Preaching Tikkun - Page 3

Rabbi Michael Lerner still courts controversy as he celebrates his magazine's silver anniversary

|
(93)
Judge Richard Goldstone (left) and Rabbi Michael Lerner at Tikkun's silver anniversary celebration
Luke Thomas/Fog City Journal

Lerner never abandoned his belief in the validity and power of protest. "I would like to see young Jews confront the Jewish institutions," he said. "I want to see sit-ins and demonstrations to challenge those who are willing to give support to the right-wing governments of Israel."

Yet he has also grown skeptical of many leftist groups. "As spiritual progressives, we are critical of progressives," Lerner explains. Although he agrees that a major redistribution of political and economic power is necessary, he argues that something is missing on the left, with its focus on secular ideas and neglect of real spiritual needs.

Lerner says the left's shortcoming has allowed the right to tap into popular discontent and win support by championing church and family.

While working toward his PhD in psychology, Lerner was part of a team that interviewed thousands of working Americans. "What we discovered was there was a spiritual crisis in peoples lives. There was a deep hunger for a framework of meaning and purpose to life that would transcend the individualism, selfishness, and materialism that people are working all day long in the workplaces," he said. "People don't like the message of the work world that the bottom line is to maximize money and power, and to do that you must look out for No. 1 and not care about others."

His response was to found Tikkun, whose message can attract even agnostics. Alana Price does not describe herself as religious, but she has recently been promoted to be the co-managing editor of the magazine. "I knew Tikkun built a bridge between the religious left and the secular left, so I was excited about that," Price said. "What drew me was the deeply humane quality of Tikkun."

Comments

These guys are hilarious,

But, extremely dangerous. They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 nuclear weapons and God on their side. That's a dangerous combination.

If the 'chosen' of God treat their neighbors this way, imagine what the 'unchosen' must do?

Giants won 9-6 over Cincinnati.

Not really certain if the win was good for the Jews.

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

Eric: please don't feel bad about not converting to Judaism. We Jews are doing just fine without you.

The only thing that got left out of this discussion is that if Michael Lerner ever ran for public office, he would never get the SF Green Party endorsement because he doesn't support a boycott and divestment from Israel. That would automatically disqualify him from the Green endorsement, regardless of his views on anything else -- because, as far as I can tell, Eric Brooks singlehandedly made that the most essential part of the Greens' screening criteria. And that has had such a profound effect on San Francisco electoral politics, hasn't it? I mean it has totally altered the face of the political landscape here! Thanks to the watchful eye of Eric Brooks, nobody can get elected here unless they're rabidly anti-Israel!! I'm joking, of course -- the truth is that it has had absolutely zero discernible effect on electoral politics. But still Eric refuses to let go of this incredibly stubborn, and incredibly destructive, way of judging people.

This is just one more example of why the SF Green Party is the ineffectual organization it is. Of all the many things worth focusing on, why focus so obsessively on boycotting Israel? In the end, none of your other positions matter -- to Eric, Israel is the deal breaker. This is the kind of deep dysfunction that keeps San Francisco from moving forward as a truly progressive and enlightened place. It also shows the true meaning of the Green concept of "consensus", as in, if you agree with me, that's consensus!!

Thank goodness we have figures like Michael Lerner who have a more nuanced, balanced, and wise view of things, and not coincidentally, have a hell of a lot more prominence in the world than Eric does. In general, people tend to respond more favorably to someone who is not foaming at the mouth about things. A lesson both the SF Green party in general, and Eric Brooks specifically, could benefit from. But unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath about that happening.

Posted by grrlfriday on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 12:11 am

Actually 'grrlfriday' (aka Katherine Roberts),

The Green Party, both national and local, experiences no confusion on the matter of Palestine whatsoever. We are resolutely in favor of boycott and divestment from Israel until it complies with international law. And our statements to that effect got international press and reactions, helping to further empower and bolster the movement to bring Israel to accountability. Juvenile brow beating of local politicians and candidates was not our purpose. Unlike some, we don't pursue politics AIPAC style by using baseless vindictive accusations (like claims of anti-semitism) which amount to nothing more than intimidation via hate speech.

