then you really haven't read any recent polls of Americans, or Jews for that matter. Of course, you would love a lobby with members who so clearly despise Israel and the Zionist enterprise. Never mind what Ben Ami said, he's either stupid, willfully ignorant or a sleazy liar, considering the folks he invited to speak--and considering his audience, which he made no effort to keep civil. I'm all for a lobby that wants to limit settlements, but J Street attracts only the scummiest of scum. Mocking Wiesel? Classy. No wonder you love 'em.

You say you seek a two-state solution, but going back to the '67 green line is an impossibility at this point. Those borders are not defensible. So really, you don't believe in a two-state solution. By the way, this is the first time you've admitted outright that there should be two states (though your idea of that is worthless). Is that because your dear leader Yglesias said as much? You're very good at keeping lockstep--as most ideologues are.

ire-ony:

Interesting. George wants to get a handle on the "fundamentals.

george:

Well, aside from missing the point that fundamentals are inverted Pakistani dung beetles, he fails to grasp that I was ridiculing those who persist in searching for them.

Besides, wouldn't it have been more clever to suggest something like, say, "George is looking for the most fundamental argument against fundamental arguments"?

I find it hard to believe sometimes that we are identical twins.....

Please: If you are aiming to encompass both the artful and the artless in your [snicker, snicker] stinging snorts, at least make an effort to convince the slower among us that you have given it some thought.

Aside to JD,

Mentor him and I'll hire noga to read your, uh, stuff

Where, oh, where is Tep when you need him!!

gw

george, the dung beetle said:

"Well, aside from missing the point that fundamentals are inverted Pakistani dung beetles, he fails to grasp that I was ridiculing those who persist in searching for them."

George lies, again.

Here is what he said above:

10/28/2009 - 8:49pm EDT | iambiguous

"Can't we first pin this all down to the fundamentals?" george

Of course Geroge walty is the humpty dumpty of these threads. His "ambiguity" is just a cover for his lies. It's his religion.

Sorry, Molly Simon, but my formulation of a two-state solution with small mutually-agreed border changes is the by-now canonical solution. I realize this does not please die-hard racists like Martin Peretz who openly declare that the solution might take a thousand years.

You need to read Andrew Sullivan better. I did not call him anti-Israeli. I think the position he takes, just as is the position I take, is very much pro-Israeli. He clearly wants and hopes there is a solution but he clearly doubts that Israelis (and Palestinians) themselves want one. Just today he writes:

Here's an insight into why the Israelis have no intention whatever of moving toward a two-state solution:

I don't take that as a ringing endorsement of Israel - do you? In repeated posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Andrew Sullivan, while criticizing Palestinian behavior, condemns Israeli behavior towards the Palestinian people.

The fact is and it is a fact that people like Martin Peretz, and seemingly yourself, are having difficulty understanding is that the American commentariat has finally recognized just how morally toxic our wanton appeasement of Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians has been. This recognition is now much deeper than the "juice boxes."

GW: Well, aside from missing the point that fundamentals are inverted Pakistani dung beetles, he fails to grasp that I was ridiculing those who persist in searching for them.

Or dung beetles. Exactly.

I missed that one.

ND, are you crazy? TNR's Plank and Stump led the pack in the '08 elections. The New Republic's online influence was cemented in that time.

I've also learned from an interview I gave to a gay porn blogger here in San Fran, over drinks two weekends ago, that bloggers in the fold of Yglesias, Ackerman and Klein basically spend their entire existence watching Gawker, Drudge Report or some other online gossip-zine, and their job is to "blog blog blog" (says the gay porn blogger), meaning, spew forth with their writings as fast as they can and post as much of it as they can. And while this does not necessarily happen at the expense of the sort of copyediting that involves glancing-over-before submitting, it is a rushed, frenzied lifestyle that condones the blogger's overlooking of oversimplifications and jumps of reason. It allows one no rest to reflect on their writing.

In this sense, I believe George is suited to have his own blog.

