As an admirer of Bill Moyers, I was disheartened by the debacle of his playing cowardly "Devil’s Advocate," interviewing Judge Richard Goldstone and pushing the Israeli government’s lies. Goldstone personified integrity compared to Moyers.
Moyers treated Hamas as the aggressor and Israel as the victim acting in self-defense against thousands of Hamas rockets. When framing the charges against Goldstone’s report, Moyers did not mention the Occupation of Palestine, the siege and imprisonment of the people in Gaza, the Walls jailing the people of the West Bank and snatching their land. Above all, Moyers omitted the Israeli raining of death on civilians with White Phosphorus–or the intentional targeting of non-combatants carrying white flags–among other crimes. Moyers never alluded to the fact that Israel violated the truce (did he even discuss the ceasefire that the Palestinians honored?) by, first, refusing to lift the blockade and open the borders of Gaza; and by, second, killing Hamas members on Nov. 4–our U.S. Election Day, when the American news media was distracted. Neither did Goldstone’s report account for those facts, or the truth that the Palestinian resistance to Occupation is self-defense, to which the people of Palestine–as an Occupied society–have at least as much right as Goldstone claims for Israel.
Moyers finally did discuss the term "Occupied," calling such language unfairly "charged," slavishly blaming the original U.N. Human Rights Council mandate for the investigation–which Goldstone had refused as unbalanced–of the attack on Gaza. Moyers obsequiously pretended that Israel is above criticism: a dangerous conceit. Don’t we all remember that those who are treated as beyond reproach often act in ways that are beneath contempt? Besides, Moyers carried on the charade that all Jewish people always gang together, refusing to hold any Jew accountable for any act–no matter how heinous. Moyers, did he but know it, in effect accuses every believer in Judaism of having no conscience above tribal identity. Trying to evade charges of "Anti-semitism," Moyers in fact caters to racist stereotypes.
Worst of all: every challenge Moyers shot at Goldstone could have been turned back on himself, about any report of principle Moyers has ever pursued. Bill Moyers violated all his own journalistic ideals, trembling before the lobby. The ghost of Kenneth Tomlinson lives.
Richard Goldstone, however, defended morality and international law.
P.S. I acknowledge that the effect of this interview may be good, in conveying the power of Richard Goldstone’s logic. Phil passed along Jim Abourezk’s comment– "It was an amazing interview, showing how fair and unbiased Goldstone was with his investigation"–also a friend’s note that Goldstone’s argument convinced his mother to change her mind about Israeli actions in Gaza. Opening minds is laudable. However much I wish for a more just vision from Bill Moyers, he did let Richard Goldstone speak. Offering 48 minutes of debate about Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza is braver than anything that newshounds Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz–or even satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert–have dared.
Susie, yes, yes, to all you say here. Problem: How many Americans have ever heard of
Moyer? I’d guess at most 5%. And how many have heard of Goldstone? I’d say less than
.001%. Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz, Stewart, Colbert; how many Americans are they reaching? And Fox flashlights? No cable news batteries, same as the left (PEP), and you can add on Talk Radio.
Pingback: Moyers plays devil’s advocate with Goldstone | JewPI
If Moyers were interviewing Olmert or someone representing the Israeli point of view then Kneedler’s criticisms would be apt. But he wasn’t. He was interviewing Goldstone and he has an obligation to ask tough questions. And since Goldstone is being attacked with a specific line of questioning it is this very line of questioning that needs to be posed.
You make a valid point!
That is part of what was going on–if Moyers had presented the facts that Susie mentions the show would have seemed almost totally one-sided, though only because reality on this subject is pretty one-sided. Yes, Hamas is guilty of rocket fire, but Israel is guilty of all the things Susie mentions.
I think it was partly cowardice on Moyer’s part and partly what you say–he had to ask some of the questions Goldstone’s critics ask, but he should have also mentioned the blockade and the fact that rockets and shells have been flying in both directions, as well as the ceasefire which Israel broke in early November.
I agree Donald.
Gee, Moyers could have incorporated Finklestein’s version of the facts into his
show, rather thatn only Indyk’s. Moyers is a guy who turns the lights out on saturday
for othodox jews; he’s not a truth seeker.
Was that really devil’s advocacy or was it Christian Zionism?
> RE: “…or was it Christian Zionism?” – Linda J
> MY COMMENT: This is extremely unlikely despite (or because of) his being a Texan, having a degree in divinity, and having served as a Baptist minister long ago. Unlike the Pentecostal “Pastor” John Hagee and his ilk, Moyers seems to be steeped in that pre-fundamentalist “old time religion” as it is practiced today by the more progressive/enlightened of the Protestants. He’s practically a Quaker/Unitarian, unless the ‘Coultergeist’ recently “perfected” him.
