I have read Mr. Goldborough's columns in the past and while I realize that he may have had a view contrarian to some in the "Jewish Community", as expressed by many of the letters to the editors, I have spoken with many in the "Jewish Community" who share the same views.

Freedom of the press is one of the ways to help rid the community of Anti-Semitism. Since when does "America" stand for censorship because someone may be offended?  Isn't frank discussion and controversy a way to open minds? I would love to know the real backstory to this one.

* * * 

* * *
... Obviously, he killed Goldsborough's column to (1) pander to Bush and supporters here in San Diego, one of the thickest parts of this country's conservative cesspool, and (2) cement the Union-Tribune as the #1 amateur journalistic attempts in the U.S. There was nothing offensive to Jews in the article. I have cancelled my subscription to the U-T.
Jerry Levinson, Escondido

* **

This is a sign of the Bush times. An article like this deserves to be read. I am not a Jew, but this article informed me more about what is going on than most I have read.  If this fine article can be pulled..what's next? Custer was not at  Wounded Knee?
—Esther Nahgahnub, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

***

* *

***
I agree with your analysis. The column that Goldsborough wrote which purportedly motivated Copley to fire him was very mild and hardly offensive, especially by his usual vitriolic standards.

As you correctly pointed out, he has written columns in the past that were really insulting and offensive, not only to the Jewish community, but to Jews in general, to Israel in particular, and to every decent
individual, Jewish or not, who is trying to understand objectively the facts surrounding the conflict. His barely concealed hatred of the Jewish state blinded him more than once and prompted him to give
outrageously one-sided analyses of the conflict. Remarkably - and typically - he was an apologist of homicide bombers, finding all sorts of excuses to justify their despicable tactics. He showed the same kind
of objectivity than the Arab bloc shows at the UN: whoa unto Israel from where all evil comes, but let's not say a word about the brutality and absence of democracy pervading 22 Arab nations. His double standard was nothing short of sickening for any reader (except the left-wing coterie that reveres him).

But his worst sin, in my view at least, was that he was intellectually dishonest, making sure to omit key facts when it was convenient to bolster his skewed views. My guess is that, even if he did not read each
one of Goldsborough's columns, Copley must have become tired of hearing protests from readers over his highly partial tirades. This would explain why this relatively mild column was the straw that broke the
camel's back. Copley was probably waiting for such an opportunity to present itself. And Goldsborough gave it to him.

San Diego will be better off without his poisonous pen being given such a prominent position. Let's hope he disappears in the sunset for good.

—Jean-Jacques Surbeck, Encinitas

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *
The Union Tribune is a great newspaper partly because of the diversity of thoughtful opinions presented in the Op Ed section. An important contributor to that diversity is the column by James Goldsborough.  The recent censorship of his column is thus a frightening and sad development.
 
We know that Rumsfeld only wants us to hear the good news from the Iraq war. We know that Karl Rove only wants us to hear news about the President that paints him in a favorable light.  To make informed judgments, however, we need to have more than their perspective.
 
Freedom of speech in America is under attack due to censorship from those few who own and thus control the media.  Without Goldsborough, the Union Tribune will be considerably less interesting to us.
—Larry & Mirian Sverdrup, Poway.

* * *
I want to thank Mr. Goldsborough for directing me to the internet posting of the column of his which the Union Tribune refused to publish.

I am what I call an "agnostic Jew."  I'm extremely proud to be Jewish, but I also refuse to believe that humans have understood and explained whatever creative force exists in the universe.   Maybe I'm not "Jewish enough" to be offended by Mr. Goldsborough's column.

On the other hand, I have written the Union Tribune in the past and pointed out that they should be referring to Jesus as "Jesus," and not as "Jesus Christ."  Adding "Christ" implies an acceptance that Jesus was the savior.  It's really not appropriate for the paper to imply such an acceptance in articles which are intended to be factual.  I have written letters concerning my desire to see the cross on Mt. Soledad removed.  I was even kicked out of music class in 5th grade because I refused to sing Christmas carols.

All that said, some might still say I'm not "Jewish enough" to be a measure of whether Mr. Goldsborough would have offended Jews with his rejected column.  I'm pretty easily offended, though, and Mr. Goldsborough's column didn't provoke me in the least.  I'm more offended, frankly, by the narrow perspective that's often exhibited by the Union Tribune.  A little balance on the editorial pages would be nice.  Is it too late to reject Mr. Goldsborough's resignation?
—David F. Schwartz, Esq., San Diego

* * *
I don’t know if anyone is really aware of the real reason for his resignation. I learned a long time ago never to accept things on face value.

If Goldsborough’s column was pulled because of the reason that it was ‘offensive to Jews,” it probably would be the first time that the San Diego Union-tribune exhibited such sensitivity. 

The column that was pulled was less offensive than 95 percent of the columns the Union-Tribune previously printed .  As usual he doesn’t miss an opportunity to either stereotype Jews or Israel.

