As disingenuous and pernicious as was Richard Goldstone’s previous Washington Post oped, in which he essentially retracted the Goldstone Report’s fully-substantiated finding that Israel committed war crimes in its attack on Gaza at the end of 2008, Tuesday’s NY Times oped is perhaps even worse. Goldstone writes that to characterize Israel’s policies as “apartheid” is an “unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel,” one among other “assaults that aim to isolate, demonize, and delegitimize” Israel.
Other commentators have pointed out that the characterization of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians as one of apartheid is now quite common among serious observers--definitely including Israel’s own dissenters, including among many others Haaretz, Israel’s most prestigious newspaper and B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization. What is even more striking, however, is that both Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak—neither of whom are likely to be accused of seeking to delegitimize Israel—have also warned, in just that language, that Israel is on the road to apartheid.
Even so, Goldstone’s defense against the apartheid charge must be examined on its merits. Goldstone wishes to distinguish between Israel’s policies within its own borders, towards the Israeli Arabs, and its policies in the occupied territories. Inside Israel, he asserts, “there is no apartheid,” and “nothing there comes close” to the international legal definition of apartheid: “systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group…”
True, the situation of the Israeli Arabs is not nearly so bad as that of the South African black population under apartheid—but (as others have pointed out) the argument is a straw man, since few if any serious critics of Israel have claimed that its policies and behavior towards its own Arab minority—as opposed to those in the occupied territories—is equivalent to apartheid. Nonetheless, while Goldstone concedes that there is too much “de facto separation" between the Jewish and Arab populations, and some Israeli “discrimination,” he ignores the proven facts that the Israeli Arabs are distinctly second-class citizens, systematically denied equal economic, social, cultural, and increasingly even legal rights.
“The situation in the West Bank is more complex,” Goldstone allows, but—and this he obviously believes is his trump card—“there is no intent to maintain an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group” (my emphasis), a “critical distinction” in Goldstone’s view, because “South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority,” whereas “by contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.”
Here and elsewhere, close attention must be paid to Goldstone’s language: characteristically he asserts something that is clearly designed to give a certain impression, but at the same time, if read literally and the ambiguities are ignored, might provide him with an out when he is challenged on the facts, allowing him to claim he has been misunderstood.
In the first place, one may suspect that Goldstone's emphasis on the racial component of apartheid--as opposed to systematic oppression that may not be essentially racial in intention--is designed to support the argument that Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians does not constitute apartheid. Even if not, of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that Israeli oppression is less onerous than was that of South Africa--or indeed, even worse, as a number of former South African antiapartheid activists have written.
Perhaps my suspicion of Goldstone's true intentions in this case is mistaken--but surely not in other cases. For example, consider again Goldstone's bald statement that “Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters”--a perfect example of a statement that is literally true but in all essentials a lie. Yes, Israel has agreed to the “concept” of a two-state settlement, but as every serious observer of the conflict understands, not the reality. Further, of course, the statement is clearly designed to convey the impression that it is only the Palestinian refusal to negotiate that is blocking a settlement—another lie embedded in a perhaps technically and narrowly true statement.
In another example of Goldstone’s polemical techniques, he writes: “The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to refute it to minimize unreasonable hardship.” You almost have to admire the technique, for in one literally true statement it tells three lies.
First, as everyone knows, another and probably the main purpose of the “security barrier” was to grab more Palestinian land and to protect the illegal Jewish settlements beyond Israel’s accepted boundaries. Second, if the Supreme Court “in many cases” ordered a change in the route of the barriers, it follows that in other cases--probably most other cases--it has refused to do so. Third, in any event the Israeli government and military have often ignored Supreme Court rulings or "interpreted" them in such a way as to essentially defeat their purpose.
In characterizing the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Goldstone also makes technically true statements that nonetheless embody false symmetries and conceal the real truths. For example, he characterizes the conflict as one in which there “are claims and counterclaims,” where “attacks on one side are met by counterattacks from the other,” where there is “hostility and suspicion on both sides,” and in which Israel “sees” its behavior as “necessary for self-defense,” whereas the Palestinians “feel” oppressed. No realities then—no Israeli oppression, no Palestinian victimization, just conflicting perceptions.
Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Goldstone clearly wishes to provide an excuse for Israel's occupation and repression of the Palestinians when he writes that "Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Note that he doesn't say that Israel "is" in a state of war, just that it "has been;" yet he says Israel's neighbors "refuse"--as opposed to "refused"--to accept its existence. The characteristic trickery is obvious: if he had put everything in the past tense, that would lead to the conclusion that Israel would no longer have any excuses—even assuming that in the past it had--for its occupation and repression of the Palestinians. So, there's scarcely any doubt that Goldstone once again is being deliberately misleading---and that's a polite way of putting it.
