Litmus tests are dangerous conveniences. We all have them, we all use them, perhaps thinking of them as our own personal “red lines”: Cross them, and you’re in the enemy camp. Be cruel to a child, oppose progressive taxation, make excuses for torture or for terrorism, deny the Holocaust or view Israel with contempt and you have crossed mine, you are on the other side. These single factors are for me decisive, and that’s the standard definition of a litmus test.
And that’s its danger, too. People are endlessly and awesomely complicated, and taking a part as representative of a whole can get you into trouble, can lead to mistaken judgments, can bespeak laziness or arrogance, can ruin the chance to persuade or be persuaded, to teach, to learn. Accordingly, take care: Know which red lines are fundamental, drawn in bold and enduring (say, to take an easy example, pedophilia) and which are a peripheral, drawn in a more tentative pink (e.g., Jackie Mason).
What prompts these reflections is the curious emergence of the Goldstone report as a litmus test of pro-Israelism, used for that purpose by both left and right.
True, the Goldstone report is very tough on Israel. But given Judge Richard Goldstone’s background and, still more important, given the details of specific excesses cited in the course of the 575-page report, it is a document that plainly calls for very close examination. In effect, it is a search for probable cause, and yes, it finds sufficient evidence to warrant indictment — not conviction, but a full and fearless examination of the evidence. It cannot be shrugged away, or shouted away, nor should it be mindlessly, much less gleefully, endorsed.
A good-faith examination of the evidence is, in fact, what the report itself proposes. Goldstone calls on both Israel and Hamas to conduct genuinely independent investigations of its “findings.”
Such a proposal is hardly incendiary. By now, it has been endorsed not only by the White House but also by, among others, Israel’s deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, and his colleague in the Likud party Michael Eitan, as also Avishai Braverman and Isaac Herzog of Labor, all four currently members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet. The idea, we’re told, is being actively debated in the upper reaches of Israel’s political echelon, and were it not for the determined opposition of embattled Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is adamant in his refusal to permit a civilian inquiry, who insists that the Israel Defense Forces is perfectly capable of investigating itself, a commission of inquiry might well by now have been appointed.
But here in the United States, inquiry’s not our game. Most Jewish organizations have seen fit to denounce Goldstone, indignantly hitching their star to a bandwagon. There is scant evidence that many speaking out have actually read the report in its entirety. And in blogs and correspondence, the lazy shorthand of litmus testing predominates.
A man of the left, sitting next to me during Rabbi Eric Yoffie’s talk at the recent J Street conference, muttered angrily during Yoffie’s harsh critique of Goldstone — and then, during Yoffie’s still harsher critique of Israel’s settlement policies, which accorded with his own, became visibly perplexed. The pieces didn’t add up. Days later, a blogger wrote to me that if I agree with Yoffie’s view of Goldstone (I don’t), “you should consider in what company you find yourself, namely the rightist government of Bibi Netanyahu.” By extension, Rabbi Yoffie is presumably already in Netanyahu’s company” — a fact that will surely come as a shock to both men. As if anticipatory guilt by association should suffice to determine one’s judgment.
A friend on the other side of the argument, himself the leader of a major national Jewish organization, tells me: “I tend publicly to support the country I love but privately to ask that country to have an investigation.” As if publicly calling for an investigation is a show of non-support. Tell that to Dan Meridor.
David Harris of the American Jewish Committee calls on the United Nations to “put an end to the Goldstone commission, instead of peddling its utterly discredited conclusions in the corridors of the U.N. Security Council and the International Criminal Court,” this as if the report’s proposal for independent commissions of inquiry had not been explicitly put forward as a central and urgent recommendation of the Goldstone commission.
And so forth.
And now comes H.R. 867, which the House of Representatives on November 3 passed by a vote of 344 to 36. The resolution was mindlessly endorsed by an array of Jewish organizations despite the fact that it was tendentiously framed, was about as one-sidedly pro-Israel as the U.N. Human Rights Council (under whose auspice Goldstone was produced) was anti-Israel. The bill called on the president and secretary of state “to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration” of Goldstone. It began with 32 “whereas” clauses intended to provide the factual context for the “unequivocal opposition” it seeks.
