Spouse of ‘NYT’ correspondent calls on Israeli gov’t to wage ‘war’ on int’l threat to its image

Israel/Palestine
on 77 Comments
Hirsh Goodman
Hirsh Goodman

Isabel Kershner, a British-Israeli correspondent for the New York Times in Israel, is married to Hirsh Goodman, a writer who moved from South Africa (where he opposed apartheid), to Israel. His most recent books is The Anatomy of Israel’s Survival, and he writes today in the Jerusalem Post about a “war” Israel must conduct for its image.

Stand back. This one’s a little hot:

Fighting those who seek to channel Israel into a parallel identity with apartheid South Africa with the goal of crippling it through isolation and sanctions is a national imperative. Israel is dependent on trade, allies, imports and support of the world’s democracies currently happy to be identified with Israel in the international arena. Those who proactively work to remove Israel from the family of nations, cast it as a pariah, and place next to North Korea on the axis of evil, want to achieve through manipulation and lies what the Iranians are threatening to do by force: Bring Israel to its knees and, ultimately, make it another short chapter in the tempestuous history of this region…

This is smart, persistent warfare against Israel’s foreign relations, economy, alliances and image, which is amorphous despite its often pinpoint impact, as when senior Israeli officials could not travel to England, for example, and the boycotts and strikes of Israeli products and academics in several parts of the world…

The war to delegitimize Israel can only become more intense with time. The tools for this warfare are constantly improving, free, intellectually challenging and converge to serve a host of Israel’s enemies from anti-Semites to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and had better be clearly understood.

Israel has been very good at fighting its physical battles and its wars. It has managed to contain Iran in a serious way. The attacks against its legitimacy have until now been sporadic and noncoordinated. One of these days, however, someone smart is going to understand the dimensions and potential of this new weapon, and Israel would be very well advised to concentrate its efforts on being prepared. Smart threats require smart responses, and these cannot be found when everyone is dealing with the subject and no one seems to be cooperating.

Obviously the Prime Minister’s Office has to be the leader in this. It has the organizational capacity, the authority and the budget.

A former reporter, Goodman works for a university’s thinktank and would seem to owe his job to the Israel lobby: “Hirsh Goodman is a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University where he directs the Charles and Andrea Bronfman Program on Information Strategy that deals with the interface between policymaking and the media.” (Charles Bronfman and his late wife Andrea founded birthright Israel, paying for young Jews to tour the Jewish state.)

The New York Times’ conflict of interest policy for its reporters states right at the front that spouses can be trouble (boldface mine):

Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may arise in many areas. They may involve tensions between journalists’ professional obligations to our audience and their relationships with news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another; or with the company or one of its units. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them.

I visited this turf before, the last time Goodman wrote about Israel’s information “war,” in 2010. I went with a cute headline, something about Pillow Talk. But maybe this isn’t so ha-ha? What about if Isabel Kershner had to interview Peter Beinart, who has said that Palestinians under occupation should have the right to vote. Or Omar Barghouti, a leader of the boycott movement. Would these people have an expectation of fairness? Would the reader?

77 Responses

  1. Bill in Maryland
    January 6, 2012, 4:31 pm

    Hirsh Goodman says “those [in BDS movement] who seek to channel Israel into a parallel identity with apartheid South Africa with the goal of crippling it …”
    This is a lie.

    The goal of BDS movement is simply to motivate Israel to
    (1.) End its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantle the Wall, (2.) Recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3.) Respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

    • marc b.
      January 6, 2012, 5:02 pm

      but bill, and this may be semantics, goodman is essentially correct. his vision of israel is so narrow, so brittle, that the slightest deviation from plan eretz israel dooms ‘his’ israel to destruction. arguing with goodman is like debating democracy with slave owners in the antebellum south. it’s two completely separate conversations. that’s why i have little hope that this will end well. witty whinges on about dialogue, but there isn’t even an agreed upon terminology to begin a conversation.

      • Bill in Maryland
        January 6, 2012, 6:41 pm

        Touché Marc- your view may (sadly) be correct.

    • john h
      January 6, 2012, 5:57 pm

      Bill, what is your understanding of what this document and its supporters mean by End its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands?

      • Bill in Maryland
        January 6, 2012, 6:51 pm

        John, this is my reading of what the BDS call refers to in point (1) above, namely the Arab lands that Israel is colonizing, occupying (and besieging): the Palestinian Arab lands of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and the Syrian Arab land of the Golan Heights.

      • john h
        January 6, 2012, 7:58 pm

        Therefore on the face of it, BDS is for the 2ss solution. However, as you agreed with marc, it may if successful, effectively result in the 1ss.

        In that case the true meaning of “all Arab lands” would be realized.

