Judge Richard Goldstone made a mistake.
An ardent Zionist, he believed that he could alter the course of the Jewish state’s trajectory. Undoubtedly pained by the actions of his Zionist fellows – and earnestly knowing that it doesn’t have to be this way – he pointed at the ugly things they’ve done and said, “Look.”
The problem, he knew, was not about supremacist ideology. It wasn’t about willful blindness, callous indifference or jingoistic bloodlust either. The Jews of Israel are good and moral, and they just don’t know. If they did, he reasoned, they’d change.
Judge Goldstone would show them what they’ve done, and they’d repent. Or at least they wouldn’t do it again.
But he was wrong.
They knew what they’d done – how could they not? Some of them were willfully blind, or callously indifferent, or were active participants in the massacre.
The Zionists knew their crimes, but more importantly they knew that they’d been betrayed. Didn’t Goldstone know that blood is thicker than truth and integrity? Or that Zionist arms are sanctified by God? Or that his words would rend the community? Young Jews would leave the tribe because of him. He was destroying the Jewish people and Israel would wither and die because of him.
The education of Richard Goldstone began at the age of 71. He aimed to lead the Zionists of Israel out of their barren humanity. And he was savaged for his efforts; he was excommunicated and vilified. Shining a light in the mirror, he saw their bared teeth.
“The Zionists aren’t broken,” they snarled, “You’re broken.”
The Zionists aren’t misguided, they are actively destructive, he learned.
And they were right that Richard Goldstone was broken. He sought to do his job. He applied the same standards he applied everywhere. His methodology was good. But he was still wrong, somehow.
The fallout showed him just how wrong he was. That was when things began to be clearer. Being a Zionist meant that the truth is subordinate, he learned. Israel comes first! In Everything! And then you can do your job, Goldstone! And Never Again, too!
Confronted with a choice – the Tribe or the Truth – he buckled and folded. He repented in the most medieval way, with a public recantation. He took to the pages of the Washington Post to write: “Believe the Zionists; it was my own eyes that lied.”
Now he stands with his beloved community. But will they take him back? Is there a doggie door large enough for him to crawl through?
It’s impossible to know how the judge lost his integrity. Maybe it had to do with the prospect of being buried in a lonely cemetery. Or maybe it’s something more prosaic. Like the pain of not receiving a much-anticipated invitation to something. Perhaps it was the University of Johannesburg’s recent decision to break with apartheid (“You did this to us, Goldstone!”).
Whatever the cause, Goldstone’s shameful behavior has demonstrated that Zionists are not fit to produce and disseminate the truth. Any doubts of the inherent contradictions of the two should be laid to rest now. Goldstone went about as far as any one of them is permitted to and he’s snapping back into the velveteen fold, double-time.
So, Zionism and truth; Zionism and decency; Zionism and integrity; Zionism and liberalism; Zionism and humanity are deeply contradictory. Richard Goldstone’s education began at 71, and lately he’s begun to teach.
When people use arguments like Moor and conclude:
So, Islam and truth; Islam and decency; Islam and integrity; Islam and liberalism; Islam and humanity are deeply contradictory.
You get all riled up and spit while trying to say “Islamophobia” in the most disgusted manner. However, when someone makes such absurd generalizations about Zionism, you will applaud. How progressive.
What’s there to generalize about Zionism? That’s like generalizing about Communism or Nazism. Ideologies are ideologies.
But, I understand your confusion. For you, religion and ideology are one and the same. Judaism is Zionism is Judaism.
Luckily for you, I don’t expect you to comprehend the difference.
Yeah, right. Zionism is a monolithic ideology that can be clearly generalized about. What BS. The Zionist tent is large just like the Islamic tent. Only a bigot see Zionism as you do.
The Zionist tent is large just like the Islamic tent.
is that how we compare things? by their size?
hahahahahahaha
and you think there are billions of zionists on the planet? you’re delusional.
You wouldn’t understand. It’s a male thing.
Remind us again how Richard Goldstone was being ostracized by his own Zionist Jewish community and now they’re celebrating their “victory.” Remind us again how Israelis like you routinely verbally assault diaspora Jews who don’t pledge their fealty to the so-called “Jewish nation.” Remind me again why Ethiopian Jews had to be “converted” before Israel would actually accept them (and now that door is shut completely and permanently now that the PR moment has passed). Remind us again why Emily Henochowitz lost an eye. Remind us again why Jews died in the King David Hotel bombing. Remind us again why the Lavon affair happened. Remind us again how the USS Liberty was “just an accident.”
