Blaming Jews for the impending war with Iraq

[renata]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/moran.jews/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, is in hot water with Jewish groups for declaring the "strong support" of the Jewish community was driving the push toward a military conflict with Iraq.
....

At a March 3 antiwar forum in Reston, Virginia, outside Washington, Moran talked about why he felt the antiwar movement was not stronger in the United States.

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," said Moran, whose remarks were first reported by the Reston Connection newspaper. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

....

Moran, a seven-term lawmaker, issued an apology Monday for the comments.

"I should not have singled out the Jewish community and regret giving any impression that its members are somehow responsible for the course of action being pursued by the administration, or are somehow behind an impending war," Moran said.

"What I was trying to say is that if more organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more outspoken against war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as an option."



Well, I know who I am writing a nasty letter to this week.
I wish I could see his speech in its entirety, to see what the context is. However, I do not see how his remarks could be misinterpreted, if the quote in the article is accurate.


edited to add a link to his bio and contact information, in case anyone else wants to contact him.
http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=606

[corplinx]

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," said Moran, whose remarks were first reported by the Reston Connection newspaper. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."



The big question is, before we do a marlon brando on him out of reactionary angst; is he correct?


Personally, I don't see Joe Lieberman having all that much influence on this matter. I am willing to buy his assertion if he would back it up.

[Tmy]

Well one of the arguements for war is that Saddam promotes terrorism..... Terrorism in Isreal that is. That is true. So Isreal would benefit greatly from Saddams removal. (The guy did lob scuds at them the last time)

So i wouldnt blame Isreali supporters for pushing the invasion.

Of course it'll come out as "the jews are behind this!" and sound really anti-semetic.

[ssibal]

Claims of war for the Jewish are not much different than claims of war for oil.

[corplinx]

Well, to be honest. I am all for measures that reduce palestinian terrorism. Let us not forget that no matter how we feel about israel/palestine, the reason we call Hamas terrorists is because they target civillians. Israel of course has racked up civillian casualties but in pursuit of military targets.

If we are going to declare a war on terror, I would feel like a big hypocrit if we ignored the Israel situation just because of European anti-israel sentiment.

[renata]

Originally posted by corplinx



The big question is, before we do a marlon brando on him out of reactionary angst; is he correct?
Is he correct about what it looks like he said to me, or what he now claims he said?

If, as I think, he said that Jewish groups are pushing for the war in Iraq, and are stifling protest, then I do not think he is correct. In fact, the whole claim is so outrageous, that examining it in detail gives it merit it does not deserve. For example, I would not seriously entertain the claim that Jews control the banks- someone who says that has an agenda repugnant to me, and quickly loses any credibility.

If, as he now says, all religious groups should condemn this war, then he may be correct. However, some of religious organizations already did condemn this war, (the pope, for example) and that has not seemed to stop it. Are Jews more influential than Catholics? And, of course, the monolythic "Jewish organization" is a myth. There is no central Jewish authority, as far as I know, so some Jewish organizations (Tikkun) are against the war, and some Jewish organizations are for it. Treating them all the same is ridiculous.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by ssibal
Claims of war for the Jewish are not much different than claims of war for oil.

On the mark!

It is utter nonsense.

America is responding in its own interest.

Saddam has been a destabilizing force in the region for some time and while I do not doubt that the Jewish community in general would not weep over his passing I am quite certain that they are far more concerned with matters much closer to home.

If the Jewish community were really calling the shots then we would be invading Iran and not Iraq. Iran’s support and funding of Hezbollah is well documented and of immediate concern.

The fact is, a unilateral invasion of Iraq by America along with an occupation and possible government established by the US is very likely to promote a strong anti-US backlash and you don’t have to be a genius to figure out who is the most likely to bear the brunt of that.

This kind of nonsense is so damn common that one runs out of responses after a while.

”Wow, my underwear has lost its elasticity. Damn those Jews!”

One of the sad things about his ignorance is that most feel that the Iraq issue is detracting from the far more pressing issue of halting the mindless violence in Israel/Palestine.

[renata]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well one of the arguements for war is that Saddam promotes terrorism..... Terrorism in Isreal that is. That is true. So Isreal would benefit greatly from Saddams removal. (The guy did lob scuds at them the last time)

So i wouldnt blame Isreali supporters for pushing the invasion.

Of course it'll come out as "the jews are behind this!" and sound really anti-semetic.

Saying "The removal of Saddam would benefit Israel, and pro-Israeli organization are supporting the war" Is reasonable, and probably true

Saying "Jewish organizations are pushing for this war, without Jews we would not be going to this war" Is inaccurate, and I would consider it Anti-Semitic.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well one of the arguements for war is that Saddam promotes terrorism..... Terrorism in Isreal that is.

There is also evidence that Iraq supported terrorists in the Phillipines.

See: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030304-9060681.htm

It's that darn Jewish Phillipine lobby I tell you!

[Skeptic]

The real antisemitism here is more subtle than what is seen at first sight. Essentially, the claim is that jews, supporting israel, are pushing for the war because Saddam (indirectly) helps killing jews in israel. The question is NOT whether this is true, but whether, if it is true, is is a bad thing.

The antisemitic part is that the critics of such "unfair" intervention automatically assume that jews promoting the removal of one of the world's greatest supporters of killing jews is some sort of "selfish" and "disgusting" behavior that "hurts world peace".

The underlying assumption, of course, is that jews should shut up and stop complaining about being killed, and should not endanger "world peace" and/or "middle east stability" by their annoying demands to survive, against the repeatedly-expressed desire of the Arab world that they die.

[Tmy]

Would it be considered offensive to say that the reason the embargo continues agianst Cuba is because of the political pressure of Cuban Americans.

[corplinx]

Cuba is a sticky one. Let's not go there in this thread.

[a_unique_person]

JONATHAN HOLMES: The young neo-conservatives were almost all Jews whose parents had emigrated from Eastern Europe. Most of Paul Wolfowitz's extended family perished in the death camps.

JIM LOBE: Their history often reduces itself to Munich and the Holocaust, with Munich being the cause and the Holocaust being the result. They see every conflict, in a sense, as a test similar to the test that Chamberlain faced and failed at Munich in 1938. And that therefore, the potential result is this...a second Holocaust which they feel has to be avoided at all costs.

JONATHAN HOLMES: For the neo-conservatives, Henry Kissinger's policy of arms control and detente with the Soviet Union smacked of appeasement. In the face of what they saw as a vast and aggressive Soviet threat, they thought Nixon cynical, Ford naive and Carter weak. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was a president after their own heart.



understandably, they have a strong view about the holocaust and munich. however, the world is not that simple. to treat it as such is to court disaster.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15472

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


understandably, they have a strong view about the holocaust and munich. however, the world is not that simple. to treat it as such is to court disaster.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15472

What a suprise to see you on the other side of this discussion. You seem to like attacking those who attack anti-semites, and distancing yourself from the obvious results of the conflict.

How simple a worldview is it to "blame it on the Jews"? We've seen hundreds, HUNDREDS of dictators do it over the millenia. The Czars, the Nazis, the Communists, the Arab regimes, Saddam, several British regimes, the Crusaders, the Jihadists, the Persians, the Babylonians. All through history it has persisted.

Blame it on the weak group. Oh! But, they are really very strong, they just are secretive! Everything is part of their plot. They control all the media, yet we can defeat them by expelling/killing/imprisoning/overtaxing/crushing/persecuting them. Gee, how original.

Now we see another US representative saying how "powerful" Jews are that Jews can cause a war America shouldn't be in. Everyone decries it but you, AUP. You imply that you don't like it much, but you aren't very explicit about it. Whose side are you on anyway? I thought you worshipped Chomsky? Don't you know he's Jewish? (It's part of the Zionist master plan to take over the loony left AND the loony right).

You are effectively espousing beliefs you claim to abhor. Why not? Palestinians die, and you care. Jews die, and you don't. Attacks on Americans by Arab terrorists in Israel are passe, but a mistaken attack by Israeli forces on an American spy ship is horrid... it goes on and on.

-Ben

[Crossbow]

Those remarks just go to show that there still is a good bit of anti-semitism floating about. Please note how he thinks that there are vast numbers of Jews who are under the leadership of just a few that can readily manipulate this group in to doing whatever is called for.

