Thursday, April 07, 2011

Not Good as Gold: Jeff Jacoby, editorialist for The Boston Globe wrote an op ed today entitled: "Goldstone's investigation was a one-sided sham." I often do not agree with his conservative views but on this one I did. It involved the Goldstone Report and a rescinding by the author Judge Richard Goldstone of the Goldstone Report which was an indictment of the Jewish state for an abuse of human rights. As stated in the web site "Understanding the Goldstone Report" "On September 15, 2009, Judge Richard Goldstone and his Commission presented their 575-page Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict to its mandating authority, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). From the beginning, observers raised serious questions about the Commission’s propriety. These involved its mandate and terms of reference, the sponsoring body’s domination by dictatorships that regularly abuse human rights in their own countries, the biases and prejudices of members of the Commission itself. And yet, the report will play a key role in the effort to specifically target Israeli troops in both boycott movements and warfare attacks, and more broadly to establish a reigning paradigm of international law as applied to 21st century asymmetrical conflicts."

I wrote the following to Jacoby:


Jeff, when you are right I say you are right. You are dead-on right with respect to the utterly sickening Goldstone Report. When it first appeared, while I did not know if it were true or not, it made my skin crawl for a fellow Jew to issue a report that made such a destructive allegation against the Jewish state. How, I thought, could he have done this to his own people? No matter what I found I could NEVER issue a blanket condemnation against my Jewish people EVER. I might criticize particular policy but I surely would never think for one moment that the enemies of Israel are so lily white pure.

It is the thing that most dismays me about my leftist compatriots. I do not understand their elevation of all things Palestinian and their wholesale condemnation of the Jewish state. They do not even give a nation state the right to defend itself against those who want to pulverize it into dust. No one, no Jew at least, could ever understand Jewish history without the knowledge that the history of our people for over two thousand years has been one of siege by those who want our destruction. The eighth wonder of the world is that we have survived at all. The Jewish people created a beautiful, democratic and progressive state tolerant to those who would even disagree with its existence. If this state were in the hands of the murderers of Hamas would they create the same democratic state? I suspect they would not.

The truth of the Holocaust one would think would play a part in the left wing supposed humanitarian mantra which would allow them to see why a DEMOCRATIC Jewish state with an educated populous where women in most circles share the same bima as men would be reason enough to be in awe of its exceptional success and, more importantly, its right to exist. Are they blind? Do they not see? I suspect that many on the left, even some Jews among us, want the Jewish part of them to simply disappear. The rest of the gentile world who are against the Jewish state -- especially in the west -- STILL even now turn anti-Semitic red with rage that these, as they see it, intrinsically blemished people, spurned throughout history as killers of their god do not deserve the success they own. Many STILL, despite the six million, feel the yearning and the need to disparage the Jew because, of course, the Jew MUST be guilty of something.

BUT when one of our own writes an indictment which gave rationalization to the Palestinian cause and their assault on the Jewish state which is seen round the world that he later must rescind because it was false I sit shiva for him and say only God, if there is one, can forgive this destructiveness against his own people. It is to me TREASON of the highest order. Has the world not had enough Jewish blood to satisfy its cannibalistic hunger? Did Goldstone have to throw a stake at the heart of his own people and feed it to the lions? He sickened me when his report first came out and he sickens me now. He made his bed of excrement now I say let him lie in it!
Three Cheers for a Government Shutdown?: The following is a SHORT transcript of a conversation Rachel Maddow had with one the most brilliant scholars I have ever heard, Melissa Harris Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University. Their discussion was about the electorate's understanding of what a government shut down means or does not mean to most Americans and why there are groups which thrive on the notion of shutting the government down. It is an informative discussion which gets, I believe, to the heart of this issue.

MADDOW: If they do not reach an agreement tonight, and the government shuts down this weekend—five years from now, why will Americans understand that this shutdown happened?

HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, who knows five years from now? I mean, you know, seriously, part of the problem here is, I think, that Americans seem to have—despite the poll numbers that you‘re showing—Americans seem to have little understanding about what government is really doing for them on a daily basis. I mean, if you ask Americans, what has government done for you lately, you‘re likely to get a response like, well, not much. Or, you know, they have taken my whole paycheck, or something like that.

And, look, the Republicans are not a dumb group strategically. They know that most Americans have been doing what I‘ve been doing the past couple weeks, which fiddling with, you know, with our heads, in our hands, trying to get our tax returns in. And so, this is a moment where people have kind of the most anxiety about government, because they feel like they‘re paying in, and they don‘t have a clear narrative about what they‘re getting out.

MADDOW: But why then on something like Medicare would they be proceeding now? Why choose—why would the Republican choose to reveal their plan to kill Medicare now? The super, super beloved program. They announced it on the day the president announces that he is running for re-election. They announce it right on the eve of this potential shutdown.

Why Medicare? Why now?

HARRIS-PERRY: I think there‘s a lot of different things going on here. But at its core, what we see is really just the fruition of now 25, 30 years of public discourse that the Democrats have participated in, that says that government is bad. I mean, if you can remember the confusion that was occurring during the health care reform debate, where you had people at town hall meetings saying things like, “Keep the government‘s hands off my Medicare,” right? There was—there was clear confusion about who was providing these services, right?

I think, you know, even when you talk about something like going to the ATM and taking out $50, and knowing that that money is there, because it‘s insured by FDIC, you know, being able to eat an egg for breakfast and know that that egg doesn‘t have salmonella because it‘s been inspected by federal inspectors. You know, my mother‘s new hips, one on the left one on the right, both paid for by Medicare, which she paid into and which I pay into.

But if we—if we disconnect those things from our understanding that this is government provision, I think it‘s actually relatively easy to go after them individually, and to make a claim that private industry can do them better and more efficiently, because that‘s really been the discourse for 20 years.

MADDOW: Well, why are Democrats so shy about wanting to defend the basic idea of government from this, you know, the government is the problem? Conservatism. Letter carriers and firefighters and police officers and teachers are beloved national figures. Medicare and Social Security are beloved national programs. Why are Democrats so shy about making them their party‘s own symbols, even their mascots, for the Democratic Party?

HARRIS-PERRY: You know, you were talking about civics lessons earlier. And I have to say that part of what happened, and we can really trace this back to a very clear strategy on the part of Republicans after the end of the 1960s. And it was to take all of those beloved figures, and link them with figures that are less beloved.

So, for example, the growth of the African-American middle class in
Advertise | AdChoices

the 1970s, that was mostly men working in post office, and women working as

teachers. The language of what government was doing for citizens got

linked to groups like African-Americans, poor people, new immigrant

communities. To the extent that Republicans have been very successful in

linking—in fact, very efficient, high-quality and broad-based programs -

or even things like, for example, public schools—two populations in communities that are less beloved, more stereotyped, more stigmatized, they have been able to lap those on to each other and sort of create these anxieties in populations that actually need and benefit from on a daily basis government actions.

MADDOW: And that‘s been a deliberate strategy. And it works, if nobody fights back against it—

HARRIS-PERRY: That‘s right.

MADDOW: -- which is—which is the on going task of the Democratic Party in my lifetime, which means I‘ll never have anything to stop talking about, because they never seem to make progress on this.

Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC contributor, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton and very smart person—thank you for being here.
Advertise | AdChoices

HARRIS-PERRY: Thanks, Rachel.