Who is the most moral?
They might not be moral but still most moral.

If I'm not mistaken, by invoking Godwin's Law, that means they automatically lose the argument, correct? Which it seems is true since there seems to be no defense or explanation of specific acts that were purported.

I read the Redgrave et al (not clear what the relative role of the three signatories is) letter, and found it quite persuasive. I have also seen quite a bit about BDS on TPM comments lately, some by people who otherwise tend to make good sense too, so I surfed over to Wikipedia for a quick look at BDS. Not at all impressive, I must say. At least so far.

The basic premise seems to be that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign that clearly ASSISTED in bringing about the end of Apartheid in South Africa (there were certainly other factors too), can be readily applied to Israel. This is doubtful because despite some obvious similarities there are also major and I would say considerably more significant differences between Israel and South Africa.

1. Start with numbers.

South African whites which ruled the country before the 1990s and were the target of the decades long international boycott were a small minority (c. 20%) of not just South Africa as a whole, but apparently also most major urban areas within it. Even counting Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel, Jews are still roughly half the overall population. And I not aware of any Israeli city remotely like Johannesburg. Overall, circa 80% blacks in South Africa versus circa 50% Arabs in Israel+Palestine.

2. Geography: Israel+Palestine is not an integral country as South Africa is. There was never any issue of redrawing South Africa's borders, never any discussion of a "two-state" solution there. IF the South Africa parallel is to be invoked then the TARGET of the sanctions logically is Israel proper in which case the numbers difference becomes radical. Instead of 80% blacks, one has 20% Arabs within the internationally recognized territory of Israel.

3. History. The trekking Dutch settlers were not motivated by any return to ancestral lands. Nor was there a Holocaust killing on the order of third of all world Afrikaners, many of whom MIGHT have been saved had there then been a South Africa to escape to.

4. Politics: The influence of Afrikaner Apartheidists in the US Congress was negligible. NO such thing as an AAPAC (Apartheid Afrikaner Public Affairs Committee) ever existed. The main comparable struggle was with US companies making money in South Africa, not with special-interest lobbyists with 80% of Congress very firmly in their pocket on their pet issue.

5. Motive. As far as I can see the BDS movement has basically achieved zippo for the Palestinians, except maybe a bit of delusionary emotional uplift. (I also looked at BDS's own website where much is made of this or that European group cancelling some activity to with Israel. Okay, but how many US Congressmen care how some Norwegian pension fund invests its money? How many in Congress could even find Norway on a world map?) BDS's main effect in America seems to have been to cause tempests in teapots distracting the attention of progressive Jewish reformers who would really rather be fighting Likudniks and Israeli settlers rather than siding with them. Furthermore, there is an obvious alternative approach which the BDS movement seems to ignore for no defensible reason. Israel's extreme policies rest upon the moral, financial and political support of the US government (not the ability of its academics to attend conferences in London or hold film festivals in Tel Aviv). Liberate the US Congress from AIPAC and the liberation of Israel from the settler parties will surely accelerate. Fail to liberate the US Congress and BDS seems rather likely to become what I tend to suspect it may in large part already be anyway, BDS without the D.

J street's approach seems to include liberating the Jewish intellectual elite and progressive community from AIPAC as a means to then liberate the US Congress. It makes very good sense, which is not of course to say it will succeed. Distractions such as BDS, however, which has not a snowball's chance in hell of getting US Congressional support absent defeat of AIPAC and without that support little likelihood of affecting substantial change in Israel, are thus not helpful to the main and pragmatically critical thrust of reform within the US.

I will still probably agree with BDSers here when they criticize the policies of Israel and the US, but will continue to ignore rote calls for BDS, now that I understand better how tangential (if not downright counterproductive) that endeavor necessarily is.

The Jews did a very fine job of wiping most Canaanites off the face of the earth under the leadership of Joshua.

But that was okay, because they knew for a fact they were the Chosen. Because God told Moses.

The Jews are the Chosen People, the Japanese are Children of the Sun, the Chinese inhabit the Middle Kingdom, halfway between Earth and Heaven, upper caste Indians are the Arya, natural born nobles, and the Germans are the Master Race. While everyone recognizes that Americans are the Bestest People and Nation That Ever Existed or Ever Will. But the French are snobby.

At times it seems that the only people who have a sense of humor about this seem to be the Australians and maybe the Canadians. Otherwise the whole world seems to have a hundreds to thousands year stick stuck up their rears that convinces them that their upright posture is a gift from God unique to them.