> P.S. By the way, Hagee desperately needs everyone’s support in his effort to breed a ‘perfect, red heifer’ on his 6,000 acre Texas spread (thereby heralding the ‘End Times’) in a venture with the ‘ Texas Israel Agricultural Research Foundation’.
> SEE: “Pastor Strangelove”, by Sarah Posner, 05/21/06
Texan John Hagee has a huge following, the ear of the [Bush/Cheney] White House, and a theory that an invasion of Iran was foretold in the Book of Esther.
> LINK – link to prospect.org
I found myself questioning Goldstone more than before, after the interview.
I expected more from him.
Yeah, right, Witty.
ER, Witty, why didn’t Israel agree to answer questions asked by a self-admitted zionist Jew?
I know that the Goldstone report has assumed the status of holy script; evidentialy it satisfies some people’s needs to believe the worst about Israel. It is hard to tell if this satisfaction is an intellectual need or a sensual one. Reading the emotional responses it sounds like people are really enjoying/pleasureing themselves.
True the “investigation” was successful in fulfilling its predetermined mandate; to investigate war crimes by Israel. That was what they were charged to do, and they did it! What they were not asked to do was to determine the truth of claims by Israel of the use of human shields by Hamas. Therefore there are several glaring failures in its investigation
In response to the report itself I will try to be brief and to the point:
Judge Goldstone’s commission of investigation states:
“The [UN] Mission is unable to form an opinion on the exact nature or the intensity of their [Hamas's] combat activities in urban residential areas that would have placed the civilian population and civilian objects at risk of attack.”
We must ask what kind of investigation the distinguished judge and his staff perused.
Plain as day, in black & white the official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, on Jan. 27, 2009 tells us the following story:
“The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. Right now they are waiting for the aid promised by the [Hamas] movement after Israel bombed the farm and turned it into ruins…
The hill on which the Abd Rabbo family lives overlooks the Israeli town of Sderot
which turned it into an ideal military position for the Palestinian fighters, from
which they have launched hundreds of rockets into southern Israel during the last
few years. Several of the Abd Rabbo family members described how the fighters dug tunnels under their houses, stored arms in the fields and launched rockets from the yard of their farm during the nights.
The Abd Rabbo family members emphasize that they are not [Hamas] activists and that they are still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they were unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night. One family member, Hadi (age 22) said: ‘You can’t say anything to the resistance [Hamas], or they will accuse you of collaborating [with Israel] and shoot you in the legs.’”
True Judge Goldstone, it’s hard from this description to “form an opinion on the EXACT intensity of placing civilians at risk of attack” but surely even you could understand that an inexact statement of the fact substantiated by Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that some civilians were being placed in danger even if not in an urban environment would have been appropriate in any search for objective truth. But here too, that was not the charge of your assignment by the URC.
Then there’s the use of women, children and other civilians by Hamas as human shields
In their own words, which Judge Goldstone also did not manage to find
The following is the full text of the comments by Hamas representative Fathi Hamad months before the war, articulating the Hamas ideology to use civilians as human shields for Hamas fighters:
“For the Palestinian people death has become an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and
the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women,
children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine,
as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire life.’”
[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) Feb. 29, 2008]
Is there any reason to doubt this Hamas description of their military doctrine? Is there any honest investigation that would not take that statement into account when judging the actions by those who these who “desire death” are confronted by those who “desire life”?
Even an Iranian newspaper complained about the use of Mosques and hospitals for military purposes.
There are far more inconsistencies in the report than I think this site would be willing to post.
Yoram
Yoram,
You suggested that:
“evidentialy it (the Goldstone Report) satisfies some people’s needs to believe the worst about Israel”
Even though the report was seemingly harsh (compared to the coddling Israel typically get from Western media), it doesn’t go anearly as far as it could have. Evidently, Israeli apologists like yourself, who assume Israel can do no wrong, have an issue with concepts like truth and justice.
You suggested that:
“True the “investigation” was successful in fulfilling its predetermined mandate; to investigate war crimes by Israel. ”
With that one statement, you expose yourself as a shameless and rather lame propagandist. The fact that the investigation did discover war crimes, does not prove that there was any predetermined mandate. It has been repeatedly mentioned that Hamas were also accused by the report of war crimes.
Israel refused to participate in the investigation, so it’s rather pathetic to complain that Israel’s claims were not invesigtaed, if Israel diod not provide any evidence.
