reaction-Goldsborough column

This was the only major offense in his column -- "There was a little slippage. Bush's pandering, his Iraq war and complete abandonment of ten years of progress toward Middle East peace picked up some Jewish votes for him."

Otherwise, no big deal. Well, for Goldsborough anyway. This column was mild compared to most of his diatribes against Jews.
—Marsha Sutton, Del Mar

* **
...Mike Byron, who (ran in) the 49th congressional district vs (Darrell) Issa, said that we should all cancel our subscriptions to the Trib due to this bit of censorship. I told him that I thought most Jews wouldn't mind it if Goldsborough left since his columns in the past have leaned towards Palestine and he sounded anti-Semitic at times. However, I see nothing wrong with this recent article that Copley nixed. I don't think Jews would have been offended at this. Where was Copley when he wrote diatribes against Israel?!
—Carol Baird, Solana Beach
* * *

It's amazing to me. How can James Goldsborough look at the last ten years in the Middle East and see "ten years of progress?" During that time, Arafat turned down Palestinian Statehood almost handed to him on a silver platter at Camp David. The PLO squandered billions of dollars donated to it by Europe and presided over two Intifadas that have virtually wiped out any progress toward a normal life for the Palestinian people. Violence has begot more violence. Children like Marla Bennett have been senselessly blown up. Israel has been forced to retaliate to the point were Palestinian communities on the West Bank and in Gaza are now in ruins and the economies of both peoples have been dealt serious blows.

And in all this, Goldsborough only sees "progress toward peace" ruined by Bush's policies.

While one of his oldest and best friends may be Jewish, Goldsborough is no man of peace or insight. His columns have been consistently offensive to men of reason or good will. His latest, the one kept from publication by David Copley, was really not as offensive as others that have darkened the opinion pages of the Union-Tribune. Goldsborough's resignation is no loss to international understanding, fairness or decency among men, but it is a very welcome Chanukah/Christmas gift to San Diego U-T readers.
—Norman Greene, San Diego

* * *

I read the article with great interest because I think the most of the stuff I had read in Goldsboroough's columns were off the wall. I have no problem with this article. It should not have been pulled. Some of his
past articles should have at least been accompanied by counterpoint which they weren't.

For a while I was monitoring the UNION on-line and sent email letters to the editor reacting to Goldsborough, believing naively that my years of contribution to the San Diego community and my residence now in Israel
would make me very printable. For reasons I don't understand, my emails were not accepted. I could not even contact my good friend Lionel Van Deerlin through the UNION. Do they routinely reject foreign emails. Are we considered spam?
—Muriel Goldhammer, Kfar Saba, Israel
* * *

He is a most committed anti-Israel writer. He is always unfair. I have personally complained about how unfair he is. At first, years ago, I thought that he was Jewish but was disabused of that inaccuracy. Some of his columns have been attractive because he was very critical of George W. Bush, but that was a vacation from his usual diatribe about Israel. He takes full advantage of attacking Jews through attacking Israel, so the case is difficult to make until one realizes that he reflects the anti-Israel editorial policy of the U-T.
—Sanford Goodkin, San Diego

* * *

I initially bristled as Goldsborough took advantage of an opportunity, by quoting his Jewish friend, to once again portray the Israelis as occupiers and oppressors of the Palestinians. But his description of Jewish voting patterns, and the values that are expressed by them, was spot-on.

I'm just amazed -- perhaps incredulous is a better word -- that Goldsborough indicates surprise that Jews would vote 3 to 1 for Kerry. What planet is he from? How could an editorial columnist for a leading newspaper who frequently writes about Jews and Israel be so ignorant about that subject?

I have to surmise that Goldsborough is shallow in his understanding of many issues, in spite of his apparent facility with written words.

Having said that, I don't understand Copley's decision to spike the story. It's a lot less offensive than others written by Goldsborough that I've read. There must be another factor of which we're not aware. Or maybe it was just Copley objecting to the idea that Jews voted AGAINST Bush because they wanted to vote FOR justice

—Daniel J. Brin, West Hills, CA
* * *

James Goldsborough is a brilliant columnist. Even though I rarely agree with his assessment of Israel and the "neoconservatives", his recent pulled column is one of his least offensive ones. In any event, I believe in freedom of the press and Voltaire's statement, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Even so, David Copley has made his decision and Goldsborough has made his; and their decisions ought to have nothing to do with the San Diego Jewish Community. For the Jews to become involved will only be misinterpreted and certainly distorted.

—Howard Rubenstein, El Cajon
* * *

The gentleman who wrote that article is no friend of the Jews. So there is no reason to shed tears at his departure. Happy Hanukah,
—Nechemia Meyers, Rehovot, Israel

* * *

Read the story and Goldsborough's article. I am certainly glad he's gone. However, he missed the point.

While Israel is very important to most American Jews, it is not the only issue we vote on. American Jews are Americans first and Jews second. Our values are overriding in our choices for elected office. Bush didn't win the Jewish vote or lose it because of his support for Israel. He didn't get it because of the other issues the election was about.

Foremost amongst these was the war in Iraq. While I support the war I never bought Bush's stated reasons. Weapons of mass destruction were not the real reason we are there. Neither is Saddam's alleged funding of terror. We are there because "W" believes in his heart that changing regimes there will eventually lead to a change in other governments of the region and, eventually, a change in attitude in Arabs and Muslims in general that will take them from terrorism. I don't know if he's right or not and I doubt that I will live to see the outcome but I hope his conviction is borne out.

The same values make us liberal on most domestic issues.

Finally there is the budget deficit. I couldn't vote for the President because of this issue even if there had been no others. I can't believe that we are better off leaving our children and grandchildren saddled with this deficit. Jews take responsibility for their beliefs and don't pass the buck to later generations.

In short, Goldsborough was wrong about the election and cites the wrong reasons for our lack of support for Bush.

—Michael Bennett, San Diego