Criticism of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity is not Anti-Semitism

[earth_as_one]

This string concerns a common tactic by Israeli apologists to label legitimate criticism of Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and their discriminatory religious based policies, as being anti-Semitic.

Reference:

What an excellent article. This enlightening article, exposes the traits and reasons for much of the moral bankruptcy I see in the left, when it comes to America and Israel. Not only that, but I can actually pin point and name several members who fit the descriptions to a "T". As well as seeing the very cliche's they use to justify their belief systems.

American Thinker: Why Does the Left Hate Israel?

I can't wait to see how the Joo hatin' batflaps take to this...LOL

This is not a string about Israel's war crimes and crimes against humanity. This website already has an ongoing debate on this issue:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...esty-international-report-operation-cast.html

This article is a discussion primer:

Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism

By MICHAEL NEUMANN

Jewish and non-Jewish commentators alike have deplored a recent upsurge in anti-Semitism. In Europe, journalist Andrew Sullivan says, "Not since the 1930s has such blithe hatred of Jews gained this much respectability in world opinion."

Yet, Jews like myself and the Israeli journalist Ran HaCohen feel quite differently. He writes in Antiwar.com: "It is high time to say it out loud: In the entire course of Jewish history, since the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC, there has never been an era blessed with less anti-Semitism than ours. There has never been a better time for Jews to live in than our own."...

Michael Neumann: Criticism of Israel is Not Anti-Semitism

The issue is whether Zionists and Israeli apologists have broadened the definition of anti-Semitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel or whether Israel's critics are deflating the definition to apologize for covert prejudice against Jews.

While anti-Semitism exists, I also agree with the author (who is Jewish) in the above referenced article, that "There has never been a better time for Jews to live in than our own."... at least in North America and Europe. I wouldn't say the same thing about Jews living anywhere in the middle east including Israel. Nearly all western nations have anti-hate laws and if any Jews are discriminated against, they enjoy the full protection of the law. While Israeli Jews enjoy special rights and freedoms not enjoyed by non-Jews, they also live on the front line of an active war zone and face about a billion hostile neighbors. I would describe their long term situation as dire.

So is criticism of Israel's human rights record anti-Semitic?

Also,

Do Israel's supporters use anti-Semitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel's atrocious human rights record?

Israel's atrocious human rights record:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=129

 

[darkbeaver]

Anti Semitism. Ain't that when you bomb and strafe Palestinian semitic civilians, and you completely ruin Iraq. Israel is not a semitic nation, and it never was, not even for one second was it ever that.

("There has never been a better time for Jews to live in than our own.") That is amply falsified by concrete history. Periods of gold and honey are many and diverse, always following the same game plan.

 

[Just the Facts]

Sorry, but the way you've worded your poll give me no choice but to vote YES!!!

Legitimate criticism of Israel is of course fine. Bending over backwards to make up stories to purposefully vilify Israel ( for example, quoting the Goldstone report and pretending it's an objective scholarly work, while knowing full well that even Goldstone said it isn't so ) is not necessarily anti-semetic, but probably is.

 

[TenPenny]

I don't know why you guys haven't clued in: you are not permitted to criticize Israel.

 

[earth_as_one]

Sorry, but the way you've worded your poll give me no choice but to vote YES!!!

Legitimate criticism of Israel is of course fine. Bending over backwards to make up stories to purposefully vilify Israel ( for example, quoting the Goldstone report and pretending it's an objective scholarly work, while knowing full well that even Goldstone said it isn't so ) is not necessarily anti-semetic, but probably is.

Do you believe Justice Goldstone is anti-Semitic?

Do you believe that Justice Goldstone made up stories about Israel to purposely vilify Israel?

Do you think referencing the Goldstone report in support of their criticism of Israel probably makes someone anti-Semitic?

 

[Colpy]

well, let's see....

If you hold the Jewish state to a much higher standard than any other state on earth.......

if you approve of the Durban Conference....

if you continue to accuse Israel of murdering police cadets after HAMAS admits they were militants....

if you continue to accuse Israel of target civilians with WP and artillery after HAMAS admits it uses civilians as human shields....

if you make the ridiculous charge of genocide against the Israelis....

if you describe the Palestinians as "starving" and blame the Israelis....in the face of all evidence to the contrary....

if you still call the blockade a "war crime" despite the passage of all food and medical supplies.....

if you accuse the Israelis of murder on the Turkish boat, despite film and eyewitness evidence to the contrary....

AND, most of all, if you are COMPLETELY obsessed with every minor little detail of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle in your search for more facetious crap to throw on only the Israelis....

Then YES, you are a "joo-hater'

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and has feathers....

It is probably a duck.

Do you believe Justice Goldstone is anti-Semitic?

Do you believe that Justice Goldstone made up stories about Israel to purposely vilify Israel?

Do you think referencing the Goldstone report in support of their criticism of Israel probably makes someone anti-Semitic?

I believe Justice Goldstone is that worst of all idiots, a biased, self-hating Jew.

