Ever seen a pink dolphin? The Guardian features an excellent article on Goldstone

The English newspaper, the Guardian, features a web-based column CiF (Comment is free) that is best known for its troll list of Israel-haters.  

So in the same way that a pink dolphin rarely appears,

 CiF has managed to come up with an excellent article from Sir Harold Evans, former editor of the Sunday Times and Times.

The article, entitled A Moral Atrocity, blasts Goldstone, the Goldstone Report and its hypocritical promoters, and the anaemic British Government for being AWOL when voting was taking place.

The subheading “Judge Golstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel”  is followed by an equally powerful first sentence “Aren’t the British sickened by the moral confusion of their Government”.

Read on and feel good that this British newspaperman has such clarity.  Even the Israel-haters trying to criticise him are at a loss – Shame! 

So who is Sir Harold Evans??  What about this from the Guardian itself.

In 2002, readers of the Press Gazette and the British Journalism Review voted Evans the greatest newspaper editor of all time; in 2004 he received a knighthood for services to journalism. He currently lives in New York with his wife, Tina Brown, former editor of Tatler, Talk, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker.

So a man voted the greatest newspaper editor of all time stands squarely in support of Israel. 

Now that sure is cause for panic stations by the anti-Israel brigade – so out they trot with the good Rabbi Michael Lerner for a protective anti-Israel piece.  

Lerner obliges although his opening line of “The global choir of ethical cretins who condemn Goldstone’s Gaza report do Israel no favours” .. sounds like ad hominem abuse and his follow-up of “I recently met a leading representative of the foreign ministry of Israel who acknowledged to me “off the record” that Israel had made a tremendous blunder in refusing to cooperate with the UN Commission”  –  sounds a bit shrill!

Melanie Phillips praises Sir Harold Evans’ article while the CiF watch website follows the flying fur.

In a previous blog item, we referenced Sir Harold Evans’ quote that “Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them”

. .. now that’s a good quote to remember.  Here is an earlier wide ranging interview with Evans on the media in general.

Anyone for a pink elephant.

Pin It

3 thoughts on “Ever seen a pink dolphin? The Guardian features an excellent article on Goldstone

  1. Don’t you think some of the most anti-Israel people are those, like Harold Evans in this piece anyway, who uncritically support the Israeli actions that most contravene Jewish ethics? A Palestinian site a while back complained that “the type of society Tikkun imagines for a future Israel, as hard as it is for hardcore Zionists to appreciate, is one in the forefront of saving the state of Israel for the foreseeable future, not its demise.” They saw that cleaning up Israel’s act is the best way to save it in the court of world opinion. That’s why Rabbi Lerner, in being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, is actually more pro-Israel than people like Evans.

  2. Margie in Tel Aviv October 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm -

    Dave Belden, attempting to save Israel must be done by honest means. By deliberately closing your eyes to the outstanding morality of its rules of engagement and its attempts to save the lives of Hamas’s decoys you are supporting its enemies. Those like Lerner & Tikkun who do not condemn the vile practices of Hamas that hides behind human shields, fires from within heavily populated civilian areas at civilian targets and sets booby traps at petrol stations in the city streets are accelerating the negation of the rules of morality in favour of appeasement of the forces of evil. If the court of public opinion is your only criterion and public opinion is defined by the dictatorships and closed societies that rule international bodies then cleaning up Israel’s act would be to lower its standards abysmally.

  3. Dave asks: Don’t you feel that people who uncritically support Israel actions (that most contravene Jewish ethics) are the most anti-Israel people. No, Dave, frankly I don’t, especially since you slipped in that little phrase – (that most contravene Jewish ethics) – without really describing which specific Jewish ethics you are referring to. I will need a lot of convincing about how Israels actions most contravene Jewish ethics. Don’t you think that defending ones family from one or 12000 rocket attacks is an important ethical demand?
    Then you add that a Palestine site a while back was giving some advice on how to strengthen Israel. That’s great. Which Palestine site was that? I am impressed that Israel is getting good advice from a Palestine site. Because a problem I see is that there is a distinct lack of Palestine sites that are prepare to openly support Israel’s existance and promote compromise. Then you close with .. “and that’s why Rabbi Lerner is more pro-Israel than Evans.” All a bit confusing. I won’t go so far as to say “knight’s move thinking” but you are obviously impressed that Rabbi Lerner’s ability to match the thoughts of this Palestine site is a key determinant of what is pro-Israel. By the way, Dave, and I realise that this is little off the point, the USA killed more than twice the number of civilians in Afganistan last year than Israel did in Gaza. Would you and Rabbi Lerner please urge an independent inquiry into US potentially criminal actions. I’d hate you to feel like you were a hypocrite.