• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« My response to the SA Medical Journal | Main | Was Geneva a Durban 2? »

May 05, 2009


The Blacklisted Dictator


What other recent wars has The UNHRC investigated? Has The UNHRC, for example, investigated Russian military actions over the last decade? I stand to be corrected but I don't think that such investigations have occurred.
As a result, Israel should boycott the inquiry. The UNHRC is neither even-handed or objective. Unfortunately, Judge Goldstone is just another Jewish stooge, a bit better perhaps than Prof Richard Falk but of the same ilk.
Israel is obviously being subjected to a show trial. No different from the sort orchestrated by Hitler and Stalin. And, as a result, she should not take the witness stand.

Empress Trudy

Dear God this whole affair is insane. Hamas will inspire fools to 'investigate' for the next 10 years until it quietly goes away. This is 100% political machinations in the name of antisemitism. If Judge Goldstone wants to throw his hat in the Kapo ring, fine. But that's all it is.

soccer dad


This is semi-relevant to the issue:

The Blacklisted Dictator

If, following your studies, you were offered an interesting role at The AJC, would you take it? I think the question is relevant because you seem to be following The AJC line in respect of The UNHRC. Please put your cards on the Supernatural table and let us know whether you would consider such a position.

You write that Israel has just "got to play harder". In the inimitable words of John McEnroe.... " You CANNOT be serious".
I am sorry to have to say this amigo but "got to play harder" is unworthy of the extremely high standards that you generally maintain.
You have to understand that The UNHRC "game" is fixed. Israel ain't going to win in the 5th set.


I fully concur with BD, the double standards here reek. It is the UNHRC after all, and it has as much credibility on human rights and Israel as Stalin's Moscow trials of the 1930s. Goldstone's appointment does not give the UNHRC credibility, Goldstone simply loses his by partaking in this so-called investigation which is motivated entirely by nothing but Jew-hatred. So nothing good can come out of it, by cooperating with the UNHRC, Israel would be legitimising Jew-hatred, that is all.

Never mind Russia, is the HRC investigating war crimes by Iran and Syria (since they arm and fund Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran funds terrorist attacks in Iraq, and if not why not?), by Columbia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc? NO of course not, so this whole "investigation" is just the latest in the endless vicious Judenhass of the UN. That is all, it must simply be dismissed and exposed for what it is, we must not accomodate the HRC at all.

This is a black stain on Goldstone's career, not merely the nadir of his career, it is far more sinister than that even. Goldstone is not a teenage boy, he was not born yesterday. By partaking in this kangaroo commission, by refusing to face up to the blatant double standards of the UN and the UNHRC here (re global conflicts and terror and tyranny), the UN's selective and discriminatory so-called investigations - a magnifying glass on the Arab/Israel conflict but blindfolded for the rest of the burning world (which it took BD and myself a couple of line of writing to prove beyond reasonable doubt), with all that that implies; Goldstone reveals something about himself that is not flattering at all. Namely that what matters to him is the "respect" of the hypocritical international anti-Semitic community, he simply does not "get it" and he doesn't want to. There are no accolades and approbation from the anti-Semitic UN and the anti-Semitic Western elites for standing up for Israel against the onslaught of lies and demonisation in a world whose parallels to the 1930s are very chilling, so Goldstone couldn't be bothered with that by the very fact that he has agreed to head this show trial. The differences between Goldstone and Falk, Chomsky, Finkelstein and the like (including our local anti-Israel "Jews") is simply one of degree, not of kind.

This trial, and that is what it is, has as much legitimacy as the Dreyfus trial - in fact it is the modern day variant of it, what Jews were once accused of, now goes for the Jew nation. Like the Dreyfus trial, it is motivated solely by anti-Semitism, and nothing good can come from it.

I fear anyway that international events, like an attack on Iran or something similar, may well overtake us here, and sweep this trial into irrelevance.


I am not an AJC agent. The AJC in fact support Israel's decision to boycott the Goldstone commission.
I am not defender of the UNHRC. But I don’t think Israel achieves anything by boycotting. Can you explain to me how that changes the outcome of the inquiry or limited the pr damage?

The Blacklisted Dictator


Goldstone, like Falk, has been carefully chosen. His job is clear.. to give the incredible credibility. The idea is that Goldstone's Jewish heritage and South African nationality will confer legitimacy on this outrageous show trial. If only the French establishment had managed to find a Jew to convict Dreyfus ! Oh yes, the 19th century anti-semites were pathetic amateurs in comparison.

