Breaking news: Bar mitzvah no longer political event
Looks like Judge Goldstone will be going to his grandson’s Bar Mitzvah after all:
Last week, Warren Goldstein, the chief rabbi of South Africa and a persistent critic of the report, wrote in the newspaper Business Day that the judge should be allowed to attend the bar mitzvah because every synagogue “should welcome in a tolerant and nonjudgmental way all who seek to enter and join in our service and pray to God.”
But Rabbi Goldstein also renewed his criticism of the judge, saying his report “has unfairly done enormous damage to the reputation and safety of the State of Israel and her citizens.”
He [Goldstone] added that Rabbi Goldstein’s “rhetoric” about tolerance “simply does not coincide with how my family and I have been treated.”
That just about covers it. It takes a pretty despicable lowlife to uninvite someone from their grandson’s Bar Mitzvah because of political differences. Rabbi Goldstein does not deserve to be a community leader.
One more thing. They didn’t just invite him back. They effectively “reached an agreement.”
A day earlier, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, which represents most of the country’s synagogues, issued a statement that outlined something like a quid pro quo: a promise of no protests on the bar mitzvah boy’s big day, in exchange for a meeting between the judge and leaders of the South African Zionist Federation and other Jewish organizations.
Disgusting. They actually felt the need to make political deals to preserve their image. Couldn’t have their constituents believing they were bighearted people willing to put aside political differences to celebrate together, or anything radical like that.
Last note: I can’t wait to see what comes out of that meeting. If Goldstone’s past encounters with his detractors are any measure, the SA Zionist Federation is going to be subject to a pretty thorough in-person fisking.
It’s good to know the Sicarii have lost this battle, but disappointing to see them still sharpening their daggers for more.
I find it interesting that Goldstone refused to meet with the community he apparently so cherishes prior to this.
The Sicarri were patriots. Back to school, kyleb.
I don’t understand what Goldstone expected: he authors a report libeling the Jewish state and effectively declaring that counterterrorism is illegitimate, and he’s shocked (“Just SHOCKED!”) that he’s not especially welcome in most synagogues. Cry me a river.
Anonymouse,
As a student of history, I know the Sicarii were murderous fiends whose suicidal delusions ran Israel into the ground. Granted, I know many Zionists have been indoctrinated into revering such madmen, and seem intent on repeating their history, hence the reason I make the comparison.
Eric,
You don’t understand Goldstone’s report, as it doesn’t suggest anything along the lines of what you’ve claimed it did. Furthermore, he wasn’t shocked by the response at all, but rather expected that masses of frothing Zionists would attempt to ostracize him for daring to speak the ugly truth.
Wait a minute, you’re making the comparison to avoid the fate of the second commonwealth? Why Kyleb, you Zionut you, who knew?!
>>“You don’t understand Goldstone’s report, as it doesn’t suggest anything along the lines of what you’ve claimed it did. Furthermore, he wasn’t shocked by the response at all, but rather expected that masses of frothing Zionists would attempt to ostracize him for daring to speak the ugly truth.”
—kyleb · April 25th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
But of course. What do Zionists do, after all, aside from froth en masse?
In any event, if Goldstone expected such froth from the outset he has even less reason to feign surprise or upset.
Anonymouse,
I don’t rightly consider myself a Zionist, but I don’t want to see any state run into the ground, and I don’t like watching history repeat itself.
Eric,
Zionists like Goldstone are honest and intelligent, but unfortunately Zionist of such character are in short supply, and Goldstone has plenty of reason to be upset by that. It’s no surprise to him though, and he has never feigned otherwise.
I realize some folk have a problem with the Goldstone Report because it says unfavorable things about the IDF. I don’t have that problem.
My problem with the Goldstone mission is that it is filled with disinformation and is biased in both its impanelment (such as the inclusion of Catherine Chinkin on the panel despite her prejudicial public statements) and its conclusions.
Also to be fair, many of Goldstone’s most vocal critics (UN Watch, for instance) opposed barring him from his grandson’s bar mitzvah.
Ian,
Would you please explain whatever you consider to be the most notable example of disinformation in the Goldstone report?
I think that the most obvious bit of disinformation would be the claim that Hamas did not use Gazan civilians as human shields despite evidence to the contrary.
But there’s much much more. Like the way it downplays Israeli efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza or to warn civilians ahead of time of IDF operations.
Essentially: the report ignores Hamas’ efforts to increase civilian casualties and Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
But of course, it is to be expected since Catherine Chinkin had already made public statements that she felt Israel did not have the right to self-defense even before she joined the Goldstone mission. She refused several times to recuse herself (as was her responsibility) and the UNHRC refused to remove her (as was its responsibility.)
Ian,
Would you please present the best evidence you’ve seen to support the claim that that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields during Cast Lead?
Would you please explain whatever you consider to be the most notable example of disinformation in the Goldstone report?
What difference does it make? The Goldstone Report has no legal weight.