But you might notice that the bloggers at TNR go home on the weekends--they go out and see things and people, gaining personal experiences of human interaction that are integrally reflected in their posts. That is what sets them apart, and that is why I care to subscribe. Who the hell knows why you, so visceral in your condescension and repudiation toward both the writers and the commenters, why you subscribe too.

Oh by the way, my gay porn blogger friend--we're friends now, since he's fascinating and his friends are hot--admitted to having the compulsion to press 'refresh' on his specially-desgnated Andrew Sullivan page all day long. The Israel commentary meant very little to him; he was more interested in the Levi Johnston hilariousness and gay rights struggled updates, my point being, Andrew's base is in indeed large, but it is not large because it cares about his opinions on Israel--which may I add, he knows very little about.

ndmackenzie
"Sorry, Molly Simon, but my formulation of a two-state solution with small mutually-agreed border changes is the by-now canonical solution. I realize this does not please die-hard racists like Martin Peretz who openly declare that the solution might take a thousand years."

Another self serving mackenzie lie.

Mary has always been for a two State solution and calling him a "racist" doesn't prove mackenzie's point.

mackenzie is an antisemites as he has shown in hundreds of threads here in the past.

Mackenzie has always taken an anti Israel position and has always tried to cover up his Jew hatred, though it comes through quite often when he uses phrases like zionazis and calls all "Jewish settlers" criminals.

There is no use denying that, and pretending that being for "two states" will erase his anti Jewish bigotry.

Two states is the solution, but the problem isn't the non existence of a Palestinian State: the problem is the unwillingness of Palestinians, speaking in the name of Hamas, of the al aksa brigade and other of their many anti Israel organizations, to live in peace with the Jewish State.

Giving them a State while they refuse to live in peace will lead to more and not less bloodshed. This is Marty’s point an only a Jew hater who would like to see the Jewish State destroyed would deny that this is a fact.

dylanposer
"ND, are you crazy?"

Yes, and he also a Jew hater pretending to be a liberal.

dylan "Oh by the way, my gay porn blogger friend--we're friends now, since he's fascinating and his friends are hot" omg tmi. ha. Seriously though, good insight about the bloggers motif. If your livelihood depends on churning out copy quickly, you are going to rely on instinct or impressions and not analysis.

I pretty much agree with everything Molly said above, my only minor difference is that fair-mindedness is my criterion. If you admit to loving something you will be accused of bias, no matter how objective and rational your criticism is (ie. if you, a lover of Israel criticizes it, it must be far worse, which is bullshit, of course). Far too often, when it comes to Israel, the critics will choose to jump all over the religion of the defenders instead of sticking to the facts on the ground. For the record I don't think my being Irish RC makes me in the slightest any bit better at analysis than jd or molly, etc. just that I pre-emptively like to stfu anyone who will play that game.

ND: You specifically said "jumping ship." That phrase alone belies your hostility to Israel. Sorry, you can quote Andrew Sullivan all you like, but cherry-picking doesn't prove he's anti-Israel. Furthermore, I have a question. I've asked you many times, and you never answer: Does the two-state solution include the Palestinian right of return. I do have a problem with Andrew Sullivan criticizing Operation Cast Lead without offering any alternative. What would should the Israelis have done to stop the bombing of their citizens? Oh, yeah, give up land because we all know that'll lead to peace, just like it did in Gaza. Which isn't to say the Israelis should be in the territories. They shouldn't, but it seems to me land doesn't equal peace. Actually, in Gazas case, land equaled vandalism by its own recent occupants. Do you believe that giving the P.s' more land will lead to peace? And if you do, why?

And now, a request: to prove that you're not an anti-semite, please link to the blogs where you go to argue with Palestinians about their abuses of human rights. Actually, make that Palestinians and Chinese (with regard to Nepal, specifically), and Russians and, oh yeah, Iranians. I'd love to see you speak up for the downtrodden elsewhere.

dylan:

In this sense, I believe George is suited to have his own blog.

g:

Just in case "George" is me, I'll explain this one more time:

I blog all the time because, well, being disabled, I am not able to get out of the house much anymore; and a passion for both philosophy and political discourse leads someone like this to the Internet. Really, I swear on my mother's grave it's true. Well, I would if I knew whether she is dead or alive.