Surely Goldstone knows the facts. Israel's closest neighbors are Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. The Israeli-Egyptian conflict ended with the 1979 peace settlement, and the Israeli-Jordanian conflict ended in 1994--in any case, both conflicts were not primarily over any refusal to accept Israel's existence. For the last thirty years, Saudi Arabia has been attempting to settle the overall Arab-Israeli conflict on terms which not only fully accept the "existence" of Israel but call for full normalization of diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and the Arab world--and all 20 states of the Arab League are now on record as supporting the Saudi plan. As for Lebanon, of course it is Israel which has engaged in repeated massive attacks on that country, not the other way around.
In short, other than Iran every state in the entire Middle East region now accepts the existence of Israel, and to the extent that Arab-Israeli conflict remains, it is overwhelming a consequence of Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians.
This is a crosspost from Jerome Slater's site.
I’m agnostic by default, but if there is a God in heaven, and that God stands for Justice, there must be an especially hot place in Hell for this Goldstone character. He should be writing up new Wall St lobby proposals to push on Congress to circumvent every attempt to make Wall St accountable for its greed & selfish survival to maintain its luxurious life style at the expense of the masses. This man is template for why I quit the practice of law after working so hard in the steel mills of South Chicago to get my law degree. I was born the same year as Auschwitz, and ever since I’ve tried like Hanna Arndt to find the reasons why. This Goldstone is a tombstone for humanity.
I agree. Goldstone should never have taken part in the initial report. Today he stands to be compared with moral giants and comes up a moral midget. Worse, he argues with the slickness that often tarnishes the reputation of some lawyers, of most politicians, and even of some judges. (Such misdirection by telling of semi-truths gives Jewish argumentation a bad name if it is at all typical. Is it? I say “if”.)
“This man is template for why I quit the practice of law after working so hard in the steel mills of South Chicago to get my law degree.”
Now that’s what I call a fringe benefit. Must be one hell of a union.
Goldstone writes – and lies – like a politician. He has a great future ahead of him.
Since “apartheid” is not the right word to describe Israel’s actions both within and without its 1948 borders, I vote for “Zio-supremacism”. It describes the mindset, the motivation, and the injustice and immorality of the “Jewish state” project. And, well, it’s also kinda catchy. :-)
Goldstone writes that to characterize Israel’s policies as “apartheid” is an “unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel,” one among other “assaults that aim to isolate, demonize, and delegitimize” Israel.
Well, we could all argue on the Op-Ed pages forever or occupy Geneva and demand that the ICC Prosecutor stop stalling and take action on the State of Palestine’s pending criminal complaint. Then the lawyers for the responsible Israeli officials could present all of these arguments in a Court of law where it might do some good.
The other day former ambassador Craig Murray advised that Palestine Can Now Join the International Criminal Court. Since then one of the top human rights legal experts in world, who authored the Oxford Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court summed-up the consequences of Palestine’s full membership in UNESCO:
Israel and Stand With US are suing food co-ops in the US, while we twiddle our thumbs and write articles claiming that the UN statehood bid is a waste of time; that international law is the source of the problem; and generally score goals against our own side while biting one another’s ankles.
Bottom line, the State of Palestine’s legal experts ought to be camped out in the ICC Prosecutor’s Office and Palestinian activists need to raise hell until they are.
Bottom line, the State of Palestine’s legal experts ought to be camped out in the ICC Prosecutor’s Office and Palestinian activists need to raise hell until they are.
Anyone from Palestine reading this?
“In short, other than Iran every state in the entire Middle East region now accepts the existence of Israel, and to the extent that Arab-Israeli conflict remains, it is overwhelming a consequence of Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians.”
Syria, Lebanon?
And, I agree with Goldstone that the relationships of animosity and war are primarily circular, not primarily binary.
I think the question of the root of the problem is an essential one, a selectively essential one.
Peace is constructed by #and# logic, in which two or more conditions are necessary to realize. (Justice is similar in that respect.) That means in this question that simultaneiously, Israel must be universally and existentially accepted, AND that Palestine must be universally and existentially accepted.
In all political discourse, there is some implicit good guy/bad guy interpretation made. Some definition of “which side are you on”, or who is “them”.
In that process, the #and# construction gets neglected. Even if it takes absurdly counter-intuitive approaches to realize, the #and# construction is the only way forward.
Specifically, that means a morally charitable approach. That means for Israel, that there is no peace so long as Palestine and Palestinians are weak, unhealthy, isolated, traumatized certainly.
AND, for Palestinians, that means that there is no justice so long as Israel and Israelis are threatened militarily, guerilla, or politically.
As counter-intuitive and difficult to swallow as it is.