And we of course are resolute about a great many other issues which we find to be equally important to the situation in Palestine, such as challenging Obama and the U.S. wars, fighting the climate crisis, protecting San Francisco neighborhoods and parks from corporate takeovers, etc.

Most importantly Katherine, what is really striking about your diatribe is that it has no factual or logical substance or argument whatsoever to actually counter our view on Palestine. (In fact your post has nothing to do with Palestine in the slightest.) All it does is personally attack and demonize myself and the Greens for challenging both Israel and Lerner.

If you want to engage in a real, thoughtful debate, why don't you simply state why you disagree with our boycott position so that we can have a substantive dialogue.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 1:12 am

=v= How does one engage in debate with a brick wall? No matter how much thought and nuance goes into one's position (e.g. Rabbi Lerner's words), Eric Brooks will simply filter out anything but "Duh, Boycott Israel" and parry with some sort of transparent rhetorical dodge such as a "question" about boycotting Israel with said boycott as its implicit premise. That's not debate, that's just typing.

His concept of consensus is similar to his concept of engagement, which is why so many thoughtful and intelligent people have fled the Green Party in droves. Now you can't get a Green endorsement for dogcatcher in this town unless you've mindlessly parroted the "Duh, Boycott Israel" line to Eric Brooks' satisfaction. Though of course, for pretty much the same reason, the value of a Green endorsement has plummeted.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 8:52 am

Dodging the request that you actually raise issues of what this article and thread are about won't help you. (And this has nothing to do with simply San Francisco. The U.S. Green Party supports the boycott and divestment, as do -many- other Green Party state and local chapters. So your whacky conspiracy theory that San Francisco Greens are somehow out of step with other Greens on this and that I have somehow singlehandedly manipulated local Greens into supporting boycott and divestment is just absurd.)

But let's get back to the issue itself shall we?

The article was written about Michael Lerner and what he has gone through as he has criticized Israel. In response to the article, I wrote that many appreciate Lerner's criticisms of Israel, but also -strongly- question his attacking supporters of a boycott and divestment of Israel and outrageously labeling them anti-semites. In the context of the article it is a perfectly sensible and important point to raise.

Many have a problem with Lerner being lionized while no attention has been paid to his interference with the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. (For example Lerner was influential in rallying so many people to intimidate the Rainbow Grocery co-op with a -local- boycott of the store, that Rainbow buckled under in the face of that intimidation and withdrew its prior support of BDS.

So my questions for you are:

Why do you disagree with the boycott and divestment strategy?

Even if you disagree, how by any stretch of the imagination is it either accurate or ok to hatefully call boycott and divestment supporters 'anti-semites' just as the reactionary right wing AIPAC does with critics of Israel? If Lerner doesn't like being attacked as an anti-semite or self hating Jew, why is he launching exactly the same sort of intimidating attacks at others?

Can you prevail upon Mr. Lerner to change that position and retract his accusations of anti-semitism, and thereby bring greater mutual respect and unity to the movement to bring Israel to end its occupation and oppression of Palestine?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 11:47 am

Two departments decided to boycott Israel, the other departments didn't care. So how they backed down as a whole is a mystery.

What it is more akin to is a purchaser for a department in any business not buying goods form say, Arizona, when they have that leeway as a purchaser.

There was a vote later on where the store as a whole didn't boycott.

And really, you stake your world view on who pickets a grocery store?

The conspiracy marches on.

Posted by maltlock on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

No actually, the departments who wanted to boycott were forced to back down and not allowed to.

And the case was raised simply as an example of Lerner's heavy handed interference.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 5:23 pm
heh

I know some of the people involved. There were irate people on booth sides. I got an earful pretty regular about it back then.

I've done purchasing, I could have lined up vendors that suited my political views. Sooner or later the next step up in the chain would be wondering why I'm buying supplies from out of state, running up shipping costs and ignoring contracts. These schemes cost money and annoy your customers and alienate vendors.

But here you go...

"(Store employee Naomi Jelks says it was done without store authorization, and the boycott was later shot down by an employee vote.)"

As an atheist I find Lerner to be a hoot with his values ravings by the way, it's no less annoying than Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell. Barry Lynn is far more tolerable when mixing religion and politics.