As for your so claled ” glaring failures in its investigation”:
1. The exact nature or the intensity of their [Hamas's] combat activities in urban residential areas is pretty obvious given, as Goldstone stated in the interview, that Gaza is the most densely populated area in the world and that the inhabitants had no place to go and no way of knowing what Israle’s next target would be. This could have been resolved had Israel participated in the investigation.
Of course, Iarael’s trackl record on making such claims is a sham. They made countless claims in the Lebanon conflict, which were subsequently debunked by HRW.
2. Even with the benefit of the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida article, it is impossible to acertain the extent to whi ” some civilians were being placed in danger”. Again, Israel onyl have themselves to blame, having vilated the ruling of their own Superme Court and prevented foreign journalists from enteriung Gaza.
2. The allegded the use of women, children and other civilians by Hamas as human shields remains an unubstantiated allegation by Israel, who refused to participate in the report. Again, in Lebanon 2006, Israel made similar empty and usnsubtantiated claims.
It’s likely that the reason these accusastions did not make it into th eGoldstone report is because there was no evidence to support them. Fathi Hamad comments, made months before the war, do not prove what took place during the war.
The problem with using statements by Hamas to suport your argument, is that you are then forced to accept that everythign Hamas representaqtives say is beyond question. Quite simply, human shields only work if they are proved to be a deterrant to Israel, and Lebano 2006 and Gaza 2008/2009.
Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
link to ngo-monitor.org
Human Rights Watch: Troubling Report
link to nysun.com
Israeli ‘human shield’ claim is full of holes
link to thenational.ae
3. “Even an Iranian newspaper complained about the use of Mosques and hospitals for military purposes.”
Without linking to a source, this cannot be verified.
In any casel, after claiming that the Goldstone report had “several glaring failures”, all you could come up with was one and even then, you were hardly convincing.
Last but not least, you ignore the elephant in the room, the fac that Israel has an appaloign track record of targetting civilians. We saw that in Lebanon and in Gaza.
As Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz ) summized:
“The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
I also hope that you took in the explicit assertion by Goldstone, “I am a Zionist, in the sense that I believe that Jews are a people, have the right to self-govern, and in Israel.”
A liberal Zionist, like me.
Really, Witty? Can we get your “liberal Zionist” opinion on this entry, maybe?
link to mondoweiss.net
Or are you going to blind yourself in favor of telling how Israel’s not actually a Judeofascist state while you impotently try to shame Phil Weiss and the other commentators here.
And “defend itself,” don’t forget that.
“defend itself?” Of course. Nor did Goldstone “forget that,” he just opines that the right of self defense doesn’t include, well, here’s his own words:
Exactly Doug.
But, you do get the distinction between that and what is presented here by Phil and posse?
The false assumption is that the collective attack is somehow a component of Israel’s defense. It’s not.
The collective punishment has been ongoing since 1948, from the moment Israel purged Palestinian villages, razed those homes and drove the natives off without regard for their rights as human beings.
Dick Witty, please clarify the distinction you talk about.
Like you superficially. I don’t think Goldstone would have defended Bernstein’s contemptible assault on HRW, which was also an implicit assault on his own work. Yet you defend Bernstein. On human rights issues, you are closer to Goldstone’s critics than to him.
On your other point, I was a little disappointed that Goldstone didn’t come out and make the points that Susie mentions, since it was clear Bill Moyers wasn’t going to do it. However, he probably feels more than enough pressure right now, so I can’t blame him too much. I doubt this is what disappointed you, but I’m willing to be surprised.
You’d have to ask Goldstone directly what his impression of Bernstein’s comments were.
I expect that they’ve had a great deal of personal contact over decades, and nearly certainly collaborative.
I doubt that he would dismiss Bernstein as a puppet, as Phil and the posse here have. But, that is just a suspicion.
Who cares? Frankly, HRW is bigger than Bernstein. It’s not his playground, and he has no right to tell them they can’t investigate or comment what happened in Gaza.
Kind of indicates maybe there’s a good reason Bernstein’s no long head of HRW, doesn’t it?
Bernstein’s attack on HRW was the same in its (lack of substantive) content as the attack on Goldstone’s report. If Goldstone and Bernstein are friends, one or both might shy away from direct criticism of the other. In fact, Bernstein’s attack on HRW was also an indirect attack on Goldstone’s report and AI’s reporting and presumably B’Tselem’s reporting, since they all say similar things about the Gaza War. But since Bernstein was the head of HRW, he can use that fact to lend credibility to an otherwise content-free assault.
You are equating the two. The timing seems to you to be associated.
They are not necessarily so. Bernstein’s comments may be stimulated by the same exagerations of the far left on Goldstone as on HRW, or his comments may be independant.