He is showing his fear and misunderstanding of those who call themselves Jewish, and as history has shown many times, just about every time there is a major conflict, someone gets around to blaming the "Jews" for it.

Ugh!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper



How simple a worldview is it to "blame it on the Jews"? We've seen hundreds, HUNDREDS of dictators do it over the millenia. The Czars, the Nazis, the Communists, the Arab regimes, Saddam, several British regimes, the Crusaders, the Jihadists, the Persians, the Babylonians. All through history it has persisted.



if you had bothered reading my other posts, you would have seen that i have come up with many other reasons for the conflict. this one was only brought to my attention today. I missed that 'four corners' show. it was quite a coincidence to see the 'neo conservatives' are behind the war scenario and this thread appear quite close together, when the 'neo conservatives' are defined as once liberal jews who have become extreme right wingers.

I didn't create this story. responsible journalists did. now who is being PC? do you want to know the facts or not.

the jews themselves in older times were just as warlike as any other race, or haven't you read the bible, and celebrated a victory just as much as any other race.



Blame it on the weak group. Oh! But, they are really very strong, they just are secretive! Everything is part of their plot. They control all the media, yet we can defeat them by expelling/killing/imprisoning/overtaxing/crushing/persecuting them. Gee, how original.



if you don't believe the jewish lobby in the US is very strong, you are being incredibly naive. they are performing just as much of a support of terrorism as the irish/americans did with the IRA.



Now we see another US representative saying how "powerful" Jews are that Jews can cause a war America shouldn't be in. Everyone decries it but you, AUP. You imply that you don't like it much, but you aren't very explicit about it. Whose side are you on anyway? I thought you worshipped Chomsky? Don't you know he's Jewish? (It's part of the Zionist master plan to take over the loony left AND the loony right).



i don't worship chomsky. and if he is jewish or not doesn't concern me one bit. and everyone does not decry it but me. you really should get around a bit more, and see the world as being more than the US.



You are effectively espousing beliefs you claim to abhor. Why not? Palestinians die, and you care. Jews die, and you don't. Attacks on Americans by Arab terrorists in Israel are passe, but a mistaken attack by Israeli forces on an American spy ship is horrid... it goes on and on.

-Ben

straw man.

people die, and I care. why do i raise the issue of palestinians? because they are the ones who have no power. don't believe me? Compare

1. Number of nukes israel has compared to Palestinians
2. Number of fighter aircraft ...
3. number of attack helicopters
4. number of tanks
5. number of trained soldiers
6. number of APCs
7. Number of houses cleared

the attack has been debated before, but there is just as much evidence to show that an attack that lasted over a number of hours could not be a mistake. a mistake is when you make an intial attack, then cut it off.

as for why i think the war is being waged.

1. For the sheer sake of having a war to keep the military occupied
2. For the oil
3. As part of the 'neo conservative' push
4. because the US is more concerned about losing face than to back down.
5. because the military is so powerful now, it is the only means to wage foreign policy. 'To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail'

You might say I am the only anti-semite on this board. All I am doing is saying what others think but are afraid to say because they will be accused of anti semitism

As I have also said before, there are jews living all around the world, some i have met, who want no part in all this militarism.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Those remarks just go to show that there still is a good bit of anti-semitism floating about. Please note how he thinks that there are vast numbers of Jews who are under the leadership of just a few that can readily manipulate this group in to doing whatever is called for.

He is showing his fear and misunderstanding of those who call themselves Jewish, and as history has shown many times, just about every time there is a major conflict, someone gets around to blaming the "Jews" for it.

Ugh!

I was referring to a reputable documentary shown on australian television. It was started in another thread, and i thought some of the points raised in it were pertinent to this thread. don't shoot the messenger.

I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone. because of the holocaust, you can't criticise Israel. etc. And if you read my threads, you will also find I am accused of being anti-american. now, there are many fine, upstanding WASPS in the US as well.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was referring to a reputable documentary shown on australian television. It was started in another thread, and i thought some of the points raised in it were pertinent to this thread. don't shoot the messenger.

Translation-Hey, it is not MY fault these Jews control the media and are causing this war.

Hey, AUP- do you know there are no Jews in Bush's cabinet? Five Jews served in Clinton's cabinet. There were four in Carter's cabinet and several in the Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy administrations. I think there was one in Bush 1 presidency also, but I can't dig that up. The claims that Jews have the clout to drive this country into this war are greatly exaggerated.

I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone.

Overdone??? Do you even read what you type? This has got to be one of the more disturbing posts I read on this forum. Sorry about that attempt to wipe you from the Earth, old chap- hey **** happens. Get over it. While you are at it, would you tell the blacks to quit their damn whining about slavery, would you?


As I said previously, there are plenty of Jews and Jewish organizations that push for war, as there are plenty that are against the war. One of the war mongers is
Elie Wiesel (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wiesel11mar11,1,1248976.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcom ment%2Dopinions). It does not surprise me that Holocaust survivors are especially wary of Saddam, seeing certain similarities that escape people with shorter memories. However, grouping all Jewish groups together, and assigning them the poswer they do not have, and then condemnining them for it is, indeed, anti-Semitic.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



people die, and I care. why do i raise the issue of palestinians? because they are the ones who have no power. don't believe me? Compare

1. Number of nukes israel has compared to Palestinians
2. Number of fighter aircraft ...
3. number of attack helicopters
4. number of tanks
5. number of trained soldiers
6. number of APCs
7. Number of houses cleared


You forgot:

8. Number of civilians deliberately targeted
and
9. Number of cease-fires broken

Don't whine that the "stronger" participant is necessarily the evil one. If Israel really held all the cards, as you suggest, they would have evicted the Palestinians to Syria and Jordan long ago and built a very tall wall around Israel.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by renata


Overdone??? Do you even read what you type? This has got to be one of the more disturbing posts I read on this forum. Sorry about that attempt to wipe you from the Earth, old chap- hey **** happens. Get over it. While you are at it, would you tell the blacks to quit their damn whining about slavery, would you?


As I said previously, there are plenty of Jews and Jewish organizations that push for war, as there are plenty that are against the war. One of the war mongers is
Elie Wiesel (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wiesel11mar11,1,1248976.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcom ment%2Dopinions). It does not surprise me that Holocaust survivors are especially wary of Saddam, seeing certain similarities that escape people with shorter memories. However, grouping all Jewish groups together, and assigning them the poswer they do not have, and then condemnining them for it is, indeed, anti-Semitic.

Hear, hear. That has to rank with UCE's cheering for the WTC coming down. I can't wait to hear the non-apology for this one.

[Mike B.]

It will ring as hallow as his contention that he is not really anti-American.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


people die, and I care. why do i raise the issue of palestinians? because they are the ones who have no power. don't believe me? Compare

1. Number of nukes israel has compared to Palestinians
2. Number of fighter aircraft ...
3. number of attack helicopters
4. number of tanks
5. number of trained soldiers
6. number of APCs
7. Number of houses cleared

When you do this comparision, you need to keep in mind that Israel also has hostile forces to the North (e.g. Syria) and South (Saudi Arabia), not to mention 'uneasy' peace with the slightly less millitant Jordan and Egypt. Isreal has been attacked in the past by many of these countries.

If you compare armaments, I suggest you compare Israel's weapons with ALL of its opposion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Hear, hear. That has to rank with UCE's cheering for the WTC coming down. I can't wait to hear the non-apology for this one.

As far as I can remember, I have not been anti-semitic.

All I have attacked is the Jewish policy towards palestine, and the means used towards achieving that policy.

The fact is, no one is allowed to criticise Israel without being labelled anti semitic.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As far as I can remember, I have not been anti-semitic.

All I have attacked is the Jewish policy towards palestine, and the means used towards achieving that policy.

The fact is, no one is allowed to criticise Israel without being labelled anti semitic.

Your wording suggests otherwise. You claim to attack Jewish policy and then say you cannot criticize Israel without being labelled anti semitic. I am not saying you are anti semitic but many anti semites use the words Jewish, Israel, and Zionist interchangably when they are all different things.

[a_unique_person]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was referring to a reputable documentary shown on australian television. It was started in another thread, and i thought some of the points raised in it were pertinent to this thread. don't shoot the messenger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation-Hey, it is not MY fault these Jews control the media and are causing this war.



repeat, I did not raise the issue. The story stands or falls on it's own merits. please address it as such. ad hominems directed at me do not rebut any of the arguments or issues raised in the story.