If justice is an either/or formula, then the success of the other wouldn’t result in “our” success. If justice is an #and# formulation, then the success of the other is a necessary ingredient to “our” success.
“I think the question of the root of the problem is an essential one, a selectively essential one.”
As usual you are right, Witty, and it’s about time we were honest about it. The Zionists moved in, manipulated or outright stole a bunch of land, created a Jewish (well, the right kind Jewish, of course) State, and continues to seek its aims through violence and exploitation. And I’m with you, Witty, anybody who ignores that is just avoiding “the root of the problem”.
Very gratifying to see you take this forthright stance.
What I wouldn’t give for fifteen minutes alone with Witty and a can of silly-string.
and a can of silly strings:
Peace is constructed by #and# logic,
Moister. That comment had be laughing uncontrolably and wiping tears from my eyes.
Thank you. I can’t remember the last time I laughed that hard.
Richard, your whole thesis presupposes a two-state solution.
But due to continued (and continuing) Israeli settlement building on stolen Palestinian land, that option is essentially no longer viable.
As counter-intuitive and difficult to swallow as it is.
>> … the #and# construction is the only way forward.
Settlement construction appears to be another way forward for Israel.
That #and# its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
Must be Hamas’ fault.
The politics of the single-state are similarly #and# constructions, specifically that both the Palestinian AND the Israeli Jewish community would have to ratify it for it to result in anything but civil war.
That is remote currently.
The stresses on the two-state approach are still stresses, not a done deal yet.
We need cooler heads for any approach to realize anything of merit.
Oh, boy (oy), am I embarrassed. In listing Israel’s immediate neighbors, I forgot to mention Syria! I’d like to think of it as an occupational hazard of trying to rapidly respond to breaking events, like the Goldstone oped.
Anyway, it was not because mentioning Syria would have undercut my point that its neighbors not only recognize Israel’s “existence,” but want peace with it. On the contrary: regardless of the Asad family’s domestic repression, both father and son have long sought a settlement with Israel, including full normalization of relations with it. It is Israel that has repeatedly rejected such a settlement, even though its own military leaders, including plenty of hardliners, have repeatedly said that the settlement that would be acceptable to Syria was also in Israel’s national interest.
Its hard to know who is to blame.
Syria’s and Lebanon’s internal strife is not due to Israeli/Palestinian relations, maybe a contributing factor, but not a cause.
I agree with you that Israel negligently, more than negligently, failed to act on the Arab League proposal, and that that would have resulted in a qualitatively different middle east, nearly certainly a much better one.
In contrast to the Netanyahu view that regards a strong and healthy Palestine as a greater risk, I think of if as ultimately a much much reduced risk to Israel and Israelis, with some difficulty in the transition periods.
But, that is what determination is for, to proceed beyond the temporarily uncomfortable, even dangerous.
OK, and another question, was South African “apartheid” actually apartheid? we could argue for days.
Was the Holocaust a holocaust? Are Jews (or anyone else) afraid of a repeat of the Holocaust? Silly, shouldn’t be, because COMPARISONS ALWAYS FAIL. There cannot be another Holocaust, only something more or less like it in one respect or another.
So instead of using language the way we usually do, using words in their generally understood way, let’s agree that there will never be another holocaust, never another apartheid.
And when we describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians living in the OPTs, just don’t use the “A” word, but MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST GOING ON TO 500 pages of the particular events, with footnotes, Ha’aretz and Ma’an references, and so on.
Oh, but I’m being silly. Just call it Israeli Apartheid.
And if you were wondering why it matters so much to Zionists not to have bad names applied to their dear-Zionistic-project-of-Israel-in-all-of-Palestine, read about it here. The reason is, that Zionism is (or must be) legitimate, and Zionism calls for Israel in all of Palestine, and since that project is legitimate, no-one should be allowed to criticize any part of the EXECUTION of that project, and especially not by using horribly loaded critical words.
My mother is saintly, and you called her “apartheid”? Them’s fighting words.
Professor Slater,
Please note that “Israeli Arabs” is terminology used by the Israeli government to erase the original identity of this indigenous population. Israel also uses such language for its importance in instilling in both Jews and Palestinians the notion that the Palestinian collective is fragmented, that it is — according to Israel — not a national collective at all.
However, proper terminology includes, Palestinian citizens of Israel. Other acceptable terminology includes, Palestinians of 1948 or Palestinians in Israel.
Thank you.
The distinction in the term for the Israeli relationship with Palestinians east of green line and west, is the one of purpose/intent.
In defining a crime, there are objective criteria and there are subjective. The difference between a death caused by accident, a death caused by neglect to prevent, a death caused by incidental rage, and a death caused by premeditated intent is in the range of no crime but tragedy to potentially capital crime.
