• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Taste of Limmud Returns | Main | Former anti-Apartheid Activist Explores the Israeli Narrative »

May 06, 2010


Ezer Weizman



I found it to be a lazy reply to such a contentious issue. I got the impression he spewed a few half-hearted words on a page and he expected everyone to find it sincere. A case of ‘you can fool some of the people some of the time’

I thought Avrom's was a good piece, but that he got a little side-tracked as he got more and more emotional writing it. I feel he went a little off the mark toward the end, with multiple references to other countries like Sri Lank. That being said, it was a very good piece that summed up the seriousness of the report and the devastating effect it had on Israel. Israel has often been criticised, incorrectly, for using disproportionate military force against its enemies. I would say Goldstone used disproportionate standards on Israel when concluding his ‘findings’.


Great analysis. I agree. Krengel over-played the valid point that other countries aren't held to the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps he repeated this because Goldstone made specific reference to his goal of all countries being treated as equals.


Some thoughts:
Most of AK's points, are besides the point. First three paragraphs are redundant (especially considering the audience). His criticism of the HRC is not part of this debate, RG himself agrees with the criticism. Other countries have done and are doing terrible things, they should be investigated and held responsible but that is another debate, this is about a specific report, authored by a specific individual about a specific war.

Eventually AK actually gets to some specifics, accusations of bias and contextual criticisms, and concludes that the report is: 'tainted to the core' and rejects it. Asking that: "Israel is not treated in a manner different to any other nation"

There are a couple of problems with this way of arguing.
1. It is ironic that he is doing exactly what he accuses Goldstone of doing, ignoring facts and criticisms. Read the findings of the report AK doesn't address a single one. He simply rejects them all. They are easily found and AK could have easily incorporated them into his opening remarks.

2. "Israel is not treated in a manner different to any other nation" is AK implying that the UN should treat Israel as it does Russia? ie ignore human rights atrocities? seems to be the implication. AK has it precisely backwards, the UN should treat the rest of the world the way it treats Israel.

I agree with you about RG opening statement, it was also redundant, a summary of what everyone already knows. I thought he should have got straight to the point and argue the critiques.

BUT, these are opening statements only? It is difficult to gauge much on that. Is the rest going to be released?


Hi Benjamin,
Fair enough, both statements suffered from similar faults.

Your point about treating other nations like Israel is valid. But if you accept that their discussion was not limited to the report but also to Goldstone's decision to accept the mandate then it is acceptable to argue about the wisdom of his participation given the record of the UNHRC. The problem I agree is that it does not address Israel's actual conduct.

To your first point, I think it is I and not AK who accused Goldstone of failing to address the substance of criticisms. I accept your point.

They say that the opening statements reflected the nature of the discussions and they wont be releasing anything further.


Hey Steve,
You are correct about the scope of the debate. Looking at RG statement, he mostly talks about why and how he was involved. AK statement makes more sense to me now. I wish they would have talked about the report, personal bias.

Pity about the opening statements, they don't seem to have added, nor resolved anything.


Great analysis Ben

I couldn't agree more that Russia's treatment is irrelevent to Israels treament by UNHRC.
Avron did a nice job but could have mbeen more substantial. That said, this was only an opening remark - who knows what was said afterwards.

I wisj to bring up the issue of the report in Yediot Achronot (also in English) about Dick sentencing 28 blacks to death. I think its clear from what I've written before that I have know love for the disgrace to his people, but that said in the name f truth I feel that this was unfair and again irrelevent. I don't see why supporting the death penalty and human writes are mutually exclusive. Especially considering the report itself states that those he sentenced to hang had committed murder, not political crimes.
Now for my hypocrisy: Even though it may be an unfair discrediting of him, I'm all for it. This man lied and dragged Israel name unfairly through the mud using the press's fickleness and drive to find a good story. I see this as a valid means of self defence.If he can be discredited in the eyes of the world (particularly the left who abhores the death penalty) then maybe some of the damage can be undone. That said the anti Israel crowd can make Nadia Comaneci proud with there intellectual gymnastics when it comes to contradictions in their logic


lets look at the facts


I agree with you about RG opening statement, it was also redundant, a summary of what everyone already knows. I thought he should have got straight to the point and argue the critiques.


Its a great news. I hope they came out with some solution. Thanks for sharing such an useful info.


Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold held a debate with Judge Richard Goldstone at Brandeis University.
For some clips of his presentation, see:

Read the expanded text of his presentation, a substantive critique of the U.N. Gaza Report:

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.