Choosing Goldstone was standard practice for the 21st century anti-zionist/ anti-semitic UNHRC lobby. Get a Jewish Judge to do your dirty work. And of course Goldstone leapt at the opportunity for a variety of idiosyncratic and idiotic personal reasons. He has his agenda and they are commonplace. Actually they are standard practice for a "superior" type of intellectually bankrupt Jew.

The more I think about it, the more I am certain that Mike's editorial is extremely misguided. There can be no justification whatsoever for Israel to collaborate with the evil ideologies that breed and fester at The United Nations Home for Retards and Criminals (UNHRC).

The Blacklisted Dictator

I note that you do not respond directly to my query about whether you would consider a post with The AJC. I never suggested for one moment that you were an agent of The AJC ( a Jewish James Bond??)
You ask re the boycott option: "Can you explain to me how that changes the outcome of the inquiry or limited the pr damage?"
My answer is that if Israel refuses to get involved and explains her reasons ( double standards, Ahmadinejad, show trial etc) then she will not confer any legitimacy on the court that has been set up to vilify her. And of course, the outcome will be the same whether Israel attends or stays away. Israel will be found guilty.
Just for the record, I wonder whether the Obama administration is "encouraging" Israel to cooperate with The UNHRC.


When I was visiting the Israel MFA 3 years ago, the dominant opinion was that they would have put forward their case for the security barrier to the ICJ had they been given enough time and had the Egyptian judge not been involved.

Not my opinion, but the opinion of the people that spoke to us about that Kangaroo court.


Why is it relevant whether Mike would accept a job offer from the AJC?

The Blacklisted Dictator

Why is it relevant?
My basic premise is that The AJC seems, to some extent, to be following Obama's line which is to engage with The UNHRC. We have been informed that the US is going to take up its seat on the UNHRC and The AJC has supported this decision.
My concern is that the Obama administration will "encourage" Israel to get involved with Goldstone. And I am also concerned that behind the scenes The AJC may be suggesting to Israel that cooperation with The UNHRC re the Gaza War is the best strategy.
I am trying to understand why Mike has arrived at his conclusion and my suspicion, rightly or wrongly, is that he might be suggesting a policy that would find favour with he AJC since he hopes to find employment with them.
Of course, my "conspiracy" employment theory might be rubbish. If it is, I withdraw it. If it isn't, I will stick to it.

The Blacklisted Dictator

I am trying to follow the logic of a "human rights" investigation which is essentially dealing with the morality and legality of war. It seems to be based on the premise that some wars can be nice and friendly whilst other wars are bad and horrible.
Let us get real. War is appalling. The only relevant issue is what side you are on. The party doing the killing always believes that their actions are justified. And the party getting killed always believes that they shouldn't be getting killed.
One can argue for the next thousand years whether (1) Israel should have attacked Gaza and (2) whether the death and destruction which followed was justified. And at the end of the 1000 years, nobody will be any wiser. Because the question is inherently unanswerable as it all depends on where ones loyalties lie.
And as i have already stated, The United Nations Home for Retards and Criminals (UNHRC) has double standards with regard to the wars that it will and won't investigate. And that makes its investigation even more bizarre and ludicrous.


Your theory is rubbish. If you knew Mike you would realise that he doesn't need to resort to brown nosing in order to find employment.

I agree with his analysis. But I guess I am protected from your conspiracy because I am in SA. Perhaps I am hoping to find employment with the SAJBD? What else can possibly explain my opinion?

We all know your analysis in the above comment is true. We know its a farce. The question remains, how should Israel respond given that it's a farce. Israel tried a particular approach with the ICJ, when it had the backing of Bush. Now, with Obama, it no longer has that backing. As things stand, the previous approach didnt help our PR - though that doesn't mean it harmed it relative to what it would have been if Israel participated.

I would support any decision Israel makes on this matter. I just don't see either choice being so blindingly obvious that one can only come to support it based on some personal agenda.

If you were offered a job to write for Mel, would you take it? If yes, I must conclude that your real opinion on this matter is being hidden in your attempt to gain employment. So in fact, you are in favour of Israel participating.

The Blacklisted Dictator


I find it a bit weird that you write on Mike's behalf. But we will have to see whether he ends up at The AJC. Only time will tell.

Re your question about my lack of independence if I was offered a column by Mel Phillips..... should I now ask Gary or Lawrence to answer on my behalf ?.... "Guys, am I really in favour of Israel participating?"