Depend on those 32 for a true depiction of the report’s context and you might as well send in your $19.95 for a fool-proof cure for your baldness (and if you call in the next 10 minutes, etcetera). You won’t learn that Judge Goldstone insisted that the commission inquire into the behavior of Hamas, and that when it did it found Hamas and not only Israel guilty of war crimes; you won’t know that Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone commission; you won’t know that 26 pages of the report are devoted to the rocket and mortar attacks on Sderot and other communities in southern Israel. In short, you won’t know that HR 867 is just another grandstand.
Oompahpah, oompahpah, that’s what they’re playing on the grandstands and on the bandwagons that bring them there. And the lyrics? Blah blah blah.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott Israel a Boon to BDS?
Alas, Poor GOP: 3 D.C. Scandals That Weren't
Forced Out by Nazis, Grandmother Returns With Family to German Hometown 
Mother of Jewish Teen Killed on Brooklyn Bridge Speaks Out
You've successfully signed up!
First, there was the Katyusha, then the Qassam, then the Zelzal and al Fajr rockets, but the Goldstone is more effective than all of them
Very nice article Mr. Fein. As for JMK who'd like to kill 10,000 Arabs to save 10 Jews, he should not be allowed 100 miles near any flight school. Next thing you know, he'll be condoning a final "solution" to the "Arab" problem. An investigation only hurts the guilty. Some credible reports have shown that civilians were targeted in the Gaza war, so lets investigate. We investigate our own president over an "alleged" BJ, but we can't investigate reports of the targeting of innocent people in war times. What is happening to this country?
How many innocent men, women, and children have been killed by US and British forces in Afghanistan since Obama took office (not to mention Iraq)? And Afghanistan never fired one rocket at the US or England. Where are the HRC inquiries into US warm crimes in those countries? Maybe US and British service personnel should be put on trial at the Haugue?
The fact is that far fewer civilians were killed by Israel defending itself after 8 years of rocket attacks. And the proportion of civilians killed in Gaza to combatants(~350 civilians out of 1100 total killed) is far lower than those killed by the US and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan, even under Obama. But the Goldstone hypocrites only see fit to smuggly judge Israel. Those deaths are all unfortunate, but the responsibility lies squarely with Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian leadership who love to exploit their civilian's deaths.
Why were so few Israeli's killed? Very simple- because we care about our civilians. We have the "Color Red" alert system, and we have built bomb shelters in all neighborhoods and all new buildings.
Leonard Fine, you should look at yourself in the mirror before you start judging us. Your soldiers have killed far more innocents than mine ever did.
LB Israel
When Raed Kami says that the Goldstone report is more effective than the Katyusha, I understand that to mean that the use of the law is more effective than indiscriminate military attacks.
I agree.
LB wrote:
>Where are the HRC inquiries into US warm crimes in those countries?
http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/afghanistan
LB, please do a Google search before you ask questions.
The human rights community is treating Israel just like they treat everybody else.
Norman; You misinterpretate Raed Kami who means to say that the Arabs in Palestine use political measures (rather than using the law) in order to back and forward their terror Katyushas' policy.
Amnesty is not as HRC, will all due respect. Any way, Amnesty neglected the long years of Arab Palestinians atrocities that were imposed upon Israel. The HRC, which is ruled by Islamic non-developed third world states, is well known for being biased towards Israel. I will be happy if you'll show us what the HRC did in the last 9 years to deal with the Islamic extremist terror groups and actions all around the globe or how it dealt with the Western aggression imposed against Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.