Hey, AUP- do you know there are no Jews in Bush's cabinet? Five Jews served in Clinton's cabinet. There were four in Carter's cabinet and several in the Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy administrations. I think there was one in Bush 1 presidency also, but I can't dig that up. The claims that Jews have the clout to drive this country into this war are greatly exaggerated.



well, did you read the story? you have not responded to one issue raised in it, just gone off in a completely different direction. If you think that the cabinet is the only place that runs policy these days, you are being very naieve.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overdone??? Do you even read what you type? This has got to be one of the more disturbing posts I read on this forum. Sorry about that attempt to wipe you from the Earth, old chap- hey **** happens. Get over it. While you are at it, would you tell the blacks to quit their damn whining about slavery, would you?



Hey, I didn't write the book, it was a jew who wrote it. One of the points raised is that, because there was a holocaust and the jews suffered terribly (and it wasn't just jews who suffered, don't forget), that jews can do no wrong now, and cannot be held up for criticism. There are many jews who do not approve of what is being done to palestine now. How many times do I have to say this? There are Jews who do not approve of the policy of Israel in Palestine. Do you want me to say it again?




As I said previously, there are plenty of Jews and Jewish organizations that push for war, as there are plenty that are against the war. One of the war mongers is
Elie Wiesel. It does not surprise me that Holocaust survivors are especially wary of Saddam, seeing certain similarities that escape people with shorter memories. However, grouping all Jewish groups together, and assigning them the poswer they do not have, and then condemnining them for it is, indeed, anti-Semitic.



Yep, and I have said exactly the same thing.

And I have no doubt that some of the biggest war mongers are holocaust survivors. Also some of them are not, like Kahane. They remind me of the Irish americans who funded the IRA.

And when do I ever lump all jews together? I have not. Repeat, Have not. I have referred to Israeli policy, I have referred to an article about influences on the coming war, by a reputable news source. I have also posted reputable sources of information on manipulation of the media, including intimidation and shooting of journalists, and gaining access to NPR files by representatives of Jewish organisations.

I have also said many times that there are plenty of jews living in my city. None of them have gone around doing anything to muslims living here, that I know of. Muslims have been abused in the street, but that is done by any number of racial groups, which may or may not include jews.

[synaesthesia]

Many Jewish officials apparently believe that Iran is more dangerous to Israel than Saddam. Why then would they use their vast, conspiratorial powers to guide the big W against Iraq?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Many Jewish officials apparently believe that Iran is more dangerous to Israel than Saddam. Why then would they use their vast, conspiratorial powers to guide the big W against Iraq?

because the jews are not borgs. different jews have different points of view.

[Skeptic]

Overdone??? Do you even read what you type?

He means Norman Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry". For an idea of how "reliable" it is, you should note that it was enthusiastically endorsed by Noam Chomsky and David Irving--the notorious antisemite and the holocaust denier, respectively.

The legitimate press, however, savagely denounced the book as shoddily researched, full of errors and omissions, simply wrong, and, essentially, a work of fiction--merely a rehash of the age-old antisemitic libel about the jews as cunning, evil people who will do anything to get money from the naive, honest gentiles.

There is a market for antisemitic polemics written by jews. Chomsky and Finkelstein are two of the prominent authors in that circle (there are others.) The target audience is exactly people like AUP: people who hate jews, but don't want to admit it. With such books, AUP and his friends can feed their unsatiable appetite for "proof" about how evil and disgusting the jews "really" are, with the iron-clad guarantee against accusations that they are reading antisemitic trash: "but the author is a jews himself..."

These books come with an implied advertisement: "It's all the jew-bashing you love, without the moral pangs of guilt!"--irressitable, for obvious reasons, to AUP & co.

[a_unique_person]

Review: 'The Holocaust Industry'
"The Holocaust Industry"
By Norman G. Finkelstein
Verso Books
Nonfiction
160 pages

September 6, 2000
Web posted at: 11:31 AM EDT (1531 GMT)


By Andrew Ross
Salon Magazine

(SALON) -- How Norman Finkelstein must have groaned when he read the words of Hadassah Lieberman, wife of the Democratic vice presidential nominee, as she addressed a crowd of Democratic Party supporters at the War Memorial in Tennessee earlier this month. The memorial, she told the audience, with her husband, Joseph, and Vice President Al Gore standing by, commemorates "the American heroes, the soldiers who actually liberated my mother in Dachau and Auschwitz."

As the New York Times gently pointed out, the memorial actually commemorates the 3,400 Tennesseans who died in World War I; and it was the Russians, not the Americans, who liberated Auschwitz. Even more enraging to Finkelstein, no doubt, was this comment from Hadassah Lieberman's friend, Mindy Weisel, who told the Times: "I think her background as a (Holocaust) survivor's daughter has given her a humanity that a lot of people don't have."

For Finkelstein, such cavalier inaccuracies and holier-than-thou allusions are classic outgrowths of a phenomenon that has transformed the Nazi atrocities against the Jews of Europe into a largely American-driven myth designed to serve the narrow interests of homegrown Jewish elites. The avalanche of books, movies, Holocaust memorials, university chairs, high school courses -- and most recently the "shakedown" of Swiss banks and German insurance companies on the issue of reparations for Jewish wartime victims -- is all part of a corrupt "Holocaust industry" that needs to be exposed and put out of business so that the dead of Auschwitz and Treblinka can finally rest in peace



http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/reviews/09/06/salon.review.holocaust/


Sharp. Savage. Ruthless.

That and more describes Norman G. Finkelstein’s attack on the ideological movement he terms "The Holocaust Industry," a term he uses for his book’s title. It’s a small book, but it’s causing a lot of problems for a lot of entrenched interests, and it’s sure to create many more in the future, difficulties Finkelstein, a leftist professor at City University of New York and relentless critic of Israel, may have not even imagined.

[/quote]

http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/HucksteringHolocaust.html

reviews that do not totally endorse the book, yet achknowledge that the holocaust industry is not beyond criticism.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/02/books-goldin.php



That is the first bombshell in Finkelstein’s acrimonious new book, in which he declares the recent successful pursuit of multibillion-dollar reparations from German industrial giants and Swiss bankers “an outright extortion racket.” Finkelstein’s downright pugilistic book delivers a wallop — mostly because few authors have had the courage or nerve to say, as he does, that the Nazi genocide has been distorted and robbed of its true moral lessons and instead has been put to use as “an indispensable ideological weapon.” It’s a provocative thesis that makes you want to reject it even as you are compelled to keep reading by the strength of his case and the bravura of his assertions. What Finkelstein calls “The Holocaust” — the packaged story as distinguished from the actual historical events — has become a “prize alibi” for Israeli war crimes, a cudgel for money-hungry Jewish organizations and profiteering lawyers, and a spark plug for the recrudescent ranks of anti-Semites in Europe.

Nowadays such pronouncements are regarded as heresy or, worse, as “Holocaust denial” — a charge frequently leveled at Finkelstein since the publication of The Holocaust Industry. But in making these contentions he has revived a debate that has roiled the Jewish community off and on for five decades. Was the Holocaust unique? Or was it mundane, and all too human?

[renata]

More reviews- first ones that came up on google


Neither Finkelstein's book nor this website in any way excuses the actions of the Nazis, who (after being handed power by the German corporate capitalists in 1933) were eventually responsible for one of the greatest horrors ever to afflict Europe (the Second World War, as a consequence of which sixty million people died, including twenty million Russians). Awareness of the depravity exhibited by those who ran the Nazi state and the Nazi extermination campaigns should be part of any person's education, and should never be forgotten (although this should not be used as an excuse to ignore other campaigns of genocide against non-Jewish peoples — equally deserving of the term "holocaust").
But Finkelstein makes clear that the Holocaust Industry is not about making sure that Nazi depravity is not forgotten — it is about extorting huge sums of money from Switzerland, Germany and any other country which can be tarred with the Nazi brush.

Modern-day Germany has already atoned for the sins of the Nazi era, both morally and financially. Many times since the war (and even today) Germany's leaders have expressed their profound regret at the actions of the Nazis, and have accepted collective responsibility for what happened. As Finkelstein says, "In the early 1950s, Germany entered into negotiations with Jewish institutions and signed indemnification agreements. It has paid out to date some $60bn."

