• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« El-Al Threatens to End South African Route | Main | A grouse in arms, UJ – the new battlefield for the Middle East conflict »

April 08, 2010


The pil

Welcome back IAS


Giblet, what do you think of Jews/Israelis that say well because Israel is ours we hold it to a higher standard. We dont want our state to behave like Russia or Colombia. We want it to be a light unto the nations?

The pil

Mike, the point is that only Israel is being demonized, when was the last time that Russia was condemened in the Human Rights Council? Will they be?


Grouse, you make many good points about bias and the failures of the UN HRC. Fair criticism, much of which I agree. Including:
Pointing out transgressions of other parties does not justify any of Israels violations of human rights.

BUT the claim of bias is so often is used as an excuse to dismiss a critical argument, without dealing with the actual argument. I found this particularly true of the Goldstone report. You dismissed the whole Goldstone report, taring it with one narrow criticism. You point was fine, but you cannot throw out the whole report because of one possible flaw. Richard Goldstone is no radical, he is not a nutcase. His report deserves a careful and thorough consideration. Here is Goldstone's response, in an interview:

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, it is outrageous, and there should have been an outrage. You know, the response has not been to deal with the substance of those allegations. I've really seen or read no detailed response in respect of the incidents on which we report.

BILL MOYERS: Why is that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't know. I suppose people hate being attacked. There's a knee-jerk reaction to attack the messenger rather than the message. And I think this is typical of that. And of course, a lot of the allegations, I certainly don't claim anything like infallibility. But I would like to see a response to the substance, particularly the attack on the infrastructure of Gaza, which seems to me to be absolutely unjustifiable.

PS Welcome back IAS.


It is great to see the blog active again.

Did anybody notice that the eTV clip on AWB history earlier this week showed an AWB march with AWB flags flying and an Israeli flag being flown in the foreground. There was some writing on the Israeli flag which was probably hate-filled and derogatory, but was illegible on the screen. The associations that will be drawn by the public today will be Zionism = racism and that the Israeli flag = the AWB flag.

Wonder if eTV thought of that before they chose those particular few seconds of footage to air.

Am I being overly sensitive here? Sadly I don't think so.


Welcome back, IAS.Benjamin: The Goldstone report has been carefully and thoroughly examined , but in the face of several weighty forensic and jurisprudential papers which demonstrate the fatally flawed methodology of the report, and the ensuing fatally flawed conclusions, the Commissioners keep repeating the canard that no such refutations of the substance exist.

I surveyed a few of these, and as I said in my blogposts on the two talks Commissioner Col Travers gave here in the UK:

"Knowing Richard Goldstone a little, back in the Old Country, I expected the Report to be a document which would make uncomfortable reading, but would be informed by sound legal discipline. I did not expect anything so shoddy and inadequate, such a let down to the legal tradition which we had in common."

My posts also highlight the disgraceful anti semitic rhetoric Col Travers has employed. Since my first post went up, the youtube footage where we challenged his statement and he refuses to answer, has been removed, after a complaint to the originator of the youtube clip based on breach of privacy regarding the part where Travers speaks. Since he is a very public figure speaking at a very public venue, we can only speculate as to who found this footage embarrassing.


Now that you are back, you may be interested in the aftermath of Masuku's unpleasant tour of the UK.

A notorious anti Zionist Tony Greenstein dismisses the SAHRC ruling thus:
"some jumped up South African quango decided that his anti-Zionism was a form of ‘hate speech’" which is rather disrespectful of a body created by the SA constitution.

Can anyone tell me what became of Masuku's appeal against the ruling?


The Travers video pulled from youtube can now be viewed here:


Anthony, I'd imagine the Israeli flag would be linked with their incorrect belief that if the Jews can have their own tiny state then why cant "we have our own Volkstad".

So to them it could be symbolic of their so-called struggle for a Volkstad. It says nothing of their support for Israel - and there were many swastika flags on show. Its just a juvenile belief that if they can have theirs, why cant we have ours. They could use any other state that has rules in a smaller subset of a larger area where the people of the state are emphatically outnumbered. Israel resonates with them purely because of the Bible.

I don't believe they deserve any attention at all. The two things that need to be spoken about non-stop are farm murders in general, and the ANC's anti-democratic stance on freedom songs, the press and Zimbabwe.

The response to Malema's support for Mugabe and his outrageous treatment of the BBC journalist has been muted. They have provided low-level statements that they regret what happened, that they support free speech and a free press (yeah right) just because they have to. They tolerate the wild Malema behaviour because they agree and support it. They use him to say the things that for political reasons they can't say.

I have never felt this level of disgust for the ANC even during the heights of the Mbeki idiocy with AIDS and crime denialism.


This is wrong place to argue about the validity of the report. What I am arguing is, to restate: using a single point, or linking to some vague video (which I watched) is hardly a substantive argument.