        That is, Bring Israel to its knees and, ultimately, make it another short chapter in the tempestuous history of this region…

      • ToivoS
        January 6, 2012, 8:50 pm

        John H the success or failure of the 1 ss is up to Israel. If they insist on keeping the WB then they accomplish the 1 ss. If they are willing to let the Palestinians have the WB (sans Jewish settlers) then they will have the 2 ss. As far as anyone can see Israel is unwilling to give up the WB. If so then BDS. If BDS is successful, in the face of Israeli intransigence, then it would bring Israel to it knees. Whether or not this leads to demise of the Zionist experiment in Palestine is up to the Israelis. In many respects I like Israel and would mourn its passing. But what I want is irrelevant — there are political forces at play that could lead to a number of unpleasant outcomes.

        The most important decisions are up to Israel. There is only one that I can make and that is to support BDS with the goal of justice for the Palestinian people. I guess it is play ball time and see what happens.

      • Bill in Maryland
        January 6, 2012, 8:56 pm

        John, don’t be coy- please elaborate since you seem to hold this knowledge: what lands exactly does “all Arab lands” mean in the context of the Palestinian Civil Society call for BDS?

      • john h
        January 6, 2012, 10:03 pm

        Bill, no coyness there, no suggested knowledge, just a logical conclusion based on justice.

        The context was the article itself on what Goodman said, which clearly is about the challenge to prevent Israel falling into a parallel identity with apartheid South Africa.

        Goodman’s book is, after all, about “Israel’s Survival”.

        Surely it was obvious it was not made within the strict context you name, but in reference to Goodman, as stated by and in the quotation made in my last paragraph. :-)

      • Inanna
        January 6, 2012, 10:09 pm

        “Therefore on the face of it, BDS is for the 2ss solution.”

        No. BDS is about human rights, not about states. There are supporters of both a one and 2 state solution in the BDS movement.

      • MLE
        January 7, 2012, 1:45 am

        Yes, a one state solution could mean an end result to the Israel that we know exists today, meaning a Jewish homeland, but it doesn’t mean that all traces of Israel are gone, what about a firmly secular multi-ethnic state protecting the interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims from impeding on one another. It’s not an easy task and it involves a lot of cooperation from everyone involved, but it really brings different communities together, when they can all bond over how hard it is to keep their own religious crazies in check.

        An Israel where secular Jews and Muslims can protest the Orthodox Jews and then go to a neightborhood of Salafi Muslims and continue to protest on the issue of women’s rights. The Salafis and the Haredi won’t team up to counter protest because they both hate each other, so secular on both sides can keep the country sane, plus there’s no special state religion to protect so the ultra orthodox will be forced to get jobs and contribute to society.

      • talknic
        January 7, 2012, 2:23 am

        john h says: @ January 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm what john h wants said, not what is said by the BDS.

        BS is all the apologists for occupation and land theft have.

        I’d love to see john h driving a car.

        Cop “Sir you just drove through a stop sign!”

        john h “The true meaning of “stop” is to prevent me from driving a car …”

        Cop “No sir, it’s simply to stop accidents from happening. People can get hurt if other folk don’t stop at stop signs”

        john h “What you really mean is, you want to prevent me and my wife and my children from traveling in a car”

        Cop “No sir, it’s simply to stop accidents from happening. People can get hurt”

        john h “What you really mean is, we’re not people, only ‘they’ are people”

        Cop “Er…No sir, the cross traffic have right of way at this intersection”

        john h “What you really mean is, it’s OK for my family to get injured if they don’t stop for us”

        Cop “Er… No sir, let me try to explain….”

        john h “What you really mean is, you’re gonna excuse them for killing my family”

      • john h
        January 7, 2012, 5:27 am

        BS is all the apologists for occupation and land theft have.

        Apparently, according to talknic, I am one of them? Unbelievable!! Lol!

        I have seen what you have written on your site, talknic, and your comments here. I can’t recall ever seeing anything like this from you about anyone.

        Here’s a secret, just between you and me talknic, I like and agree with almost all I have read from you. Just one exception; this time you nailed the wrong man!

        Yes, I may have said something out of line that implies more than BDS states or intends.

        If so it was inadvertant and never intended to involve them in anything they are not involved in, and I apologize unreservedly.

      • john h
        January 7, 2012, 5:39 am

        Fair point Inanna, see my post to talknic.

      • jonah
        January 7, 2012, 5:52 am

        Bill,

        there is no lasting nor just solution giving the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, as well as the Golan Heights, to the Palestinians/Arabs as long as they want “all Arab lands”, that means “from the sea to the river”.

        The BDS is in fact an apology of Arab revanchism.

      • pabelmont
        January 7, 2012, 11:31 am

        ToivoS: Why put the 1SS in the future? We have an anti-democratic, apartheid lawless pogromist police-state 1SS now (in Isr+Gaza+WB/EJ). Any OTHER sort of 1SS would probably be an improvement (but never underestimate the Israelis for criminal wrongdoing).