The word for it IS important.
In this case, there is suppression of freedom of movement, requirement of identification passes, callousness on the part of officials, institutionalization of the one-way heart valve of incremental land expropriation, military law rather than civil law applied, and all somewhat arbitrarily.
Those look like apartheid.
But, and it is a big but, the distinction that Goldstone attempted to make was that the intent, the purpose, of the law and behavior is different under an apartheid regime than under a security regime.
Under an apartheid regime, the purpose of the law, application, behavior, institutionalization is specifically for the racial separation and racial suppression.
That is not the case in Israel. The suppression is stated as and mostly for the purpose of security. All of the features that were instituted in law passed only on the basis of security, and even that has been overturned by the Israeli supreme court in cases (more than a token, less than a precedent).
It is a big distinction. Again, in current usage the term apartheid is applied to say “bad”, “really bad”. But, whether Goldstone said it or not, the world doesn’t believe that Palestinians are suppressed for their race, but some combination of being caught in the middle of history exacerbated by a history of terror.
In too many ways, the use of term REDUCES the seriousness that listeners give to the analysis.
The distinction in the term for the Israeli relationship with Palestinians east of green line and west, is the one of purpose/intent.
link to mondoweiss.net
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, …
Article III
International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they:
(a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention;
(b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the crime of apartheid.
Witty when you see Israel’s lawyers writing Op-Eds year-after-year, you have to ask yourself: Why have they never attempted to deliver all of these legal arguments about their motives or intent inside of a Court room? Why are the US, the EU, and Israel using blackmail and coercion to keep the Palestinians from having their day in Court?
Please bear in mind that the ICJ already performed a legal analysis of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory at the request of the General Assembly. The Court concluded that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions or the illegality of its administrative regime in the occupied territories.
Its a legal standard that conflicts with the meaning of the word.
Goldstone’s point that without the racial intent, the word “apartheid” is slander, that suppression is not the same as “apartheid”.
The legal standard also conflicts with most other law, in which intent is a large component of the determination.
Its a legal standard that conflicts with the meaning of the word.
No it does not. If you don’t commit any of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, then you are not guilty of any crime. However, if you do commit the constituent acts of apartheid, then your stated motive or intent for committing those “inhuman acts” listed in Article II of the Apartheid Convention or the “crimes against humanity” listed in Article 7 of the Rome Statute really doesn’t matter at all.
Richard Witty, I suggest you read Bishop Tutu’s recent detailed analysis of the similarities of Israel’s system with old S African apartheid; they include ways Israel is worse. Check out the Russell Tribunal data. Then come back here and apply it to your comment. Don’t worry, we know you won’t.
“committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
Committed with the *intention* of maintaining a RACIAL domination.
Is that actually the case in Israel/Palestine? Or is the occupation of a political nature, given that there are descendants of the same “race” that do have equal civil rights under the law within Israel?
And, if the ICJ determined that a non-racially motivated denial of rights in a condition of legal occupation (even if illegal actions are occurring in the occupation), and the ICJ called it “apartheid”, what does that say about the reliability of the ICJ as an institution?
The same importance of a state applying the law equally and non-prejudicially, applies to a court, (even the equivalent of a “grand jury”) if you want the law to have substantive support.
The basis of support for the rule of law is “if the same were to happen to you, you would be protected under the rule of law.”
If there is prejudicial application, that thesis diminishes.
It certainly applies within Israel and is a very valid basis of criticism of the Israeli right-wing, even the Israeli middle.
But, if the court itself applies prejudice that also diminishes the import of law itself.
The ability to call a name is not an advocacy of international law, its a strained advocacy of a partisan position.
richard, how many times do you have to be reminded of this:
richard, how many times do you have to be reminded of this
Complete waste of time, annie. Richard just invents his own categories to suit his prejudices. If Arabs do it it’s “literally horrible”, if Jews do it it’s “suppression”. Legal standard meaning of the word slander perfect title before colour-blind courts respect self-talk.
Witty is use to “creative accounting.” It shows. Unlike law practice, accounting practice is not inherently an adversarial process. He just puts his own accounting labels where he wants to. No internal integrity lies in his processing.
Complete waste of time, annie. Richard just invents his own categories to suit his prejudices.
That’s exactly how system RW works. First there is the assumption, and from there he deducts the argument.
He once wrote, quite a while ago, that Israel symbolizes the future trend, the light … you know, it felt like reverse engineering back into a world full of minor ethnic or religious enclaves.
Let him just enjoy his little high on Ziocaine in his spiritual union with his confrère reliant on the ultimate Mosaic distinction, as Jan Assmann, calls the core element of Monotheism, , the possession of ultimate truth. Let him revel on his path of bliss in self-realization and service to all.