With regard to you taking a position at The SAJBD, I believe that it would a step down for you. Of course, I don't know the ins and outs of your current job, but I just feel that you would be ill advised to become a Jewish leader in South Africa. This does not mean that you are also not well qualified to get a top position at The AJC. I don't underestimate your abilities and I am sure that the fact that you started this blog might put you ahead of other possible candidates. (On a personal note, I have burnt all my bridges with The AJC so it is unlikely that I will be a top Jewish diaspora honcho. A tragedy, I know.)

Now to get back to the main issue. You write: "The question remains, how should Israel respond given that it's a farce." You also write that you agree with Mike's analysis. On balance, you believe that Israel should cooperate.

So I now, unfortunately, have to conclude that you are both wrong. And won't soften it by saying that you might have a point. Quite simply, both of you are just... wrong.


Anthony, I have never considered working for the AJC. My professional interest is more economics actually. But given the state of the financial world, I refuse to rule it out as a potential future employer. For the sake of transparency, I should tell you I went to a talk by David Harris last week. But you might be surprised to learn that he took your position on this issue. On the issue of Glick, Bayefsky et al, there was a heated debate. I disagreed with Harris' position here too. I believe his letter was inappropriate.

Finally, what you dont understand is that Israel confers no legitimacy on the UNHRC. It already has legitimacy in the eyes of almost everyone except us. Believe me, Mr Falk is oft quoted at Harvard as a respected academic and human rights activist. More respected in fact than he government of Israel.


Mike writes

There is a base error of logic in the above. Just because anti-Semites and ignoramuses believe something to be legitimate doesn't mean it is. This is a error known as argumentum ad numerum, also argumentum ad numerum, namely the argument from popularity and the argument from consensus respectively. Neither are valid in logic and reason (and science for that matter). All Mike "proves" is that the world (and Harvard) is an anti-Semitic place and anti-Semitism has become very legitimate and respectable so long as it hides behind anti-Israelism. That doesn't mean we must lend it legitimacy, by concurring with anti-Semites that their views and discourse on Israel, which is the form their anti-Semitism inevitably takes, is legitimate and demands respect.

Richard Falk and other of his ilk, like Chomsky may indeed be respected as academics and human rights activists. So? That doesn't make them real human rights activists and genuine scholars who must be regarded as such. It just reveals the public, the media, NGOs, universities and the like to be wellsprings of ignorance, misinformed groupthink populism and pervasive anti-Semitism. That's all. Yes and your point Mike??

If slavery was once accepted as legitimate, normal, and something respectable men in Europe and the colonies had no problem engaging in as was the case just a few hundred years ago (and less), does that make slavery respectable and legitimate? No BUT.... folllowing Mike's logic it is indeed not legitimate nor respectable BUT slavers and their cruel customers should have been engaged in/regarded as if they were legitimate and respectable, simply because they thought they were and so did many members of the public. After all the "morality" of the day said slavery was ok.

The morality of the crowd is not morality. Morality, ethics and truth and the behaviour they dictate are not a lowest common denominator affair. Anti-Semitism if engaged in as "respectable", which is what Mike is basically saying but he doesn't realise it, doesn't cease to be anti-Semitism for all that.

What Mike is basically saying above is this...
"Finally what you don't understand is that Israel confers no legitimacy to anti-Semites (ie the UNHRC). Anti-Semites (the UNHRC) already have legitimacy (wait for it) in the eyes of anti-Semites ie almost everyone except us (ie those of us who are not anti-Semitic). Believe me an anti-Semite and 9-11 conspiracy theorist [yes really!] like Falk is oft quoted at Harvard as a respected academic and human rights activist. His anti-Semitism is more respected than the government of Israel".

Mike your contortions of illogic here are something to behold - basically anti-Semitism is illegitimate but we must treat it as if it is illegitimate because everybody else is anti-Semitic and considers anti-Semitism legitimate and respectable!

Mike the pretzel. Not the first time. Won't be the last.


Lawrence, I actually agree with a lot of what you said. But unfortunately we live in the real world. I dont beleive the UNHRC is legitimate and objectively I believe that is true. But sadly the world functions on perception not objective truth. I do not for a minute think we should refrain from discrediting the UNHRC. I think it is vital. I often praise UNWatch for the amazing job they do in this regard. But that is a long term project. for the moment sadly they are seen as legitimate and we need to function within the constraints we have not those that we wish existed.

We need to adopt a pragmatic Ben Gurion type stategy of fighting the War as if there were no British and fight the British as if there was no War.