Yeah, it's been that kind of a life, I'm afraid. And your's?

Hey, here's an idea. For those of you despise me this is something you can use in your fulminations. Make fun of the cripple on disability!!

Oh, but haven't I regaled you with all the vast and varied experiences I have had on this extraordinary existential journey called "my life"?

You know: the belly of the working class beast, street gangs, shipyards, steel mills, the army, vietnam, college, radical political activistism, husband, father, gainfully employed citizen....

george

"I missed that one."

gw:

I know. And they miss you.

gw

""ND, are you crazy?"

Yes, and he also a Jew hater pretending to be a liberal. "

A crazy person cannot be held accountable for his or her misjudgments. N&D Mackenzie, george's acolytes on these boards, are not crazy. They are deliberate Jew baiters. Their comments are meant to inflame and insult. We know them well enough to estimate quite accurately the levels of their ignorance on the subjects they purport to "opine". No matter how many facts you provide to counter their allegations, they continue with their baiting. That makes them not crazy but intentionally malicious and slanderous.

Helena Cobban on the Jews

Noah Pollak - 10.29.2009 - 2:04 PM

Helena Cobban sits on the board of Human Rights Watch and was a member of the blogger panel at the J Street conference. She recently ruminated on the question of why so many Jews are disgusted with the Goldstone/HRW treatment of Israel (hat tip: Richard Landes). Her answer:

“But the Michael Goldfarbs, the Norman Podhoretz’s, the Alan Dershowitz’s, and Robert Bernsteins of this world truly don’t get this. They truly think there is something so “special” about Jewish people and their experience in the world that somehow the [sic] (and especially the allegedly “Jewish” state, Israel) deserve to be given a free pass on the application of any neutral standards of behavior, such as would be applied to anyone else.”

Ah, so the Jews think they’re superior to everyone else — where have we heard that one before? And what is the “allegedly” Jewish state? (Sorry, I’ve misquoted her. That’s the allegedly “Jewish” state.) Her writing is so sloppy that it’s impossible to discern what specific slander she has in mind.

Cobban concludes:

“So now, frustrated by their inability to dream up a “Cast lead II,” Israel’s hardliners are taking out their frustrations by railing against Goldstone and “demanding deep changes in the laws of war.””

The pop psychology here is entertaining but of a thematic piece with the rest of her thinking. The criticism of Goldstone, she intones, is not serious or rational — it is in fact the redirected frustration of a predatory and sadistic people whose desire for more war on Palestinian civilians has been thwarted. Get it?

Just to remind people again: this petulant woman sits on the board of Human Rights Watch.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/147252

I thought Goldstone made a brave and ultimately successful attempt to include, in his report, material on the obvious fact that the mere inefficiency of Hamas's rocket attacks out of Gaza doesn't shield the perpetrators from the grounded accusation that they are randomly making war upon civilians, and hence contributing to the atmosphere of unpredictable violence.

This has, imo, not been given the attention it warrants, by any side.

I cited the relevant pages a couple of weeks ago on another thread, but after all, who cares! It's far easier to make a scapegoat of him.

"after all, who cares! It's far easier to make a scapegoat of him."

Poor, scapegoated Goldstone, persecuted by the Zionists! How fortunate for him that better people on CNN (Zakaria) and PBS (Moyer) courageously give him a platform from which to defend himself against the slanders of Dershowitz and ilk!

So good to get some clarity, en fin, from Mr. Road. We know which side of the Goldstone Report he is standing, and it is the side of impious HRW, the fascists of UNHR Council and all those bleeding hearts that populate the "pro-peace" but not "pro-Israel" fans of J-street.

BTW, it is important to pay attention to IR's nuances since I have come to conclusion that he is pretty shrewd in deciphering Obama's ways of thinking. I predict that we will hear similar sentiments from Obama before too long.