Or, it may have been the New York Times (or even a single individual at the Times) that suggested that Bernstein write currently.
To imply some conspiracy on his part is to speculate, and to harrass first ask questions later is not my picture of ethics.
“To imply some conspiracy on his part is to speculate, and to harrass first ask questions later is not my picture of ethics.”
To harass is exactly your picture of ethics, given by your treatment of Phil’s posts
Anyway, my point, obviously, was that Bernstein’s critique of HRW, if valid (which it isn’t) would automatically carry over to other groups which have said almost identical things about Israel’s behavior–this would include Amnesty International, Goldstone, and B’Tselem. Also Palestinian human rights groups, but we know that nothing a Palestinian says is even worthy of denouncing until some Westerner (preferably Israeli or American) says it too.
“to harrass first ask questions later is not my picture of ethics. “
Really? Could have fooled us, Witty! What a laugh!
Richard,
You and Goldstone may both be self-proclaimed liberal Zionists, but I couldn’t help but notice last night the large gap between your analyses and prescriptions on Mondoweiss and Goldstone’s on Moyers’ Journal. Even if one does not agree with all of Goldstone’s views, his meanings are clear. And his standards are applied consistently.
Your expectations must be stratospheric if Goldstone did not meet them.
You’d have to be more specific than that, if you want my comment.
I am not Goldstone. I am not moved by the same concerns.
I’m certain that in an environment in which he is routinely called racist for say assuming that Israel had a right/obligation to undertake some military response to Hamas rocket fire in December, he would likely react (or leave).
You are called HYPOCRITE routinely here, not because you assume that Israel has a “right/obligation” to “respond” but because you assume and aver that same “right/obligation” does not apply to the Palestinians or to Hamas. If Goldstone repeated some of your morally vacuous statements, I’m sure he’d be properly called a hypocrite too.
Yeah, what tree just said. Self-described liberal Zionists come in all flavors. Avi Shlaim thinks Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, on the grounds that Israel is needed as a haven for Jews against antisemitism. I think that’s a good argument and even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t dream of calling someone a hypocrite for thinking that. Shlaim doesn’t whitewash Israeli crimes, he doesn’t pretend that Israeli misdeeds are all done by the Israeli rightwing, and he doesn’t condemn BDS as some sort of abomination while defending Israel’s right to blockade Gaza. That sort of thing is done by hypocrites. And there are other liberal Zionists I know about or know (online at least) who aren’t hypocrites on human rights issues. Unfortunately, there are also self-described liberal Zionists who are hypocrites and you, Witty, are often one of them.
If Goldstone came here and took your positions, Witty, it would be a terrible letdown for us, but I’d have to call him a hypocrite.
Ask him.
In a state of war between a non-governmental faction and a state, my guess is that there is legal substantiation for blockade.
The international community has NOT come out against that reasoning, even Norway.
They rationally desire a change, as do I.
“In a state of war between a non-governmental faction and a state”
Then it’s not a war. Wars are fought between states, Witty.
“In a state of war between a non-governmental faction and a state, my guess is that there is legal substantiation for blockade.”
How so Richard?
Goldstone argues that non state actors are bound by international law in the same way that state actors are, so why should non state actors not in turn, be protected by such laws?
Thus, if a blockade is an act of war against a state, it is euqally an act of war or terorrism against a non state group.
Mind you, we can all see where you are going with this and why Israel is so reticent to allow a Palestinian state to emerge. The minute a letigimate and internationalyl recognized state does lateriliaze, your patehtic arguments about non state actors goes out the window.
You cannot claim to desire a change, if you do not recognize the means to achieve it.
What is “a people?”
Is the term “self” a referent to an individual?
You seem to saying poetically that a fabricated entity has real estate ownership.
Well, yes, a corporation is treated by USA law as “a person” for some purposes, not for others, and many legal authorities argue that’s a problem in the first place. I guess, if anything you are saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law?
I watched the interview with Judge Goldstone. In virtually every case, Moyers asks a question a skeptic would ask, and then gives Goldstone the opportunity to answer and demolish each counter argument. From my perspective, this was a good interview and Moyers did not abandon his ethics or his own history on this issue. Watch it yourself:
link to pbs.org
ehrens, agree completely, it was a great interview and Moyers was simply reflecting the hasbara talking points that had been spewed by the MSM, and Goldstone was brilliant. Great interview — not something you’ll see on “60 Minutes,” of course.