A statement about Zionism is not parallel to a statement about Islam. A statement about Judaism would be.
Your criticism would be valid if Mr. Moor had said “Judaism and truth; …”, but he did not. Islam is a religion. Zionism is an ideology.
get a grip eee. just because zionists would like to highjack judaism doesn’t mean they have. quit your bloviating!
Very well. Islam is a religion. A religion is a bunch of ideas people believe in. How is that different from an ideology? But let’s play your game. Surely Islamic theology is an ideology. Therefore is it ok to say:
So, Islamic theology and truth; Islamic theology and decency; Islamic theology and integrity; Islamic theology and liberalism; Islamic theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.
Well?
political ideologies and faith based ideologies are inherently different. one is more grounded in policy and people make a choice whether to adhere to political principles and it is not irresponsible to hold people culpable for the political policies they support.
faith based ideologies have to do with interpretation of religious doctrine. people can be of the same religion and hold vastly different belief systems within that religion. people of faith can practice their faith in their homes and in private and have respect for the same with their neighbors and not impact the faith of people with vastly different belief systems whereas political principles impact society as a whole.
when religion is not separated from the state as a political choice or political ideology it can imposes religious principles on society as a whole. therefore it is not the religion doing that, it is people’s interpretation of the religion (or the politics of the religious)
that is how they are different.
no it is not ok to say:
So, Islamic theology and truth; Islamic theology and decency; Islamic theology and integrity; Islamic theology and liberalism; Islamic theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.
nobody said
” judaism’s theology and truth; judaism’s theology and decency; judaism’s theology and integrity; judaism’s theology and liberalism; judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.”
that is your comparison and no one here said that. you keep trying to impose zionism on us by claiming is deserves the same regard as a religion. i’m a secular person and i respect others religions as a matter of principle. but i do not have to respect your politics. zionism is politics, it isn’t the friggin torah.
Don’t you understand that also two Zionists can hold vastly different belief systems yet both can be Zionists? Uri Avnery and Kahana are two poles of Zionism and putting them together is just plain bigotry.
Irregardless, your argument is just wrong. Your biggest problem is after all with those that see Zionism as part of their faith. Their call to live in Hebron is a religious one. Zionism is an integral part of their religion. The new Egyptian constitution will be based on Sharia law. The Iranian constitution is based on Sharia. The distinction you are trying to make does not exist. Political and religious ideologies merge in many instances.
So again, is it ok to say:
So, Islamic theology and truth; Islamic theology and decency; Islamic theology and integrity; Islamic theology and liberalism; Islamic theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.
Annie,
your write:
——————
nobody said
” judaism’s theology and truth; judaism’s theology and decency; judaism’s theology and integrity; judaism’s theology and liberalism; judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.”
——————-
The majority of Jews see Zionism as part of their theology. The majority of religious Jews are Zionists. So what Moor is saying is exactly what you wrote. He is saying that Judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory. Why is it ok to say that?
Why do you hate Muslims? Is it because your parents hate Muslims?
So again, is it ok to say:
” judaism’s theology and truth; judaism’s theology and decency; judaism’s theology and integrity; judaism’s theology and liberalism; judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.”
you tell me, is it?
Your biggest problem is after all with those that see Zionism as part of their faith. Their call to live in Hebron is a religious one. Zionism is an integral part of their religion.
as far as i am concerned that is all our problem, not just mine. i addressed this before here:
when religion is not separated from the state as a political choice or political ideology it can imposes religious principles on society as a whole. therefore it is not the religion doing that, it is people’s interpretation of the religion (or the politics of the religious)
do you know what i mean by it is not the religion doing that, it is people’s interpretation of the religion? “those that see Zionism as part of their faith” are those that see their political ideology (zionism) as part of their faith (judaism). zionism didn’t even exist 150 years ago so please do not tell me it’s an intrinsic part of judaism. it may be intrinsic now to religious zionists but zionism is very popular w/secularists and christians both so don’t tell me it’s intrinsically jewish. it’s intrinsically ethnic nationalism is what it is. it’s a political construct.
The majority of Jews see Zionism as part of their theology.
i’m not even convinced the majority of jews aren’t secular eee.