      • Bill in Maryland
        January 7, 2012, 12:18 pm

        jonah: “BDS is in fact an apology of Arab revanchism.” Sorry, jonah, but BDS is a peaceful, non-violent means to achieve equality and universal human rights “from the sea to the river” whether within a 2SS or 1SS (as Inanna points out above).

        Israel without a defined Eastern border and ever-expanding “settlements” is an apology for the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Arabs, and I greatly resent subsidizing this enterprise as a US taxpayer.

      • jonah
        January 7, 2012, 4:33 pm

        “BDS is a peaceful, non-violent means to achieve equality and universal human rights “from the sea to the river” whether within a 2SS or 1SS (as Inanna points out above).”

        This abysmal naïveté makes me want to cry. But anyway I thank you for showing me so frankly your credo, that expresses so well the belief of the BDS movement to its core and in its entirety.

        Nevertheless, I want you to pay attention to the fact that what you think is right – “achieve equality and universal human rights from the sea to the river” – could have a pretty different meaning for the Arabs and Palestinians you defend so passionately. They may actually not share your vaunted humanist values​​, or probably they may, but only in appearance. As a simple reality check can so easily confirm. link to youtube.com

        So I’m not sure on what your humanitarian and equalitarian zeal can really depend on: holy ingenuity or wickedness dressed in holiness.

      • Richard Witty
        January 7, 2012, 5:16 pm

        What do you do when faced with this?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 7, 2012, 6:02 pm

        “Nevertheless, I want you to pay attention to the fact that what you think is right – ‘achieve equality and universal human rights from the sea to the river’ – could have a pretty different meaning for the Arabs and Palestinians you defend so passionately. They may actually not share your vaunted humanist values​​, or probably they may, but only in appearance. ”

        …therefore, says the Zionist, based on my assumptions it’s actually OKAY that the Jews oppress the Palestinians.

      • Shingo
        January 7, 2012, 11:29 pm

        The BDS is in fact an apology of Arab revanchism.

        In that case, Zionism is in fact an apology of Jewish revanchism.

      • Shingo
        January 7, 2012, 11:47 pm

        They may actually not share your vaunted humanist values​​, or probably they may, but only in appearance

        It’s obvious that you and most Zionists don’t. You’re simply projecting Jonah.

      • MLE
        January 8, 2012, 12:00 am

        You know, one of the biggest reasons white plantation owners were too afraid to release their slaves, even when the writing was on the wall. There were so many more blacks than white, especially in Alabama and Mississippi, they were worried that after they freed them, the blacks might turn around and kill them for all the misery they had been put through. It never happened. There might have been some violence, but on a widespread scale, things were peaceful.

        How many Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza work, or want to work inside Israel? The one state solution is not about redistributing the wealth and giving every Palestinian 40 acres and a mule. It’s about giving them right of citizenship, right to vote, right to live where they please and guaranteed equality under the law. There probably will be tensions at first, but if the government proves it can provide stability, order, and justice for all citizens (meaning an attack on an Arab citizen equals the same punishment as an attack on a Jew).

        FFS, Rawandans are able to live with eachother after that massacre and that was neighbors hacking their neighbors with machetes. South African blacks didn’t expel the white people, and even when there’s racial tension, there are enough people who want to see things work on both sides to smooth things over. Integrate the army, integrate the police force, integrate schools, neighborhoods, and everything. Ban political parties based on ethnicity and religion and require parties to have Muslim, Christian, and Jewish delegates.

      • dahoit
        January 8, 2012, 12:16 pm

        Nice trusting soul you’ve got there buddy.As in all them Arab and Christians just can’t be trusted to act like good human beings and all their machinations of evil intent.
        I don’t want to bust your bubble,but a lot of humanity thinks the same of Zionists.
        Do you want a world wide vote?Or is that just antidemocratic posturing by evil anti Semites?
        I have never seen such self destructive policies by such self anointed gods in the history of our planet.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 8, 2012, 1:43 pm

        I want you to pay attention to the fact that what you think is right – “achieve equality and universal human rights from the sea to the river” – could have a pretty different meaning for the Arabs and Palestinians you defend so passionately. They may actually not share your vaunted humanist values​​, or probably they may, but only in appearance.

        the fact? how do you know the person you are addressing, Inanna, does not come from that community jonah?

        has it occurred to you the ‘they’ you are lecturing Inanna about, is likely her own community? you’ve got a lot of chutzpa lecturing anyone about appearances while defending an aggressive apartheid state that continually poses as the victim.

      • Bill in Maryland
        January 8, 2012, 7:44 pm

        jonah: “This abysmal naïveté makes me want to cry.”

        Buck up, old boy, and wipe your tears away. What I saw when I clicked on the link that you provided jonah was a politician speaking to his base. The politician used “words” which, it is true, perturb the air and set loose wavelets of vibrations. Please, jonah, don’t be afraid.

        If those in his audience were ever to begin the systematic ethnic cleansing of Israeli neighborhoods, lock Israelis into an open air prison, or institute a system of apartheid west of the Green Line, then, then, you would have something to cry about, jonah.