I did watch it and yes, this was part of what Moyers did, but he also reinforced the standard narrative, at least in the US, that Palestinians attack, and Israelis defend, though in this case going much too far. And Goldstone allowed this misperception to go unchallenged. That’s understandable–he’s trying very hard to shake off the accusation that he’s a self-hating Jew and so I guess he felt like he couldn’t go out of his way to point out how much harm the Israelis had done to Gazans even before the war.
I think Moyers had two motives–one was what you said, to allow Goldstone to rebut the accusations against him and to defend his claim that Israel was guilty of war crimes. But I also think Moyers was trying to establish his own credibility within the US by reassuring his American audience that he’s not some crazy person who thinks it is 100 percent Israel’s fault and they have no right to defend their citizens and that yes, Hamas rocket fire was something that needed to be stopped. Fine, but what gets sacrificed in all this is the rest of the story–the blockade, the occupation (which even in Gaza did not end simply because the settlers were uprooted), the Israeli violence against Palestinians before the war.
Not sure if Moyers is all that concerned at his age and with his huge professional credits of “establishing credibility.” Those who attack him are not likely to change their opinions of him based on anything he does differently — or even on rational grounds. His detractors have already decided he’s an irredeemable bleeding heart Christian liberal. His “failure” to trash Goldstone just “proves” this to them, I’m sure.
But even many of Moyers’ supporters don’t know the truth behind the I/P conflict. I think he could have subtly gotten more historical truth into the interview, without offending those who are only aware of the Israeli version of the conflict. The blockade would be easy to bring up. The occupation is a bit harder, and the entire history of the conflict is obviously even harder to bring in.
Happily, there were a lot of comments on the website from people with a good understanding of the I/P conflict, the occupation, etc. (not the hasbara version).
Ditto, Donald. I thought the same. While Moyers’s attitude was somewhat disappointing, in that he seemed to genuinely defend Israel, the result was a spectacular triumph for Goldstone. He brilliantly fended off tough questioning, and established his integrity beyond any question.
Check out Finklestein’s version of what happened as the lead in to OP Cast Lead; he has the cause and reaction straight according to the actual facts. That’s why he’s not at the J St conference I guess, but Indyk is. I predict Phil will be pretty dissapointed.
By the way, speaking of Goldstone, here’s our elected officials on the topic. Zionist occupied territory . . .
link to ynetnews.com
The motion further quotes Richard Goldstone himself, using excerpts of an interview he gave the Jewish daily Forward, in which he admits that the report’s findings are inadmissible in court.
What? So it can’t go to the ICC? Has anyone seen this admission by Goldstone, and why haven’t those who still hold out hope that it may get to the ICC (like Israel Shamir) brought this up? If it does go the ICC, but this can’t be used, then what evidence can be used?
I think the report was meant to say Here’s some facts we dug up; smells like
some war crimes may have been committed on both sides–we think, if Nuremberg and the subsequent war crimes trials, including those in the Balkans for example,
and those old Nazis that keep getting dug up for another, the Security Council should take a look the report; if the respective sides don’t investigate this in good faith in the next 6 months, then an international office should–otherwise, Goering was right.
Problem is if Israel is forced to look at its own dirty laundry in public, then so should
the USA, Russia, and China. Actually I agree with that–how else do you enlightened
“the people” in any country as to what’s being done in their name?
AIPAC gets its money’s worth.
Let’s see what use J Street is, let’s see them use their clout to oppose this resolution.
Let’s see if it’s worthy of anyone’s SUPPORT.
Can anyone discuss the recent GAZA war at the turn of this century’s year last, and not discuss
it in the context of the 40 plus year occupation? Just asking.
What it boils down to is this–when you have a situation where the story has been slanted almost totally in Israel’s favor, a story that comes along and redresses the balance somewhat, but still leaves many of the prevailing myths intact will be seen as a giant step forwards. It’s good to have Goldstone’s claims about Israeli war crimes presented fairly, but it’s not good to reinforce the notion that the conflict is about Palestinian terrorism initiating violence and Israelis defending themselves. Moyers gave us a slice of truth with a slice of lies and omissions.
I’m with you 100%, Donald. Moyers completely dove into the role of devil’s advocate for Israel, without coming near the Palestinian perspective. Goldstone performed well, but the whole exercise was another contribution to the media’s dehumanization and erasure of the Palestinians.
Hi Susie,
Great post. Here is some good news. Jon Stewart is hopefully stepping up next week. I received the following via email today.
“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart featuring Dr. Mustafa Barghouti & Anna Baltzer
Palestinian peace activists, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Baltzer, will be guests on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Wednesday, October 28 at 11:00 p.m. EST.