So what Moor is saying is …… that Judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.
perhaps you could copy and paste moor’s words to demonstrate what you mean. because unless one buys the arguement you are trying to float here that zionism is religious this just aint flying. let’s consult wiki:
and there you have it. want more:
but i disagree w/the bolded text because i have met zionists who do not buy the whole Eretz Israel thing wrt israel, they just believe jews should have their own state of israel, not the eretz version.
“So again, is it ok to say:
So, Islamic theology and truth; Islamic theology and decency; Islamic theology and integrity; Islamic theology and liberalism; Islamic theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.”
Why wouldn’t it be O.K. so say it, as long as it is backed up with argument and evidence?
“He is saying that Judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory. Why is it ok to say that?”
It is OK for the same reason that it is OK to say that Christian theology and humanity are deeply contradictory, or Communisst theory and humanity are deeply contradictory, or Capitalism and humanity are deeply contradictory.
Perhaps all of these claims are true. Perhaps none of them are. But why should we not make the claims, and debate them?
“The majority of Jews see Zionism as part of their theology.”
Figures please. Without something to back this up it’s just a racist assumption that you think you know how the “majority of Jews” feels about something.
“Why do you hate Muslims? Is it because your parents hate Muslims?”
Chaos, dear, this question based on absolutely nothing anyone has said is the product of a deranged mind.
Actually, long before you showed up here, 3e had been posting comments that made it obvious he was a racist and a bigot.
But, since you are not interested in reality and instead seek to blindly defend whatever you perceive as pro-Israel, you end up making such idiotic knee-jerk comments.
Everything about you screams, “I’m a weasel like a used car salesman”. Did you really think that sneakiness was going to get you by?
Avi,
You are a liar. Show one comment that makes it “obvious” that I am a racist and a bigot.
GF,
The 5.5 million Jews in in Israel are Zionists by definition. Would you not agree that at least half the Jews in the US are Zionist? Therefore, the majority of Jews are Zionist.
eee December 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Would you like to see more?
Why wouldn’t it be O.K. so say it, as long as it is backed up with argument and evidence?
because it would depend on ones interpretation of a religion wouldn’t it?
“The 5.5 million Jews in in Israel are Zionists by definition.”
This is so laughingly false I wonder if you have any ability to think critically at all.
Kind of difficult to do from just one post. Perhaps this one might work?
[edited] well well – Avi showed that I was wrong about that kind of difficult to do from just one post.
“You are a liar. Show one comment that makes it “obvious” that I am a racist and a bigot.”
I thought the comment yesterday saying that the Palestinians killed Jesus was a couple over the eights, if it wasn’t so goddam predictable that you would take the bait.
I like this one:
Ethnic cleansing is an evil that was necessary to create a greater good, a viable Jewish state.
“because it would depend on ones interpretation of a religion wouldn’t it?”
But what is wrong with giving an interpretation of a religion, if that interpretation is supported by argument and evidence?
nothings wrong with giving an interpretation of religion or your interpretation of a religion. it just isn’t the same as saying
Islamic theology and truth; Islamic theology and decency; Islamic theology and integrity; Islamic theology and liberalism; Islamic theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.
the reason it isn’t the same is because one is based on your interpretation and the other is claiming it’s the theology itself. notice how eee said:
nobody said
” judaism’s theology and truth; judaism’s theology and decency; judaism’s theology and integrity; judaism’s theology and liberalism; judaism’s theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.”
(i interpret this to mean he doesn’t want that said about his religion while he has no problem slagging off some one else’s)
and somebody sure could say that about his. especially now that some of these zionists are trying to claim zionism is intrinsic to judaism. because i sure as hell think zionism and humanity are deeply contradictory.
my point is that we can have the inquisition in the name of christ but is it really? or is it in the man (or the church or the system) using the name of christ to carry out one’s interpretation of christianity?
this is just my peace i have found with religions because i’m not a huge fan of religions in general. so i try to give the religion itself some slack and take my angst out on the practitioners and how they practice their faith when that practice conflicts with my world view.
“the other is claiming it’s the theology itself.”
An interpretation of a religion is a claim about the theology, isn’t it?
But why is it wrong to make a claim about the theology?
If I can back up the claim with argument and evidence, why is it wrong to say
” Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Cao Dai theology and truth; Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Cao Dai theology and decency; Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Cao Dai theology and integrity; Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Cao Dai theology and liberalism; Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Cao Dai theology and humanity are deeply contradictory.” ?