Although we may rightly feel contempt for the Germans of the 1920s and 1930s who supported Hitler, most of them are now dead. Germans born after the war (apart from a few young Nazi sympathizers) think very differently. Germany no longer has any reason to abase itself before the denunciation of its Nazi past. Especially not when that denunciation comes from those who appear to be motivated primarily by a desire for money.

....
Although the Jews (not to mention the gypsies, socialists and others) suffered much at the hands of the Nazis it seems that they were also good students. It is quite plain to see that the Zionists are now applying what they learnt in their attitude to, and brutal treatment of, the Palestinians. Ask any Israeli where the term Arabrein (said of areas that have been "cleansed" of Arabs) comes from.
....
The Zionists indeed learnt well from the Nazis. So well that it seems that their morally repugnant treatment of the Palestinians, and their attempts to destroy Palestinian society within Israel and the occupied territories, reveals them as basically Nazis with beards and black hats.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html

The general objective that created the “Holocaust industry” was, at the time, the will to gain access to the “nerve centre” of US democracy. Israel, on the other hand, had become America’s “best friend” in the Middle East. Reaching the heart of American power, and stably maintaining such position – that was the goal of U.S. Jewish organizations.

This sort of Jewish plot reveals all its alleged power in the second chapter of the pamphlet.
Finkelstein engages in revealing the function and use of the Holocaust “dogmas”: the so-called “uniqueness” of the Holocaust, and the alleged eternal hate of non-Jews towards Jews.
The idea that the Holocaust is a unique event in human history, not comparable to any other similar event, would have been conceived in Elie Wiesel’s writings. This would be a cinical theory, functional to the “Holocaust industry” itself. Its purpose should be that of placing the Jews in a position of superiority with respect to all other persecuted peoples. A gigantic lie, whose goal should be minimizing other people’s suffering in order to blow up their own, for political purposes.
Demonstrating the uniqueness of the Shoah would make it possible to move over to the third stage of this new Jewish plot: obtaining the money. Once the uniqueness and unrepeatability of Jewish suffering has been demonstrated, organizations move on to collectingg.
The financial exploitation of the Shoah is the subject of the third and last chapter of Finkelstein’s work.
This exploitation would have taken on the connotation of an extortion, at the expense of two groups of victims: us Europeans and almost all the Jews who should have been entitled to compensation. But the American Jewish organizations are not only depicted as a “gang” of moral blackmailers; they are also described as a bunch of fools, In their infinite greed, they would have inflated the figures of survivors, in order to obtain more money. Thus the number of victims would proportionally decrease. This operation would have opened the doors for negationists, providing an enormous opportunity for their propaganda.



http://www.olokaustos.org/saggi/interviste/finkel-en1.htm



This is making me physically ill

[Skeptic]

Hmmm..... so AUP posts the review form Salon.com to "prove" Finkelstein's book is really "accepted" by reputable people as serious research. But why Salon.com? Is that really your first choice for reputability and objective analysis?

Well, I went to google.com, and entered "Norman Finkelsten AND reviews" (or something similar--don't remember exactly) into the search engine. Sure enough, tons of web sites apparently praising Finkelstein's book to high heaven shows up--with all of the "hits" on the first or second page, EXCEPT FOR ONE WEB PAGE FROM SALON.COM, THE SAME ONE AUP PROVIDED, belonging to neo-nazi, or arab, or similar web sites.

What an amazing coincidence...

[renata]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hmmm..... so AUP posts the review form Salon.com to "prove" Finkelstein's book is really "accepted" by reputable people as serious research. But why Salon.com? Is that really your first choice for reputability and objective analysis?

Well, I went to google.com, and entered "Norman Finkelsten AND reviews" (or something similar--don't remember exactly) into the search engine. Sure enough, tons of web sites apparently praising Finkelstein's book to high heaven shows up--with all of the "hits" on the first or second page, EXCEPT FOR ONE WEB PAGE FROM SALON.COM, THE SAME ONE AUP PROVIDED, belonging to neo-nazi, or arab, or similar web sites.

What an amazing coincidence...

Salon can be a good resource, but I find they lean far on the left on some issue. Here is a review from New York Times (I know, I know, owned by Jews, part of the cabal, etc)

http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=9C02E1DF163DF935A3575BC0A9669C8B63


What I find so striking about ''The Holocaust Industry'' is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious.


Frankly, this whole direction of the discussion has been upsetting to me, as an Eastern European Jew. Fill in the blanks here- oh and nobody in my family got a penny for hundreds of members exterminated. Relatives of my grandparents were stacked on each other like firewood and burned alive. Whole families wiped out. My entire extended family has 12 people- no second cousins, no great uncles. I had to grow up with ghosts of the victims in my home. So when you say Holocaust was "overdone", all I want to say is F*** Y**. Yes, I am sorry I am not as objective from this as I should be. Yes, I am sorry I can't argue reasonably with someone like AUP. I should probably bow out of this discussion altogether.


AUP, this book is being used by overt Neo-Nazi sites to spew propaganda. Just because it was written by a Jew, does not make it correct.


As the neoconservative crap, this has recently been champtioned by Pat Buchanan. Do you REALLY want to ascribe to politics of Pat Buchanan?

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Cabal? Collusion? Do you think he is NOT anti-Semitic?

Remember Pat is the guy who (this is from memory, they may be inaccurate to som degree)
opposed Gulf Wear 1
opposed going after Taliban
wants to close down American borders
was pretty much forced out of this party by the Republicans for being too conservative and an embarassment, and ran on the Reform platform for president
wrote a book widely criticised for being soft on Hitler- he said Germany was not a danger to the US
has made previous anti-Semitic remarks

Here are some of his quotes
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html

"There were no
politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of
Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,
playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning,
Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)
....

White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969
memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin
Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many
people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps
worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the
most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)
...
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion
that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get
that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column,
2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer
Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin
her with sanctions?"
(syndicated column, 9/17/89)
...


In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and
genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)
......


Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the
historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel
exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide
to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in
the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter
and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist
concoction.
...



In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan
declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our
religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL
Report, 1994)
....



"Homosexuality involves sexual acts most men consider not only
immoral, but filthy. The reason public men rarely say aloud what
most say privately is they are fearful of being branded 'bigots' by
an intolerant liberal orthodoxy that holds, against all evidence
and experience, that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle."
(syndicated column, 9/3/89)
...


"With 80,000 dead of AIDS, our promiscuous homosexuals appear
literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide," Buchanan wrote in 1990
(syndicated column, 10/17/90). In the 1992 campaign, he declared: "AIDS is
nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature." (Seattle Times,
7/31/93)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hmmm..... so AUP posts the review form Salon.com to "prove" Finkelstein's book is really "accepted" by reputable people as serious research. But why Salon.com? Is that really your first choice for reputability and objective analysis?

Well, I went to google.com, and entered "Norman Finkelsten AND reviews" (or something similar--don't remember exactly) into the search engine. Sure enough, tons of web sites apparently praising Finkelstein's book to high heaven shows up--with all of the "hits" on the first or second page, EXCEPT FOR ONE WEB PAGE FROM SALON.COM, THE SAME ONE AUP PROVIDED, belonging to neo-nazi, or arab, or similar web sites.

What an amazing coincidence...

and you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

[a_unique_person]

Salon can be a good resource, but I find they lean far on the left on some issue. Here is a review from New York Times (I know, I know, owned by Jews, part of the cabal, etc)

http://query.nytimes.com/search/ful...75BC0A9669C8B63


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I find so striking about ''The Holocaust Industry'' is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



in the forward to his book, the NYT is mentioned as being one of the champions of the 'industry'. for example, in 1999 it ran 273 articles on the holocaust.

as for anti-semitism being stirred up, he could well be right.

To attack it on the grounds of style is a complete waste of time. however, he seems to acknowledge that the 'holocaust industry' does indeed come across in a similar way. I would not think that many jews would be able to be too objective about the whole subject.



