Goldstone – yes, Goldstone – defends Israel from "apartheid" slander [UPDATED]

November 1, 2011

(Israel Matzav: The education of R*I*C*H*A*R*D* G*O*L*D*S*T*O*N*E)

This passage made me wonder whether he gets it yet.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. 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.

So let me get this straight: Israel’s rule in the West Bank Judea and Samaria is not “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group” only because we have “agreed in concept to the existence of a ‘Palestinian state’ in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank?” And every country that does not agree to cut off part of its land is promoting apartheid? And every ethnic group that decides it’s entitled to a ‘state’ is a victim of
apartheid if it doesn’t get that state? And were we one day to decide that we have had enough of the ‘Palestinians’ being unwilling to negotiate with us (and we all know why they are unwilling to negotiate with us), and we withdraw whatever offers of ‘statehood’ have been made, would we then be practicing apartheid?
Goldstone still has a lot to learn.

From the New York Times, an op-ed by Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous Goldstone Report that slandered Israel:

THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.
One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.
While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … 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.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. 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.
But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.
Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. 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 reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.
Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.
Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

As night follows day, we can expect the rabid anti-Israel Left who embraced Goldstone as their messiah two years ago will issue vicious condemnations of this piece, and charge Goldstone with being a tool of the Zionist lobby, tomorrow.
But as bad as the Goldstone Report was – and its flaws were so numerous as to border on the malicious – it was not in the same league as the anti-Zionist Left who routinely accuse Israel of “apartheid.” These people are not interested in facts or in arguments. They are inherently dishonest and their interest in the truth is nil. They have one purpose and one purpose only – to destroy Israel. It is mindless hate.
And it is a shame that their lies have gained such currency that someone like Goldstone even feels compelled to answer them.
If I had to do some armchair psychology, my guess is that he saw people used his report in ways he never intended, mostly people who didn’t even bother to read it themselves. Very possibly, he did not want to be associated with such haters who pretended he was one of them, sort of like Benny Morris after his early works on Israel’s history.


Wikileaks: Australia, Goldstone, Mossad, Hamas and Dubai

August 31, 2011

Israel’s suspicions that Australia reversed its pro-Israel vote on the Goldstone Commission report in 2010 because of Canberra’s anger over the use of forged Australian passports in the assassination of a Hamas operative in Dubai received confirmation via a US cable out of the Canberra embassy published by WikiLeaks on Monday. The Jerusalem Post and h/t Challah. Here is the full cable.

#GoldStoneReport flashback! Bayefsky – Meet the UN’s anti-Israel ‘anti-discrimination’ czar, Navi Pillay

August 11, 2011
The UN’s top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to block further defections from the UN’s racist “anti-racism” bash scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already announced a boycott of “Durban III,” a UN event designed to “commemorate” the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was “disappointed” with these pullouts, labeling them a “political distraction.”
The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city’s mayor asked her to “rescue the name of Durban,” given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.
Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states – Israel. It calls Palestinians “victims” of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an “outcome document” that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed “mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word ‘reaffirm’ carries those paragraphs into this document.”
While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the “anti-racism” crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II – which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.
Pillay’s enthusiasm for the Durban “anti-racism” agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having “made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law.” After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, “I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone’s report and its recommendations.” Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.
In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on “situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of great concern” around the world – and made only two pleas to the council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: “I urge the council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade” – which would stymie Israel’s ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And she made this plea: “I urge the Security Council to support the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” – that is, the Goldstone report.
After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: “The clearest manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel.” She could have easily determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel’s parliament, in the diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.
The antagonism between Pillay’s political priorities and the interests of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden. On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counterterrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings.” And this requirement would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they could.”
Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case, and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an “important event . . . to combat discrimination.” Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.
Anne Bayefsky
For more United Nations coverage see
August 10, 2011 For Immediate Release:
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on NY Daily News


Ron Paul Counters Obama Policy on Israel, Middle East

May 21, 2011
A sneaky move by Paul to deflect the recent criticism that he never took back his accusations based on the Goldstone Report which proved fraudulent by Richard Goldstone himself. Paul’s presidential hopes depend on quieting the Zionists in his own party… this is a way to attack Obama and build his own Pro Israel credentials… while at the same time push the idea of equivalence for all Foreign Aid. The denied correlative is that America has countries it trusts more then others and that is sound policy. Absolutes like Obama’s giving to terrorists… and Paul’s absolute of no help for friends have no reality to the struggles our country has had historically