Ironically, this is one of the few times that the metholodology of the Cut-and-Paste Picasso actually works to show the silliness of the thought. Consider the state deparement statement on anti-Zionism with the world "Islamic Republic" and "Muslim" substituted:

"However, disproportionate criticism of the Islamic Republic and/or Iranians and demonizing them as barbaric, unprincipled, selfish, inhumane, etc. is bigoted and has the effect of causing global audiences to associate those bad attributes with Muslims in general."

You can criticize it six ways from Sunday but it stands as US policy, which is why you will never see criticism of Israel coming out of Washington -- because such criticism would be officially considered to be anti-semitism..

There are plenty of recorded instances of armies deliberately attacking/killing women and children. Most recently, the horrific events in Guinea. But you don't really care about that do you?

Of course, while I wouldn't be surprised and indeed have heard isolated instances of atrocities, the notion that the IDF as a policy targeted women and children is sheer nonsense. The thing that's really unique here is the way in which Israel is singled out - actually, it's not that unique, just another iteration of the blood libel.

What matters is understanding that the slaughter of innocents is indefensible, no matter who commits these crimes"

It's total garbage. All wars in history of humankind resolved in civilian casualties.

I don't know if Goldstone is hysterical - that refers to the commenters here who carry on as if Israel alone is a scourge, a ferocious killing machine that must be eradicated from the planet.

Hypocritical? Definitely. For all the reasons stated.

Independent? Please be serious. Forming a panel that includes people who are on record as having already reached their conclusion as to the guilt of the accused is about as far as you can get from impartiality. Accepting a mandate to investigate to support a pre-ordained conclusion is not independence.

Why would an eminent (and Jewish) South African jurist lend his name and credibility to this deeply insidious effort? Frankly, I have no idea. The fact tha he is Jewish means nothing to me. Actually, I don't care to dwell on Goldstone personally - it's the substance of his report that is so deeply wrong - evil for lack of a better word.

To take but one example http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14455609

Yet the report takes the very thing it is investigating as its central organising premise. Israeli policy in Gaza, it argues, was deliberately and systematically to inflict suffering on civilians, rather than Hamas fighters (see article). Israel’s assertions that, in the difficult circumstances of densely populated Gaza, it planned its military operations carefully and with constant legal advice are taken by the report as evidence not of a concern to uphold international law but of a culpable determination to flout it. Israel’s attempts to drop warning leaflets, direct civilians out of danger zones and call daily humanitarian pauses may well have been inadequate, but the report counts them for nought. As many as 1,400 people died in the fighting. It is a grisly thought, but if Israel really had wanted to make Palestinian civilians suffer, the toll could have been vastly higher.

Reminds me a bit of the Dreyfus affair (not that I'm obsessed with this stuff, but there's an article in the New Yorker I've been reading). The main evidence against Dreyfus was a letter that was not written in his handwriting. No matter! The letter was a "reverse forgery" - the difference showed that Dreyfus purposely altered his handwriting.

In other words, the result was preordained.

The pity is that the report frustrates the objective that Israel should be striving for: to hold its politicians and soldiers to the highest standards of Israeli and international law. After its costly war in Lebanon in 2006, Israel plainly chose to minimise its own casualties by using massive firepower in Gaza. It went too far. There have been credible allegations that individual soldiers broke rules banning the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields sent first into properties where fighters may be holed up; that civilians known not to pose any military threat were killed in cold blood and that Israeli forces used white phosphorous over built-up areas. Israel is pursuing 23 criminal investigations so far into the Gaza operations. It must finish the job. Unlike Syria, say, Israel is a democracy that claims to live by the rule of law. It needs to make its case by moral force as well as by force of arms.

The UN report has not come at a good moment. Barack Obama is trying to restart direct talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The peace process was never going to be easy. With its thimbleful of poison, the Goldstone report has made the job all the harder.

Hamas operatives regularly fired rockets into Israel from within or near their own residential and public buildings, including schools, mosques and hospitals. They intentionally chose to base their operations in civilian areas not in spite of, but because of, the likelihood of harm to civilians which could then be used as propaganda against Israel.

Israeli life is valuable for Israeli. Arab life is cheap for Hamas. They use Arab life as the main tool in the PR war with Israel. They are creating conflict with the only goal in mind, produce dead Palestinian bodies to impress foolish people like you.