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 8, 2012, 8:19 pm

        Jonah cannot, and should not, be taken seriously. Here is someone who asserted on many occasions that the Palestinians started calling themselves as such in the 60s, a meme widely spread among far right Israelis. And I’m highlighting only one of his valuable judgments.

      • VR
        January 8, 2012, 9:16 pm

        Similar to having a conversation with a Zionist about Israel –

        LIKE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH A ZIONIST

        :)

      • anonymouscomments
        January 8, 2012, 11:33 pm

        @jonah, witty, et al.

        you seem surprisingly less alarmed by the extremists in your midsts, and their actual DEEDS. they not only have racist extremist words, but the power to carry things out. has been that way since 1947. the reactionary extremists in hamas are just that, and they are impotent relative to israel, and can be marginalized if israel did not create such a *hopeless* situation for the stateless occupied people, many refugees.

        so witty, “what do you do when faced with this?”

        (you know there are thousands of clips, jewish writings, terrorist acts, and speeches i could reference… which are more substantive and meaningful than speeches from hamas zealots)

        my dear witty, if the occupied palestinians were the jews, you would be screaming for the violent invasion of israel. BDS wouldn’t even be a question, let alone US aid/arming/political support for israel (israel being a muslim/other state). NO DOUBT IN MY MIND. we are just asking for BDS and whatever nonviolent means are at our disposal to compel israel to stop the madness, respect human rights, and somehow deal with the refugee issue in a just way (zionist israel will not accept a full RoR, largely due to their ethnic chauvinism, but they need to address it in a real way for peace…). to try to paint palestinians, and those who support their human rights, with the words of demagogues is just silly.

        BTW i cannot recall how many jews and israelis have told me things such as “we should kill them all”, “we should have got rid of them all in ’48”, or “we should kick them all out to jordan”. seems quite similar in content, and is being implemented in some ways. but i am not a disingenuous hack who thinks the words of some define reality, or should alter the human rights of ANYONE… i know that not all jews or israelis think this way. human rights are what need to be respected, and the rest is usually just the rationalization of injustice on the part of the powerful.

        this is the issue with 99% of zionists. deep, utter, exasperating, blind, and self-serving HYPOCRISY. invest in a clear mirror, and you might see something even scarier than what you have been focusing on.

      • bigbill
        January 9, 2012, 8:04 am

        “The Salafis and the Haredi won’t team up to counter protest because they both hate each other”

        I thought Muslims, Jews and Christians jointly demonstrated against/expressed solidarity against the homosexual parades in Jerucalem.

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 10:58 am

        “…therefore, says the Zionist, based on my assumptions it’s actually OKAY that the Jews oppress the Palestinians.”

        Things are a little more complicated than you think. There is a ‘occupation’ still considered legal according to international law (R 242, sic!)), there are land claims by both sides. Start with these fundamentals and you will approach a little closer to the truth, my dear anti-Zionist.

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 11:03 am

        “I have never seen such self destructive policies by such self anointed gods in the history of our planet.”

        Perhaps because you are not so well acquainted with the history and the present of our planet, buddy.

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 11:06 am

        how do you know the person you are addressing, Inanna, does not come from that community jonah?

        Check your facts, annie. I wasn’t addressing Inanna.

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 11:46 am

        Please, jonah, don’t be afraid.

        If someone speaks straight as an arrow about the fact that he wants it all and by means of force, why should I trust him? Why shouldn’t the Israelis be afraid of anti-Semites like Ismail Haniyeh and his bunch of fellows who rule Gaza and in a possible future also the West Bank, please? Have they not given proof of their intent time and again? Are inflaming speeches, incitement only for the the “base”, maybe just empty words for the “silly gullible people”?

        So why are you speaking about 2SS or 1SS, coexistence, universal human rights etc …? For whom?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 9, 2012, 11:47 am

        “Things are a little more complicated than you think.”

        Typical first line for someone formulating an argument which, stripped to its core, is: I know it looks criminal, but it’s really not.

        “Start with these fundamentals…”

        No, the fundamental is this: the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians. It is long past time for the Jews to be making their excuses as to why they haven’t ended their occupation. They have no legitimate basis to impose a governmental solution on another state and people. So, they have two choices: Immediate and full withdrawal to the 1967 lines (with any swaps which the Palestinians agree to, or none, if they don’t) or give everyone an eq vote.

        Every other argument is just a fancy way of saying “Oppressing innocents is okay when Zionists do it.”

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 12:12 pm

        “you seem surprisingly less alarmed by the extremists in your midsts, and their actual DEEDS. they not only have racist extremist words, but the power to carry things out. “

        Your surprise is misdirected. Extremists are unacceptable in both camps and should be confronted. But while in Israel the extremists are in fact countered by secular forces – and I am convinced that they will be increasingly isolated and put to justice (as happened last week with violent settlers) -, in the Palestinian territories they have a majority, both in Gaza and possibly in the West Bank if elections were held. Here I see a main problem, which you and your “human rights movement” deliberately ignore and refuse to address.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 9, 2012, 12:34 pm

        “Things are a little more complicated than you think.”