Frankly, this whole direction of the discussion has been upsetting to me, as an Eastern European Jew. Fill in the blanks here- oh and nobody in my family got a penny for hundreds of members exterminated. Relatives of my grandparents were stacked on each other like firewood and burned alive. Whole families wiped out. My entire extended family has 12 people- no second cousins, no great uncles. I had to grow up with ghosts of the victims in my home. So when you say Holocaust was "overdone", all I want to say is F*** Y**. Yes, I am sorry I am not as objective from this as I should be. Yes, I am sorry I can't argue reasonably with someone like AUP. I should probably bow out of this discussion altogether.



i realise the word 'overdone' was perhaps not the right one. I apologise if that was taken to imply the effects on those involved was devestating. perhaps a better phrase would be 'hijacked and exploited'. However, you would also know that hitler also killed millions more russians, and also killed the socialists, the handicapped, homosexuals and others. As finklestein points out, the other victims of the holocaust have been airbrushed out of the picture and the event hijacked.

To hijack a tragedy for other purposes is immoral.





AUP, this book is being used by overt Neo-Nazi sites to spew propaganda. Just because it was written by a Jew, does not make it correct.



Yep, i noticed david irving has a reference to it on his site. Despite the fact that the book states there was a holocaust and therefore rebuts his major contention.

I am not saying that because it was written by a jew makes it right, what i am saying is that it was not written by an anti-semite like david irving. there are other jews who agree with his contention. my point is that by making israel 'untouchable' in terms of morality in arguments about it's political actions, it does not remove it from the conseuquences of those actions, or the need to act morally.



As the neoconservative crap, this has recently been champtioned by Pat Buchanan. Do you REALLY want to ascribe to politics of Pat Buchanan?

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cabal? Collusion? Do you think he is NOT anti-Semitic?

Remember Pat is the guy who (this is from memory, they may be inaccurate to som degree)
opposed Gulf Wear 1
opposed going after Taliban
wants to close down American borders
was pretty much forced out of this party by the Republicans for being too conservative and an embarassment, and ran on the Reform platform for president
wrote a book widely criticised for being soft on Hitler- he said Germany was not a danger to the US
has made previous anti-Semitic remarks



he may have said all those things. being what you are does not make all your actions or arguments wrong. hitler actually got germany going again as a nation which was in the depths of despair, which, unfortunately, was part of the reason germany was able to drag WWII on for so long.

germany was indeed a danger to the US in WWII, for example.

however, we now have three independant sources for the idea that the powerful extremist jewish lobby is influencing US policy outside of what is reasonable. The Four Corners show, Buchanan, who, as an insider, would be aware of the political manouverings, and finklestein, a Jew, as well as Chomsky.

The fact that US politics is being detroyed by special interest groups is no secret. It is also not just the extremist jewish lobby. There is also the extreme xian right, the lobby groups for powerful industries such as the gun industry, and the industrial/military complex. To refer to the topic of this thread, I would put the last as one of the main factors in this coming war.



Here are some of his quotes
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were no
politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of
Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,
playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning,
Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)
....

White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969
memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin
Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many
people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps
worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the
most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)
...
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion
that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get
that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column,
2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer
Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin
her with sanctions?"
(syndicated column, 9/17/89)
...


In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and
genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)
......


Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the
historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel
exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide
to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in
the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter
and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist
concoction.
...



In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan
declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our
religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL
Report, 1994)
....



"Homosexuality involves sexual acts most men consider not only
immoral, but filthy. The reason public men rarely say aloud what
most say privately is they are fearful of being branded 'bigots' by
an intolerant liberal orthodoxy that holds, against all evidence
and experience, that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle."
(syndicated column, 9/3/89)
...


"With 80,000 dead of AIDS, our promiscuous homosexuals appear
literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide," Buchanan wrote in 1990
(syndicated column, 10/17/90). In the 1992 campaign, he declared: "AIDS is
nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature." (Seattle Times,
7/31/93)




he is ignorant of much, however, he was also a part of the conservative political system, and has seen it working from within. while his prejudices may have blinded him to the biases of his own extremist xian group, they did not stop him seeing others following the same methods.

As it is, he is correct that the middle east is a total mess. I think that if Israel would pull out of palestine entirely, there would be a good chance to remove a lot of the tension from the area. that is my opinion only, but there is a genuine indication that the arab states will accept israel as a legitimate state. As pakistan has shown, if the US is accepted as an ally, a muslim state will help in the arrest of terrorists. Hamas would soon wither.

As to whether Israel will ever be free of terrorism, I think it only needs to look to norther ireland to see how long terrorist attacks will continue for. It will just have to accept that it has made it's bed, and will now have to lie in it. By holding all palestinians responsible for terrorist attacks and then attacking them for the terrorism, it will only make things worse. One of the main aims of terrorism is to provoke a response. Ariel Sharon, for all his tough talk, has only made the state of israel's position much less secure than it has ever been. The economy, for example, is now a total disaster.

I now await Skeptic to pick a few points from this post and entirely ignore my arguments.

[renata]

AUP,
A few months ago a few posters had a discussion about veracity of differing sources. I want you to step from this debate for one moment and think.

You choose to rely on sources used by avowed anti-Semites and Neo Nazis to come to your theories.

Think about it.

Think about it again.

Don't tell me that there must be a grain of truth in their accusations. There is a grain of truth in pretty much any steretype, no matter how ugly.

You picked the people whose behavior and writings are condoned by deniers of Holocaust. You rely on sources for whom you would have no regard when it comes to any other topic.

Think about thousands of alternative sources you could have picked, and think about who you choose to believe.

And then think about why that is.

Thank you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
AUP,
A few months ago a few posters had a discussion about veracity of differing sources. I want you to step from this debate for one moment and think.

You choose to rely on sources used by avowed anti-Semites and Neo Nazis to come to your theories.



there is a difference, i think, between a source that comes from an extremist place, and one that does not. If a source is extremist, you have to be very critical of anything it produces. These extremists sources, however, did not produce this document. They take the bits they like, and ignore the fact that it disagrees with them on the most basic point, whether or not the holocaust occured.



Think about it.

Think about it again.

Don't tell me that there must be a grain of truth in their accusations. There is a grain of truth in pretty much any steretype, no matter how ugly.

[/b][quote]

so this is not their accusations. they are finklesteins.

[quote]

You picked the people whose behavior and writings are condoned by deniers of Holocaust. You rely on sources for whom you would have no regard when it comes to any other topic.



I picked his book because it sounded interesting when I was browsing in the bookshop. You will notice i have never referred to anything that is produced by david irving himself.



Think about thousands of alternative sources you could have picked, and think about who you choose to believe.

And then think about why that is.

Thank you.

but they do not take a critical, as opposed to woo woo, approach to the holocaust. i would not be interested in reading anything that denies the holocaust. this book does not in any way deny the holocaust, it just questions how it has been hijacked, and the deaths of innocent people appropriated for other ends. It questions if that is an ethical act.

[Skeptic]

in the forward to his book, the NYT is mentioned as being one of the champions of the 'industry'. for example, in 1999 it ran 273 articles on the holocaust.

So, essentially, Finkelstein's "reply" (in advance) to they NYT's criticism is that it is part of the evil holocaust conspiracy. "Don't listen to their criticism of my book! It's just PART OF THE CONSPIRACY to discredit me by the EVIL JEWS!"

It's a strategy typical of woo-woo conspiracy theorists: they know nobody in the legitimate (or scientific) press is going to do anything but laugh at them, so they attack them in advance by claiming any criticism just "proves" they are right because it's "part of the conspiracy". Such books are always full of sayings like "I know that the biased scientific establishment will ignore this book, but...", the author mistakenly believing that this "prophetic prediction" somehow makes his nonsense credible.

Yet more proof that Finkelstein is, to say the least, not too objective, but is writing in typical woo-woo conspiracy-theory style, as the NYT review points out, But hey, conspiracy schmonspiracy--as long as he blames the jews, who cares, right, AUP?

If a source is extremist, you have to be very critical of anything it produces. These extremists sources, however, did not produce this document.

Oh, ********. When all the extremist (read: rabidly anti-semitic holocaust denying blood libeling) web sites praise a book, it can mean only one thing: that it is a blood libel against the jews, since that is the ONLY kind of book they praise. It is, in itself, excellent evidence that it is as bad as it seems.

You wouldn't think for a moment of reading a book about black history praised by the KKK and the Aryan Nations, pr a book about homosecuality praised by Fred "God Hate Fags" Phelps, whether or not they wrote it themselves, now would you? Of course not.

But when it comes to blaming the jews, it's OK to "critically consider" (translation: enthusiastically endorse and accept as gospel truth, like you do) any piece of trash the antisemitic web sites recommend, as long as the meaningless technicality that "they haven't wrote it themselves" (added to the techinicality of "but it's written by a jew") holds.