In other words, I think Justice Goldstone is an idiot, well-chosen by the UN , which is so anti-Jew it makes the old US KKK look like the Rainbow Coalition

 

[lone wolf]

Narcissists, the Force ... and whose minds they have clouded. Izzy good. World bad

 

[Cliffy]

I believe Justice Goldstone is that worst of all idiots, a biased, self-hating Jew.

In other words, I think Justice Goldstone is an idiot, well-chosen by the UN , which is so anti-Jew it makes the old US KKK look like the Rainbow Coalition

Kinda like your hatred of anybody who criticizes Israeli policy toward Palestinians or American Foreign Policy.

 

[darkbeaver]

well, let's see....

If you hold the Jewish state to a much higher standard than any other state on earth.......

if you approve of the Durban Conference....

if you continue to accuse Israel of murdering police cadets after HAMAS admits they were militants....

if you continue to accuse Israel of target civilians with WP and artillery after HAMAS admits it uses civilians as human shields....

if you make the ridiculous charge of genocide against the Israelis....

if you describe the Palestinians as "starving" and blame the Israelis....in the face of all evidence to the contrary....

if you still call the blockade a "war crime" despite the passage of all food and medical supplies.....

if you accuse the Israelis of murder on the Turkish boat, despite film and eyewitness evidence to the contrary....

AND, most of all, if you are COMPLETELY obsessed with every minor little detail of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle in your search for more facetious crap to throw on only the Israelis....

Then YES, you are a "joo-hater'

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and has feathers....

It is probably a duck.



I believe Justice Goldstone is that worst of all idiots, a biased, self-hating Jew.

In other words, I think Justice Goldstone is an idiot, well-chosen by the UN , which is so anti-Jew it makes the old US KKK look like the Rainbow Coalition

I agree with you Colpy. To this extent. Exclusive criticism of Israel alone is less effective than including those other degenerates who support the genocide and extermination of 2nd class semites known as Palestinians and Iraqis.

 

[Just the Facts]

Do you believe Justice Goldstone is anti-Semitic?

Do you believe that Justice Goldstone made up stories about Israel to purposely vilify Israel?

Do you think referencing the Goldstone report in support of their criticism of Israel probably makes someone anti-Semitic?

The Goldstone report is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal reports by residents of Gaza. Period. You know that, because I've told you that in the past, and I know that, because Goldstone said so. Since YOU know that, then referencing the Goldstone report to support criticism of Israel and pretending that you are using an unbiased scientific source would lead me to suspect strongly that YOU are anti-semetic, yes.

 

[darkbeaver]

Israel is the very embodiment of antisemetism. The second highest cause of death, trailing old age among semites, is Israelis.

 

[earth_as_one]

For the record, I voted maybe as I believe that some criticism of Israel is based on anti-Semitism.

I don't believe Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are anti-Semitic (prejudiced against Jews) or anti-Israeli (prejudiced against Israeli citizens). These organizations criticize human rights violations everywhere and hold everyone to the same standards.

Also, I don't agree that groups of people can be held responsible for the actions of individuals. People are responsible for their own action or inaction. People commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, not religious groups or citizens of a specific nationality. People choose to ignore or remain silent regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Goldstone report is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal reports by residents of Gaza. Period. You know that, because I've told you that in the past, and I know that, because Goldstone said so. Since YOU know that, then referencing the Goldstone report to support criticism of Israel and pretending that you are using an unbiased scientific source would lead me to suspect strongly that YOU are anti-semetic, yes.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that quoting from the Goldstone report to support criticism of Israel is an act of anti-Semitism.

If that's your point then I disagree. When "anecdotal reports" (your words) are backed up multiple independent testimonies (two or more people say the same thing without knowing what the others said), including objective third parties like the Red Cross and supported by hard evidence (photographic, forensic...) then personal testimony acquires a level of certainty which varies from probable to beyond a reasonable doubt. The conclusions of the Goldstone Report are based on events known with "beyond reasonable doubt" certainty. You'd know that if you actually read the report.
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict

15 September 2009
NEW YORK / GENEVA – The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel....

DisplayNews

People who claim to be victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity have just as much right to be heard as those who dismiss their claims especially when their claims are supported by corroborative testimony and hard evidence. Our news tends to ignore the conclusions of the Goldstone report and tends to only report dismissive statements by Israel and their supporters. I think the Goldstone report findings and recommendations should be taken seriously.

I disagree that referencing the Goldstone Report alone proves someone is anti-Semitic.

 

[Just the Facts]

I disagree that referencing the Goldstone Report alone proves someone is anti-Semitic.

So do I. Is there actually someone we're disagreeing with?

The conclusions of the Goldstone Report are based on events known with "beyond reasonable doubt" certainty. You'd know that if you actually read the report.
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict

I think you'd better get a hold Goldstone then, and tell him he's misunderstanding his own report. You can explain to him how you and AI understand his report better than he does.




Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’

Goldstone defended the report’s reliance on eyewitness accounts

For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/#ixzz19QxtfKMn



If this were news to you, then I would simply engage in a discussion assuming you didn't know any better. Since we've been through all this already, and you still choose to ignore the facts, I can only strongly suspect that you are anti-semetic, or at very least have an agenda other than seeking truth.

 

[darkbeaver]

Goldstone is saying that a court of law is only a substitute for justice.

 

[MHz]

well, let's see....

I believe Justice Goldstone is that worst of all idiots, a biased, self-hating Jew.

In other words, I think Justice Goldstone is an idiot, well-chosen by the UN , which is so anti-Jew it makes the old US KKK look like the Rainbow Coalition

What about this Jew? The link is to an article (and transcript and a few Q&A's) that expounds on the video link.

Israel | A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman speaks

LiveLeak.com - Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel

 

[Just the Facts]

lol that's a great parady. Here's another one that's a little more on topic.

YouTube - Interview with "Richard Goldstone"

 

[earth_as_one]

So do I. Is there actually someone we're disagreeing with?

I think you'd better get a hold Goldstone then, and tell him he's misunderstanding his own report. You can explain to him how you and AI understand his report better than he does.

Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’

Goldstone defended the report’s reliance on eyewitness accounts

For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/#ixzz19QxtfKMn



If this were news to you, then I would simply engage in a discussion assuming you didn't know any better. Since we've been through all this already, and you still choose to ignore the facts, I can only strongly suspect that you are anti-semetic, or at very least have an agenda other than seeking truth.

Although you might have referenced this article in another debate somewhere on this website, I never saw it until just now. Sometimes I am here on a regular basis and at other times I don't visit this website for weeks. So I don't see every post directed at me. I certainly don't recall seeing this article previously and I'll deal with that issue and your allegations regarding me specifically next. But first lets examine your article.

An out of context quote in a pro-Israeli opinion piece is not even hearsay, let alone a fact. In the context of a pro-Israeli opinion piece Goldstone's comment is relatively meaningless. When exactly did Goldstone make this comment and in what context. I noticed the article provides neither references and for all I know, could be entirely invented. If you could find the original source of that quote in context, then Goldstone's quote might mean something.

I doubt Goldstone would claim his fact finding mission didn't find any facts. Its possible that in context, Goldstone was saying that his report wasn't meant to be a formal legal document that could be used to indict or convict anyone. It was a fact finding mission, nothing more. His conclusions were based on the facts, as supported by evidence. His report is not sufficient to convict anyone of a war crime, but its findings are sufficient to conclude war crimes were committed, warrant further investigation and he called on the governments on both sides to launch official investigations and judicial proceedings, where specific individuals could be held accountable for specific events (war crimes) as detailed in his report.

Convicting someone of a war crime would require accusing someone of something specific in a court of law. Also, to be fair and just, the accused must be allowed to face their accusers and defend themselves. Goldstone's report doesn't accuse anyone specifically of war crimes and since Israel refused to participate in the fact finding mission or defend specific allegations, the report cannot be considered complete or prove that a specific person is guilty of a war crime. The report only concludes that specific war crimes were committed during specific events. In other words enough information to justify investigations into the specific events in order to determine responsibility and make formal allegations against specific people in a court of law.

Back on topic.

JTF: If this were news to you, then I would simply engage in a discussion assuming you didn't know any better. Since we've been through all this already, and you still choose to ignore the facts, I can only strongly suspect that you are anti-semetic, or at very least have an agenda other than seeking truth.

To draw the conclusion that I must be anti-Semitic because I didn't reply to something I never saw is ridiculous. This is exactly the type of tactic employed by Israeli apologists to discredit legitimate criticism of Israel. Its based on the premise that if you throw enough crap at someone, some of its bound to stick, even if it is completely unfounded, invented or imagined.

 

[Goober]

Kinda like your hatred of anybody who criticizes Israeli policy toward Palestinians or American Foreign Policy.

Kinda like the people who hate what ever the US does.

Like the person who started this thread - An apologist for Hamas and Hezbollah -

 

[ironsides]

First lets get the defination of Anti-Semitism right:


Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. Nothing to do with any other religious or racial group.

 

[earth_as_one]

Kinda like the people who hate what ever the US does.

Like the person who started this thread - An apologist for Hamas and Hezbollah -

EAO: ...if you throw enough crap at someone, some of its bound to stick, even if it is completely unfounded, invented or imagined.

I guess I should have included unsupported allegations and name calling.

First lets get the defination of Anti-Semitism right:


Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. Nothing to do with any other religious or racial group.

I would agree with that definition.

Based on your definition, please explain how criticizing a country's war crimes and crimes against humanity is anti-Semitic.

Also do you agree with JTF that not posting a rebuttal to an article proves they are ignoring it and therefore leads to a conclusion that someone is anti-Semtic? Could not posting a rebuttal to someone's post also mean they never saw that person's post?