        Typical first line for an argument which can be summarized as: “I know it looks like a crime, but pretend it isn’t, like I do.”

        “Start with these fundamentals…”

        The fundamentals are these: The Israeli Jews are holding the Palestinians captive in their own land, and have kept them in this state for three generations. By this point, fundamental justice requires the Israeli Jews to pull back to the 1967 lines (except for whatever swaps the Palestinians are willing to make; to the lines, if they aren’t) or give everyone the vote and equal treatment under the law for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

        But, I’m sure you’ll say that it’s more complicated than that; of course, in a way that just so happens to benefit your favored ethno-religious group at the expense of another…

      • jonah
        January 9, 2012, 4:48 pm

        From your first answer: the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians.” “It is long past time for the Jews …”

        From your posthumous hasty correction: The Israeli Jews are holding ….”

        Slip of the tongue, Woody?

        You may be aware that the Palestinian extremists in fact normally use the general ethnic wording “the Jews” while referring to “the Israeli Jews”, generating a perceptible change in the connotation of their speech and message.

        Why are you buddies unable to face – I mean, honestly – the Palestinian extremism, if not to relativize it to a mere reaction to the so-called Israeli ‘occupation’? Why are you intellectually so encapsulated in the attitude of denying or justifying Palestinian extremism, even ending up with inadvertently plagiarize their repulsive rhetoric? Just wondering.

        But I do not expect a coherent response from you or anyone here, I only want to point out that, in light of the above expressed doubts, your categorical demand that “the (Israeli) Jews pull back to the 1967 lines” can not be taken seriously. Not even remotely. – Unless their (and your) very questionable stance can be finally clarified at the root.

      • Shingo
        January 10, 2012, 12:18 am

        You may be aware that the Palestinian extremists in fact normally use the general ethnic wording “the Jews” while referring to “the Israeli Jews”,

        So do the Jewish extremists.

  2. anonymouscomments
    January 6, 2012, 5:08 pm

    OT but i expect MW to analyze this issue soon:
    link to washingtonpost.com

    at least some are calling them terrorists…. but you gotta love that they only get a slap on the wrist and are banished from the WB for a few months.

    if an arab-israeli desecrated a temple in israel, can someone tell me what the sentence would be? …it would not be a few months probation. or worse, if they committed physical violence against a jewish-israeli? the is the hypocrisy and inequality that rules in israel, and why many of us find it so repulsive. ethnocracies ensure inequality, and are doomed to self-destruct, by design.

  3. dbroncos
    January 6, 2012, 5:14 pm

    “The attacks against its legitimacy have until now been sporadic and non coordinated. One of these days, however, someone smart is going to understand the dimensions and potential of this new weapon, and Israel would be very well advised to concentrate its efforts on being prepared. Smart threats require smart responses…”

    Bravo, Mr. Goodman! Excellent idea! Let’s start hearing some of those “smart responses” that Zionists keep hiding behind their threats, bribes and insults.

  4. riyadh
    January 6, 2012, 5:45 pm

    Is Al-jazeera carrying water for Israel now?

    link to aljazeera.com

    The headline reads “Demographic trends worry Israel”. Is “demographic trends” a euphemism for “racial impurity”?

    • MLE
      January 7, 2012, 1:11 am

      I think al jazeera English wants to become more main stream and if using a gentler vocabulary when it comes to Israel is what it takes to get picked up on Comcast, time Warner and fios, then they’re willing to go along.

      I hate to say it, but I appreciate it in some ways, I still think they do a very good job with covering what the key issues are on the ground while still being able to bring up Israeli concerns as well. My goal is to switch people from CNN or other standard news sources to al jazeera, and it reassures people that it isn’t just an anti American anti Israel hate channel. I think the Arabic channel has more extensive coverage and commentary and it’s a good reason to learn Arabic, to get more news at its source.

      • dahoit
        January 8, 2012, 11:50 am

        Screw them bastards after their evil Libyan coverage.

    • kapok
      January 7, 2012, 7:47 pm

      Aljazeera is beholden to the Lords of Qatar, if I’m not mistaken. Consume with generous additions of salt. At least wrt the ME.

  5. radii
    January 6, 2012, 6:21 pm

    oh that’s rich …

    if he and others want to attack those destroying isreal’s image they need look no further than the israeli government, the IDF, and zionism

  6. justicewillprevail
    January 6, 2012, 6:40 pm

    The pig is already so covered in lipstick that it is unrecognisable. Maybe that’s the problem! But more lipstick won’t stop it squealing its real message to the world, which is one of exceptionalism, arrogance, bullying and hatred of other peoples.

