The not-so-funny thing about Goldstone was that he was literally a "hanging judge" during the days of Apartheid in South Africa, ordering the torture and death of many South African Blacks.  He imposed and affirmed death sentences for more than two dozen blacks under circumstances where whites would almost certainly have escaped the noose.  He also affirmed sentences of physical torture, called "flogging", for other blacks.

So it is not surprising that the UN would put this scumbag in charge of a report concerning Israel considering the man has no morals or ethics.  This is what the UN holds as the judicial standard.

...

...

...

I've restrained myself so far. I know it never ends well when I get involved in this topic.

But I can't let this pass by.

Richard Joseph Goldstone, for your information Tlaloc, was one of they key jurists who helped end apartheid in South Africa by undermining it from within the system.

You are SLANDERING one of the men who played a key roll in ending one of a horrifically racist governmental institution of our era.

How dare you imply that he was a supporter of it. It's an insult to every man and woman who tried to overturn it.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:52, Tue 05 Apr 2011.

Oh I dare Falkus.  But it is only slander if it isn't true.

Did your paragon of justice:

- Approve the whipping of four blacks found guilty of violence?
- Acquit four police officers who had broken into a white woman's house on suspicions that she was conducting sexual relations with a black man (something considered a serious crime at the time in South Africa)?
- Convict two young black men for being in possession of a video tape showing a speech given by one of the senior officials in Nelson Mandela's party?
- Sentence to death 29 blacks in a court system that was anything but color blind?

Or did he not?

Goldstone says he was just "following the rule of South African law".  I suppose you agree that such a statement is valid?  "I was just following orders" is now a valid argument?  Please explain how this guy "helped end apartheid in South Africa by undermining it from within the system" by executing blacks and having them whipped.

He didn't have to accept the position he was offered.  A true man of conscience would waved off the offer and not been a part of the system of racially-biased laws.  But that is not Goldstone.  Such a person should not be allowed to lecture a Democratic state defending itself against terrorists.

Aside from the fact that Goldstone is a scumbag with blood on his hands, what do you make of his retraction of his own report?
This message was last edited by the player at 18:22, Tue 05 Apr 2011.

He worked within the rule of the law, exercised as much mercy as the law would let him, and actively worked to change that law.

And he succeeded.

In reply to Falkus (msg #298):

And how did he do this?

EDIT: Let me expand.  How did he undermine a system that he enforced?  Sure, I read his bio and saw that he was a liberal judge but even by his own standards he is a hypocrite.  He is fully against the death penalty yet had no issue with handing that sentence out.  I am no fan of judicial activism since I believe it undermines the rule of law.  He stopped evictions based on race but he also enforced some pretty draconian laws.

So we have a man who is anti-Apartheid and anti-death penalty who chooses to be a judge in a highly racist, Apartheid system that hands down death penalties.  This is a man of high moral fiber?

And then to have this morally challenged person lording morality over a Democratic nation that is fighting a genocidal enemy?  With his recent op-ed that refutes his report's own findings we find a man who clearly doesn't know the damage his bias and lies have caused.  Amazingly appalling.

Was this tool of repression the only judge the UN could find?  Or was he chosen for his particular brand of moral ambiguity?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:44, Tue 05 Apr 2011.

Heh!  Not often I get compared with the orthodox! :)  Guess it goes to show, no matter how different we might think we are from someone, if we look far enough, we're bound to find something they've got in common with us!


Sounds fine by me in general principle, but I'd want to check on that figure before using it as the basis for a plan.  Any idea where they got it from?  Also, am I reading it right in thinking you mean "8% get to go back to their previous homes, the other 92% get some manner of compensation instead"?


Seems fine by me, if we can get the palestinians on board, though I think that might be hard.


Wanting it?  Almost certainly not.  But would they be willing to accept it for peace?  If so, I think it could be a good idea.  Though, in this particular case, I think it'd be better to have someone like Egypt or Turkey instead of the US if possible.

