Thread: Israeli author; " Israel may be most racist State in the developed world "

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Goldstone wasnt at the receiving end and highly prone to doing flip-flops.

. Blacks like Desmond Tutu + Nelson Mandela was .

btw , also check with some other Jewish Sth Africans, like Ronnie Kasrils. etc.

The only legal analysis of the comparison between Israel and SA by a legal mind is the one my Goldstone. I'd be interested in reading others by renowned judges. Got any or do you suggest I do your googling for you again?

Originally Posted by Liebe

The only legal analysis of the comparison between Israel and SA by a legal mind is the one my Goldstone. I'd be interested in reading others by renowned judges. Got any or do you suggest I do your googling for you again?

Of course, given the racist pressures applied against him.

In the face of intense pressure, South African judge Richard Goldstone has agreed not to attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah.
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php..._mitzvah/18176

Originally Posted by Liebe

The only legal analysis of the comparison between Israel and SA by a legal mind is the one my Goldstone.

I'd be interested in reading others by renowned judges. Got any or do you suggest I do your googling for you again?

Your Goldstone ? hmmm

However well informed Goldstone once WAS , sadly at his age , he's now gone a bit senile, well pass his Best before date.

Nah ! you've illustrated that you're incapable of using google - . and since you're unable to contribute anything informative to this thread, one can take it that you're just trolling .

GO LEARN

...

Originally Posted by Gilos

Is this a bad time to talk to you? 'cause I can try again tomorrow....





Relax, Life's good

When, child, did a zionist ever talk to anyone? The Office just makes its propaganda full time until it can get people silenced as did their Great Model in the Reich. Unfortunately for them, their attempts to hide what they are doing to the people in their colony are getting less and less successful, though AIPAC has enough on the various American pols to allow them still to give two fingers to decency. It won't last though, any more than Hitler himself did.

The Judge - I'm sure your judgement is more consistant than Flip-Flop Goldstone .

Here are more info abt the reasons he changed his mind :
as seen by another Jew - .


A terrific article in the Jewish Forward today explains what was behind Judge Richard Goldstone's decision to amend his original findings on the Gaza war: social pressure.


The article describes how Goldstone's community in Johannesburg summoned Goldstone to a meeting with the Jewish Federation at which communal leaders essentially indicted Goldstone for being a traitor.

"It was a heavy meeting. They went in very hard against him. There were no smiling handshakes afterwards. Avrom's [the head of the South African Zionist Foundation] opening statement was pretty merciless."
The meeting in South Africa came on the heels of Goldstone's 11th hour decision to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah -- a decision he took only after threats were withdrawn by prominent community members to protest outside the synagogue. Did all this add up to an emotional punch that would cause Goldstone's turnaround? It may be too simplistic to reduce the process to that. But several friends cited what they viewed as the cumulative toll of a stream of calumny hurled at the famously unemotional jurist.



In other words, Goldstone couldn't handle the anger of friends and, perhaps, even members of his family. (His family's decision to go ahead with a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue that banned the Bar Mitzvah boy's grandfather from attending seems positively bizarre).

So Goldstone decided to appease his crowd. His article in the Washington Post was not designed to repudiate his own report (and it didn't). It was designed to win back the friendship of people whose nationalist feelings were hurt.

This is all understandable, if not admirable.

It is also common. The cravenness of some progressive Jewish organizations (like the Reform movement) in supporting the Gaza war may be dictated as much by social ostracism as by donor intimidation organized by AIPAC. Even J Street, which bravely opposed Gaza, felt the need to praise Goldstone's decision to step back from his original report.

This fear of ostracism by fellow Jews severely damages the ability of progressive Jews to help end the conflict. So long as they are always looking over their shoulders to see what the status quo crowd is saying, their effectiveness is limited.

It doesn't have to be that way. If progressive Jews really believe that ending the occupation and supporting a Palestinian state is in Israel's best interests, they will turn the tables on their "mainstream" friends and ask them why they are supporting policies that will inevitably lead to Israel's demise. If progressive Jews honestly believe that the occupation is a cancer on Israel, they will say it loud and clear. They will stop being intimidated by people who have been proven wrong about pretty much everything since 1967 and who have done immeasurable damage to the Jewish state.

As for losing friends, so what? Doing the right thing is often (maybe even usually) unpopular. Do you think the abolitionists didn't lose friends and offend reactionary clergy? How about the European Christians who fought anti-Semitism in the 1930s? Or, of course, the brave South Africans who fought apartheid? Or Americans who fought for equal rights for African-Americans, women, and the GLBT community?

Progressive Jews need to break with the status quo crowd. The path of compromise will get them exactly nowhere. And it will be Israel, even more than Palestinians, who will pay the price.

POSTSCRIPT: Some of the progressives who are intimidated on matters relating to Israel are the same people who would never back down on economic issues, marriage equality, the environment, immigration, civil liberties and a host of other issues. The difference is that the mainstream Jewish community allows deviation on every single issue but Israel, the one area in which progressive Jews can do the most good. There will be no "Profile in Courage" awards for those who are progressive only when it won't cost them financial support or "friends."