Posted by maltlock on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

=v= Yep, right on cue, "Forget what anyone else wants to talk about, time for one of those questions with the implicit premise that MY boycott strategy is great and what's wrong with you, anyway?" The Eric Brooks approach to "engagement" and "consensus" laid bare.

In keeping with the original key values of the Greens, I heartily support nonviolent strategies such as boycotts. My years of experience with boycotts, both as an organizer and as a participant, have taught that they are an elegant expression of direct democracy (another original Green value), in that they only work if they engage (gosh, there's that word again) a lot of people.

A boycott that instead drives people away is not what I'd call well-organized, and thus not worthy of support.

Posted by Jym dyer on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 5:20 pm

=v= Yep, right on cue, "Forget what anyone else wants to talk about, time for one of those questions with the implicit premise that MY boycott strategy is great and what's wrong with you, anyway?" The Eric Brooks approach to "engagement" and "consensus" laid bare.

In keeping with the original key values of the Greens, I heartily support nonviolent strategies such as boycotts. My years of experience with boycotts, both as an organizer and as a participant, have taught that they are an elegant expression of direct democracy (another original Green value), in that they only work if they engage (gosh, there's that word again) a lot of people.

A boycott that instead drives people away is not what I'd call well-organized, and thus not worthy of support.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

Eric -- all I know is what I see. I got the Green Party endorsement newsletter in the mail last election, and here was my reaction: there were many good, progressive candidates for elected office, who agreed with the Green Party on 99% of their positions, AND who were far superior to the other people running, whom the Green Party withheld their endorsement from because they refused to say "boo, hiss, Israel". When I looked at who was on the GP endorsement committee, it was a pretty small group of people, all of whom I knew, because I am a former Green Party member myself. But the only person on the list who I have ever heard being over-the-top rabid about Israel, or even rabid at all about it, was you. So I had to assume that you were the one who was bringing this focus to the group, and taking such a hard line on it.

So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion about this, then I will stand corrected. But I sincerely doubt that some version of what I said is not the truth.

Either way, you can see how the last election turned out. But instead of pounding the pavement for worthy underdogs who would do so much more to further the progressive agenda -- and yes, even the Green agenda -- in San Francisco, you withheld your endorsement of those people because they refused to go along with you and say, "boo, hiss, Israel," like good little lefties, or at least in your book.

This is why I said that, a) the SF Green Party is busy reducing itself to complete irrelevance, and b) consensus means you think how I think.

Now, on to your other points. Some very good arguments have been made as to how you are misrepresenting the Israel/Palestine situation, both by Michael Lerner himself, and by others on this list. But every time someone makes a valid point in response to your question, you retreat into name-calling and abuse. This does not instill confidence in me that you actually wish to have this type of discussion -- unless, as I've said, everyone you talk to feels the same way you do.

Also, your idea that Michael will ever agree with you on boycotting Israel -- well, that's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard! Why on earth are you wasting your time on this? You know that's never going to happen!! He's already explained to you very clearly many times that he won't support a boycott. But you just can't accept that for an answer, can you? Michael may not be perfect, but he's not stupid. If he decides boycotting Israel is a dumb idea, it's not because he hasn't thought it through thoroughly. Why you think some bratty guy from the left can change his mind if he just yaps loud enough is truly beyond me.

About Rainbow, I spoke with one of the members of the collective, and he assured me that the majority of the people who work there did not support a boycott. So the minority who did was unable to prevail on this -- much to my relief, because I certainly would have never shopped there again if they had decided differently. The worker/owner I spoke with did not mention Michael Lerner to me as part of his explanation. This leads me to think that the truth of what happened is more complex than you are presenting it as in your over-simplified version of events -- as the truth generally is. What is far more likely is that, just like Michael Lerner, the members of the Rainbow collective are thoughtful adults who can think things through for themselves, and they decided that a boycott of Israel was not something their consciences could support. But that means they disagree with you on this, and as we've seen before, that is simply not acceptable!! So you have to come up with some zany conspiracy theory about Michael Lerner and the blob people sucking the brains out the backs of their necks and turning them into Israel supporters. Otherwise, they would have joined forces with you, and by now the whole store would be plastered with Zionism=Nazism stickers!! I know this is a terrible disappointment to you, but I'm just saying there are other explanations for the way things happen.