Dr. Barghouti was born in Jerusalem, is a medical doctor, and was a presidential candidate of the Palestinian National Authority in 2005. Anna Baltzer is a Jewish American activist, author, and public speaker. “
If you judge that the Israeli narrative (hasbara) of I/P has already been widely discredited with PBS viewers and that they are looking for an alternative, then the criticisms of the Moyers interview as expressed by Susie and others here have validity. However, if discrediting the dominant Israeli narrative among the American public is still the most immediate priority, then Moyers interview with Goldstone was very effective. It will be interesting to see if other news outlets now give Goldstone some airtime to state his case.
Goldstone completely convinced my 79 year-old liberal Jewish mother of his integrity and the truthfulness of his report. Her support for Israel will not be the same after last night. Goldstone is Netanyahu’s worse nightmare for the moment.
If the points not mentioned this time do get on American TV, it will most likely be on Moyers’ show first. He was the only TV commentator to take on the Israelis and its US support while the Gaza incursion was happening. Give the old man his due.
Insightful comments Bruce, thank you.
What “hasbara” narrative are you talking about?
There is no blanket “hasbara” narrative to reject. There are features, specific assertions, that can be questioned, put into alternative contexts, even factually questioned.
I completely agree with you.
That’s all true, but I don’t accept that we should settle for half truths over total falsehoods. It’s happened before–back in the 80′s people were starting to point out that the Palestinians (it used to be antisemitic even to use that term) had some legitimate arguments and yes, that was a couple of steps forward, but then people would take a step back by still endorsing some of the false portions of the Israeli narrative. Tom Friedman started out in those days as someone perceived as a Palestinian sympathizer. Moyers endorsed some falsehoods last night. He didn’t have to do this. And it does real harm–when someone who will be denounced as being on the far left fringe still ends up endorsing falsehoods, the falsehoods become unassailable truths and anyone who criticizes Moyers (the guy being attacked as the far left Israel hater) look like total fringe nutcases. I bet many of the viewers of the show will go away thinking “Yeah, those crazy Hamas rockets had to be stopped by military force–the Israelis had no choice but to respond militarily to these terrorists. But they obviously went too far.”
I think the Moyers show will have good effects, overall, but I don’t think we should give him a pass for the inaccuracies and omissions which all went in one direction.
“Yeah, those crazy Hamas rockets had to be stopped by military force–the Israelis had no choice but to respond militarily to these terrorists. But they obviously went too far.”
I hope you are advocating for that conclusion.
And it does real harm–when someone who will be denounced as being on the far left fringe still ends up endorsing falsehoods, the falsehoods become unassailable truths and anyone who criticizes Moyers (the guy being attacked as the far left Israel hater) look like total fringe nutcases.
That is an incredibly important point, and situations such as this have no doubt been designed with that exact outcome in mind, as a way of molding popular opinion.
For the record, I’m not implying that this particular interview was necessarily “designed” to instill that opinion in the public mind.
The important thing is to keep writing in, calling in, doing whatever we can to voice our displeasure and let media outlets know that these inaccuracies and omissions aren’t going unnoticed by the viewers/readers of media. Change is happening, albeit slowly.
Says Mr. Liberal Non-Violence Advocate, proving his hypocrisy once again.
You can’t take the 40 year plus occupation out of a single one of those crappy Pal rockets, Witty. You can imagine the Warsaw Ghetto but not Gaza. Creep.
“Yeah, those crazy Hamas rockets had to be stopped by military force–the Israelis had no choice but to respond militarily to these terrorists. But they obviously went too far.”
Except that when there were no rockets to be stopped, Israel made sure to escalete hostilies so as to have an excuse to defend themselves.
Me–“Yeah, those crazy Hamas rockets had to be stopped by military force–the Israelis had no choice but to respond militarily to these terrorists. But they obviously went too far.”
RW–I hope you are advocating for that conclusion.
Uh, no. I am denying the premise. The premise was that Israel was minding its own business and then out of nowhere, Hamas started attacking them. And then Israel responded, as was its right, but went too far.
That’s not what happened. The Gaza Strip was under siege and during the years before the Gaza War, there were explosives fired in both directions. Israel was also sending war planes over Gaza causing sonic booms, a form of terrorism for small children (as mentioned in a Guardian article I linked to some weeks back).
So Moyers presented the background in a false, misleading way, and I think he did this deliberately. I’m glad he had Goldstone on, but he also reinforced a false narrative.
I don’t think there would have been a downside to Moyers playing devil’s advocate from a Palestinian position, in addition to an Israeli one. First of all, people would be aware that such a position exists. And, they would come away with a stronger appreciation for Goldstone’s integrity. Rather than seeing a dispute between Israel on one extreme, and Goldstone on the other (with the truth probably lying somewhere in the middle, as we tend to think).