Much more interesting than Mr Fine's article is the duet of Raed Kami and Norman. Raed Kami has expressed in one mere sentence his hope of Israel's defeat: The impact of the propaganda success (the Goldstone Report) is much more effective than all the missiles fired at Israel. Then comes Norman, and he casts Raed Kami's comment into his own mould: Raed Kami means to tell us that the use of law is more effective than the indiscriminate missiles. In Norman's re-interpretation, one could almost understand that he "believes" that international law is Raed Kami's guiding light. Yet, it is obvious and clear that Raed Kami thinks that the State of Israel should not exist, irregardless of legalities. He is not guided by the rule of law, but by an ideology. Norman knows this as well, but he likes to pretend that there is no unreasonable hostility towards Israel (as we recall from last week's debate when he pretended that Hamas would be willing to recognize Israel by an intentionally misleading quote).
To Norman, Thank you for the link. I read it and it reinforced my point - that is the hypocricy of the HRC and it's backers that drove the Goldstone commision which included some of the world's truely worst human rights abusers. Though there are a few short paragraphs in the link you sent describing the killing of civilians by US forces in Afghanastan, there is no Goldstone commission set up to with the a-priori goal of claiming war crimes against British or US forces. No demonization of British or US or other coalition forces. No condemnations in the UN. And this despite the fact that the Afghans never fired one rocket against Britain or the US or any of the other European states that contribute to the forces killing civilians in Afghanastan.
The point is not to denegrate the US, Britain, France or any of the other countries that are looking to protect their interests by fighting terror in far-away Afghanastan or Iraq. They have valid reasons and are not intentionally trying to kill civilians. Yet these countries travel half way around the world to protect their interests, while Israel's citizens were actually attacked for nearly a decade by thousands of rockets fired from 2 km away while the world remained silent. Only when Israel decides enough is enough and takes action to defend itself is it mercilessly demonized and attacked. And despite all this, Israel is still much more careful to minimize non-combatant casualties than these other coalition countries fighting in Afghanastan or Iraq.
You are asking us to trust the validity of The Goldstone Report based on Goldstone's "good name", the Islamic world and its leftist supporters are in a propaganda war against Israel and you are asking to investigate the validity of the absurd. When you began this article did you perform due diligence, did you as a professional make a thorough investigation of the facts. No you did not, the fifth estate has been guilty in the past, the Iraq War, for example, the absolute obsequiousness to any administation but especially Obama's. The Al Dura episode is proven staged propaganda yet it is still cited as a war cry, millions believe it was the Jews who blew up the WTC. This is who you are associating with without doing due diligence and accepting the good will of some very biased people. It is called thinking, fact collecting, questioning, criticizing, analyzing, it used to be called journalism.
Norman, Im glad you agree with me. Armed resistance is one method that we use to liberate Palestine. International outrage is another. The Goldstone Report is a welcome manifestation of international outrage at the apartheid zionist entity. Both armed resistance and international outrage are necessary for the liberation of Palestine. They are not interchangeable
Raed,
I can't deny armed resistance in principle, since Jews engaged in armed resistance during the Second World War.
However, I think armed resistance is effective and just in only a few limited circumstances. I don't think it's effective to fire rockets at Sderot, and the only people who are killed are innocent residents who are living within the 1967 borders.
I realize the rockets are retaliation against Israeli attacks. Anyone who wants Hamas to stop firing rockets at Sderot has to tell Hamas what effective actions they should take instead (other than abject surrender on Israeli terms).
Of course, settling things through treaties and in international court would be the best alternative. It's too bad the Israelis don't want to settle things peacefully rather than through military action.
Norman - I think that you need some help in reading codes. In stating that "both armed resistance and international outrage are necessary for the liberation of Palestine", Raed Kami means the elimination of Israel. Raed is not speaking about arriving at a peace settlement with Israel. You speak of "innocent residents of Sderot within the 1967 borders", as if you think that Raed Kami recognizes their legitimacy. He means by the "liberation of Palestine" to "liberate" also Sderot. You can't see his intention because you are determined to view Israel as the unreasonable side of the conflict, therefore pretending that Hamas is quite reasonable. Hence, for you, rocket attacks on Sderot are merely "retaliation against Israeli attacks" - not part of an ideology that denies Israel's right to exist. You blame Israelis for not wanting to solve things peacefully - yet Raed is telling you in plain English that "armed resistance" is part of the struggle to liberate Palestine from the "Zionist entity". Since you have such a difficulty in understanding codes, I can help you by pointing out that "Zionist entity" is a way of saying "I don't recognize the legitimacy or existence of Israel, so I won't call her by her name". There is no policy of Israel that Raed would approve of and say: "Fine, now I'll live in peace with Israel". He, just like the Hamas, means to fight her to the end - until the destruction of Israel. He is a very honest man, and he admits his intentions openly. Why you, an intelligent man, can't read him correctly is really the mystery of the anti-Israel Jewish "intellectual".