In reply to Tycho (msg #300):

You do know who else doesn't have TV's and are orthadox don't you? the Amish....lol

In the show they didn't say where they got the number from someone just said it when they were brainstorming. And no that isn't what i ment, 8% get to come back to Palestine controled areas and they would get reparations for the lost property they gave up. Those that would rather stay where they are...Europe, America ect lose the right to return and possible reparations, also conditions have to be in place so they dont come back for the cash and then go back to live elsewhere.

Egypt or Turkey? Are you nuts? Do you know how much anti Israel sentiment is in Turkey now? It used to one of the main places Israeli's used to go to vacation, but for the last couple of years Israeli's have been warned against going by our government saying it wasn't safe, of of Turkey's ministers has said many anti Israel statements. As for Eygpt, do you know what book is a best seller there? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Israel may be at peace with Eygpt but they still hate Israel, give them a reason and they would be happy to attack Israel once more.

Sorry for the delayed reply, Elana.  I've been a bit swamped lately.


Heh!  :)


Hmm, if they'd go for it, great, but it doesn't sound like what they're actually after to me.  Going back to palestinian-controlled areas shouldn't really be in question--if they're their own state, then they can let in anyone they want.  It's letting palestinians back into Israel, or (in my opinion the more reasonable solution) effectively paying them for the property that they can't go back to.  I don't really think it's the portion of palestinians living in Europe or the US that's really the concern at this point, and more so the people living in refugee camps, or in the occupied areas.


Yeah, there are plenty of people in both places who hate israel, no question.  But that's partially why it'd be so useful to get those countries on board.  If it's the US, most of the muslim world won't feel any ownership of the solution, and it would probably end up being viewed as something imposed by the US, rather than an agreement between the parties.  Getting a country with natural palestinian sympathies, but which also has strong incentive to have good relations with Israel would seem more likely to succeed in the long run, I think.  That said, I'd take an agree with US peace keepers over no agreement at all.

I read recently that Israel has passed a law banning calling for boycotts of goods from the occupied territories.  It's now a crime to advocate not buying goods from the settlements.

What do you guys think of this?  I'm not too familiar with just which rights are protected in Israel, but it doesn't seem like it could stand up to a freedom of speech challenge if their protections are anything like in the States.  Boycotting goods is a peaceful, non-coercive method of protest, and it seems like an overstep to be banning it just because the government disagrees with the people engaging in it.  Somewhat ironically, the law apparently bars the government from doing business with companies engaged in a boycott!

The Guardian's write up here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...cott-legal-challenge

In reply to Tycho (msg #303):

Actually the boycotts seem to target only Jewish businesses.  They are not boycotting Israeli businesses since doing so would target a great many Arab-Israeli businesses that lie outside that "green-line".  This would seem to be an anti-discrimination law that so many seem to support.

Are you serious on this?  This is an Israeli law.  It applies to Israelis.  Most of them, you know, are Jewish.  It's aimed at Jewish people in Israel who are calling for boycotts of goods made in the settlements.  Trying to call this an "anti-discrimination" law is a bit absurd in my opinion.  Look into it, really.  You can find quotes from Knesset members saying "How can we tell the rest of the world not to boycott Israeli goods when we have Israelis here boycotting goods from the settlements?"

Let's be blunt about this:  Do you think boycotting goods is free speech, or discrimination?  Was the bus boycott led by Martin Luther King discrimination against white bus owners, or a political statement of protest against the way blacks were treated?

I have to admit, while we tend to disagree about most things, on this one, I really am struggling to even take your post as a serious one?  Can you sincerely view a law that bans boycotting of goods from the settlements to be "anti-discriminatory?"  It's meant purely to silence those who object to the settlement movement, and Israeli occupation in general.  Even Knesset members who voted for this thing haven't gone as far as to call it an anti-discrimination law, at least not that I'm aware of.

Very serious and I do know this is an Israeli law.  What I am talking about is the reasoning behind the Israeli leftist's boycotting of West Bank businesses and the reaction by enacting this law.