Congressman Ron Paul issued a blistering critique of President Obama’s recent proposal for Israel to surrender its territory to pre-1967 borders and create a Palestinian state.
“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs,” the Texas Republican wrote in a May 20 press statement. “There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.” Representative Paul has announced an electoral challenge to Obama as a Republican, and will face Obama in November 2012 if he can win the GOP nomination.
Obama had proposed May 19 that “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” The proposal rocked the relationship between the United States and Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed Obama in person the next day from an Oval Office press conference, complaining that “while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”
Obama also promised some $2 billion in additional direct foreign aid to Egypt in the May 19 address. Egypt was until the 1980s an enemy of the Jewish state. Obama pledged an additional $2 billion investment from the U.S. government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to North Africa and the Middle East.
By way of contrast, Rep. Paul has proposed eliminating all foreign aid. “I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies,” Paul wrote. “Most Americans know that makes no sense…. We are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot afford any of it.”
Representative Paul also noted that U.S. foreign aid has often worked at cross-purposes with freedom in the Islamic world. Paul pointed out that for 30 years U.S. aid propped up the corrupt Mubarak regime in Egypt, a regime overthrown by the peaceful “Jasmine revolution” this spring. “As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.”
Obama’s May 19 speech also took special note of the Jasmine revolution sweeping the Islamic world, a revolution that began in December in Tunisia and has since touched just about every Islamic nation. Obama claimed that “the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.” Obama even acknowledged that the United States and its policies had nothing to do with the peaceful demonstrations: “It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.”
But despite traditional U.S. foreign aid support for dictatorships, Obama implicitly threatened further intervention in Islamic nations and devoted particularly harsh criticism to Syria. “Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens.  The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.” Syria has indeed launched a month-long bloody campaign against peaceful protesters, a campaign that appears to be getting bloodier.
Obama stressed that the United States stood for “universal human rights” and that “Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.” To many observers, “strategic tools” is a code word for U.S. military action.
Representative Paul, by way of contrast, has opposed Obama’s Libyan war and strongly condemned the implicit threat to attack Syria. “The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya, authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations, and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that country to step down,” Paul wrote. “Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria?…We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.” via

If Paul is serious about moving into the American political mainstream then he is going to have to do more then sneaky tricks.  He is going to have to apologize for endorsing the findings of the Goldstone Report. There is a major flaw in both Obama and Ron Paul’s thinking.  If the objective is really to end the role of America’s police man status, then why would a downsized power be interested in not having allies?  Only parental figures appear to be even handed with their children.  Both Ron Paul and Obama have endorsed a policy that acts like a police state… Ron Paul’s version being an economically sustainable policeman, though he won’t admit why he intends to position America as neutral.  A real non internationalist nation would never be afraid to commit to it’s friends.

Got a Public Relations problem with HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES? No problem… Syria Attacks Israel

May 16, 2011

typical Goldstone styled accusation of civilian casualties….

Syria Allows Hundreds Across Israeli Border
for Naqba Protest to OBSCURE issues…

…Masses gather at border (Photo: Avihu Shapir)

Syria’s squawking because
Israel killed “protesters”
…now this is chutzpah…

Assad is desperate when he punches below the belt like this. This is another example of how low the Syrians hold on the value of human dignity. They insult their own people like this. Absolutely no pride or respect. All eyes on Israel to put egg on it’s face at any cost. Reminds me of what Fidel Castro did to his people.  Like usual the Arabs use the “NAQBA” as a cover for their own abuses.

Expert says details surrounding Nakba Day infiltration of border still unknown, but Israel will have to explain its actions.

“Most of the details surrounding the shooting are not yet known. Important considerations are whether the protesters were armed or not, whether they were an organized association of a para-military nature, whether the soldiers who fired felt they were in immediate danger and shot out of self defense and a series of other possibilities that are too vague to judge,” said Richmond-Barak.

…Abu Mazen AKA ABBAS….says:
protesters “precious blood will not be wasted”;

She added that while there were legal questions to be considered, the most urgent concern was a deterioration of the diplomatic relations between the countries. via

so without any information in yet… the typical Goldstone accusation of civilian casualties, and a Democracy is made responsible for the actions of a third world dictatorship.