    • lobewyper
      January 6, 2012, 7:39 pm

      How much of the “real message” is, “We want your land for ourselves, and we’re going to keep taking it until/unless we’re forced to stop.” (Please don’t interpret this as personal disrespect for you as fellow humans.)

  7. Sin Nombre
    January 6, 2012, 7:50 pm

    Hirsh Goodman wrote:

    “Fighting those who seek to channel Israel into a parallel identity with apartheid South Africa with the goal of crippling it through isolation and sanctions is a national imperative. … This is smart, persistent warfare against Israel’s foreign relations, economy, alliances and image…”

    If, back when he was “opposing apartheid” in South Africa, someone had said that South African-born citizen Mr. Goodman was waging “smart persistent warfare” against his own country is there any doubt that Mr. Goodman would have expressed outrage at this saying it was laudable and that he was only trying to better South Africa, and that it was anti-semitic in accusing him of having no loyalty to his own country?

    But of course now he says that others doing the same to Israel are indeed “waging war.”

    So what’s the *only* logical conclusion other than in Mr. Hirsh’s world-view when jews do something it’s one (laudable) thing, but when others do it it’s despicable?

  8. Krauss
    January 6, 2012, 8:53 pm

    This is a prime example of what happens when ethnocentrism comes to play. Obviously Mr. Goodman never felt very much part of the South Africa that he was born into to fight for for preserving the racial order, and instead fought against it(because he didn’t identify with it as a Jew) and rightly so.

    But he does not have that queasy feeling when it comes to Israel, instead he is totally morally blinded and completely devoured of his racial/religious identity and essentially taking a position many reactionary and racist South African Whites took, defending the indefensible.

    Look no further to see the corrosion Israel has inflicted on Jewish morality than this sad travesty of a Jew, went from opposing Apartheid to feriociously defending it, lashing out at everyone who disagrees as an ‘anti-Semite’.

    • Sin Nombre
      January 7, 2012, 12:00 am

      Krauss wrote:

      “This is a prime example of what happens when ethnocentrism comes to play.”

      Well it’s a good one, but for me the prime one was something I saw coming from Elie Wiesel concerning the Holocaust.

      Addressing the fact that the Nazis killed many more of their non-jewish enemies than they did the jews he was irate even: Ah, those others were not killed merely because of who they were, he said.

      But of course yes many were, with Hitler specifically putting out the word that the slavs were to be regarded as less human than Germans/Aryans if not sub-human and were to be treated accordingly, obviously resulting in death for some millions of slavs who otherwise would never have been killed.

      But still, no no no, Wiesel now said, what was done to the jews was targeted against them and now this made it worse somehow.

      In other words, with amazing baldness, just absolutely vehemently insisting that when the same things was done to the jews and to others, it was worse when it was done to the jews.

      You just felt a kind of fundamental, unshakeable, near-unconscious belief in the man: Of *course* it was worse. By *definition,* somehow, no matter the facts, it was worse.

      And this is without even looking to see if the man has ever expressed anywhere near the sympathy for the (vastly non-jewish) victims of communism that he has for those of the Nazis.

      It’s just a blind-spot of sorts you can’t really even blame ‘em for: Like I say, some sort of fundamental, unshakeable, near unconsciously derived belief.

      • kapok
        January 7, 2012, 8:14 pm

        From the library I borrowed a DVD, Defiance, starring Daniel Craig. From the illustration on the box I was expecting an hour and a half of mindless CGI violence, with a timeout for some poorly lit humping…Within the first minute I realised I was about to watch another installment of an emerging genre of Holocaust revenge fantasies, in which a righteous gentile mensch organizes a rag tag cadre of camp escapees, sort of like the Shtetl Seven, into a deadly vagabond commando force, operating behind the lines, sabotaging and garotting as they go. And then it occurred to me: don’t the producers of this bilge realize it militates in favor of Holocaust denial? If these sorts of movies reach a wide enough audience, nobody’s going to believe in the big H. The Holocaust? But I thought the Jews fought their way out of it.

        Ah, the Irony!

      • Shingo
        January 7, 2012, 11:58 pm

        It’s just a blind-spot of sorts you can’t really even blame ‘em for: Like I say, some sort of fundamental, unshakeable, near unconsciously derived belief.

        That’s because the sense of victim hood has become the foundation of Jewish identity among secular Jews.

        This was raised in the documentary “Defamation”.

        It explains why the Jonah’s of this world are incensed that the rest of the world doesn’t share his outrage over the mere suggestion that the Palestinians mightdo to the Israelus what the Israelis are actually doing to the Palestinians.

    • American
      January 7, 2012, 1:04 pm

      “Look no further to see the corrosion Israel has inflicted on Jewish morality than this sad travesty of a Jew,”…Krauss

      If Jewish morality was what you seem to claim, would Israel be what it is?
      I think it’s time to quit pretending Jewish morality was brought down by anything except their own lack of morality in getting in bed with zionism and Israel.
      They have to take full responsibility for this one—no one did it to them….they did it to themselves.