If Goldstone had come to opposite conclusions, then the same people here who are singing the Report’s praises would surly be condemning Goldstone as something like “Bibi’s fearmonger.”
To prove the point, let’s see the reaction to this opinion piece, by the founder of Human Rights Watch: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html
(I can already see the reaction: Bernstein’s a hypocrite; he’s Bibi’s apologist, he’s sold his soul, etc. etc.)
Point is: people already made up their minds about what happened in Cast Lead, and then they simply use whatever documents that suit their argument to prove their point.
That’s fine, but it’s a little bit of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that we were waiting for the Goldstone Report to make up our minds about Cast Lead, or that Goldstone’s Report really proves anything.
Kyleb, are you one of those people who make a sport of challenging indisputable statements of fact to demonstrate your command of cultural relativism?
After all, Hamas is not ashamed of their use of the civilian population to achieve their objectives. To them, it is natural to use children as spotters. It is natural to gather women on rooftops to deter Israeli strikes on legitimate military targets. This is a source of pride for them, the unity and participation of the entire population in the war against the Jews. They do not make a distinction between their own civilians and combatants. Why do you?
Jonathan,
Why objective reality matters is something I couldn’t rightly expect to explain to you though this blog.
Anonymouse,
I suppose I’ll take your response to suggest you haven’t see any evidence to support the claim that that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields during Cast Lead either, and hence lack any rational basis for criticizing the Goldstone report on those grounds.
That was intended to be “through this blog” of course.
Why objective reality matters is something I couldn’t rightly expect to explain to you though this blog.
Because of course whatever kyleb thinks also happens to be “objective reality.”
Why do you say that Rabbi Goldstein does not deserve to be a community leader? He elevated Jewish values (allowing a Jew to pray in a synagogue and celebrate a simcha) over his own political objections. The quotation you offer from Judge Goldstone seems to suggest that R’ Goldstein’s message of tolerance was far from typical, and that Goldstein was behaving rather better than the South African Jewish community at large.
You may have understood some part of this article to mean that Goldstein himself “uninvited” Goldstone from the bar mitzvah. That is not the case: The SAZF, an obviously non-religious body, threatened to protest outside the synagogue. All Goldstein did was stand up for the rights of someone he doesn’t particularly like, which seems to me a very clear indicator of strong community leadership.
Kyleb, I posted just a small sampling of evidence in the links above. Is it possible you only see what you wish to see?
Jonathan,
While you are obviously hostile towards objective reality when it conflicts with your beliefs, you are only further deluding yourself by projecting such behavior on me. Objective reality exists independent of my thoughts or anyone else’s, and in objective reality; the charge of “disinformation” against the Goldstone report, absent any actual evidence to support it, is nothing more than baseless slander.
Anonymouse,
Please describe specifically whatever you believe best constitutes evidence to support the claim that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields during Cast Lead, either from your links above or otherwise. Absent that, I’m left to presume that you are seeing what you wish to rather than what actually is.
While you are obviously hostile towards objective reality when it conflicts with your beliefs, you are only further deluding yourself by projecting such behavior on me.
I don’t want to hurt your feelings, kyleb, but the Goldstone Report is not “objective reality.” It is Judge Goldstone’s good faith interpretation/application of various legal theories to what occurred in Gaza (according to his interpretation of the evidence.)
Because you agree with his conclusions, you say that this is “objective reality.” Had you disagreed with his conclusions, you simply would have slandered him. That’s your right, but you might as well be honest about things.
Again:
Objective reality exists independent of my thoughts or anyone else’s, and in objective reality; the charge of “disinformation” against the Goldstone report, absent any actual evidence to support it, is nothing more than baseless slander.
Deal with it.
Ok. I’ll deal with it. Charges of disinformation is not “objective reality”–that should be obvious to us all.
Judge Goldstone’s legal interpretations are not “objective reality” either.
“Objective reality” is something like: the sun rose this morning.
Kyleb, how more disingenuous can you get?! You accept the Goldstone report as “objective reality”, yet disregard the 10% of that report which deals with Hamas violations of the laws of war, including the use of human shields.
You’re playing with language while I’m linking to videos of Hamas gunmen proudly exploiting the civilian population to wage war. Hamas itself disagrees with you! You’re out there on your own, inventing reality. Good luck with that.
Objective reality is also like: charges lacking evidence to support them are nothing more than baseless slander.
@kyleb.
Ok. What is your take on this piece?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=1
Shabbat Shalom, btw.
Jonathan,
My take on Bernstein’s article is as it was last time we discussed it. Put simply; his arguments are utterly lacking in substance.
Shabbat Shalom
Let’s put it another way: Has there ever been a person whom with you disagreed but who also offered substantive arguments, based on “objective truth?”
I’m going to put it this way; either quote whatever you might believe to be the most substantive argument in Bernstein’s article, or please stop waving your hands and come to terms with the fact that it doesn’t contain anything of the sort.
kyleb,
You’re just impossible, dude.
I’m not just possible, I’m real, but persuading me to share your disregard for reality is impossible.