Besides, as usual, you admit the facts: I said that the legitimate media savaged the book and it was essentially only praised by the neo-nazis. Your "reply"? You agree, but only claim that the legitimate media is part of the "conspiracy" to discredit Finkelstein (no doubt because it is owned by the jews, a "fact" that "everybody knows"); then you claim that just because something is praised to high heaven on neo-nazi, holocaust-denying web sites is no reason at all to doubt its credibility. Wrong on both counts, AUP.

I picked his book because it sounded interesting when I was browsing in the bookshop.

Odd, isn't it, that of the tens or perhaps hundreds of history books about the holocaust that were in the bookshop, the one that "sounded interesting" is the one claiming the whiney jews should stop complaining about WWII and cut out the defrauding of the innocent gentiles with the holocaust. What an amazing coincidence (again), isn't it?

Hey, I just came back from a "black history month" book display. By SHEER CHANCE, of all the books describing black history there, the one that grabbed my attention just HAPPENS to be a controvertial book, praised on the KKK web site (praise which I will "evaluate critically", of course). It claims that blacks are simply inferior to whites and so should shut up and stop complaining about racism, since they already got more than they deserve.

Me??? A racist??? Whatever gave you THAT idea???

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
in the forward to his book, the NYT is mentioned as being one of the champions of the 'industry'. for example, in 1999 it ran 273 articles on the holocaust.

So, essentially, Finkelstein's "reply" (in advance) to they NYT's criticism is that it is part of the evil holocaust conspiracy. "Don't listen to their criticism of my book! It's just PART OF THE CONSPIRACY to discredit me by the EVIL JEWS!"



the reply was written in a forward to the paperback edition of the book. He is jewish himself.



It's a strategy typical of woo-woo conspiracy theorists: they know nobody in the legitimate (or scientific) press is going to do anything but laugh at them, so they attack them in advance by claiming any criticism just "proves" they are right because it's "part of the conspiracy". Such books are always full of sayings like "I know that the biased scientific establishment will ignore this book, but...", the author mistakenly believing that this "prophetic prediction" somehow makes his nonsense credible.



yeah, well, he didn't do that, so i'll just ignore that bit



Yet more proof that Finkelstein is, to say the least, not too objective, but is writing in typical woo-woo conspiracy-theory style, as the NYT review points out, But hey, conspiracy schmonspiracy--as long as he blames the jews, who cares, right, AUP?



have you answered one point of his critique?



If a source is extremist, you have to be very critical of anything it produces. These extremists sources, however, did not produce this document.

Oh, ********. When all the extremist (read: rabidly anti-semitic holocaust denying blood libeling) web sites praise a book, it can mean only one thing: that it is a blood libel against the jews, since that is the ONLY kind of book they praise. It is, in itself, excellent evidence that it is as bad as it seems.



ad hominem, and i haven't quoted those sites. maybe you could try reading the book. He also notes when the book was first published, that in europe it promoted much disussion. In the US, the silence was deafening.



You wouldn't think for a moment of reading a book about black history praised by the KKK and the Aryan Nations, pr a book about homosecuality praised by Fred "God Hate Fags" Phelps, whether or not they wrote it themselves, now would you? Of course not.

But when it comes to blaming the jews, it's OK to "critically consider" (translation: enthusiastically endorse and accept as gospel truth, like you do) any piece of trash the antisemitic web sites recommend, as long as the meaningless technicality that "they haven't wrote it themselves" (added to the techinicality of "but it's written by a jew") holds.



there are palestinians highly critical of arafat, americans highly critical of the coming war, australians highly critical of their prime minister, irish highly critical of the IRA. No one is allowed to question the legacy of the holocaust.



Besides, as usual, you admit the facts: I said that the legitimate media savaged the book and it was essentially only praised by the neo-nazis. Your "reply"? You agree, but only claim that the legitimate media is part of the "conspiracy" to discredit Finkelstein (no doubt because it is owned by the jews, a "fact" that "everybody knows"); then you claim that just because something is praised to high heaven on neo-nazi, holocaust-denying web sites is no reason at all to doubt its credibility. Wrong on both counts, AUP.



You may want to move on to the substance of the argument eventually, i will wait.



I picked his book because it sounded interesting when I was browsing in the bookshop.

Odd, isn't it, that of the tens or perhaps hundreds of history books about the holocaust that were in the bookshop, the one that "sounded interesting" is the one claiming the whiney jews should stop complaining about WWII and cut out the defrauding of the innocent gentiles with the holocaust. What an amazing coincidence (again), isn't it?

Hey, I just came back from a "black history month" book display. By SHEER CHANCE, of all the books describing black history there, the one that grabbed my attention just HAPPENS to be a controvertial book, praised on the KKK web site (praise which I will "evaluate critically", of course). It claims that blacks are simply inferior to whites and so should shut up and stop complaining about racism, since they already got more than they deserve.

Me??? A racist??? Whatever gave you THAT idea???

no, it was not the history section, but the current affairs section, it was a reputable bookshop. i would be surprised if there were even tens of books on the holocaust, but then, this is not the US. what i am after is books on current affairs relevant to the issue of israel/palestine.

Now, when you can get over the ad-hominems, perhaps you can just argue the facts.

[renata]

This reminds me of arguments with believers about the book by Gary Schwartz

-His data methodology if faulty
=But he graduated from Harvard!
-Reputable scientists dissected his book and condemned the methods and the results
=He predicted the mainstream science would laugh at him! You are just close-minded!


I think Skeptic did a fine job dissecting AUP's arguments, but
AUP,

Doesn't it give you a tad of a pause, knowing that the most rabid anti-semites love this book? And the fact that the author is Jewish means nothing - it in not like we get a "The REAL Truth about Jews" book at our bar and bat mitzvas! There is no initiation, there is no secret password to the truth! There is Jewish mafia, there are Jewish murderers, there are Jewish radicals, there are Jewish anti-semites- yes, they DO exist!

Frankly, if the author says- in a foreward to his book- "Be warned, all reputable scholars will rip me to shreads, but they are part of the cabal, only the Neo-Nazis have a clear, unencumbered view of the situation, read their reviews" That is a tad troublesome.

When I googled Norman Finkelstein, the first several pages where all Neo Nazi sites- Why was that? Why??????

Do you suspend critical thinking entirely on this? And for your information, I do not have rebut this trash- it speaks for itself. I also do not have to rebut Protocols of the Elders of Zion, although since they say they are written by Jews, why don't you check them out- I am sure you will find them very informative.

It is one thing to be skeptical of a leader, and something else entirely to be skeptical of an event. Event documented through and through, no matter what Irving and Buchanan say.

How about picking up "Hitler's Willing Executioners"? How about you read that, and then come back and discuss it here. I am sure you would not want to appear one-sided in your reading pleasures.

[Skeptic]

the reply was written in a forward to the paperback edition of the book. He is jewish himself.

So? He is still an antisemite. As I said above, there is a market for antisemitic libel written by jews--and people like you are the target audience. You get to enjoy all the "proof" of how "evil" the jews are, while not having to feel guilty for reading antisemitic trash, since "the author is jewish himself".

have you answered one point of his critique?

No--the New York Times, and many other reviewers in the legitimate press did. I hardly need to repeat it here again.

Besides, why do I need to answer every the antisemitic "the jews are cunning evil people who will do anything to get a buck out of the naive trusting gentiles" libel--an accusation dating back to Roman times--just because it was raised yet again in a rather obvious guise?

I might as well "answer" the accusation that I use gentile blood for passover matzos. That, too, has a long history and is repeatedly resurrected.

ad hominem, and i haven't quoted those sites. maybe you could try reading the book. He also notes when the book was first published, that in europe it promoted much disussion.

We're talking about the same Europe where antisemitic attacks are at an all-time post-war high, right?

The same Europe which recently published (in "the Guardian") a long supplement with a full-page cover illustration of a golden star of david stabbing to death a prostate union jack, to illustrate the jewish control of England?

The same Europe where the French ambassador to England called israel "A ****** little country that endangers world peace", and then said he doesn't see the problem since everybody he knows thinks so?

The same Europe where Belgium claims there is no statue of limitations for trying Sharon as a "war criminal", but there IS one for nazi crimes, which is why many of them are still living there without fear of prosecution--including some responsible for the death of thousands of jews?