I do know that the Israel/Palestine discussions I had with you while I was still a Green Party member are some of the most distasteful experiences of my life, and I still shudder to think about them. In fact, they were one of the main reasons I left the Green Party -- I didn't feel I could be proud of my Jewish identity and still be a Green. That's a pretty damning thing to say about a political party. And that's why I'm now an ex-SF Green Party member, but a current member of Beyt Tikkun.

One of the many things I love about Michael is that he is unabashedly pro-Israel, and if you don't understand this, you aren't listening. He pushes the envelope a little too far for me sometimes, but I know that at all times he is trying to be fair. I respect what he's doing in the world a lot, and I think he's one of the smartest people I've ever known. I am very proud to have him as my rabbi. But that rabid anti-Israel rhetoric of the Green Party, I don't miss it one bit.

Posted by grrlfriday on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

Katherine, what you have said about the SF Green's endorsements is simply absolute baseless nonsense.

Only -one- of the candidates we chose, in which we had to make a close decision, had the guts to take a stand supporting our previous June 2010 full consensus decision for boycott and divestment from Israel; and that was James Keys.

In that one particular case, Keys' decision was so ethical and courageous, that it got me personally to switch from a ranked choice of Jane Kim first and Keys second to ranking Keys first and Kim second. And mine wasn't even the deciding vote.

On all the rest of our close to the wire endorsement choices, the boycott issue was irrelevant because almost every other candidate ducked the question, including the ones we supported.

It is your own paranoia and abject fixation with Israel, that has led you to ridiculously conclude that our entire endorsement process was about Israel.

You have got the 'anti-semitism' virus so deeply burned into your brain by Israel lobby propaganda that you are absurdly seeing anti-semitism around every corner.

As to my personal influence and supposed 'rabid'ness about Israel.

A) What everyone supporting boycott and divestment to end the occupation is radical about, is justice. For you to suggest that this means we are 'rabid' about Israel does a real disservice to the movement. And let's be clear. You are using the word 'rabid' as a stealth term to imply that we are 'anti-semitic' so that you don't have to say the latter itself.

B) Others besides myself created the candidate questionnaire, which contained the Israel boycott question in it from the beginning.

You weird concept that I can somehow personally wrap the SF Green Party around my little finger and get the entire general membership and County Council to do whatever I say about Israel is ludicrous.

You are making up paranoid conspiracy fantasies in your own mind, that bear no relation to reality.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 3:46 pm

I can only assume that since you just spent another 900 words lobbing personal attacks (and some anecdotal innuendo about how the Rainbow decision went down) that when it comes to the actual policy of why to boycott or not boycott Israel in response to its occupation, you simply won't advance a real argument, because you know that you will lose that argument if it comes down to the actual facts and merits of the policy.

It is the perennial ploy of those who know they don't have a leg to stand on, to continuously guide discussion toward personalities and personal digs, rather than to discuss the actual details of the issues themselves.

Can you surprise us and actually discuss the issue at hand?

I'll repeat the two key questions:

1) Why do you disagree with the boycott and divestment strategy?

2) Even if you disagree, how by any stretch of the imagination is it either accurate or ok to hatefully call boycott and divestment supporters 'anti-semites' just as the reactionary right wing AIPAC does with critics of Israel? If Lerner doesn't like being attacked as an anti-semite or self hating Jew, why is he launching exactly the same sort of intimidating attacks at others?

Katherine, stop hiding behind slinging mud and actually answer the questions.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

Just to clarify, my question for Lerner was not - will he change his position on BDS of Israel - but much more simply - will he kindly stop calling supporters of BDS 'anti-semites' so that we can all build more unity toward holding Israel accountable together, even while we may disagree on specific strategies.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

Eric -- I'm sorry you think I'm resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues.