But if I may for a moment be in harmony with my emotions, this could well be an interesting scenario:silly-strings. Why not? I am literally fuming occasionally, I am about to explode right through the ceiling above me. And I was being polite. Balanced.
Committed with the *intention* of maintaining a RACIAL domination.
Neither you nor Goldstone pass the laugh test. Lets just look at the subject of movement and access. He reported that the Gaza Fact Finding Mission believed that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (para. 1548), and that in the case of Gaza, the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed (para. 1936).
Here is how John Dugard summarized the situation to the General Assembly:
Anyone who reads the Israel press or watches the settlers and IDF on YouTube is already familiar with dozens of instances of criminal racially motivated acts.
Well,
Obviously, Goldstone disagrees with your assessments, specifically that the institutionalizations that do exist do not conform to a racial basis, by any of the criteria.
It doesn’t make it wrong, even illegal potentially.
But, its not apartheid.
John Dugard’s not seeing how it could be anything but racial in orientation, doesn’t make it so. It only describes that he doesn’t see a reason.
I’ve heard the same from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, “what other explanation is there?”, MANY times.
The other explanation is that the suppression is a combination of circumstances (conflict), and politically motivated.
The presence of a commonly defined ethnic beneficiary (a “them”), does not define apartheid.
The presence of individuals or groups that bear racial basis of abuse as part of the larger polity, also does not define apartheid.
The word is not necessary. Practically it is a deterrent to successful organizing as it is so commonly and easily dismissed by legal and by informative definitions.
I liked one point made in a post by an ISM activist recently. She said that there is no need to exagerate, that it is better to represent what is going on accurately, accurately in content and accurately in framing.
I use the term “apartheid-like”, not apartheid.
So who do you believe? Richard Goldstone — a white man with a position of power in the prior apartheid government — or Archbishop Desmond Tutu — a black man who suffered the full intensity of apartheid?
Talk about racism. Do you think Tutu, in his position, felt the full intensity of apartheid? are you joking?
“I use the term “apartheid-like”, not apartheid.”
That is very generous and humane of you, Richard. I am sure that your use of a slightly different appellation relieves Palestinian suffering immensely.
Of the effort and sacrifice you expend to put that “like” in there I will say nothing. I know what a modest, self-effacing type guy you are, and I wouldn’t want to embarrass you.
Am America, you are so right! Of course Mr. Tutu didn’t know the full intensity of apartheid, after all, he’s still alive! Now, if Desmond Tutu was killed by South African security forces, than he would have the right to talk, but not until then!
Mooser, you think Tutu was treated like other blacks in SA? do you know ANYTHING about his life in SA during apartheid? the positions he held in the Church, etc?
“Mooser, you think Tutu was treated like other blacks in SA?”
I have already acknowledged that since Tutu was not killed by the South African regime, he has no right to complain. What more do you want?
And I have only the greatest empathy for you, oppressed as you are by other people’s civil rights, or their quest for them. No doubt you would be among the 1% if it wasn’t for affirmative action.
Am America thinks that Tutu doesn’t know anything about apartheid because he was better off than most blacks in South Africa. Apparently living in South Africa and having contact with a great many fellow black South Africans didn’t give him any particular insight.
Goldstone didn’t mention the settlement policy, so he doesn’t get the benefit of your nitpicking. The South African regime was obsessed with skin color–the Israelis are obsessed with who is Jewish and who isn’t–Jews can move into the West Bank, but Palestinians on the West Bank can’t move back into Israel. It is discrimination based on ethnic distinction and if Goldstone were an honest man he would have discussed this, rather than pretending it was all about security issues.
“I am sure that your use of a slightly different appellation relieves Palestinian suffering immensely.”
That actually is the point, that if others with the same amount of energy as the most committed here, communicated effectively rather than condemnatorily (polemic), that they would relieve Palestinian suffering.
I’m too poor, too poor health, not motivated sufficiently to do so.
Donald, all i said was that Tutu didn’t experience the full extent of apartheid. Please don’t put words into my mouth.
“communicated effectively rather than condemnatorily (polemic), that they would relieve Palestinian suffering”
Whitewashing what Israel does to Palestinians isn’t effective communication. Unless one wants to effectively communicate misinformation.
Most of the coverage in the US has been heavily slanted in the direction you favor. Goldstone’s blatantly cynical and dishonest column, for instance, which never mentions the word “settlement” gets prominent placement in the NYT, when someone like Jerome Slater (also a liberal Zionist) is kept out of their pages because he’s too honest. You obviously like this situation.
The result- is that people in the US have a distorted view of the situation, which works in favor of Israeli expansionism.