THAT Europe?

Well, isn't it SUCH a surprise that antisemitic trash is popular there. I can't imagine why...

In the US, the silence was deafening.

Will you make up your mind? EITHER there was a huge backlash of bad reviews that were part of an "evil jewish conspiracy" to "defame" Finkelstein, like you claimed above, OR there was "deafening silence", part of the "evil jewish conspiracy" to "ignore" Finkelstein, like you claim here. It can hardly be both...

Why don't you choose which one is the "awful truth about the jewish control of the media", first, and THEN let me answer? It gets all confusing, since you keep blaming the jews for doing one thing and its exact opposite at the same time.


there are palestinians highly critical of arafat,

But they don't last long, after a short visit from Arafat's "preventive security" forces.

No one is allowed to question the legacy of the holocaust.

********. If you read ANY contemporary history journal, you'll find that MANY people do just that.

There is a continous discussion about, for example, how many jews exactly died (estimates range from 5,100,000 to about 6,700,000, with the "traditional" number--about 6,000,000--being surprisingly accuate after all); whether the death camps were planned in advance or were a "contingency plan" by the SS after Barbarosa; how much or how little ordinary Germans knew about it; and, yes, what its legacy should be--should it be taught as history or as a unique experience, as part of Jewish or German history or both, what its effect on zionism was, and so on and so forth.

Of course, if you try and publish in those journals the thesis that the main legacy of the holocaust was jews blackmailing gentiles, or that it never happened in the first place, like Finkelstein and Irving, you will get rejected. But that's not because you're "not allowed" to question the legacy of the holocaust. It's because both claims are antisemitic trash that has no relation to reality.

The whiny "there's a conspiracy that doesn't allow me to question X" is the only reason a kook can see for people ignoring him. It's the same excuse used by creationists, flat-earthers, and those who claim the moon landing never happened. So Finkelstein uses it as well. Big deal.

You may want to move on to the substance of the argument eventually, i will wait.

The substance of the argument is very simple: the jews are evil, scheming, money-grabbing people who are out to bamboozle the naive, honest gentiles out of their money. I have no doubt you're willing to "wait" for an answer--antisemites have been using the same argument for the last 2000 years, and no doubt will use it as long as jews exist, no matter what the jews do.

You see, you, like all antisemites, don't REALLY want a reply to Finkelstein's accusations. You merely wait for a confession from the jews that it's all true--which is why antisemitic jews like Finkelstein are such hot stuff in the antisemite's required reading.

no, it was not the history section, but the current affairs section, it was a reputable bookshop.

So is amazon.com; and I just found "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" there! Must be true--or a reputable bookshop won't be selling it, right?

i would be surprised if there were even tens of books on the holocaust, but then, this is not the US.

...where the evil jewish media makes sure all gentiles are indoctrinated into shame and zionism by constantly publishing holocaust books, I presume.

what i am after is books on current affairs relevant to the issue of israel/palestine.

Admit it: you were looking for the "why it's all the evil jews fault and israel has no right to exist" books, weren't you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
the reply was written in a forward to the paperback edition of the book. He is jewish himself.

So? He is still an antisemite. As I said above, there is a market for antisemitic libel written by jews--and people like you are the target audience. You get to enjoy all the "proof" of how "evil" the jews are, while not having to feel guilty for reading antisemitic trash, since "the author is jewish himself".



you are anti-speak-some-sense. we can both call names. it gets us nowhere. you have plenty of accusations, yet no arguments. if it is that simple, you would have used them against me. perhaps you have no answers, only abuse.



have you answered one point of his critique?

No--the New York Times, and many other reviewers in the legitimate press did. I hardly need to repeat it here again.



well, come on, i'm waiting. you can dig it up for me. you are the one quoting it. or maybe it is just wortheless.



Besides, why do I need to answer every the antisemitic "the jews are cunning evil people who will do anything to get a buck out of the naive trusting gentiles" libel--an accusation dating back to Roman times--just because it was raised yet again in a rather obvious guise?



well, you don't have to I suppose. this is not that sort of libel.



I might as well "answer" the accusation that I use gentile blood for passover matzos. That, too, has a long history and is repeatedly resurrected.



this is quite a new point of view. it is not something old being resurrected.



ad hominem, and i haven't quoted those sites. maybe you could try reading the book. He also notes when the book was first published, that in europe it promoted much disussion.


We're talking about the same Europe where antisemitic attacks are at an all-time post-war high, right?



and mosques are being burned, and refugees being attacked, yes, that one, where there is general racism, not just directed at Jews.



The same Europe which recently published (in "the Guardian") a long supplement with a full-page cover illustration of a golden star of david stabbing to death a prostate union jack, to illustrate the jewish control of England?

The same Europe where the French ambassador to England called israel "A ****** little country that endangers world peace", and then said he doesn't see the problem since everybody he knows thinks so?

The same Europe where Belgium claims there is no statue of limitations for trying Sharon as a "war criminal", but there IS one for nazi crimes, which is why many of them are still living there without fear of prosecution--including some responsible for the death of thousands of jews?

THAT Europe?



you have to wonder how much trouble is being caused by a few woo woos who insist on 'settling' a country that is not theirs. Most of those evil, horrible, big nosed, blood eating jews don't even think they should be there. There is a new conservative party formed in Israel for conservative Jews to be able to vote to stop forming co-alitions with these morons.



Well, isn't it SUCH a surprise that antisemitic trash is popular there. I can't imagine why...

In the US, the silence was deafening.

Will you make up your mind? EITHER there was a huge backlash of bad reviews that were part of an "evil jewish conspiracy" to "defame" Finkelstein, like you claimed above, OR there was "deafening silence", part of the "evil jewish conspiracy" to "ignore" Finkelstein, like you claim here. It can hardly be both...

Why don't you choose which one is the "awful truth about the jewish control of the media", first, and THEN let me answer? It gets all confusing, since you keep blaming the jews for doing one thing and its exact opposite at the same time.


there are palestinians highly critical of arafat,

But they don't last long, after a short visit from Arafat's "preventive security" forces.

No one is allowed to question the legacy of the holocaust.

********. If you read ANY contemporary history journal, you'll find that MANY people do just that.

There is a continous discussion about, for example, how many jews exactly died (estimates range from 5,100,000 to about 6,700,000, with the "traditional" number--about 6,000,000--being surprisingly accuate after all); whether the death camps were planned in advance or were a "contingency plan" by the SS after Barbarosa; how much or how little ordinary Germans knew about it; and, yes, what its legacy should be--should it be taught as history or as a unique experience, as part of Jewish or German history or both, what its effect on zionism was, and so on and so forth.



I am not talking about the whether or not the holocaust occurred. It is one more shameful episode in human history, of which we have many to be ashamed of. The issued, which you refuse to discuss, is whether or not this even has been hijacked for purposes other than ensuring such an event does not occur again.



Of course, if you try and publish in those journals the thesis that the main legacy of the holocaust was jews blackmailing gentiles, or that it never happened in the first place, like Finkelstein and Irving, you will get rejected. But that's not because you're "not allowed" to question the legacy of the holocaust. It's because both claims are antisemitic trash that has no relation to reality.

The whiny "there's a conspiracy that doesn't allow me to question X" is the only reason a kook can see for people ignoring him. It's the same excuse used by creationists, flat-earthers, and those who claim the moon landing never happened. So Finkelstein uses it as well. Big deal.

You may want to move on to the substance of the argument eventually, i will wait.

The substance of the argument is very simple: the jews are evil, scheming, money-grabbing people who are out to bamboozle the naive, honest gentiles out of their money. I have no doubt you're willing to "wait" for an answer--antisemites have been using the same argument for the last 2000 years, and no doubt will use it as long as jews exist, no matter what the jews do.



you have a real problem.



You see, you, like all antisemites, don't REALLY want a reply to Finkelstein's accusations. You merely wait for a confession from the jews that it's all true--which is why antisemitic jews like Finkelstein are such hot stuff in the antisemite's required reading.



is this the only argument you have. ad hominem. if you keep this up i will have to assume all zionists are stupid as well.



no, it was not the history section, but the current affairs section, it was a reputable bookshop.

So is amazon.com; and I just found "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" there! Must be true--or a reputable bookshop won't be selling it, right?



you disappoint me. you know exactly why this rebuttal has nothing to do with my argument.



i would be surprised if there were even tens of books on the holocaust, but then, this is not the US.