  9. eGuard
    January 6, 2012, 10:30 pm

    So Hirsh Goodman […] moved from South Africa (where he opposed apartheid), to Israel.

    How did he oppose Apartheid? Goldstone did too, we are told. When did he move, and why?

  10. Les
    January 6, 2012, 11:47 pm

    Instead of understanding Judaism as a religion with a history, Goodman has transformed a religion into an external object that is able to serve as a protective shield that must necessarily be defended if Goodman is to feel that he is safe. One wonders what it is that happened in his life that caused Goodman to take his religion from inside his head and transform it into a tool to protect him from who knows what.

  11. Bandolero
    January 7, 2012, 12:25 am

    “Those who proactively work to remove Israel from the family of nations, cast it as a pariah, and place next to North Korea on the axis of evil”

    I don’t feel addressed here. I don’t think North Korea should be cast as pariah. I think North Korea never did something worse then defending the soil of it ancestors against an evil empire.

    • Sin Nombre
      January 7, 2012, 4:37 am

      Bandolero wrote:

      “I think North Korea never did something worse then [sic] defending the soil of it [sic] ancestors against an evil empire.”

      I stand in awe of you Sir: In the entire cosmos of possible assemblages of words in the English language and indeed of ideas in general I think this just might be about one of the most breathtaking imaginable.

      • pabelmont
        January 7, 2012, 11:45 am

        Perhaps Bandolero does not excuse NK’s tretment of its own citizens. On that score it is right up there with Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, whoever-runs-Uzbekistan and ditto-Bahrain (present or past USA proteges).

        These guys are dreadful (from what I’ve read) BUT THEY DO NOT ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE (as Hitler did and as Israel does and as SA did w.r.t. Namibia). NK protected itself from USA and may have engaged in a bit of civil wsar with SK (what’s a bit of civil war, now and then, didn’t Israel come into existence in 1948 as a result of a civil war (or was it an invasion by European Jews)?

        Also, NK does not have (as far as I know) a racist basis for its totalitarian regime’s mistreatment of its own people. It’s equal-opportunity horror except for the well-placed, sort of like the USA’s 1%-99%.

      • dahoit
        January 8, 2012, 11:32 am

        As any news about NK comes from their mortal enemies,the Ziomic neolibconcapitalist liars,their accusations carry about as much weight as a bucket of air.
        They said and say the same about Libya the Soviet Union, China,Saddam,Iran,Islam and all their enemies.
        You haven’t realized the obvious?

      • dahoit
        January 8, 2012, 11:45 am

        True,but hardly breathtaking.Are you being sarcastic?
        Or was that an educated stab at a lack of an apostrophe s?
        Looking at your previous responses it looks like you don’t like Commies.OK,that’s cool,but they are mostly history anyway,and NK is far down on the list of international criminals,as someone else said,whatever they’ve done(according to serial liars),its to their own,and let their own deal with it,like Dr.Paul says.

      • Sin Nombre
        January 8, 2012, 4:05 pm

        No no no; far malicious than merely sarcastic. Indeed, “snide” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

        And if literally starving great swatches of your own people, so that even your military that you feed relatively well can continue to prop up your cognac-soaked claque show unmistakeable signs of stunting and malnutrition, is “far down on [your] list of international criminals” then I disagree with your list.

        Amazing the resistance of the hard-core “Progressive” instinct to learning: Despite the mountains of dead and groaning victims lie about the crimes of Lenin and Stalin and the Bolshies not only long after it’s too late for them but indeed until it’s no longer deniable to even the most ignorant, and then try excusing same. Do the same with Mao and then Pol Pot, and now with the equally phantasmagoric North Korean Kims…

  12. Richard Witty
    January 7, 2012, 6:41 am

    “What about if Isabel Kershner had to interview Peter Beinart, who has said that Palestinians under occupation should have the right to vote. ”

    Peter Beinart might agree with Hirsch What about if Isabel Kershner had to interview Peter Beinart, who has said that Palestinians under occupation should have the right to vote. as much as you. You entirely misrepresented his point about voting by the way.

    Does Goodman support the occupation? He might say the same thing as Beinart, if framed as Beinart did.

    If they can make the better argument, honestly and clearly, more power to them.

    If you can make the better argument honestly and clearly, more power to you.

    You want a stacked deck in your favor on the “war of ideas in the Middle East”?

    • gazacalling
      January 7, 2012, 4:26 pm

      Sounds like you are disagreeing with the NYT conflict-of-interest policy, and saying essentially, “What does it matter?”

      Is that what you’re saying?

      • Richard Witty
        January 7, 2012, 5:09 pm

        I think the campaign to delegitimize Israel is real, is unfair (because it exceeds the areas that are questionable), and should be fought by making the better argument.

        Same as this site should stake its fame on making the better argument and better proposal that it will respectfully and clearly apply, rather than character assassination over distracting litmus tests.