I’m too poor, too poor health, not motivated sufficiently to do so.
oh please. your relentlessly motivated when it comes to littering up goldstone threads with the same tiring unwillingness to succumb to the reality of logic. post after post after post. so don’t give us any excuses for why your arguments fail.
You really think that is what I was saying Mooser?
just stop.
Tutu didn’t experience the full extent of apartheid
oh great, the back up team has arrived.
Annie,
You remind me of another “Annie” that lives in my hometown, is a very staunch political activist who also would insist that the local food coop adopt a position on issue after issue, local and international.
And, then punish anyone that didn’t agree, by similar dismissal to yours.
It was a sad joke when she would insist on concensus decision-making, then harrangue anyone in the room that didn’t agree.
Thankfully, one of the issues that she got fixated on, first demanding that everyone else do it, then finally got around to it herself, was the mode of “non-violent communication”, as a component of activist life.
She changed at that point. She willingly heard other perspectives, honored them, but still held her self well to retain her experience, knowledge, conclusions, convictions and attempt to explain her reasoning, often successfully.
There is another Annie in town, similarly an activist, who asserts herself strongly, very determinedly, putting in probably 10 hours/week vigiling. A Jewish lesbian biker who davens weekly Shabbat, and sometimes with the chabad women even.
She also retains her determination and irritates others sometimes by her opinions and the personal intensity, but she hears “ok we disagree, lets play music together next week”.
Richard Witty said, ‘It’s hard to know what to highlight in my condescending put-down of annie, but here’s a start:
‘Note my use of the word “punish.” Here I use it to describe a simple political disagreement. But you will never see me use the same word to describe, say, Israel’s ongoing campaign to occupy, steal land from, imprison without trial and kill Palestinians, including hundreds of children.’
“I’m too poor, too poor health, not motivated sufficiently to do so.”
Gee, I was just over at the thread on changing the comment format, and Richard described an active whirlwind lifestyle of lectures, presentation and consultation and multiple windows. Never mentioned his bad health. Oh well, I guess things change from thread to thread, huh, Rich?
Where was that Mooser?
I don’t remember seeing such a topic today.
did he annie? tell me about his experience compared to say Nelson Mandela?
“I don’t remember seeing such a topic today.”
Oh, I see, you didn’t say it today, so the statement is now “inoperative”?
All anyone has to do is click on your name and your entire comment archive appears, and can be easily read.
“did he annie? tell me about his experience compared to say Nelson Mandela?”
Ah yes, Nelson Mandela, who felt the full brunt of apartheid, and said it was just hunky-dory with him? Are you trying to say that id Desmond Tutu had endured more of the punishments of apartheid, he would have embraced it?
What, exactly, is your point, that Desmond Tutu needs to suffer more? Beyond the fact that you would find this personally satisfying, what the hell is your point.
Am_America,
You remind me of another “Am_America” that lives in my hometown, is a very staunch political activist who also would insist that the local food coop adopt a position on issue after issue, local and international.
And, then punish anyone that didn’t agree, by similar dismissal to yours.
It was a sad joke when she would insist on concensus decision-making, then harrangue anyone in the room that didn’t agree.
Thankfully, one of the issues that she got fixated on, first demanding that everyone else do it, then finally got around to it herself, was the mode of “non-violent communication”, as a component of activist life.
She changed at that point. She willingly heard other perspectives, honored them, but still held her self well to retain her experience, knowledge, conclusions, convictions and attempt to explain her reasoning, often successfully.
There is another Am_America in town, similarly an activist, who asserts herself strongly, very determinedly, putting in probably 10 hours/week vigiling. A Jewish lesbian biker who davens weekly Shabbat, and sometimes with the chabad women even.
She also retains her determination and irritates others sometimes by her opinions and the personal intensity, but she hears “ok we disagree, lets play music together next week”.
punishment by boredom
you are dense mooser, my point is simple. Chaos4700 said that Desmond Tutu felt the full intensity of apartheid, which he didn’t. It is pretty simple.
“my point is simple.”
And everybody can see it, I’m sure. Maybe you should try wearing a hat.
Aw, jeez, too funny!
so does that mean you agree? Tutu didn’t feel the full intensity of apartheid? diversion and elementary school jokes are good, but not looking like a fool is better.
Actually, your original point was that it was “racist” to claim that Desmond Tutu, as a black man in apartheid South Africa,was more affected by apartheid than Richard Goldstone, a white South African who held a position of power in South Africa. It was a highly stupid point and so now you are forced to quibble over what the “full intensity of apartheid” means, and whether Tutu “felt” it or not. Tutu did not get a pass on the “pass laws” or the segregation because of his stature in the Church. Its also clear to everyone here, except perhaps you and Witty, that Goldstone “felt” NONE of discriminatory effects against his person.
