Guardian

Authors of Goldstone Report publish apologia in Guardian, complain they’re victims of “attacks” and “extraordinary pressure”


The Guardian published a defense of the Goldstone Report today by the three dissenting members, in response to Richard Goldstone’s recent retraction of the most serious allegations, which illustrates just how desperate those who insist upon the report’s veracity have become.

Specifically, the apologia – authored by Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers – laughably tried to characterize themselves as victims, alluding darkly to “the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact-finding mission.”

While I’ll leave to your imagination the question of who precisely they are asserting applied such “extraordinary pressure”, the mind boggles at the audacity of those responsible for such a malicious defamation of Israel – one which did incalculable harm to the Jewish state’s moral standing – to engage in efforts to portray themselves as the saga’s true victims.

One of the more remarkable dynamics in the continuing delegitimization campaign against the Jewish state is how those who routinely engage in the most hideous slanders against Israel reveal themselves to be remarkably thin-skinned – lacking the capacity to withstand anything approaching the same level of critical scrutiny and self-reflection that they’re continually demanding of Israel.

Israel’s critics (whether in the media, international bodies such as the UNHRC, or NGOs) – those who attack the state with something approaching a religious intensity – show an almost comical propensity to charge others with “silencing” them, or even of engaging in “McCarthy-like” attacks, when their arguments are placed under the microscope and refuted.

Like defamations against Jews throughout history has demonstrated, ideas – even the most morally and intellectually bankrupt ones – have a very long life, and have a remarkable capacity to remain embedded in the public imagination long after such views are discredited.

The only thing available to Israelis (and those brave few who are willing to unapologetically defend her), in response to those who continue to hold the Jewish state to standards that no other people in the world are held to, is to rhetorically counter-attack, to name and shame those who peddle in such vilification.

The moral prerogative to utilize these rhetorical weapons represents a right we have no intention of ever forfeiting.

(Also, see NGO Monitor’s response to the Guardian piece, here.)

13 replies »

  1. Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers – rubbish people inhabiting a morally-corrupt universe of their own making.

    Schmarotzer.

  2. “http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/goldstone-report-statement-un-gaza?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

    pretzelberg

    14 April 2011 5:13PM

    “Well, that sounds rather heartless and arrogant. Arabs all just the same to you, are they?”

    What do you know about all that, huh? Shut da hell up, you knucklehead.

    You have nothing … not a thing … zilch… nada… shum davar… gurnisht… niente that would even remotely interest me.

    Go talk to berchy. He is more up your alley.

    I detest you. That’s all

  3. Goldstone himself derailed the whole thing in time. Impartial jurists will no longer take the initial report at face value. Also, as a rule of thumb, judicial inquires lose their credibility forthwith if the presiding judge submits his doubts.

  4. I attended a meeting at the LSE where this bunch tried to defend their actions. It was laughable, especially Travers, who managed to show his true anti Semitic colours in public just before the talk and was laid into by Jon Hoffman in front of a packed hall.

    Talk about compiling a report with their prejudices already in place. I bloody well hope they did feel under pressure. If they’d been honest, they’d have turned down their positions when asked.

  5. cityca they feel under pressure because their prestige is threatened – after all they all lent their names to a travesty of an investigation.

    Evil and secrets abhor sunlight and shining the light on these apologies for human beings makes them very uncomfortable indeed.

    Their morality is very primitive and child-like – they think something therefore it becomes true and more so by repetition. This sort of wonky thinking is like a virus. You have only to look in at some of the drek below the line on CiF, delusions which persist in spite of evidence that they cannot possibly be true, to know the extent of the infestation.

  6. It’s interesting that according to the New 3 Stooges, “our opponents said with understandable anger that the center of our entire screed was bullshit, which turned out to be dead-on accurate” turns into “personal attacks”. I kind of admire the ability of the anti-Israel Left to try and create an atmosphere where both silence and protest equal validation of their false findings; it’s going to blow up in their faces a lot, as we’ve seen here, but you have to give people like Travers credit for learning absolutely nothing from their mistakes.

  7. The New 3 Stooges is good, Ben. I was thinking of filthy over-inflated egos as I read this nice piece by Sarah Honig.

    And those three balloon-heads started in the first paragraph by trying to steal Israel’s clothes: “misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise”! As if their subsequent weaseling as well as the report doesn’t damn them. And a lot of commenters noticed if the first 50 posts are anything to go by.

    So they parrot “UN, UN” and use their abstract words to say nothing.

    Full marks to The Guardian for hot and foetid air!

  8. The new 3 Stooges! I like it!

    Ariadne, I am sure you know that stealing Israel’s clothes and posturing in them is a standard default of Islamic al taqiyyah and an attempt either to deflect blame or arrogate more importance to whoever is doing it than they could possibly merit.

    The Muslim prophet was adept at doing that, he stole much from Judaism, including its prophets and many of its teachings (before he went mad when the Jews failed to accept his new “religion”) and he was an arch-narcissist who could not bear to countenance that Islam came along last, and therefore reinvented it as the best because it was last.

    Much more recently we have the egregious and nefarious Bunglawala’s statement about Muslim victimhood that Muslims are the “new Jews”.

    I am sure that no-one here needs to be reminded of the role of Muslims in the Holocaust – nowadays Muslim Israel-haters are on the one hand denying that the Holocaust took place or killed as many Jews as the findings say (thereby trying to undermine what they believe to be the principal rationatale for the creations of the Jewish state), and on the other claiming that a “holocaust” is being perpetrated by Israel against them!

    It’s creepy how many buy into this rubbish too. I agree with Mitnaged that it seems to be some sort of thought/mind virus which has those who contact it losing their capacity to think critically or rationally.

  9. Snigger, I wonder if that could be described as “becoming islamised” in much the same way as some poor souls’ brains become calcified. I haven’t discerned any capacity for critical thinking or for reason in Muslims who operate on and expand the fantasia. But why anyone would want to put on that straitjacket I can’t imagine.

    But a question occurs. I read part of Krauthammer on Oslo and the rest today. How did Israel get itself into the vise he sees?

  10. Ariadne, I believe that these morons are so focused on the Palestinian “tragedy” which is all of Palestinians’ making that they have overidentified with it. Mitnaged’s article here illustrates it very well.

    I think it’s a sort of collective psychosis and you are right that its very islamic. You couldn’t get a cigarette paper between the loons who were demonstrating in Tahrir Square and this shower in terms of foresight or insight or cause and effect. They just want to be angry and act angry.

  11. Does this remind any people of the argument put forward for the formation of the (now deafeningly silent) Independent Jewish Voices – that they had been pressured into silence by, of all bodies, the Board of Deputies?