Guardian

HRW’s Ken Roth responds to Goldstone’s retraction; Assures Guardian readers its still safe to demonize Israel: Let the hate begin


Human Rights Watch director Ken Roth, perhaps sensing that the cash cow of anti-Israel hatred may dry up as the result of Richard Goldstone’s recent retraction of allegations that Israel targeted civilians during the Gaza War, penned a feverish reply at CiF (Gaza: the stain remains on Israel’s war record, April 5.) to help sustain his group’s narrative of Israeli villainy.

Guardian readers, clearly relieved that their nearly week-long nightmare of doubt over Israeli sin following Goldstone’s mea culpa is over, took to the streets below the line en mass to express their emotion.

Let the hate begin:

Hamas is actually more moral than Israel. Their rocket attacks represents legitimate resistance.

Israel is a criminal and insane nation which kills and enslaves innocent Palestinians, and who bases their national legitimacy on an “ancient fairy tale”.

Israel guilty of murdering Palestinian children

Characterizing Hamas as anti-Semitic represents Israeli paranoia.  (Bonus: Comical semantic argument that Israeli Jews are the real anti-Semites)

Reader hopes Hamas won’t be negatively influenced by Zionist villainy and stoop to Israeli level of cruelty

Israel is marching towards Armaggedon

Israel is “slowly starving” Palestinians, and is guilty of the worst crimes against humanity in the world

Israelis are immutably and irredeemably racist

Hamas is not a terrorist group, just a “rag-tag” bunch of poorly equipped hooligans

Israel should apologize to their Arab neighbors for their murderous behavior over the last 50 years

Israel shoots anything that moves, including donkeys and “ancient grandmothers”

It seems that Goldstone’s retraction represented merely his collapse under “Zionist pressure”

11 replies »

  1. The peculiar Ken Roth scrapes the barrell, and the screeching sound thereof beckons the bigots of the web to circulate and vent their spleen.

    Ghastly, the lot of them.

  2. sick sick people, they sound like escapees from Broadmoor. Completly out of touch with reality.

  3. The moderation on this thread has been deplorable and has elicited complaints from people on both sides of the argument. I posted several comments referring to an article the Guardian published several days ago about MoD compensation for civilian casualties in Afghanistan and said that the debate about the “morality” regarding such casualties should be universal. All of these comments were removed. The only conclusion is that civilian casualties only interest the Guardian when they take place in Gaza; any Afghanis killed in the struggle to prevent Taliban rocket attacks on the south of England do not interest them.

  4. “Guardian readers, clearly relieved that their nearly week-long nightmare of doubt over Israeli sin is over”

    lol! Ahh… They’re a good group. Sigh.

  5. MindOfCrap,

    Sadly for you CiFWatch does not have the same low standards as Der Guardians CensorshipIsFree.

    It’s OK to be anti-islamofascist here.l

    Expressing anti-islamofascist comments gets your comment deleted and if one is a “repeat offender” ones acct is deleted.

    Stalin would approve of Der Guardian.

  6. DonkeyLogic’s post is indeed ridiculous ,- but where do they suggest/imply that “Israelis are immutably and irredeemably racist”?

  7. In reading through their ghastly drivel I began to wonder if any of them have been educated beyond primary school level.

    There’s a little script somewhere which these learning-deprived creatures do their very poor best with. Facts never come into their “creations”. Thought never does.

    Do The Guardian‘s advertisers ever look at the content of CiF and the comment? And if they do do they expect these brain donors to buy their products?

  8. Or possibly a better simile: they are like a row of cows but their moo sounds more like joo. (‘I don’t like “jooooos”.’)

    But cows like music so even bovine powers of discrimination are of a higher level than theirs.

  9. HRW endorsed the goldstone report before it was even released. Why shouldn’t it? 1/3 of the sources used were HRW.

    IF the goldstone report is bogus, then HRW is bogus. And AI, and all the other Palestinian “rights” groups that added their 2 cents.

    Roth knows the truth, he won’t admit it.