Well,
Obviously, Goldstone disagrees with your assessments,
No Richard, I’m quoting portions of the UN Gaza Fact Finding report that were not rebutted by the Goldstone Op-Ed. He reported institutionalized racial discrimination and numerous constituent acts of apartheid that he characterized as the aggravated crime of persecution.
For example the ICJ found that, with the notable exception of the Israeli settlers or those assimilated to them, the state of Israel had systematically violated the fundamental human rights of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territories through an illegal administrative regime that denied them adequate supplies of food and water; health; education; work; and freedom of movement and residence. Those are all constituent acts of the crime of apartheid that are enumerated in Article II of the Apartheid Convention.
Goldstone cited those ICJ findings of fact and confirmed that:
We’ve also seen reports in the Israeli press and in key Supreme Court rulings that prove Israel treats indigenous Arabs, like the Bedouin of Israel, as alien persons that are prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land” or from taking part in the political life of the country.
For example, you are fond of reciting Israel’s right to self-govern. The Supreme Court has held that Israel’s being a Jewish state established as the fulfillment of the Jewish people’s dream of self-determination justifies, as a necessary condition, the disqualification of a list of candidates which does not accept the Jewish people’s right to a state of its own:
Policies or practices that deny a racial or national group from taking part in the political, social, or economic life of the country is a constituent act of the crime of apartheid enumerated in Article II of the Apartheid Convention. Goldstone noted that the separation wall had left almost half a million Palestinians on the western side of the divide, cut-off from historical, social, cultural and economic ties with the rest of the Palestinians in the West Bank – and that the Israeli Government and Supreme Court had simply ignored the ICJ ruling on the illegality of the wall and the associated administrative regime (para 185). Another example of a constituent act is “Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.” Goldstone cited a report on the popular movement against the Apartheid Wall of Annexation for a list of the 19 people including 11 children killed in anti-wall demonstrations up until July 2009.
BTW, Goldstone’s Op-Ed contains no mention at all of his own findings in connection with illegal and institutionalized racial discrimination and fails to mention the ICJ findings of fact on that subject. That’s no accidental oversight, because nothing in the OP-Ed rebuts that prima facie evidence of the crime of apartheid.
… but not looking like a fool is better.
Speaking of looking like a fool, do you care to explain why noting the difference between Desmond Tutu’s situation under apartheid South Africa and Richard Goldstone’s is “racist”? That should be worth a laugh.
Talk about racism. Do you think Tutu, in his position, felt the full intensity of apartheid? are you joking?
Desmond Tutu was born in the Transvaal province of the Union of South Africa in October of 1931. His family moved to Johannesburg when he was twelve. He was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1960, more than a decade after apartheid was enshrined as formal state policy. His passport was revoked and he was jailed several times even after he became a Bishop and Secretary-General of the South African Council of Churches. So, based upon the facts, I’ll suspend my disbelief and conclude that you aren’t very well acquainted with the history of the Union of South Africa.
do you know ANYTHING about his life in SA during apartheid? the positions he held in the Church, etc?
Yes. He didn’t hold any position in the Church until after he was ordained in 1960. Apartheid had been de facto policy in South Africa since 1893 when Mohandas Gandhi was thrown off a train in Tutu’s birthplace, the Transvaal, after refusing to move from the first class to a third class coach while holding a valid first class ticket. Apartheid was already enshrined in a few areas, but it became institutionalized state policy with the adoption of apartheid laws in 1948. BTW, Tutu was jailed several times after he became a Bishop. So if you know ANYTHING about his life in SA during apartheid please chime in. Otherwise, please STFU and stop harassing everyone here on the basis of your bullshit and innuendo.
That actually is the point, that if others with the same amount of energy as the most committed here, communicated effectively rather than condemnatorily (polemic), that they would relieve Palestinian suffering.
Richard “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” would have required Israel to stop its colonization of the West Bank and Gaza four decades ago when the international community of states demanded that it withdraw its armed forces and condemned its policy of establishing Jewish settlements to alter the demographic character of Occupied Palestine.
Goldstone’s Fact Finding Commission cited the Or Commission report and the CERD country report on Israel, CERD/C/ISR/CO/13, in connection with allegations of institutionalized racial discrimination. Israel simply ignored both of those politely worded reports, including the closing observations of the CERD experts regarding Article 3 (apartheid) concerns. If anything, Israel’s racial discrimination has subsequently become more firmly entrenched in legislation, ministerial level administrative regulations; and institutional practices. Your comments here always suggest that Israel should be granted legal impunity and that simply isn’t acceptable anymore.
All anyone has to do is click on your name and your entire comment archive appears, and can be easily read.
If there is a place where Witty’s obtuse comments “can be easily read”, I haven’t discovered it. I shudder to think about the mental trauma that might result from reopening that whole can of worms and digesting more than a single serving in one setting.