Lawrence, I actually would like to add one more point. You know it doesn't help for us just to declare everyone anti-Semitic and just retreat into some sort of self imposed ghetto. We need to engage with world as it is. We need to strengthen our relationships with our friends, educate the ignorant and expose our enemies.


Mike I am not calling everybody anti-Semitic, I am though calling anti-Semites anti-Semitic. Obviously when I say most everybody else is anti-Semitic, I don't really mean EVERYBODY ELSE, I mean most people in the many Christian and Muslim nations of the world. Most people from a Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox background (even if they are atheistic, agnostic, secular and whatever else etc) are simply anti-Semitic, especially the self-appointed elite in these countries, far more so than the working classes really (or so it would seem). Western universities, the Western media and Western governments and NGOs are hotbeds for anti-Semitism, this is not my fevered imagination, it really is the case. Never mind the Muslim world (in many places in the Muslim world though, eg in the backwaters of Asia you will probably find far less anti-Semitism than on the streets of Paris and Barcelona and San Francisco but that is another topic..).

These are the cold hard realities, it has been this way for over a thousand years. The UN really is pathologically anti-Semitic as you know, no getting round it.

I just don't think we should set the bar on anti-Semitism too low, and I think you do that on occasion. We have covered this ground before anyhow...

I agree we need to strengthen our relationships with our friends, but we need to know who our friends are first, and not call duplicitous back-stabbers with their so-called 'tough love', who will love us to death, friends. Yes that would mean the Obama administration and much of Europe.

What's this Mike, you have emigrated to the US? Really?


Sri Lanka has admitted its air force bombed a safe haven established for up to 150,000 civilians fleeing fighting between the army and the Tamil Tigers. According to the United Nations unofficial figures 6,432 civilians have been killed and 13,946 wounded in fighting in Sri Lanka since January 20. The figures were not made public by the UN, but were circulated among foreign embassies in Colombo .

Why is there no UN investigation?
Why are there no demonstrations?
Why are there no petitions?
Why is there no media outcry?

The Blacklisted Dictator

Economics is bull-shit. Much better to join The AJC and actually run the world. But whatever you do steer well clear of Harvard. Even if they offer you a top professorship, please don't take it.

You write that "Israel confers no legitimacy on the UNHRC". However, by cooperating with Goldstone Israel will, to some extent, be giving in to The UNHRC's bully-boy tactics. And that will be the start of a suicidal error. It will be the beginning of the end, not only for Israel, but for the democratic western world. Of course, Israel's detractors are well aware of this and that is precisely why they are encouraging Israel to attend. Judge Goldstone is the carrot at the end of their stick.. " Look, we've got a lovely Jewish impartial judge for you. Dicky Boy want harm you." Of course he wont??

Perhaps you think that I am exaggerating the seriousness of this issue? However, I believe that the world is at a cross-roads. One road is the insanity of Islamic fundamentalism. The other is the sanity of Western civilization. And Goldstone is perched a few meters down the former arrogantly smiling at Israel.

The Blacklisted Dictator


It seems to me that you have effectively exposed the flaws in Mike's "legitimacy" argument.

In South Africa, a similar argument is doing the rounds... Zuma is now innocent because the majority of voters have given him the thumbs up. What he actually did, or didn't do, is now irrelevant.

Mike has been seduced by the idea that it is futile to go against the zeitgeist. However, I believe like you, that one is morally bound to stand up for principles that will secure civilization's survival. Mike, on the other hand, seems to believe that it is better to sell one's soul to the devil if it brings some sort of victory (fat chance of that!). Mike does understand right from wrong "in my opinion, Goldstone should not have accepted the appointment. Not only should judges be independent when dispensing justice but they need to be seen as impartial." However, he is willing to jettison his principles by concluding... "we must not throw the entire game" and that Israel "must just play harder".

If we are unable to persuade Mike using logic, perhaps a Rabbi ( or somebody of similar moral stature) can have a quiet word in his ear?

The Blacklisted Dictator


Let us assume that instead of Goldstone, an Islamic judge (let's say from Iran or Egypt) was investigating Israel. In such circumstances, should Israel cooperate? If your answer is "no", then I have to conclude that you have been seduced by Goldstone because he is a Jewish South African. And in this regard, you have fallen into the trap set by The United Nations Home for Retards and Criminals (UNHRC). Although you are critical of Goldstone for taking on the role, it seems that you do not believe that he will just serve as Richard Falk's inquisitor.