The problem is that the vast majority of the Israeli public supports the continued development of "settlements", which are legal, and other Israeli institutions in the West Bank, including Ariel University.  Because these leftists are incapable of persuading more than a few percent of Israelis, they pursue their agenda by organizing boycotts against West Bank Jews and demonizing them.  The anti-boycott law sees this as an anti-democratic tactic and prohibits that tactic.

Want proof?  The Arab-Israeli Knesset member Ahmed Tibi has Israeli citizenship. He also owns a residence and land in East Jerusalem, outside the "Green Line".  Not a single leftist is calling for Tibi, or his businesses, to be boycotted because of this.  Why not?  If the boycott is against all Israeli presence outside the Green Line, Tibi is as deserving of being boycotted as anyone else.  In fact he sits in the Israeli parliament and should be called out for his "occupation".

According to Israeli lawmakers, the boycotts are racist and bigoted and that is why the anti-boycott bill is justified, to them, much like any law against discrimination.

On a side note, the main victims of such boycotts are likely to be West Bank Arabs.  The enterprises operating in the West Bank that they want boycotted employ thousands of Arabs and paying them wages at least three times what they can earn in regular Palestinian jobs working for Palestinians.  Ariel University has lots of Palestinian students, between 10 and 15 percent of its student body. So if the leftists get their way, they will be inflicting serious damages on the Arabs they claim to care about.

Boycotts are free speech.  Boycotting based on religion or race is discrimination.  The boycott doesn't affect Arab-Israelis and focuses on Jewish businesses and settlements only.  The left in Israeli is hugely anti-Zionist.

All that aside, I do not agree with creating a anti-boycott law even if it targets a race or religion.  You have the right to let everyone know that you are a bigoted fascist.  What I am pointing out to you is the basis behind the law.  I didn't say they handled it correctly.

I also disagree with hate-crime laws, affirmative action, the anti-offense laws one finds in Europe, and such stupidities.  If you agree that laws be used to make people pretend to like each other then you should agree with this law.

Was Martin Luther King racist for calling for the bus boycott?  I mean this as a serious question, given what you're saying here.  It was primarily white-controlled business that suffered because of it, no?  By the standard you're giving here, it was racist and bigotted, because they didn't go after any black-run bus companies.  Surely you can see the absurdity of such a position, right?  It's zionists who are in the settlements.  If you're opposed to the settlements, then yes, it's going to be zionist (who, yes, are Jews) who you will be targeting with the boycotts, but that's not anti-semitism, it's anti-settlements.  Living in a settlement isn't some trait you're born with and have no control over, it's a choice.  Disagreeing with that choice doesn't make one a bigot or a racist, or anti-jewish.  Implying that it does is just an example of "playing the race card," which you seem to find so offensive in other contexts that it surprises me that you feel it is appropriate here.

In reply to Tycho (msg #307):

*sigh*

Did you read the last part?

Anywho, boycotting a racist busline for telling blacks they have to sit in the back or give up seats to white is not racist.  That is blacks exercising their economic freedoms to force the busline to respect them.

Boycotting Israeli-Jews and not Israeli-Arabs is discrimination.  And I still don't believe it was a good law.  The ones screaming to boycott only Jews are proving themselves, in a very public manner, to be idiots.

Israeli-Arabs also enjoy the fruits of the Israeli economy and protection.  If you are going to boycott their activity in the "occupied" territories then you had better boycott ALL Israelis who live there.  Including the Israeli-Arabs.

This is not the race card, just a simple fact.  You have two groups who are Israeli nationals and you are singling out the businesses and settlements of only one group for boycott.  What makes the Arab businesses and settlements any less offensive?
This message was last edited by the player at 21:02, Tue 19 July 2011.

Yes, I'm glad you're sort-of against the law.  But I'm still surprised you consider it "anti-discriminatory," and that you seem to imply anyone who is opposed to the settlement movement is a racist.


Who are these people screaming this?  Perhaps that's the problem.  I see people who are opposed to the political movement of the settlements, you seem to see neo-nazis.  Maybe we're looking at different groups here?  Here's some of the people I've heard about who support the right of boycotting settlement goods (and who I'm gonna go out on a limb and say aren't full of people who hate jews):
New Israel Fund, a U.S.-based funder of Israeli civil rights groups,
Anti-Defamation League,
the American Jewish Committee,
the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Even the Zionist Organization of America has said it opposes this law on principle.