      • Shingo
        January 7, 2012, 11:35 pm

        Whither he’ll knows what Witty is saying. He’s becommubg more incoherent and vague by the day.

    • dahoit
      January 8, 2012, 11:28 am

      Bucky Beaver elicits no intellectual response,as I’ve seen his act repeatedly(ad nauseum)on C-Span.Like their rotating idiots of Ziomic intentions,a complete fraud on the American people.Remember C-Span is funded by the MSM.
      C-span seemed to succumb when Brian Lamb stopped being a host.

  13. Erasmus
    January 7, 2012, 9:05 am

    Re: …Those who proactively work to remove Israel from the family of nations…..

    Israel has never been part of the “international family of nations”, because it undertook all efforts at any suitable opportunity to stand aside, ignore all UN resolutions and violating international laws……
    and this consequently from the beginning until today.
    Whenever Israel will eventually (?) honour such universal principles of the community of nations, end occupation and all HR violations, Israel and its citizen will surely be welcomed.
    However, as of to date, it is a place of horror, shaming all fundamental values of genuine Judaism. Too bad – too sad.

  14. seniorpunk
    January 7, 2012, 10:06 am

    There are really two issues here and the comments I read all seem to focus on the first; the content of his remarks. Regarding these, my feeling is that those of us who support an end to the ongoing Israeli program of land theft, occupation, and generally creating racism in order to justify its policies, should stop worrying about the impact on Israel of BDS and concentrate on stopping its unacceptable behavior. Israel is not a democratic nation; it controls the lives of millions of people who have no say whatsoever in the selection of its government. BDS is simply a way for the excluded to regain power over their own existence.

    The second issue is the degree to which the ethical requirements for a reporter should apply to her/his spouse/partner seems to me to more problematic. My first impulse is to say that each individual should only be accountable for their own ethical obligations. However it is not quite that simple, since spouses/partners have an economic stake in each others activities. At the very least, the NYT should make its readers aware of the situation.

    • American
      January 7, 2012, 1:10 pm

      “my feeling is that those of us who support an end to the ongoing Israeli program of land theft, occupation, and generally creating racism in order to justify its policies, should stop worrying about the impact on Israel of BDS and concentrate on stopping its unacceptable behavior. “..seniorpunk

      Exactly. Until Israel feels some pain they aren’t going to stop. Why would they?

  15. pabelmont
    January 7, 2012, 11:26 am

    Submitted as comment to JPost:

    “The war to delegitimize Israel can only become more intense with time”. PREPOSTEROUS!

    Where is the anti-apartheid “war” against South Africa today? Gone. All Israel need do (and what international law and human rights concerns direct it to do) is [1] remove all settlers from WB/EJ and Golan [2] lift siege of Gaza [3] demolish the wall in WB/EJ, remove all internal checkpoints in WB [4] stop stealing WB water [5] stop removing minerals from WB and stop delivering trash and toxics to WB, etc., etc.

    This is not a small “all”.

    But Israel has made its own bed by pretending that 1967 war gave it unrestricted ownership of WB and Golan etc and Israel is PROPERLY ATTACKED FOR ITS CRIMES (not delegitimized, but attacked for crimes).

    • Kris
      January 7, 2012, 1:42 pm

      I don’t think Zionists’ fear that Israel will be “delegitimatized” is unrealistic, because, as they know and as the rest of the world is starting to understand, Israel has always been an illegitimate state, and has absolutely no “right to exist.”

      Joseph Mossad explained this very well in his essay, “The Rights of Israel”:

      link to english.aljazeera.net

      • john h
        January 8, 2012, 3:00 pm

        Thanks for that, Kris.

        Here is the specific Joseph Mossad article of Kris’s post: link to aljazeera.com

        I just hope what is in that article is fully recognized and used by Abbas and Palestinians. It should be constantly reiterated and made much more widely known.

  16. tommy
    January 7, 2012, 11:55 am

    Mr. Goodman knows it is not a libel to describe Israelis as child killers, well poisoners, and olive crop destroyers.

  17. yourstruly
    January 8, 2012, 10:15 am

    what’s that persistant sound?

    the shattering of a dream

    that of a so-called jewish state?

    its delegitimization

    no putting it back together again?

    impossible

    too many fault lines?

    from its inception

  18. dahoit
    January 8, 2012, 11:23 am

    North Korea?Man are those Israelis that out of touch,to compare Israel,the death a minute nation,with NK,a nation that seems to mind its own business,despite western provocations by our satrapy in SK?
    The axis of evil runs directly from Washington to London to Paris to Israel,sorry.

  19. mig
    January 9, 2012, 12:53 pm

    Spouse of ‘NYT’ correspondent calls on Israeli gov’t to wage ‘war’ on int’l threat to its image

    Doesnt matter how much you spray perfume to horse stuff, its still horse stuff.

Leave a Reply