I know it would offend people who are poised to take offence, but that is their choice. I cannot see anything wrong with making important, well supported, claims about religion.
However this plays out or however it turns out what exactly made Goldstone change his opinion, this is a good reaction to what we are seeing.
If even a respected Jewish Zionist judge can’t say that both sides commited war crimes whithout being threatened and excommunicated, a whole lot of Zionist Jewry is beyond redemption. If the tribal and collectivist instincts are still so ingrained 60 years after the Holocaust, they must have lost any connection to reason. This is madness.
How should other people and especially other Jewish people react to such madness?
And by the way, @Phil and/or @Adam, I think that sometimes you block my comments when I mention racist supremacist thoughts or acts by Jewish individuals. Why is Ahmed allowed to imply a Jewish supremacist ideology, but I am not? I could be mistaken of course, and I’ll try to put my thoughts more clearly in any case.
Why is Ahmed allowed to imply a Jewish supremacist ideology, but I am not?
zionism isn’t ‘jewish’ it’s an ethnic nationalist ideology. iow ahmed implied no such thing.
@annie:
First, of which ethnicity is Zionism the nationalist ideology? But granted, ther eare enough ideological Zionists in all party of society.
But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about racial suprematism, an ideology which occurs amongst people of many ethnicities. So I would presume Jewish individuals are not immune to it, too. Indeed, from what I read in Avraham Burgs book, suprematist thought plays its part when it comes to aggressive Jewish Israeli behaviour. Do I have to search for those crazy Rabbi’s quotes for you to get what I mean? “Goyim live only to serve the Jews” and such blather. That’s racist suprematism.
So what exactly Ahmed implied with “supremacist ideology” I don’t know. All I know is there have to be Jewish individuals motivated by their version of racist suprematism, just like there are individuals of other groups motivated by their version of racist suprematism. And I think it’s important to point that out whenever it occurs, like Burg does, because essentially it proves that Jews are just like other people – capable of both the highest deeds and the lowest crimes. – which can’t be said too often.
So what exactly Ahmed implied with “supremacist ideology” I don’t know.
i assume he was referencing zionism.
Annie,
“i assume he was referencing zionism.”
If he was, it’s still only half of the truth. Zionist Jews can be supremacist in three regards (note that they CAN BE, not that they ARE). They can be ideological supremacists who think their Zionism (eg their ideology) makes them superior; or they can be racist/biological supremacists who think their Jewishness (eg their self-perceived ethnicity/”blood”) makes them superior; or they can be religious supremacists who think their belief (eg Judaism) makes them superior.
Again they can be, not all of them are. For sure Avraham Burg showed me how one can be a Zionist without clinging to one of these supremacist beliefs. But there are others unlike him.
Now, this three-way distinction is true for all supremacist individuals, so it is not an analysis bigoted towards supremacist Jewish individuals.
To get back to why all this matters: Those crazy Rabbis prove that in Israel, there is a part of the population which mixes religious and racist supremacist thoughts, and those thoughts presumably motivate their actions towards the Palestinians and towards non-Zionist Jews.
This factor has to be part of any honest analysis of the situation in I/P, just as racist beliefs within other societies in the region have to be part of the analysis.
This factor should have also been known to Richard Goldstone, who presumably thought, as Moor put it, that “the Jews of Israel are good and moral, and they just don’t know. If they did, he reasoned, they’d change.”
Goldstone should have known that some individuals in Israel are not good and moral, and they won’t change, because they are supremacists of one flavor or the other.
When a State or institution feels threatened and in danger, it will do what it thinks is needed to take out the threat. The findings of the Goldstone report were put into the same existential threat to Israel as the perceived threats from Iran.
In 2009 “Netanyahu opened his address to the plenum by listing the major issues facing the country, which he said were “the Iranian [nuclear] threat, the missile threat and a threat I call the Goldstone threat,…”
link to jpost.com
Goldstone may be 71, but he has a family and a number of grandchildren.
Do you have one shred of evidence to support your libelous accusation?
What in Netanyahu’s speech is evidence that Israel pressured Goldstone? There is not a shred of evidence.
You mean besides the NEWS ARTICLE THAT IS LINKED? In her post? Right up there, eee. The blue text with the underline. See it now?