Are these these the people you consider to be making fools of themselves, and who you consider to be anti-jewish bigots?  Who are the people you say are "proving themselves to be idiots?"  Please be specific.


You don't think it matters what people do in the territories, how they go about doing it, or what their goals are?  That's sort of like saying "if you're going to boycott motorized vehicles in Alabama, then you'd better boycott them all, even if they're owned by black people who give other black people rides, otherwise you're racist!"  Unless you're saying there are some Israeli Arabs who support the total take over of all of Palestine by Israel, and the expulsion of the palestinians, and someone is saying "don't boycott that guy!"  If that's what you're saying, please, point me to it, and I'll agree with you.


Umm, the politics of their owners, presumably?

I am not 'sort of' against the law, I am against the law as was repeated for clarification.  A boycott that targets only Jews instead of Israelis is discriminatory.  Arab-Israelis are profitting just as much as Jewish-Israelis from their endevors outside the 'Green Line'.  Why not target all Israelis?



You obviously have not been to an anti-Israel protest where boycotting is spoken of.  It is screaming and quite hateful.  I have heard a Jews call another a "bad Jew" for supporting the settlements right to exist.



Because it is a bad law and most people recognize that.  As do I.



First, the settlements are legal.  Second, boycotting Israeli Jews shows that you feel it is the Jews that are the problem.  Once again, is it okay for Arab-Israelis to make money in the 'occupied' zones?  If you are going to claim a moral high ground you should make sure you aren't targetting Jews in particular.



Quite a leap there.  What are Jews doing that the Arab-Israelis are not?  What are the goals of the Arab-Israelis and how do they differ from the Jews?  Do not both groups benefit from Israeli protection?  Do not both groups pay their taxes to the state of Israel?



Umm, considering that the settlements are legal.  The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements.  On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks.  Tell me, are we in the concluding stages of the peace talks yet?

So you have Israel which has a 20% population of Arabs who live along side Jews with equal protection under the law and you have the Palestinian territories that wish to destroy legal settlements of Jews because they are Jews.

So yes, boycotting only Jews is discrimination.  It should be legal though.

You seem to have missed the question I asked:  Who specifically, are you talking about?  What group or groups are you specifically referring to?

You seem to feel that no one, in Israel, Palestine, or elsewhere questions the legality of the settlements.  This is not true.  You seem to feel that only people who hate Jews question the legality of the settlements.  This, again, is not true.  You are trying to paint anyone and everyone who boycotts goods from the settlements as a racist, and this is not true.  You even seem to say that Israeli Jews who boycott goods from the settlement are racist against Jews!  Do you seriously not see any absurdity in this?

What is different between an Jewish person living in a settlement, and an Israeli Arab living in a settlement?  Well, first of all, many of the settlements do not allow Arabs, regardless of their nationality, to live in the settlements.  Second of all, many of those who live in the settlements believe (and push for, politically and otherwise) Israeli control over all of the occupied territories, are opposed to a two-state solution, etc.  Yes, if there are any zionist Israeli Arabs out there, living in a settlement, who want to force the palestinians out of Palestine, and people are saying "don't boycott his story, he's an arab!", then yes, I'd agree that's hypocritical.  But I'm not aware of any such population, and unless you point it out to me, I'm going to guess it's small to non-existent.

Ummm... the ones calling for the boycotts of Jews?



The absurdity is saying "only people who hate Jews question the legality of the settlements".  I do not say that as their are also a great many ignorant and uninformed people who do so as well.

You can certainly question the legality of the settlements.  If you actually did so with an honest appraisal you would come to the conclusion that they are legal.  Pretty simple.  But yes, some are motivated by anti-Semitism.



Proof?  Many are religious communities.  Should the Amish have to accept Hindus in their settlements?



You mean they wish to live on land their ancestors obtained legally?  How aweful!  And they want their government to protect their rights to do so?  Horrible!  By the way, can you show me the poll of those who don't believe in the two-state solution?