"We know on which side of the Goldstone Report he is standing . . . ." Noga would have everybody here sign loyalty oaths.

Again, that part of the Report does exist, I wasn't inventing it. However, if you could manage a response without making it unpleasantly personal, Noga, it would be a good counter-argument to say that it takes up so little space that it could be the ultimate fig-leaf.

Unfortunately the president doesn't really follow my lead -- the world would be such a better place if he did!

Sorry, Ironyroad, but I really did not wish to risk being misunderstood, especially after you characterized the justly critical and outraged response to Goldstone's report as "scapegoating" its author. For someone who values cool-headed analysis this hardly seems like a mild way of communicating your objections.

I did not suggest Obama is following your lead. I think you do have a talent for figuring out where he stands on things and then take it from there.

My bad. I was very unclear. I meant "scapegoating" in the sense of making Goldstone personally responsible for the UNHRC completely ignoring the Hamas part of the report, which wasn't his fault as far as I see. Unless you make him responsible for the whole thing from soup to nuts, in which case, I agree, it's not scapegoating.

Maybe we're talking a little at cross purposes here -- but to the best of my recollection, Marty did at one point distinguish between the Report (minimal criticism of Hamas, but still something -- and the language is quite strong) and the UNHRC finding (no mention of Hamas whatsoever).

You are in a mellow mood this evening, Irony. Sipping wine, are you?

FWIW, I wouldn't by any means describe Goldstone as "brave". There was nothing brave in the way he sat through a UNHR council meeting while, member states in their eagerness to condemn Israel, droned on repeatedly:

"Israel guilty of a "holocaust," "concentration camps," "genocide," and "crimes against humanity."

However, a few days later, Goldstone sat with the very obliging Fareed Zakaria where the following exchange took place:

"ZAKARIA: When you look at these crimes against humanity, these war crimes, how do they compare? You have a long career. You've seen many of these kinds of things, investigated some. Where does this stand? How should we think of it?

GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't like making comparisons because each situation is so different. But certainly one can compare what has happened here to situations that I've investigated in the former Yugoslavian genocide. One doesn't here in respect of Gaza get anywhere in my view anywhere near that sort of situation.

It's very different. Many people are comparing what's happening in the occupied territories to apartheid South Africa. I don't like that comparison. There's some similarities, but there are more differences."

The testimony of the author himself, who wrote what amounts to a harsh uncritical prosecutorial indictment of Israel, severe enough in its findings to merit being labeled as a "blood libel" (a judgment I concur with), objects to comparisons --equivalences-- suggested between the events he investigated and such enterprises as genocide, holocaust or apartheid.

And even as he seems to have backed away from some of his own conclusions,

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/10/goldstone-backs-away-from-report-the-two...

he has not yet issued any formal supplement or a public and simple clarification in which he distances himself from those blood thirsty fascists and their lambish followers.

You call this "brave"?

Ok, pick a different term. I was just thinking that it must have taken a certain amount of doggedness to get the Hamas stuff in there (maybe not just from Goldstone).

I actually wrote that last comment in my chilly office this afternoon, so no pleasurable wine-sipping I'm afraid. But Noga, my exchanges with you always lead me to mellowness like a soft golden sunset over the Tennessee River.

And if you believe that, ma'am, you'll believe anything.

It's a good thing you clarified your last comment, Ironyroad or I would actually take you at your word, that's how gullible I am. Truly.

I find it wonderful that Goldstone, who has been coasting on a cloud of self-important martyrdom since the publication of his "report", is now to be credited for trying to insert one reliable fact and a minuscule amount of context into it. What would an honorable man do, as soon as he realized that he was expected to provide an unmitigated indictment and nothing but, for the evil council that hired him? Why is he not coming out to announce that this report is not in the service of justice but in the service of making Israel's existence hellish? Why did he not realize that this report would be taken out from under his authority as soon as he started working on it? How can anyone with that kind of experience and presumed knowledge be so stupid?