In my next post I'll use the words "hateful", "intimidating", "anecdotal innuendo", "absolute baseless nonsense", "don't havea leg to stand on", "paranoia and abject fixation", "ridiculous", "absurd", "stealth term", "weird", "ludicrous", and "paranoid conspiracy fantasies...that bear no relation to reality". That way you could not possibly misinterpret what I'm saying as mudslinging.

Posted by grrlfriday on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

Katherine, I have no problem with strong abrasive language when it actually is used to make a valid point.

The problem with your rhetoric is that it focuses solely on unsubstantiated personal attacks, while -avoiding- any mention of the actual issue at hand.

By all means even cuss me out if you like, but do so with a point that actually serves the debate.

All you are doing is attacking the messenger, not debating the message itself.

That's avoidance.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 5:32 pm

Eric -- last I checked, the " actual issue" here was Michael Lerner receiving death threats for being too critical of Israel. Then you turned it into his not being critical enough, because he doesn't support sanctions. You also threw Rainbow Grocery (& other things) into the mix. So I had to point out that as a Green party platform, sanctions against Israel was a losing strategy, which undermines the already laughable effectiveness of the Green party, & probably drives away observant Jews in droves, just as it drove me & other people I know away -- & come to think of it, I don't know ONE observant Jew who is a Green party member, do you? And is that the kind of political party you feel comfortable with? To me, that is also an "actual issue".

I also felt compelled to comment on your theories about Rainbow, as well as your abusive language, which may be acceptable to you, but is actually beyond offensive to me. So now, what was the actual issue again, Eric? Because I would hate to have you think I'm avoiding anything, just because you keep moving the target.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 12:22 pm

No rescue this time?

Who's gonna volunteer to go into the smoldering remains of the State of Israel and risk their lives to save what's left of some of the most arrogant people on Earth? Hell, they don't even have any oil.

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

Au contraire mon frer. There are gas reserves off the coast of Gaza... ;|

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

Nutball Israeli government plans to build entire artificial island off the Gaza coast, for increased 'security' and to give Hamas opponents a foothold on Gaza. Please note the date on this article. It is -not- an April fools joke.

Environmentalists say plans, which also include hotels and a marina, are 'complete madness'...

For the report go to:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/226634-Israel-may-build-artificial-isl...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 1:19 am

That's "frere", with an "e". Also an accent, but whatever. The tone of these posts about Israel is unbelievably offensive to me. If the Guardian had the option, I would report them all as hate speech.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

I wonder if taking a position on the Israel thing today is what it was like to be an American leftist after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

The leadership needs to settle this out so that we can all know where not agreeing with someone is "hate speech" on this subject.

Posted by matlock on Apr. 02, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

What I called 'hate speech' is the practice of publicly demonizing others as anti-semites in an attempt to intimidate them and shut them up.

Clearly terroristic hate speech.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 10:36 am

as girl friday and got confused?

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

"Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!"

Seriously, Eric. These people will murder you and call it a 'business decision'. And, of course Yaweh has given them advance approval. The Israeli government keeps teams of assassins at the ready. And, they use them. They've been murdering their political opponents for several thousand years.

Like living?

go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 9:28 am

A life lived in fear is a worthless life.

I don't make decisions based on threats.

We only live once H.

The trick is to get it right the first time.

And that means fear ain't on the menu ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 10:12 am

"A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of aluminum foil or similar material. Alternatively it may be a conventional hat lined with foil. One may wear the hat in the belief that it acts to shield the brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields, or against mind control and/or mind reading; or attempt to limit the transmission of voices directly into the brain."

Posted by matlock on Apr. 02, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

Neither of you is convincing the other - you're each simply repeating tired, worn-out talking points. This issue is poison - no one ever changes another's mind and you know what - that's just fine.

Give it a rest.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

Because we don't take direction from sniping blog trolls with stealth right wing agendas 'Lucretia'.

Anyway, fear not. Katherine is simply continuing her pointless, rage driven, pot-calling-the-kettle-black, abusive rant routine, without offering anything of value to the conversation, so I'm done debating with her.

Apparently she wants religious affiliation to be a prerequisite for political involvement, much like the right wing Zionists, supporters of Sharia law, or Bible thumping Teapartiers.