I am also convinced that the Goldstone report should be taken seriously, and that Israel acted beyond its most ethical in Gaza. (Blanket “war criminal” I disagree with.)
I still reject and resent the accusations of genocide and even war criminal that the rancorous and summarily judgemental far left are willing to conclude and rant.
Goldstone was clear that the remedy was Israeli self-inquiry, NOT ICC referral, and that his observations were not meant to be conclusive.
Goldstone was clear — in the report — that certain of Israel’s and Hamas’ actions constituted war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and as he said in the Moyers interview that if the countries fail to do the mandatory internal inquiries, then the UN should refer the matters to the international court.
Under no circumstances did Goldstone write what you claim. Goldstone did recommend that the report be sent to the ICC. You have obviously not read the report. From page 545, at the start of 30 pages of recommendations:
For starters. He wrote 575 pages of ‘conclusive’.
Submitted to the ICC? What exactly does that mean? Do you believe it means recommendation of prosecution of individuals?
In all of his interviews, he clarifies that the proposed remedy is sincere self-inquiry.
Read the report Witty. Honestly, you are really making a fool of yourself here.
Do you believe it means recommendation of prosecution of individuals?
Precisely. Absolutely. He specifically says individuals. And he said it in the Moyers interview as well. Those responsible for the actions and decisions should be determined by each side and, ideally, dealt with by Israel and Hamas. Yeah, he wants accountability and punishment on both sides.
From the Moyers interview:
Then this:
Goldstone’s position is that both sides need to investigate the facts alleged in the report in good faith; in 6 months, if this is not done sufficiently, either or both cases for war crimes go to the ICC.
The Goldstone investigation would not have likely passed an audit peer review.
The extent of investigation was too limited.
It is informative however, and should be used to reform and improve the Israeli policy formation process and IDF operational confidence.
Just so we’re clear, Witty, the extent of the investigation was too limited because Israel categorically refused to cooperate. Right?
Actually, the extent of the investigation was too limited because Witty hasn’t read the report and therefore, as a good auditor, he knows its best to comment on something from a complete lack of knowledge of what was in the report. Its OK, because he saw the interview so he is now an expert on the report he hasn’t read.
What does that mean? The next time the IDF goes out to slaughter another civilian population, their confidence will be high because they have lawyers on their side, and a full PR team?
They won’t have to feel inhibited when they take aim at women and children carrying white flags?
“The extent of investigation was too limited.”
How woudl you know Richard? You have not read the report, you are simply repeating the Neteyahu defense.
A 574-page report containing detailed analysis of 36 specific incidents in Gaza, as well as a number of others in the West Bank and Israel.
The report’s findings are based on 188 individual interviews (including some powerful testimonies), 10,000 pages of documentation, and 1,200 photographs, including satellite imagery, as well as 30 videos. The mission heard 38 testimonies during two separate public hearings held in Gaza and Geneva, which were webcast and are still available for download.
Their investigation faced several obstacles: Israel denied the Mission access to the West Bank and Israel proper. Israel also failed to respond to a comprehensive list of questions posed to it by the Mission. Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated with the Mission.
That, AND that Goldstone had limited time and resources, and sadly methodology to conduct an investigation that would lead to confident statement of general conclusions.
He can state information and suspicions (not even conclusions) about incidents.
But, he can’t say “Israel targeted Gaza’s food supply”, from investigating a single incident. You can as you don’t hold yourself to any professional standards of degree of proof.
An auditor, an investigator must though. He/she must limit their conclusion to what they can actually conclude from their investigations, always limited (which isn’t a bad word, its a descriptive word, a definition of scope).
A (good) auditor would not make assumptions about what could and could not be concluded when that auditor is merely sitting on the sidelines thousands of miles away, rather than conducting the investigation himself. And a good auditor wouldn’t let his biases interfere with his seeing the truth, or reading a report because it might hurt his fantasies.
Nope, no targeting of Gaza’s food supply there. The only flour mill destroyed, the largest producer of eggs totally flattened, and the sewage treatment plant attacked, ruining acres of adjacent farmland, but that’s no reason to claim that Israel was targeting Gaza’s food supply. Geez, what a pathetic piece of apologia, Richard. Have you no shame?
Actually you’re wrong tree.
To make a general statement, say in accounting “the balance of accounts receivable is materially accurate” (not the language that would be used), you’d have to statistically stratify what you are looking at.