HERE is New York Times columnist Roger Cohen nailing Goldstone,

LONDON — We have a new verb, “to Goldstone.” Its meaning: To make a finding, and then partially retract it for uncertain motive. Etymology: the strange actions of a respected South African Jewish jurist under intense pressure from Israel, the U.S. Congress and world Jewish groups.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/op...=1&ref=opinion



...

Originally Posted by Marlowe

In other words, Goldstone couldn't handle the anger of friends and, perhaps, even members of his family. (His family's decision to go ahead with a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue that banned the Bar Mitzvah boy's grandfather from attending seems positively bizarre).

So Goldstone decided to appease his crowd. His article in the Washington Post was not designed to repudiate his own report (and it didn't). It was designed to win back the friendship of people whose nationalist feelings were hurt.

Exactly. Goldstone was pressured to yield to the interests of racists and that's why they argue that his voice is the only credibility on the issue.

Originally Posted by The Judge

Of course, given the racist pressures applied against him.

In the face of intense pressure, South African judge Richard Goldstone has agreed not to attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah.
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php..._mitzvah/18176

So a spat in the community in which he is a member influenced his legal analysis on the merits of political systems? That is quite an assumption. Perhaps you should instead attack the analysis itself on the merits instead of claiming that he is suddenly unable to analyse the law without any evidence of such.

Originally Posted by The Judge

Exactly. Goldstone was pressured to yield to the interests of racists and that's why they argue that his voice is the only credibility on the issue.

Are you calling me a racist?

I would be happy to read a single other legal analyst on this matter, which is what i requested from Marlowe. He told me to go learn but provided no alternative sources. Got any suggestions yourself?

Originally Posted by Marlowe

The Judge - I'm sure your judgement is more consistant than Flip-Flop Goldstone .

Here are more info abt the reasons he changed his mind :
as seen by another Jew - .


A terrific article in the Jewish Forward today explains what was behind Judge Richard Goldstone's decision to amend his original findings on the Gaza war: social pressure.


The article describes how Goldstone's community in Johannesburg summoned Goldstone to a meeting with the Jewish Federation at which communal leaders essentially indicted Goldstone for being a traitor.

"It was a heavy meeting. They went in very hard against him. There were no smiling handshakes afterwards. Avrom's [the head of the South African Zionist Foundation] opening statement was pretty merciless."
The meeting in South Africa came on the heels of Goldstone's 11th hour decision to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah -- a decision he took only after threats were withdrawn by prominent community members to protest outside the synagogue. Did all this add up to an emotional punch that would cause Goldstone's turnaround? It may be too simplistic to reduce the process to that. But several friends cited what they viewed as the cumulative toll of a stream of calumny hurled at the famously unemotional jurist.



In other words, Goldstone couldn't handle the anger of friends and, perhaps, even members of his family. (His family's decision to go ahead with a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue that banned the Bar Mitzvah boy's grandfather from attending seems positively bizarre).

So Goldstone decided to appease his crowd. His article in the Washington Post was not designed to repudiate his own report (and it didn't). It was designed to win back the friendship of people whose nationalist feelings were hurt.

This is all understandable, if not admirable.

It is also common. The cravenness of some progressive Jewish organizations (like the Reform movement) in supporting the Gaza war may be dictated as much by social ostracism as by donor intimidation organized by AIPAC. Even J Street, which bravely opposed Gaza, felt the need to praise Goldstone's decision to step back from his original report.

This fear of ostracism by fellow Jews severely damages the ability of progressive Jews to help end the conflict. So long as they are always looking over their shoulders to see what the status quo crowd is saying, their effectiveness is limited.

It doesn't have to be that way. If progressive Jews really believe that ending the occupation and supporting a Palestinian state is in Israel's best interests, they will turn the tables on their "mainstream" friends and ask them why they are supporting policies that will inevitably lead to Israel's demise. If progressive Jews honestly believe that the occupation is a cancer on Israel, they will say it loud and clear. They will stop being intimidated by people who have been proven wrong about pretty much everything since 1967 and who have done immeasurable damage to the Jewish state.

As for losing friends, so what? Doing the right thing is often (maybe even usually) unpopular. Do you think the abolitionists didn't lose friends and offend reactionary clergy? How about the European Christians who fought anti-Semitism in the 1930s? Or, of course, the brave South Africans who fought apartheid? Or Americans who fought for equal rights for African-Americans, women, and the GLBT community?

Progressive Jews need to break with the status quo crowd. The path of compromise will get them exactly nowhere. And it will be Israel, even more than Palestinians, who will pay the price.

POSTSCRIPT: Some of the progressives who are intimidated on matters relating to Israel are the same people who would never back down on economic issues, marriage equality, the environment, immigration, civil liberties and a host of other issues. The difference is that the mainstream Jewish community allows deviation on every single issue but Israel, the one area in which progressive Jews can do the most good. There will be no "Profile in Courage" awards for those who are progressive only when it won't cost them financial support or "friends."

HERE is New York Times columnist Roger Cohen nailing Goldstone,

LONDON — We have a new verb, “to Goldstone.” Its meaning: To make a finding, and then partially retract it for uncertain motive. Etymology: the strange actions of a respected South African Jewish jurist under intense pressure from Israel, the U.S. Congress and world Jewish groups.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/op...=1&ref=opinion



...

Another article admitting that there is nothing but conjecture as to why he retracted. For nutters, eveidence of this or that.

Nothing new.