Hamas calls Nakba Day events
“a turning point in the Israeli-Arab conflict”

I.e., killed a handful among large numbers of people who were trying to stage a violent invasion of Israel. How many “protesters” has Syria killed in the last couple of months?–I think 850 was the last count. The annual Chutzpah Prize has been awarded. The rest of 2011 is not required; nothing can possibly beat this.

This is not very surprising, in fact it was predicted days ago.
The Syrian government, with the encouragement of anti-Israel Palestinian groups, Hezbollah and the Iranians, has sent hundreds of supposed “Palestinian refugess” surging across the Israeli border in the Golan in an attempt to provoke a confrontation.  The infiltratrors attempted to capture an Israeli Druse village, and fighting ensued, with initial reports of at least several infiltrators killed and many wounded.  Israel has sealed the border.
Israel Matzav is following and updating, including this video:

The invasion coincides with other violent actions against Israel to commemorate “Nakba” day. This is the day on which Palestinian Arabs commemorate the fact that they chose not abide by the U.N. Resolution creating separate Jewish and Arab states, and instead launched a war to drive the Jews into the sea, which they lost resulting in hundreds of thousands of refugess. Of course, true to form, the Palestinians blame everyone but themselves.
The narrative of the Palestinians as victims endures in academiaHundreds of thousands of Jews fled Arab lands during and in the aftermath the Arabs’ attempt to drive the Jews into the sea. That is the part of the narrative you almost never hear about. via and image via and at the U.N. 
IDF troops on Syria border (Photo: Avihu Shapira)

By Sunday afternoon, the infiltrators began to make their way back to Syria following negotiations between the IDF, police and Druze elders.

The forces tried not to intervene as the Syrian youngsters marched back to their country while calling out “we’ll be back,” encouraged by applause from the Druze villagers who looked on. By 5 pm Sunday, the IDF said that all infiltrators left Israeli territory.

‘We come in peace’ 

“I’m tired of living in Syria, we’d rather die than see more bloodshed,” one of the Syrian infiltrators into Majdal Shams told Ynet earlier. He called on Israel to grant him asylum, adding: “We’ve crossed the border in order to stay with our families, away from all the killing in Syria. We ask the powers at be in Israel to help us stay and not send us back.”

Other infiltrators told Ynet that “we come in peace,” adding that they had decided to cross the border in the aims of living in the Golan Heights – “even if it means risking our lives.” Still, others declared “we are here to liberate the Syrian Palestinian land. These people are Palestinian freeman, Allah willing, the Palestinian groups will not give up.”

Some of those expressing a wish to remain on the Israeli side of the border, said the uprising against
Syrian President Assad is proving more and more dangerous and that many Palestinians now fear for their lives.

Tariq Ramadan Proves Switzerland is NOT Neutral

May 15, 2011

NOR WERE the Swiss EVER Neutral! Not during the Holocaust… not NOW!

Tariq Tricks: Favorite Islamist Spin

Christiane Amanpour could not get
Tariq Ramadan to condemn stoning of women
for whatever reason

In response to a question about how “the weaker” such as “Palestinians, Muslims and blacks” should resist “oppression,” Ramadan recounted how, as he put it, “when Israel was killing innocent people in Gaza,” Switzerland chose to break its neutrality and take the side of the Palestinians; not to do so would have been to implicitly support the “oppressor.” The implication was that if even neutral Switzerland decided to support the Palestinians, everyone should. He did not bring up Hamas’s use of human shields or its deliberate choice to store weapons in hospitals and near U.N. buildings, nor did he mention Richard Goldstone’s recent recantation on the entire official narrative of the Gaza War.

JStreet Refused to Help Rescind Goldstone

April 18, 2011
their values are sickening….

To the Editor:

Within hours of the posting of the JTA item “Senate unanimously calls for Goldstone rescission,” a J Street Facebook fan posted a strong condemnation of the decision. Last week, I had asked the J Street leadership to endorse rescission. They wrote back saying they would not because nothing really happened as a result of the report and anyway, it was also critical of Hamas.
They do not seem to realize the strong support Goldstone’s report gives to the delegitimization and BDS campaigns.
Robert Gutman
Durham, N.C.

Anyone need to be convinced about JStreet’s politics? They are not liberal. They are not open minded at all… they are orchestrating hatred.