Typically, there would be a small number of large individual account balances, for whom each would be examined. Then to get to a high level of confidence on the statement as a whole, you would select a large enough sample to confidently verify the remainder. You can generalize to an extent from a sample, assuming that there are no exceptions.
But Goldstone’s described methodology was to investigate 46 of 50-fold more incidents. He didn’t describe that he had investigated a random sample of the remainder, just the 46.
He described them individually, suggesting targeting of civilians for collective punishment by the incidents, but NOT siting the exagerated claims that are cavalierly made here and elsewhere among the left.
There is a low standard of “how do you know”? Rather than skepticism as a norm, some prejudicial hoping for and exagerating actual scope of conclusions, is too common.
Those that know some methodology of legal or other investigation should know better. Those that are professional journalists should BOTHER to find out the basis of conclusion inherent in criminal or other investigations.
Phil and others should be familiar with epistomology.
The legal standard and methodology on a single case is different one than accounting for a population.
And, again I assume that professional journalists have a different basis, but still requiring some confirmation.
Propagandists have the “mark” standard. What can I sell?
No, you’re wrong. If you are looking to see if irregularities ( in this case, war crimes) exist and you only have time and capacity to look at a certain number of incidences, and in fact you find irregularities (war crimes), then you can certainly make a statement that irregularities (war crimes) were committed. Just because you haven’t been able to study all incidents doesn’t negate the ones that you have. Its not a balance sheet, Witty, with some imagined good stuff possibly negating the bad stuff. If a war crime is committed, it isn’t erased by another incident where someone saved a puppy from a burning building. You have a minimum base number of incidents where war crimes have occurred, and nothing can be said about whether or not more incidents involving war crimes existed, but the minimum base number is enough to call out war crimes.
Perhaps thats one of your problems with understanding this. You think that everything has to zero out in the end. In the case of war crimes, they never do.
Goldstone IS circumspect. He is aware of the limited scope of his investigation and disclosed it as limited.
The far left didn’t pay attention to that. They hornily exagerated his conclusions to the level of “war crime pattern and policy” from Goldstone’s far more limited “appearance of war crime incident (in the cases of the egg farm, more than an incident as in a single soldier’s action, but an incident as an exception to the generalized statement “Israel sought to starve the Gazans”).
They didn’t distinguish between a cold, a walking pneumonia, a full fledged pneumonia requiring hospitalization, and a death.
They sited, “sick”, as if that were informative. (It is more informative than “everything is perfect”, but NOT as informative as more specific and measured descriptions.)
Those that can’t know better, can’t know better. Phil can. Adam can. Blankfort can. Finkelstein can.
They are intelligent individuals, professionals. (Sometimes at least). Their postings here are their professional product.
Wow. Now I think I understand better why Jews find Holocaust denial so very disgusting. It’s really quite sickening to watch that sort of handwaving and denial and trivialization of human suffering in action.
Thank you Witty.
You haven’t even READ the goddamn report, Witty. And here you are spewing your fascist bullshit.
Utter bullshit.
Go to hell.
I sympathize with your reaction and I rather wish more people here did. Treating a vicious propaganda artist like Witty with any sort of respect is a dangerous road not worth taking.
Donald suggestd that Goldstone was Netenyahu’s worst nightmare. I’d say it is also Witty’s.
“Then to get to a high level of confidence on the statement as a whole, you would select a large enough sample to confidently verify the remainder. You can generalize to an extent from a sample, assuming that there are no exceptions.”
That’s hilarious. I guess the Nazis didn’t deliberately attack Denmark, because given a large enough sample of countries around the world they only attacked a minority, and generalizing from that, the Nazis were utterly unaggressive.
To me there’s no question that MOYER is a guy who wants to assure his job, that is, his future good paychecks..
Yeah, right Witty, nobody has documented the stranglehold on Gaza’s food supply for the last few years. And there’s no former IDF soldiers who have gone on record about how the IDf operates, and there was never any Vietnam vets against the war, and there’s
none now against the wars in the Middle East that Uncle Sam has produced. And you are a US military veteran.
[sorry this comment was posted elsewhere by mistake]
Wow. Just saw the interview.
At first I was willing to accept that Moyer’s questions were him playing devil’s advocate — getting Goldstone to refute his critics by repeating their logic. But then it became so unrelenting… out of the maybe 30 questions asked by Moyers, 27 were defenses of Israel in the form of a question. It skewed the entire discussion away from talking about the great depth and of Israeli injustices.
He really wasn’t playing devil’s advocate, I believe.
“Cowardly playing devil’s advocate”.
Was that an misdirected attempt to change your screen name? I have to say it’s actually rather appropriate.
Sliming Goldstone and his report:
link to counterpunch.org