I think that Rabbi Rosenthal got it just right.  Goldsborough is an individual who is mean spirited, ideologically anti-Israel, profoundly insensitive to Jewish issues, and one who will not be missed by the Jewish community.
—Morris Casuto, regional director, Anti-Defamation League.

* * *
I didn't see anything "too" horrible in his column though maybe he had an actual "ah-ha" moment when he realized the real outcome of the Jewish vote. We the Jewish community have had such difficulty with him during his tenure here with his seemingly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bent.  Maybe he learned something from the vote, about what most Jews care about and not to accuse them of one- issue voting. I won't miss him.
—Leslie Caspi, San Diego

* * *
A few comments:
1. "We met on a tennis court in Paris" and shmoozing over "a good bottle of Santa Ynez cabernet" at an Italian restaurant already makes the author sound snooty and elitist.

2. In the same paragraph, he says "Bush kowtows to Ariel Sharon, I said, blocking progress toward a settlement and a viable Palestinian state. Jews voted 4-1 for Al Gore in 2000, I said. Bush wants to win back the Jewish vote by embracing Sharon". Maybe Jews voted overwhelmingly for Gore in 2000 because his VP candidate was someone named Joseph Lieberman, who:
a. Is a traditional, practicing Jew, and
b. Many believed was brought on board as a moralist to counter the Lewinsky/Clinton issue. So, morals are
   important. Also, Sharon is pushing his Gaza settlement removal plan. Is that not progress?

3. The article is based on Jerry Cohen's idea of what Judaism *should be* and what Israel was/is *supposed to be*. Does Cohen have a monopoly on Judaism? Do you think the orthodox, conservative, or reform have a monopoly on Judaism?

4. Cohen assumes that Jews are worried about "land occupation". Are they? Was there a poll? Of how many people? If it bothers them, then how much?

5. Cohen assumes that "social justice" is at the top of Jews' priorities.
a. Is it? Maybe it's lower taxes, homeland security, the death penalty, or other issues.
      b. Besides a monopoly on the definition of Judaism, does Cohen also have the monopoly on the definition of "social  justice"? Some might interpret this as school choice, tougher drug laws, tougher law enforcement, or whatever.

6. Is Bush the one that abandoned the chance for Middle East peace? Do the words "Al Aksa Brigade", "Hamas", "Popular Front", and "suicide bombers" ring a bell? How about Ehud Barak's generous offer in 1999? Maybe it's not the Israelis and Bush's fault? Let's remember that the latest intifada started during Barak's and Clinton's  terms at the helm.

7. A person's vote is the result of adding up the various issues on either side. Issues may also be different based on their local or state environment. Let's not forget gay marriage. It could be that "land occupation" and "social justice" and their interpretations, are less of an issue than others. People should be allowed to vote like they feel, not based on what their rabbi, mayor, professor of economics, or seasoned journalist has to say.

8. The article should have been printed. The reason why it may have offended Jews is that it stereotypes them, as opposed to being people of different developed opinions. It is more offensive to Goldsborough himself. He has shown himself to be bitter, detached, and guilty of stereotyping of people who are open to ideas other than his own. Maybe he should lay off the "Santa Ynez cabernet" and stick to something from the Golan Heights Winery.
—Joshua D. Males,  Maale Michmas, Israel
 * * * 

Of course we are glad that Goldsborough is no longer there, but I found NOTHING in his killed piece that I (usually NOT very tender to him) would see as antisemitic or even anti-Israel. He is wrong, but not anti-Israel and anti-Jewish as in other HORRIBLE columns which the editor and publisher let go. In my decade of fight against him and his writings, including two meetings with the editorial board, one alone and the second with a delegation of Christians and Jews (you know the story),I always said in his face: " I don't quarrel with your opinions on the Mideast, although I disagree with them, but I protest against your bias, distortions, selective quoting, giving a pass to the Arab side despite corruption and terror, and outright lies." But this piece does not qualify for my ire.

This piece is clearly anti-Bush but he has been doing that for years. I surmise this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I KNOW that they have been unhappy with him (They are Republicans and he is, in my opinion, extreme left--the problem with the Jewish establishment is that they agree with him on anti-Bush and Bush-bashing and, THEREFORE, they give him a pass on his anti-Israel and Sharon-bashing; hence their non-response to my repeated call on the creation of a rapid-response team of official judentum to counter his diatribes). The Cohen he quotes (selective as usual) is one of the Jews in the Left who are shocked by "Israelis becoming persecutors etc...(Goldsborough's opinion of course) with that kind of disconcerting laziness that doesn't take into account the geopolitical context of terror, rejectionism, incitement , education in schools, books... In this piece, Goldsborough even says that "Jewish VALUES are better than Bush's values", thank you very much.
—Isaac Yetiv, La Jolla  
* * *