Both Zakaria and Moyers harped on the fact that he is a Jew. For them that means that "as a Jew" his findings would carry even greater weight since how could a Jew indict Israel unless he could in no way ignore the "facts"? Little do they know about Jewish history, littered with these kinds of "exceptional Jews".

According to this editorial, "The party is over for the Goldstone report. "

http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=18647

Its arabesque logic escapes me. Can anyone here who can unravel Palestinian politics explain what he means? It seems to me that he circuitously tries to say that Hamas is weak and that Abbass' would be well advised in pushing for elections. It seems to say that elections will not be kind to Hamas. And that not even the Goldstone Report can be relied upon to advance their cause. Am I correct in my reading?

"How can anyone with that kind of experience and presumed knowledge be so stupid?"

A good question. If you've done a few high-profile things (e.g. ICTY) you may be under the impression that (a) you can tackle anything and (b) nobody could dream of questioning your bona fides. It's often a dangerous state of mind to be in.

'Hubris' is the word I was thinking about.

I'm not sure I can follow the fluctuation in your position here, Ironyroad. I don't know when you agree with me or are just trying to help me re-articulate my own arguments.

Initially you said that you thought "Goldstone made a brave and ultimately successful attempt to include..." and then blamed his critics for scapegoating him.

Then you suggested that the reference to Hamas "takes up so little space that it could be the ultimate fig-leaf."

And then you said that it must have "taken a certain amount of doggedness to get the Hamas stuff in there"

And then you said that he must have been suffering from hubris to imagine anyone questioning his bona fides.

So I end up confused. If you understand the flaw in Goldstone's report as rooted in his hubris, how could you describe him as brave or whatever, and unjustly scapegoated by the likes of myself?

Unless of course you are exercising the literary critic's prerogative to analyze a situation in all its ambiguities without making a final decision as to which aspect or perspective is the more correct?

I myself like to indulge in these exercises when dealing with fiction. Godlstone's Report, alas, is no fiction and its overreaching might create real problems for Israel's ability in the future to defend its citizens.

More on the birth of the Goldstone Report;

"According to Al Jazeera, the impetus for the Goldstone Commission report came from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). (h/t My Right Word)

Al Jazeera: The UN’s Goldstone report has been in the headlines in the past few weeks – not without controversy – and has brought to light the conduct of the Israelis and Hamas during the war on Gaza earlier in the year. Does the OIC see this as a step forward in recognising what transpired during that war and in bringing the plight of the Palestinians to the fore on an international scale?

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: Let me first start by completing the story of the history of the Goldstone report. What I would like to put on record is that the OIC was the initiator of this process.

On January 3, during the attacks on Gaza, we convened the executive committee of the OIC on a ministerial level. It was decided that the OIC group in Geneva should ask the Human Rights Council to convene and consider the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Gaza.

The OIC was instrumental in getting through this resolution and thanks to the good offices of Ms Pilay, the UN high commissioner, that she formed this fact-finding mission headed by Judge Goldstone.

On October 8, I visited Geneva and had a meeting with OIC ambassadors and the high commissioner. We revived the process again and the Goldstone report has been approved by the rights council.

Now as for the prospects of the Goldstone report, I think the first thing to mention here is that the acceptance and approval of the report by the UN’s human rights council is itself testimony of the world’s public opinion about what happened in Gaza.

This report has certain operative paragraphs which aim to determine who is responsible for the massacres and destruction – illegally and in flagrant violation of humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war.

I think now the OIC and the international community should work hand-in-hand to implement the proposals made in the Goldstone report.

The OIC, it should be remembered, opposed the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir."

http://www.yourish.com/2009/11/01/9217

So let's recap:

"the OIC was the initiator of this process. [-]

The OIC was instrumental in getting through this resolution and thanks to the good offices of Ms Pilay, the UN high commissioner [-]

the first thing to mention here is that the acceptance and approval of the report by the UN’s human rights council is itself testimony of the world’s public opinion about what happened in Gaza [-]

The OIC, it should be remembered, opposed the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir."

Let it be perfectly understood that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, through the machinations of UN’s human rights council is now the arbiter of what constitutes criminality among the nations.