Plausibly live ears are better than deaf ears.
Polemic breeds deaf ears.
“Apartheid” is a name-call. There is universal enfranchisement within Israel to vote in Israeli elections. And, there is enfranchisement within Palestine, to vote in Palestinian elections.
Israel has an ethnically diverse society. Palestine has an ethnically much less diverse society.
The pass forms are imposing and discrimminatory, but I expect also resemble more than a few other nations’ identification of citizens and residents. The restriction of movement is typical martial law.
There is no question in my mind that long enough is long enough, but I am not convinced that apartheid is a representative word for either informational, moral or legal purposes.
Its something else, something apartheid-like, not apartheid.
you are dense mooser, my point is simple. Chaos4700 said that Desmond Tutu felt the full intensity of apartheid, which he didn’t. It is pretty simple.
Tutu engaged in anti-apartheid activities and was jailed as a consequence on several occasions. To suggest that a prisoner of conscience needs more than one day of false imprisonment and persecution to feel the full intensity of apartheid is nonsense. Tutu was subject to the same apartheid laws as everyone else living in Judge Goldstone’s jurisdiction during the apartheid era.
And, there is enfranchisement within Palestine, to vote in Palestinian elections.
so what if the US/IS doesn’t accept the outcome? seriously are you this delusional?
Polemic breeds deaf ears. “Apartheid” is a name-call. There is universal enfranchisement within Israel to vote in Israeli elections.
Richard that’s a classic example of your own scatalogical and polemical commentary here. I just cited a 1988 Supreme Court ruling that permits the Central Elections Commission to disenfranchise lists of Arab candidates, so those citizens have no right to participate in the parliamentary or other elections. In addition, Israel has revoked the residency rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and prohibits the refugees from returning or freely participating in the political, social, and economic life Israel and/or Palestine. It would be more interesting for the readers if you at least try to act like you have a clue.
More self talk from pro-Nakba, pro-settlement Jewish racist, dick witty
Considering the Zionists have been reduced to using Holocaust denial tactics on apartheid as suffered by black Africans (“It wasn’t so bad!”) I rest my case.
“If there is a place where Witty’s obtuse comments “can be easily read”, I haven’t discovered it”
I hadn’t thought of the consequences when I so lightly tossed that off. You are right. The effect of more than one or two comments would be akin to guzzling a quart of ipecac mixed with Ex-Lax, while hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer.
Considering the Zionists have been reduced to using Holocaust denial tactics on apartheid as suffered by black Africans (“It wasn’t so bad!”) I rest my case.
Publicly condoning, denying, or grossly trivializing any crime, like apartheid, contained in Articles 6, 7, or 8 of the Rome Statute when those crimes are directed toward members of an identifiable national or ethnic group can be criminal behavior in the EU, e.g. link to europa.eu
Once again, I owe you an apology, Richard. I was only able to understand your comment after reading it several times. And I must say you are right: Israel does not punish the Palestinians because of racial differences, but because the Palestinians are very bad people, and should be punished, cause Israel says so. So simple, so natural! Why couldn’t I see that?
You really think that is what I was saying Mooser?
“You really think that is what I was saying Mooser?”
Nah, I was just making wild guesses. Maybe after I read your comments for well over a year, over ten thousand of them, I’ll have a better handle on what you are saying.
Or maybe your points are just so goddam subtle that an idiot like me will never get them. Yeah, that’s it. But don’t worry, Richard, I’m sure that’s obvious to everyone.
It’s the message conveyed when someone says Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians are motivated mainly by security concerns, as Goldstone implied. And you defended him as “sincere”.
I think he is honest about his own reactions, his own thinking (not forced).
And, I think he has a point.
“I think he is honest about his own reactions, his own thinking (not forced).”
Oh, I see. Goldstone’s report was coerced, the result of duress, but his statements since then are all completely objective and not the result of pressure. Yeah, sure looks that way to me, too.
Now, as the song says, “just give me three steps” so I can turn and run from this Witty maniac.
“I think he is honest about his own reactions, his own thinking (not forced).”
So you think he’s stupid then. He could write a piece in the NYT about Israel and apartheid and the word “settlement” never crossed his mind. He completely forgot all about the information in his own report as described by Hostage above.
I doubt he’s that stupid Richard. There’s no evidence for it. But he would have to be for your theory to be true.
“And, I think he has a point.”
Yes, well, you have always been pathetically eager to downplay Israeli crimes. Goldstone had a brief shining moment when he didn’t sink to that level, but now you’ve got a soulmate.
You think he has a point, Witty? So how many Palestinian children have to die so you feel “secure” enough to take a summer vacation in the Holy Land with your Jewish discount card?