Led Raed speak for himself.
Norman - Raed has spoken for himself. He wishes the State of Israel to be destroyed. You, too, have spoken for yourself. You have justified random attacks of missiles on Israel's civilians as the only realistic option of Hamas. What a duet.
You, Norman, were the first one to interpret (actually, misinterpret) Raed's comment ("when Raed Kami says that the Goldstone report is more effective than the Katyusha, I understand that to mean....."). You put words into his mouth, leaving the impression that he sees the world in your eyes (that the conflict should be resolved in the international court), not by violence. He believes in the use of violence ("Norman, I'm glad you agree with me. Armed resistance is one method that we use to liberate Palestine"). Sadly, it is true: You do agree with him that it is legitimate to shoot missiles into Israel - at any target - for lack of any better means of conducting a conflict ("anyone who wants Hamas to stop firing rockets at Sderot has to tell Hamas what effective actions they should take instead"). Well, you must be a very cruel and unreasonable person. I think that you could suggest to the Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of Jewish statehood as a first step towards ending the conflict based on two states in the former territory of the Mandate. Gee, it wasn't so difficult finding a nice alternative to the random shooting of missiles at Israelis. I wonder why you couldn't have thought of it without my help.
The most unreasonable part of your comment was your allusion to the Holocaust ("I can't deny armed resistance in principle, since Jews engaged in armed resistance during the Second World War"). One doesn't have to be a commentator of the stature of Rashi to catch what you are saying: The Palestinian cause is being likened to the Jewish uprisings during the Holocaust, fighting the forces of absolute evil. Surely, you are not so ignorant of the Holocaust reality that you would compare it to anything. You wish to manipulate animosity towards Israel, and through that manipulation you wish to justify the use of violence against us.
"oppose progressive taxation" & "make excuses for torture or for terrorism"
Stopped reading here. The feeling is mutual.
Ben Levi,
If Hamas recognized Israel, what would happen? Would Israel stop killing Palestinians (which was the provocation that led Hamas to resume missile firings)? Would Israel end the blockade of Gaza? Would it end the checkpoints?
No. Every time the Palestinians have made concessions in the past, the Israelis said, "Thank you very much. Here's a list of ten more unilateral concessions we want you to make. When you've finished that, we'll think about it."
In fact, Palestinian groups have recognized Israel repeatedly, and they haven't gotten anything in return. In the 1980s, a group of Palestinian and Israeli leftists signed a "Treaty between the two peoples," recognizing the Israeli state and the Palestinian state. The Israeli government put some of the Palestinians in prison (one of them a recognized physicist, which led to a world-wide protest).
In fact, Arafat recognized Israel. What did he get for it?
In fact, the Palestinians have repeatedly tried peaceful political protest. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/329fvswo.asp?pg=1 The Israelis simply repressed their movements and shot them. What did they get for it?
In fact, the Arab League has offered to recognize Israel, in return for ending the settlements and returning to the 1967 borders. Hamas would accept that. So there's peace if you want it. The Israelis don't want peace -- they would rather have settlements.
So you're telling Hamas what the Israeli government has always been telling the Palestinians: We want you to meet all our demands. We're not going to meet any of your demands. If you resist, peacefully or vioently, we'll supress you ruthlessly and kill you. If you do what Jews did when we were in your position during the Second World War, we'll suppress you ruthlessly and kill you.
Do you expect Hamas to accept that deal? Would you?