Your characterization presents a clear one sided view, just as an illustration see Reactions to the Goldstone report

the Hebrew prophet

The ANC hierarchy permits the clown Malema to say what he and they actually believe ,so after Zuma,s two terms in office ,another clown called Fikile Mbalula will serve his two terms in office then the clown of clowns Malema will be in power for as long as he lives ,Mugabe style ,that,s why all this clowning about ,so let,s see how many actual supporters/tourists turn up to watch their teams in action ,and then the excuses will fly left ,right and centre ,it,s only a matter of time ?

the Hebrew prophet

After the subway bombings by Muslim thugs in Moscow ,we,ll soon find out how the Russians treat UN sanctions or resolutions when it comes down to acting in their own interests ,should be an eye opener to leftist liberals who can,t see the forest because of the trees?

the Hebrew prophet

What do the self hating leftist Jews say about the Muslim butcher of Sudan and his Muslim Janjaweed militia in southern Sudan(Darfur )and his date with destiny at the Hague on crimes against humanity,seeing that the Christian/Serb/Bosnian /Croat murderer Radovan Karadzic is getting his time to reflect on past human rights abuses in the Balkans ,why the hypocrisy ?

Giblet Grouse

Mike, Israel should be aspiring to achieve higher standards, but it should not be held accountable to different standards by the international community.

I think that Jews living in the diaspora face many unique challenges. That does not mean that we should not criticize Israel, in an effort to achieve standards we would like Israel to adhere to. However we should not breed a culture of criticism, where the faults of Israel become the only focus as is so prevalent today.

Benjamin, I did not dismiss the Goldstone report,in its entirety nor do I call him a 'nutcase' or 'radical'. I will not write on the flaws of the Goldstone report in this reply as I believe that they have been extensively dealt with. Accusations of double standards can be harmful when used to prevent introspection. Israel must scrutinize each and every report and correct its errors, not for the HRC (who have completely failed Israel - expanded upon bellow) but for itself. That being said, Goldstone and the HRC owe Israel a duty of impartiality which based on the evidence they have not fulfilled. That in many ways detract from (if not invalidates) the recommendations. That does not invalidate everything the report says and Israel has launched investigations into all the incidents alleged by the report and human rights organization.

I would like to make it clear that I unequivocally condemn the attacks on Goldstone. I do however wholeheartedly support the attacks on his report.

Giblet Grouse

I would also just like to state that I disagree with Goldstone - many have attacked the substance of the report.

As an example, please see the following URL:


There is also this extensive website documenting the mendacity of the report, its numerous exposed canards against Israel and its whitewashing of the crimes of Hamas. Alan Dershowitz's piece on the Goldstone Report, 'A study in Evidentiary Bias' is also worth reading. Giblet Grouse is too soft on Goldstone remarking, "I would also just like to state that I disagree with Goldstone - many have attacked the substance of the report." Yes but this exposes Goldstone as a brazen liar. In fact this brazen lie of Goldstone is featured at the frontpage of the website I link to. It makes him a liar since he was well aware of the CAMERA letter.

After all Goldstone claimed to the NY Times that he had not personally received any substantial criticisms of his report, remarking "there still haven't been responses to the really serious allegations that are made.... I would be happy to respond to them if and when I know what they are". He said this AFTER he got the letter from the senior figure at CAMERA in the US exposing his report for its double standards and its slanders, distortions and falsehoods against Israel. Goldstone acknowledged reception of the CAMERA letter writing "I confirm receipt of your letter. I have no intention of responding to your open letter". He then had the chutzpah to brazenly lie to the NY Times and say that he had not received any substantial factual criticisms of his report. He's a liar plain and simple.

Another point - Holding Jews to high standards is one thing, holding Israel to the impossible to meet standards of demi-gods with demi-god like powers and abilities whilst not holding jihadists to any standards at all is not merely blatant double standards, it is quite simply anti-Semitism of the worst kind.

Also let us not overlook the other obvious fact - the report was issued, orchestrated and organised by the UN HRC, a viciously anti-Semitic organisation which has condemned Israel not only more than any other country in the world in its odious short history, but more than all the countries in the world put together! To take seriously a report issued by such a bunch of Jew-hating gangsters is itself simply anti-Semitic. It's like taking seriously a history of the United States issued by the Klu Klux Klan or a report on race relations in South Africa issued by the AWB and a report on race relations in the UK issued by the BNP. This is not an exaggeration. To take seriously the Orwellian named UN Commission that has condemned the Jew nation more than all the other near two hundred nations of the world, including dozens of the most despotic and barbaric, PUT TOGETHER, COMBINED - yes really - is to have no moral compass and to be morally perverse, bigoted or pig ignorant, or all three.

The fact that Goldstone had no problem taking on the commission of a kangaroo UN Commission that serves as the vehicle, the front for despots and thugs united in venemous Jew-hatred, and it has done so from its inception, tells us everything about Goldstone we need to know. He is at best an ignorant dupe and a useful idiot of the Jihad or it is worse than that...


Talking about Goldstone, I was pleasantly surprised to read in the JPost today
"Goldstone barred from family bar mitzva"

No doubt this is the talk this week in South Africa among Jewry at least, from the article:

Rosh Beth Din Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag commented that the Beth Din had not been officially consulted, though there had been “private talks," and had not been asked by the synagogue to give a ruling on the matter. “But I know that there was a very strong feeling in the shul, a lot of anger (around the issue of Justice Goldstone attending)," the Jewish Report quoted Kurtstag as saying.

Bravo to Kurtstag and to the synagogue and their congregants for doing the right thing, the truly moral course of action. I just wish cherem was applied to more SA "Jews", Goldstone is no worse than many others, he is just world famous, that is the difference and the others are not in a position to do as much damage as he did, is all.

L. King

Welcome back IAS. You were missed. It's good to have a perspective on the S.A. situation. ;-)

L. King, Toronto

bridal gown

This was the first one I tried on and tried about 6 more after that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.