Good riddance Ms Roberts.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

I know this is a lot to ask, but please stop twisting my words. I didn't say being Jewish should be a pre-requisite to joining the Green Party -- why would I ever say anything that moronic. I just asked if you know of any observant Jews who have not fled the Green Party, because I sure don't. Which begs the question, how could a party with so little diversity be the slightest bit relevant, and hey, doesn't that bother you just a little? Or do you not care that it's mostly made up of self-entitled white patriarchal males like yourself? Because that's something that makes a lot of people not look too kindly on the Greens. A party that's built on exclusion isn't going to get very far in this world. I'm not saying that every Green should be Jewish, but I'm certainly not saying I'm comfortable with a political party that doesn't extend a warm welcome to everyone -- Jews included. Instead, I see the Green Party drawing the noose tighter and tighter around itself, and its precipitous loss of influence in San Francisco over the past few years is a reflection of that.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

Unlike, say, your posts, Mr. or Ms. Snapples, which are not only so consistently brilliant and witty, but also change people's minds all the time, don't they?

Even if my posts are as tedious as you say, I've still got a long way to go before I catch up to your output.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

much more so than Mr. Brooks. But it seems like you two have reached a plateau here. It's a stalemate and sometimes when that occurs it's better to just call it a day and wait for the next battle.

I mean - there are 70+ posts and more than 90% of them belong to one of you two. Why keep arguing? Eric is convinced he's right, as are you - you're not changing each other's minds at this point, you're just wasting time.

I mean this in the best possible way. Brooks represents a tired, extremely marginal political POV (the San Francisco Green party - really?). He's not worth this much effort.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

ok, point taken. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

Although, I have to say that if you are really trying to calm things down, telling people to "shut up" is not the best possible way to do that. In fact, telling people to shut up is not the best possible way to do anything.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

OK - point taken :-)

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 01, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

...Goldstone retracts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03goldstone.html?hp

“If I had known then what I know now,” he wrote, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

Now how does that affect your theories on Israel/Palestine, Mr. Brooks?

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 02, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

My assessment of Israel's brutal, illegal and genocidal occupation of Palestine is based on several decades of mountainous and absolutely irrefutable proof of unconscionable wrongdoing. I've never even read the Goldstone report, because all of the other damning evidence against Israel, including plenty of evidence on the Gaza massacre itself, is overwhelming.

That vast historical body of information also tells me that Goldstone's original report where it damned Israel, was most certainly correct. The fact that the massive pressure of the Zionist lobby (which has, I am certain, included constant harassment and death threats toward Goldstone and his family) has simply gotten to him, and caused him to buckle under so that he can have a life.

The report proves absolutely nothing.

Decades of other reports prove the case against Israel.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 02, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

=v= Gotta love informed debate, it's so very productive.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Apr. 05, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

Yep, looks like one more person who is unable to think for himself. He joins a growing list that includes me, Michael Lerner, the entire Rainbow collective, and I can't even remember who else. Basically, the only people who are able to think for themselves are the ones who agree with you. All the others form their "opinions" at gunpoint. This is a very compelling argument, Eric, you've definitely sold me on it this time.

Posted by grrlfriday on Apr. 02, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

Katherine,

Just out of curiosity, two things. Why don't you use your name? And, how have you refrained from attacking John Rizzo?

go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

have been "murdering their political opponents for thousands of years." Could you elaborate?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

'Lucretia',

'Arthur Evans', 'Ruth Snave'? You're a time sink and not worth the electrons.

Giants down by 4 in 8th.

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

Board of Supervisors, District 6
H. BROWN 181 0.86%

Stunningly successful campaign you ran last year H. Once your comments on Jews ("these people") murdering their political opponents leaks out I'm sure your next campaign will be even more successful.

H's comments on Jews:

"some of the most arrogant people on Earth"
"These people will murder you and call it a 'business decision'. And, of course Yaweh has given them advance approval... They've been murdering their political opponents for several thousand years."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 03, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

Also from this author

  • Sharing the sun

    Solar energy entrepreneurs are pioneering new models for democratizing power

  • Not in our neighborhood

    District 2 residents and supervisor oppose housing projects for at-risk young people

  • Power to the powerful

    PG&E's proposed rate increase would hurt conservation and the poor