The UNHRC have not chosen Goldstone because they believe that he might rule in Israel's favour. He is not going to conclude that, in the circumstances, Israel behaved reasonably given the fact that it had been subjected to rocket attacks from an enemy which does not recognize its existence.

Goldstone's judgment is, of course, going to cut Israel to shreds. And it will be seen to be, oh so credible, because Goldstone is not only Jewish but also has the appropriate anti-apartheid CV.

I reiterate, Israel must expose the double standards of The UNHRC. She cannot even consider coming before Goldstone's court until he has the "decency" to explain to the world why Israel is the only country being subjected to such an investigation.

You ask " How does the Defendant plead?" .... "No case to answer!"


Israel: UN Gaza Report "Biased"

A recent United Nations board of inquiry report on Israel's actions in Operation Cast Lead accused Israel of intentionally hitting a UN elementary school, according to the Washington Post. The report blamed multiple deaths and millions of dollars worth of damage on Israel, and said the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) showed in another school incident "reckless disregard for the lives and safety" of civilians. The board also rejected the assertion that Hamas was using the UN buildings in attacks.

Israel denounced the claims. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Andy David told me in an interview that Hamas was to blame for putting the UN and civilians at risk, an issue he felt was not addressed adequately in the UN report, which the Foreign Ministry in a press release called "patently biased."

David said that even though they were not inside UN compounds, it is a fact that Hamas militants fired from just outside UN facilities, and that the overall behavior of Hamas was one of "using the population as a human shield."

Israel, however, had worked diligently to avoid civilian casualties, according to David. He said that about 85%-90% of their air force operations were aborted due to the risk to civilians. In addition, they sent out 150,000 leaflets and made "thousands, if not tens of thousands" of phone calls warning about areas in which Hamas was operating. "This is the way we are sacrificing maybe some of the success of the operation because those leaflets or those phone calls may reach Hamas people as well, and then they can run away and hide," said David. "But these are part of the efforts to prevent damage to the population."

(By Joshua Spurlock, BFP Israel Mosaic Radio, May 6, 2009)


Cooperating with the UNHRC is like cooperating with the devil. He will smile at you and then stab you in the back, or chest, whichever gives him more satisfaction. There is no right or wrong in this situation. If you don't cooperate you lose the right to state your position. If you do cooperate you do so knowing your opinion will be rejected no matter what. Either way Israel is going to get slammed, she just has to decide if she wants to be a part of it or not. Not a decision I would want to make...

The Blacklisted Dictator


Judge Goldstone is to be assisted by Professor Christine Chinkin. She has recently signed a letter to The Times stating:

"Israel has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

"As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes."

" the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas."

It is quite clear that Christine Chinkin has already made her mind up. What is the point of her hearing Israel's submissions? The defendant is guilty as charged !


I have now proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is facing a show trial. The guilty verdict has been reached.

You write re Israel: "Their evidence must be more reliable, their legal arguments smarter and their PR response more eloquent."

Let's face the facts. Israel's legal arguments will be dismissed by the court. She could use the greatest arguments ever and she will lose.

Mike, you should now admit that your editorial's conclusions are nonsensical.


The Blacklisted Dictator

Dear Prof Chinkin,

I refer to your letter to The Times.

In the circumstances, it is evident that you have already decided that Israel is guilty. As a result, it is obvious that you are now unable to objectively hear any evidence that Israel might submit in her defence. You have, unfortunately, already made up your mind with regard to this case. To be quite frank, you have committed an elementary legal blunder.

If justice is to be seen to be done, you must therefore immediately resign your position as a legal assistant to Judge Richard Goldstone.

yours sincerely

Anthony Posner

The Blacklisted Dictator


I was interested to read the attached, especially after I had just emailed Professor Chinkin with the same suggestion. So it actually seems that my comments re Goldstone are more in line with The AJC than yours. Apologies etc. I admit my error.

Please have a word with David Harris when you next see him and explain that I now actually agree with The AJC and am grooming myself for his top yiddishe- yankee- honcho position!

Judge Goldstone: Denounce the Gaza Inquiry's Biased Mandate
UN Watch Intervention
NGO consultation meeting with the
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
Geneva, 7 May 2009

Second, regarding the requirement of impartiality, some have noted that you signed a statement during the January conflict that was seen as a criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, one that made no mention of Sderot. Did you also sign a statement while Hamas attacked Israel repeatedly in the preceding years?

Others have noted that your colleague on this Mission, Professor Chinkin, signed a separate and far harsher statement during the conflict, one that “categorically rejected” Israel’s contention that it was acting under self-defence. How can someone be impartial after already rejecting the principal argument of one side of the conflict? Should she not recuse herself?