All you're offering them is a humiliating surrender. So don't be surprised if you get rockets in return.
Norman,
The very existence of Israel is the source of daily humiliation for Arabs - they lost their Muslim land to the people condemned in Quran.
They had not and will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as this would be equal to denouncing their own religion.
This is an excellent and courageous article. I often disagreed with the author when he wrote his blog for APN, but I agree with every word of this piece. As is true of all centrists, one never knows what position Leonard Fein will take on any issue. His position on Goldstone is exemplary.
Norman - The Hamas does not accept the Israel's right of existence. That's a fact. The acceptance of Israel's right to exist in their eyes is likened to "a humiliating surrender". So, they see themselves at war as long as Israel exists. Their proposal to Israel is: 1. To withdraw from the territory captured in 1967, 2. To return and compensate all the refugees, 3. To allow for the founding of a Palestinian state. In exchange for these steps, the Hamas offers a ten-year cease fire. Note - they offer a cease-fire, not peace or an end of conflict. You would imagine that answering all these demands would satisfy Hamas. What more could they possibly want? But none of these demands is the essence of conflict for them, so all they can offer is a temporary cease-fire as in the days of Muhammad's conquests (in Arabic, they call the cease-fire "hudna", as in the 7th century). They are committed to Israel's ultimate destruction, and the founding of an Islamic state in the entire Land from the Mediterranean Sea until the Jordan River. Your claim that they would accept the Arab League position is absolutely untrue. Since your point of view is anti-Israel, you have created an intellectual world in which only Israel is at fault, and therefore her enemies are reasonable people.
By the way, the Hamas charter is committed to the murder of the entire Jewish people - not just the State of Israel. Since you are pro-Hamas, I suppose that you will claim that "it's just rhetoric" (it's not). Yet, I find it quite strange that anyone could support people who just speak "rhetorically" of genocide. But that's the nature of the anti-Israel crowd. Animosity for Israel is the overriding motivation that will allow for the ignoring or the toleration of statements, positions and aspirations that would never be ignored or tolerated under any other circumstances.
This op-ed is an excellent example of why American Jews, even those with extensive involvement with Israel, should be reticent about expressing their opinions. It is true that Dan Meridor, Avishai Braverman and others support some sort of commission to investigate Goldstone Committee charges. However, neither believes these charges are equivalent to an indictement. Rather, they feel that tactically such a committee serves Israel's interests.
Living in the US, you miss subtle elements that add shading and tone to opinions of those who live in Israel. Here, we have those who want a committee because they feel it will take the pressure off. There are others who believe that our own army's code needs to be redrawn to reflect assymetrical warfare. A committee would help achieve that aim.
Only the lunatic left here thinks we are guilty of war crimes or even that such a charge deserves consideration.
I believe the existence of the zionist entity is itself a war crime and needs to be investigated by the UN. The partition agreement of 1948 needs to be revisited by the UN now that most of the world is free of colonialism that overshadowned the UN in 1948. I call on Jews of conscience to support this aim. Goldstone is one of these righteous Jews
We know that God loves the Palestinian children.
Are You Not Monsters?
What kind of people would embrace a religion whose body of laws profess horrible abominations against the Mother of Jesus and all Christians?
You do not deceive all of us and you never have. We have the entire uncensored set of your abhorrent Talmud and we make use of it. The dark and sick rituals that many of your people practice are well known to us and for this and more they condemn your lot to the wrath of God in this life and the next.
Suzy Ghanem - Maybe you should read a history book about the Middle East conflict. There was no "partition agreement". There was a plan to partition Palestine that was accepted by the UN General Assembly on Nov 29, 1947. There was no agreement, obviously, because the Arabs went to war to prevent the implementation of the UN plan. General Assembly decisions are not binding (still, this Arab attack is the only case in history of a war being fought against a UN decision). So, Israel came into existence - not with an agreement. She came into existence because of the rise of the Yishuv, the Hebrew speaking national community - and the Yishuv established the State of Israel within the framework of the universal right of self-determination.