Introduction by Chris Moore:
As the following article documents, the celebrated, left-liberal, supposed “anti-Apartheid” Jewish S. African Judge Goldstone, toast of the progressive-poseur, limousine liberal establishment the world over, turns out to be a raging, pro-apartheid Zionist when it comes to Israel.
Why am I not in the least surprised? Just like it's trumped up Diaspora Jewish "noble minority," the liberal establishment itself is corrupt and rotten to the core, fast with platitudes and self-righteous lectures, but really more interested in feathering its own greedy nest at the expense of Western civilization and indulging its nihilistic streak than anything else.
As far as Goldstone goes, I think hypocrisy and double standards are ingrained culturally in Judaism; good for me but not for thee. Goldstone is just another in a long line of "liberal"-posing, self-serving Jewish hypocrites and careerists.
Of course, this doens't mean every supposedly liberal Jew is a crypto-racist and hypocrite, but that can be determined vis-a-vis their position on Zionism, or Diaspora virtual Zionism.
If they don't want the same standards and scrutiny applied to the Tribe as is applied to everyone else, or if they adopt the position that Jewry is exempt from this or that area of scrutiny because of its supposed exceptional history of suffering, well, that's all just highly sophisticated cover for Jewish supremacism, and part of their elaborate racket.
I think a fair amount of Jews reflexively adopt this position out of cultural conditioning and brainwashing (just as do so many of Jewry's Gentile useful idiots), but that's no excuse once one becomes aware of the racket.
Maybe that's why Zionists culturally go to such cult-like lengths to isolate and insulate their members from "the nations."
But the Internet is changing everything. No more self-deception or false consciousness allowed.
This drives them nuts, or should I say, nuttier than they already are.
Goldstone contra Goldstone
(New Left Project) -- by Jamie Stern-Weiner --
The degeneration of Judge Richard Goldstone continues. In April, you'll recall, he penned an op-ed for the Washington Post that said essentially nothing, but gave the strong impression of retracting the central conclusions of the Goldstone Report on the 2008-9 Gaza massacre. The key point, documented in Norman Finkelstein's comprehensive dissection of the recantation, is that, whatever the reasons for Goldstone's reversal, it wasn't based on new evidence.
After months of silence, Goldstone has now resurfaced with more of the same. He has written an op-ed for the New York Times - the paper that turned down his April recantation, forcing him to offer a more sensationalised version to the Post - devoted to refuting those who analogise Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South African apartheid. It has predictably induced much gloating among those who not long ago were smearing him as an antisemite and a traitor. The thrust of the op-ed argues against the use of the apartheid analogy to describe Israel's treatment of Palestinians, either within Israel itself or within the West Bank. Goldstone slams the analogy as a "malicious" "slander". If this is what Goldstone truly believes – something about which there is much cause for doubt – one wonders why he has taken so long to raise his voice. After all, the apartheid analogy is hardly a recent one, nor is it especially controversial. A partial list of Goldstone's malicious slanderers includes such authorities as the Association for Civil Rights Israel; South African Nobel Leaureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu; former US President Jimmy Carter; former Israeli government ministers Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni; and the "father" of South African human rights law John Dugard...
Goldstone devotes two paragraphs of the op-ed to attacking the argument that Israel is practicing apartheid within the Green Line, as distinct from its occupation of Palestinian territories. But this is a straw man. Proponents of the apartheid analogy typically either restrict its application to the occupied territories, or they apply it to the system of control encompassing the entire territory between the river and the sea, on the grounds that Israel possesses de facto control over both its own and occupied Palestinian territory (that is, they reject the distinction between Israeli rule within the Green Line and Israeli rule in the oPt that Goldstone proposes as his starting point).
Goldstone then attempts to prove Israel's innocence of apartheid in the West Bank by – there is no other way to put it – systematically lying about its conduct there. It is child's play to show that virtually every substantive statement he makes is not only false, but was pre-emptively refuted by Goldstone Report itself...MORE...LINK
Post a Comment