Third, we are concerned that your faith is liable to be misused by the Council to legitimize its biased record against Israel. On April 3, 2009, you were quoted by Agence France Presse as saying that it had been “quite a shock, as a Jew, to be invited” to head the Gaza mission. But why did this shock you? Are you not aware that Richard Falk, the council’s permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, is Jewish, and that this was the main reason that the Arab states insisted on naming him to the post?



Regarding David Harris and the AJC, has Harris learned an important lesson after his tiff with Glick and Bayevsky over the Geneva "Durban 2" farce? Perhaps, even if he doesn't admit it. One wonders though how Harris could justify his contradictory stance here re the UN Geneva farce and this UNHRC Judenhass trial, since they are both cut from the same cloth.

One wonders what Western "progressives" would do without the Jewish fifth column? This is why they are given pride of place, up front and centre in the international zeitgeist of Zionophobia. Like Esau they sell their birthright, and for what? You make your choice and you pay a price. You dance with the devil, the devil comes for his due...


Anthony, great work!
I think you have miss understood my point. I think we should expose the hypocrisy of this show trail at every opportunity. In think the Israel government should at a minimum have issued the statement made by UNWATCH. This is Alice in Wonderland justice. But you can’t just fold your hands and say so I am not taking part. That is what Israel is doing. This commission matters! The UNHRC matters!


Mike continues to contort himself like a fourteen year old Romanian gymnast:

This is Alice in Wonderland justice. But you can't just say you are not taking part in Alice in Wonderland justice. This is what Israel is doing. This Jew-hate commission matters! The Jew-hate enabler of the Muslim Jihad that is the UNHRC matters!

It matters indeed to uh....Jew-haters of every stripe, the useful idiots of the Jihad and jihadists themselves. As Anthony and myself have pointed out, quite unambiguously. Although it's kind of like whistling past the graveyard.


We have outlived many Empires- including the Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian,Hellenic, Roman, Nazi and Soviet, they all mattered!
But it was those of us who didnt cooperate with
them who are the heos of Jewish history, not those who did!

The Blacklisted Dictator


"Alice felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English."I don't quite understand you" she said as politely as she could."

The Blacklisted Dictator

"Let the jury consider their verdict", the King said for about the 20th time that day.

"No, no" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."


"Hold your tongue!" said The Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" The Queen shouted. Nobody moved.

"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards."

You write that The UNHRC commission "matters". You are wrong. It is "nothing but a pack of cards." Have the confidence to grow to your "full size" and announce this fact loudly and clearly in the esteemed corridors of Harvard!

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Interesting to re-read this post and particularly the comments in light of the publication of the report.

Has anyone changed their opinion?


Great article in the Jpost about Goldstone and SA Jewry.

There were rumors a few months ago of Goldstone being duped into initiating legal proceedings against bogus war criminals in Yugoslavia a few years back (in addition to the real criminals). Anybody aware or able to comment on the validity of these rumors?


Shaun I was just about to post that article up here, I just read it now, but of course see you have done so already. The article covers the recent spates of anti-Semitic incidents and flare-ups (eg COSATU) in SA as well.

I just want to quote some important excerpts from the article, which sum things up:

"ALL OF these events of the past year combined to put the Jewish community in an uncomfortable position, a sense of accumulating discomfort. And it is into this maelstrom that Goldstone's report, with its scathing and unbalanced attack on Israel, landed with such force. A sense of sustained embattlement, mixed with disgust at his "betrayal," has given birth to the fury at Goldstone. Here was a respected Jewish judge vindicating the accusation made by the PSC: that, in essence, David Benjamin was a war criminal, that Israeli soldiers could be considered war criminals. With his report, Goldstone went a step too far for the mainstream South African Jewish community. "

And Krengel on Goldstone:

"Krengel and the others, who preferred to remain anonymous, say they are "very, very angry" at Goldstone.

"In the end, the biggest loser will be Richard Goldstone, who will go down in history as the person who judged Israel unfairly," said Krengel. "He had the power to right the wrongs [of the anti-Israeli Human Rights Council], but he didn't. He did the opposite."

I have criticised Krengel at IAS for his eggshell walking with the ANC, but concur with him here, well said Krengel.

RF, yes interesting reading the comments from May in light of the final contents of the Goldstone report. It was all very predictable, took no Nostradamus-like powers of precognition to see what was coming.

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
