Many outside the Liberal American Jewish community have labeled Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous UN/Muslim/leftist sponsored Goldstone report, a self hating Jew. However Goldstone, and a cadre of staunchly pro-Palestinian Jews, adamantly deny the claim. Usually Goldstone and co. defend the report by asserting, “biased results be damned” we had the best of intentions and besides “honest” criticism is necessary for Israel’s good”.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Showing posts with label results. Show all posts
Showing posts with label results. Show all posts
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Haiti: Intentions AND Results
Why has America been so robust in its response to the Haiti crisis? The official line is that we have a responsibility towards the Haitian community, both because Haiti is in our "sphere of influence" and because of the large Haitian-American population. Yet as expected there are a multitude of perspectives emerging from the usual corners.
Danny Glover was interviewed on Democracy Now, a far-left news service. Glover argued that Haiti was being militarized by America reflecting a trend that hearkens back to the turn of the 19th century. Glover offers the fact that the copious supplies provided by the international community are not being channeled by the Haitian authorities. On the other side of the spectrum are those who see domestic politics at play. Afghanistan and health care are off the front page and congress and the president are temporarily off the hook. Yet an obvious reason for American involvement has been completely ignored. With 30,000 undocumented alien Haitians about to be deported, the United States is keen on avoiding a massive influx of Haitians to these shores. Thus our efforts in restoring order and helping.
This selfish line of thinking may explain most of the international communities actions. The burgeoning economic power-house, China, donated a mere 1 million dollars. I mean China is still dealing with the repercussions of the Sichuan earthquakes and the international aid that came along with it! Saudi Arabia offered a heartfelt condolence. The EU provided over 420 million euro, and Israel as they did following disasters in Turkey, Indonesia, and China, activated their roving hightech field hospital.
Each nations actions can, in theory, be expalained in pragmatic terms. Thus Haiti is outside China's sphere of influence, plus Haiti doesn't have any natural resources. The last time Saudi Arabia, offered more then words the twin towers were smoldering, AND they were being blamed by some for the attack. The EU is dealing with colonial guilt and an, albeit, smaller immigrant concern. Israel IS attempting to offset a constant stream of negative publicity.
It is no surprise that nations respond pragmatically. The question is whether nations should be judged based on their intentions or their actions? Is America doing good or acting selfishly?
On that note when dealing with others should we judge an action by the results or the intention? In courts of law we distinguish between man-slaughter and premeditated murder, between intentions and results. On the other hand in international legal situations like the the Goldstone report on Gaza(see blog entree "understanding the Goldstone report")the international communities conclusions reflect the results.
On the face of it our society likes to apply a logic of appropriateness, i.e. a subjective choice with a logical explanation. Some times results are what count other times it is the intentions. Seeing as we are so good at rationalizing the most pernicious acts, this should come as no surprise. We do it with ourselves all the time.
Perhaps, in this case it is not intentions vs. results but rather intentions and results. The unprecedented unity displayed by the international community, may be the arbitrary convergence of a multitude of intentions yet the result is unprecedented international unity, an unexpected unifying factor, how did that happen? I don't know.
But my Haitin buddy is asking me right now whether this resulting unity will translate into a better Haiti? I don't know.
Danny Glover was interviewed on Democracy Now, a far-left news service. Glover argued that Haiti was being militarized by America reflecting a trend that hearkens back to the turn of the 19th century. Glover offers the fact that the copious supplies provided by the international community are not being channeled by the Haitian authorities. On the other side of the spectrum are those who see domestic politics at play. Afghanistan and health care are off the front page and congress and the president are temporarily off the hook. Yet an obvious reason for American involvement has been completely ignored. With 30,000 undocumented alien Haitians about to be deported, the United States is keen on avoiding a massive influx of Haitians to these shores. Thus our efforts in restoring order and helping.
This selfish line of thinking may explain most of the international communities actions. The burgeoning economic power-house, China, donated a mere 1 million dollars. I mean China is still dealing with the repercussions of the Sichuan earthquakes and the international aid that came along with it! Saudi Arabia offered a heartfelt condolence. The EU provided over 420 million euro, and Israel as they did following disasters in Turkey, Indonesia, and China, activated their roving hightech field hospital.
Each nations actions can, in theory, be expalained in pragmatic terms. Thus Haiti is outside China's sphere of influence, plus Haiti doesn't have any natural resources. The last time Saudi Arabia, offered more then words the twin towers were smoldering, AND they were being blamed by some for the attack. The EU is dealing with colonial guilt and an, albeit, smaller immigrant concern. Israel IS attempting to offset a constant stream of negative publicity.
It is no surprise that nations respond pragmatically. The question is whether nations should be judged based on their intentions or their actions? Is America doing good or acting selfishly?
On that note when dealing with others should we judge an action by the results or the intention? In courts of law we distinguish between man-slaughter and premeditated murder, between intentions and results. On the other hand in international legal situations like the the Goldstone report on Gaza(see blog entree "understanding the Goldstone report")the international communities conclusions reflect the results.
On the face of it our society likes to apply a logic of appropriateness, i.e. a subjective choice with a logical explanation. Some times results are what count other times it is the intentions. Seeing as we are so good at rationalizing the most pernicious acts, this should come as no surprise. We do it with ourselves all the time.
Perhaps, in this case it is not intentions vs. results but rather intentions and results. The unprecedented unity displayed by the international community, may be the arbitrary convergence of a multitude of intentions yet the result is unprecedented international unity, an unexpected unifying factor, how did that happen? I don't know.
But my Haitin buddy is asking me right now whether this resulting unity will translate into a better Haiti? I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