So you agree that Israeli nationals, if of Arab descent, should not be targetted by boycotts because they are not Jews.  Noted.

I do note that you completely blew off the fact that these boycotts would hurt the Palestinians who are employed by these settlements.  Funny that.

Oh, and once again, I am against the law against boycotting.  Just in case you were actually wondering about my position on the matter.

Can you be any more specific?  Point me to, specifically, which people or groups you're talking about?  You say they're making fools of themselves.  Presumably you must have a specific group or groups in mind?  You seem to be being a bit evasive here.  Did you make a blanket statement about a faceless group in your mind, rather than having any particular group or person in mind here?


Okay, so everyone who questions the legality of the settlements is either:
ignorant, uninformed, or racist?  I'm just trying to pin down if you're talking about everyone who's opposed to the settlements here, or if you have actual, specific people in mind.  Also, you do know that most of the world considers the settlements illegal by international law, right?  I know you disagree with them, but you do realize you're in the minority on this, and thus are calling most of the legal experts in the world uninformed or ignorant when you make such claims, right?


Ah, so everyone who's considered this and come to a different opinion than you hasn't given it an honest appraisal (or hates jews)?  That's a pretty large claim.




Proof?  No, if you dispute it I can look for it, but many of the settlements are ultra-religious Jewish people who aren't looking for integration with palestinians.  If you really doubt this, I can find evidence for you, but I would have figured that part would be a given.  As for Amish and Hindus, if I ran things, yes.  No one would be allowed to bar anyone from buying property in their area and moving in, just because they disagree with their religion.  But this is somewhat besides the point.  You asked what the difference was, and I've told you.  If one person (who happens to be Jewish) says "You're kind aren't allowed here!" and another (who happens to be Arab) says "You're kind is allowed here," then it's not racism if you boycott the former but not the latter.




Again, what I think of it isn't the issue, it's the difference you asked for.  If you don't consider the difference important to someone who's affected by those positions, then I think perhaps you're not looking at this objectively. As for a poll of those in the settlement, no, I'm not aware of such a poll.  If you want me to go search for quotes from zionists who are opposed to a two state solution I can, but I would really think it shouldn't be too controversial at this point that there exist groups in Israel who are for completely taking over all of the occupied territories, and are opposed to giving up any of it to a Palestinian state.  If you weren't aware that such groups exist (and that they're big on the settlements because they aid their position), I really suggest you look into it yourself, as it may change your view on the settlements some.




Is that what I said, Tlaloc?  You get frustrated when people put words in your mouth, or say you've said one thing when you haven't, so I'd appreciate it if you not do the same thing.


They might, but I'm not arguing in favor of the boycotts, so it's sort of a non-issue for me.  I'm arguing for the fact that not everyone who boycotts settlement goods is a racist (nor ignorant nor uniformed), and that calling the ban on boycotts an "anti-discrimination" law is somewhat insulting to the intelligence of everyone seeing what's going on.


And that's great.  If I could get you to agree that the ban on it isn't an "anti-discrimination" law we'd be making real progress.

The impression I'm getting here, is that you saw news making Israel look a bit bad, so you lashed out at other people without thinking too much about it.  You've said that some unspecified, people are making fools of themselves, but seem unable or unwilling to tell us just which people you're talking about.  You seem to want to paint everyone else as the bad guys, even though you agree the law is bad.  Why not just say, "yeah, this is a bad law.  Israel over-reacted and went too far on this," rather than trying to defend the law you don't even like, or try to make this into an issue about racism?

For someone who is calling me out for putting words in their mouth you seem pretty adept at the tactics yourself.

I didn't say everyone who for boycotts of Jews is racist.  You have an option to be uninformed or ignorant as well.  This is proven by the fact that the settlements, according to agreements with the Palestinians, are to be negotiated at the conclusion of the peace talks.  To deny that fact is to be one of the three options I provide.



Why?  You seem awful concerned about what I think.  The way I see it, progress would be made if you could come to the realization of targetting only Jews with boycotts is discrimination.