I don’t fault Goldstone for his el foldo routine – none of us could have withstood the sustained attack from the zio-mafia … and the facts are out there despite anything Goldstone has to say now … the other authors have not recanted from one word in the report
Where Goldstone erred was in not realizing what role he was asked to play in history: If he was there to do a whitewash, easy – the zionists are most expert at those … but Goldstone was proud of his reputation and would not participate in a whitewash – he was going to tell the truth … and he did. But truthtellers are all-in when they play and as Martin Luther King, Gandhi and others have learned – you will be attacked relentlessly and must be willing to lose everything in service to the truth. Goldstone wants a comfortable and relaxed retirement and a wonderful life doing the black-tie dinner circuit … and truthtellers don’t get that life.
He repented in the most medieval way, with a public recantation.
You nailed it. Reading Goldstone’s retraction one can picture Galileo renouncing his theories under the Inquisition.
The New Inquisition doesn’t burn people alive or even place them under house arrest as Galileo was. They only destroy careers, like Finkelstein’s, or threaten to ruin a boy’s bar mitzvah to pressure his grandfather, like in the case of Goldstone, or smear the names of countless people under the blanket and baseless accusation of antisemitism, self-hate or a combination thereof.
If you don’t toe the line, you won’t be prevented from picking up strawberries or doing menial jobs, but you won’t get to be, for instance, an elected official in the US. True, the academia remains a place not all heretics have been purged from; but they’re working on that and I’m sure they’ll come up with a solution.
I was just thinking of Galileo! one of the most famous recantations of all time for truth telling… you busted my thunder…..but the early bird get the kudos…
OTOH, the comparison of zionist cultism with Catholic Orthodoxy and its Inquisition arm is becoming more apt by the day….
I think this goes to show the supernatural steadfastness of the Palestinians who have faced over 4 decades of strict zionist occupation and brutality.
Judge Goldstone didn’t have the resilience to survive social pressure, wonder how much quicker the recant would have happened under physical torture, enhanced interrogation, detention, maiming, or rape?
“Is there a doggie door large enough for him to crawl through?
How deliciously nasty! I am in awe!
Or, maybe Judge Goldstone is describing his honest thinking.
Here’s some stuff to think about. In his op-ed Goldstone makes some bizarre statements that come very close to Israeli propaganda, for instance that the Human Rights Council should condemn the Itamar massacre. Now the HRC can only condemn actions carried out by state actors or political factions. And in this case, it isn’t yet clear that the massacre was committed by either. For all we know, the killer may have been a Thai worker. It would be a major blunder for the HRC to condemn it since the HRC cannot condemn common crime.
Do you think that passing judgment on a case still under investigation can be part of a judge’s “honest thinking”? If it can, it means that said judge displays an astounding ignorance of some elementary principles of law.
This Thai worker accusation is racism, pure and simple. Instead of blaming the likely perpetrator you’d rather come off as racists. Misinformation and Palestinian white-washing has no shame.
what palestinian white washing. do you know something we do not know?
“This Thai worker accusation is racism, pure and simple.”
That’s a load of nonsense. It is an possiblity, not racism. And given the very odd facts surrounding this case which are known to the public, which presents a real life “locked-room mystery”, it is not one which can be discounted out of hand, even if it is unlikely.
“Instead of blaming the likely perpetrator you’d rather come off as racists.”
And what is the name of “the likely perpetrator”??? I mean, surely someone who is so concerned, as you apparently are, to stem the tide of racism and bigotry won’t answer, “I don’t know, some Palestinian.” or somehing similar. I mean, you wouldn’t have used the phrast “the likely perpetrator” in a post calling out someone for alleged bigotry unless you were certain that you knew the name of this specific person, the specific individual. Right?
Wow, gee, I guess you must be correct in your fanatic prejudice that Jews are only ever murdered by Palestinians. I’m glad you found time out of your day to label us as the racist before you organize your lynch mob for another round of pogroms out among nearby Palestinian villages.
So was Goldstone being dishonest when he wrote his part for the report and described what was done to the al-Samouni as a crime? Or was he dishonest when he parroted Israeli press releases that it was an “accident” in spite of his investigation? Was that when he was dishonest? If not, does is subsequent statement that the report stands as it was written strike you as dishonest, considering you consider only the “retraction” an example of his honest thinking?
So which Goldstone do you think is the real Goldstone? The report, the retraction or the retraction’s retraction?