But, as stated, people are allowed, or should be allowed, to discriminate where they spend their money.



This was lashing out?  Explaining the motivation behind the anti-boycott law?  And even agreeing that it is a horrible law is lashing out?

I think the lack of thought is immediately assuming the worst of Jewish settlers and making an opinion not based in any fact nor giving any consideration to the thought behind the law.  Your skill at knowing my motivation is about as accurate as your depiction of the Jewish settlers politics and motivations.



Because, unlike some, I actually look into an issue before forming an opinion on it.  The boycott movement is targetted at Jewish settlements and Jewish enterprises while completely ignoring the truth of the legality of the settlements and completely ignoring that only Jews are being targetted.  That is discrimination.

The boycotts are stupid and the law banning them are stupid.  In my view the stupid boycotts shouldn't be stopped and the stupid law should be thrown out.  That is not a defence but rather an overall view of the situation.

um, yes.
Furthermore, teh amish would welcome Hindus in their communities, and pagans, and anyone else who chose to live there, if they purchased land or paid rent to someone willing to rent from them. I have known pagans who lived with teh amish to get back to the land for a while. Certainly they wouldn't embrace *behaviors* that they found repugnant, but they are very accepting of other *people*
Furthermore if a society is free then yes, you do accept people of oteh religions. Should we look at that from the perspective of 'should Christians accept atheists in their communities" or 'should secular humanists accept christians in tehir communities' to see just how much it expresses a sentiment of underlying approval of prejudice?

In reply to silveroak (msg #315):

You mistake the difference between allowing them, which is their way, and having to allow them.  Which they don't.  Don't confuse the point.

If you own private land, at least in the US, you can dictate who is and who isn't allowed on that land.  Understand now?

Two points:
1) Trying to talk down to me like I am a child is *not* being respectfull of your fellow participants in these forums, especillay when the point you raise is tangental to the point I was making because
2) *communities* are not about private ownership of land. No single person owns all of the land in, for example, Salt Lake City. On the other hand is is very difficult for non-mormons to buy land in Salt Lake city, because that is the culture there. At teh same time people who are not mormons are allowed to reside tehre- tehre are no laws blocking them from residing in teh city, having jobs, or worshiping freely *NOR CAN THERE BE*. hat is the difference between community and private property, which means when the rules of a community are being discussed property rights are a red herring.

In reply to Tlaloc (msg #314):

You still haven't mentioned who, specifically, you're talking about being discriminatory against jews here.  I'm asking who, what groups, what individuals, do you feel are "targeting only jews?"

It sounds like you're implying there's a non-jewish settlement movement they should be boycotting as well.  You seem to be implying that the only difference between those they are boycotting and those they aren't, is that the ones they're boycotting are Jewish.  You seem to be implying that there are no political differences, no differences in goals, no differences in their treatment of palestinians that could possibly be coming into play.  I dispute this.

Here is an article from haaretz which talks of some extremist Israeli settlers:
Haaretz
No, reading that, suppose someone decided they didn't want to buy products from this group of settlers, who have vandalized palestinian property, in protest of actions by the Israeli government to remove unauthorized settlements.  Would that make me racist, uniformed, or ignorant?  I don't think so.  But it would, however, cause me to be in violation of the new Israeli law.

You say I assume the worst about Israeli settlers, and jump to conclusions.  This is a real, honest to goodness news article.  I'm not making it up.  There are people out there who really are crazy (yes, on both sides), and I think calling for boycotts of their goods is a very civil way of disagree with them (especially by the standards of the region).  I'm not saying all settlers are like this, just that such settlers exist, and that it's not racist to target them with boycotts.

Time to open a can of worms again.
I'm curious, why should I side with the PLO like a Hollywood minion of their's when they fire into Israeli territory, then occupy hospitals full of possibly innocent people, use those positions to attack the Israelies so that when they are bombed or destroyed along with their meat shields, so the Israelies will be painted as Nazi bastards oppressing the poor innocent Palistinians?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:46, Mon 29 Aug 2011.