...where the evil jewish media makes sure all gentiles are indoctrinated into shame and zionism by constantly publishing holocaust books, I presume.

what i am after is books on current affairs relevant to the issue of israel/palestine.

Admit it: you were looking for the "why it's all the evil jews fault and israel has no right to exist" books, weren't you?

No, I was looking for books in general on the issue of Israel/Palestine, Left/Right, US foreign policy, the politics of economics, gun control, the politics of the environment, WWII, etc.

I know, how about I try your tactics. You are just an Israeli stooge, out to legitimise murderous tactics against a helpless group of people, and lying about what you know about the military and it's participation in murder, theft and hypocrisy..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
This reminds me of arguments with believers about the book by Gary Schwartz

-His data methodology if faulty
=But he graduated from Harvard!
-Reputable scientists dissected his book and condemned the methods and the results
=He predicted the mainstream science would laugh at him! You are just close-minded!


I think Skeptic did a fine job dissecting AUP's arguments, but
AUP,



i have yet to see him try one argument without descending into a blather of ad hominem. why don't you try and say it for him. I find it too hard to follow.



Doesn't it give you a tad of a pause, knowing that the most rabid anti-semites love this book? And the fact that the author is Jewish means nothing - it in not like we get a "The REAL Truth about Jews" book at our bar and bat mitzvas! There is no initiation, there is no secret password to the truth! There is Jewish mafia, there are Jewish murderers, there are Jewish radicals, there are Jewish anti-semites- yes, they DO exist!



As I have said already, drop the ad hominems. You note the irony in that if these guys are praising the book, it also starts on the assumption that there was a holocaust, which is one of the main points they wish to dispute. one of the reasons I find this book interesting is that it does mention that there were [i]other/i] victims of Hitler. The Jews do not 'own' the holocaust. they share the tragedy.



Frankly, if the author says- in a foreward to his book- "Be warned, all reputable scholars will rip me to shreads, but they are part of the cabal, only the Neo-Nazis have a clear, unencumbered view of the situation, read their reviews" That is a tad troublesome.

[b]

that is not what he said.

[b]

When I googled Norman Finkelstein, the first several pages where all Neo Nazi sites- Why was that? Why??????

Do you suspend critical thinking entirely on this? And for your information, I do not have rebut this trash- it speaks for itself. I also do not have to rebut Protocols of the Elders of Zion, although since they say they are written by Jews, why don't you check them out- I am sure you will find them very informative.

It is one thing to be skeptical of a leader, and something else entirely to be skeptical of an event. Event documented through and through, no matter what Irving and Buchanan say.

How about picking up "Hitler's Willing Executioners"? How about you read that, and then come back and discuss it here. I am sure you would not want to appear one-sided in your reading pleasures.

That is another book I would like to read. unfortunately, I have a family to feed and bills to pay. I cannot buy every book that appears interesting.

You still appear to be confused about what is being criticised.

It is not whether or not there was a holocaust. It is what has happened to the legacy of the holocaust. Has it been immorally hijacked for other purposes.

If I was a real racist, I would have the attitude that others appear to have that Jews are beyond criticism. I certainly don't have that attitude about my country, my race, or anthing else.

[renata]

Round and Round we go


Can you answer ONE question for me- I know I have asked it several times, but here it is again. I can not put it more clearly

Does the fact that the book you rely on is praised heavily by neo-Nazi sites and is ripped apart by main stream media give any pause in endorsing its findings?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
Round and Round we go


Can you answer ONE question for me- I know I have asked it several times, but here it is again. I can not put it more clearly

Does the fact that the book you rely on is praised heavily by neo-Nazi sites and is ripped apart by main stream media give any pause in endorsing its findings?

Well, I entered the name of the book into google, and all i find is that it has been mentioned by many different sites, not many neo-nazi sites that I could see, and evaluated on it's merits. That is, it has not been 'torn apart' at all. It has been analyzed critically, which indeed it should, but hardly 'torn apart'.

I have just started reading it.

One thing that strikes me, in complete contrast to Skeptics abusive tirades, is that the politics of Jews as a group is just as varied and changeable as any other group. Hardly the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theories. What has happened, according to this book, is that the feelings of guilt have been exploited and hijacked. There are those with a vested interest who have no shame in exploiting this event.

An event that was treated with respect and deliberation is now used for other purposes.

Curiously enough, in Australia, the atrocious treatment of the Australian Aborigine, which was very much another holocaust, is being debated at great length. Those who think that there should be some recognition of the suffering and apology. This is largely being driven by the left and many christians. The conservatives want none of this, and accuse this movement of being obsessed with the 'black armband' view of history.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, I entered the name of the book into google, and all i find is that it has been mentioned by many different sites, not many neo-nazi sites that I could see, and evaluated on it's merits. That is, it has not been 'torn apart' at all. It has been analyzed critically, which indeed it should, but hardly 'torn apart'.

I have just started reading it.

One thing that strikes me, in complete contrast to Skeptics abusive tirades, is that the politics of Jews as a group is just as varied and changeable as any other group. Hardly the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theories. What has happened, according to this book, is that the feelings of guilt have been exploited and hijacked. There are those with a vested interest who have no shame in exploiting this event.

An event that was treated with respect and deliberation is now used for other purposes.

Curiously enough, in Australia, the atrocious treatment of the Australian Aborigine, which was very much another holocaust, is being debated at great length. Those who think that there should be some recognition of the suffering and apology. This is largely being driven by the left and many christians. The conservatives want none of this, and accuse this movement of being obsessed with the 'black armband' view of history.

You really are quite the nut, aren't you? Do you sincerely believe your own words?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


You really are quite the nut, aren't you? Do you sincerely believe your own words?

ad hominem. that was easy.

[thaiboxerken]

I find it annoying that anyone who criticizes anything that Israel or the Jews do is labelled "anti-semetic". This name-calling seems to be the #1 tool to get things done by Israel. Yes, the USA's support for Israel plays a major factor in this war against "terror". It's not the only factor though. I think Sharon is just as dangerous as Saddam, myself.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Curiously enough, in Australia, the atrocious treatment of the Australian Aborigine, which was very much another holocaust

A "holocaust". Really? When I read this I take it to mean a premeditated genocide?

[Victor Danilchenko]

thaiboxerken

I find it annoying that anyone who criticizes anything that Israel or the Jews do is labelled "anti-semetic".not true. i criticize israeli settlement program, and nobody has labelled me an anti-semite; perhaps because i am not one.

Not all anti-israelis are anti-semites, and none certainly admit to being such; but in my experience, most anti-israelis (by that I mean the people who support the popular 'Israel is evil/bad/unjust/racist, palestinians are just/good/freedom-fighters/etc.' view) fall into one of two categories: anti-semites and dupes. You see, that sentiment is not rationally sustainable. the most an honest and informed person can say, is that both sides are guilty; there is no way to derive predominant blame of israel from the real events.

And so we have people who don't care for the truth and who use a fragile weave of half-truths and misrepresentations to shield their true anti-semitic motivations (but who of course don't think of it as half-truths and misrepresentations); and the people who bought into this web of deceit for whatever reason.

Now mind you, this doesn't apply to people who are against certain specific Israeli policies which can be raitonally defended as unreasonable; but rather against the irrationally unilateral 'Israel is bad' crowd, like AUP. I don't know whether he is an anti-semite or a dupe, but the little anti-semitic slips he made, cause me to lean towards the former.

This name-calling seems to be the #1 tool to get things done by Israel.if it was just the unjustified name-calling, there woun't be such an obvious anti-semitic tone to so many accusations against Israel, many of them made in private by the prominent public anti-israeli figures.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I find it annoying that anyone who criticizes anything that Israel or the Jews do is labelled "anti-semetic

[my emphasis]

I would say they have full justification.

If I criticised something "the Blacks" do, I would expect to be called racist.

[Skeptic]

I find it annoying that anyone who criticizes anything that Israel or the Jews do is labelled "anti-semetic".

It's not "criticizing anything" that's the point. Many people criticize a lot of things about israel and are not antisemitic, nor are labeled as such by anybody. The problem is when the "criticism" is really a thinly-veiled age-old antisemitic blood libel, which simply replaces the word "jews" by "israelies" or "zionists".

For example, there is the "objective criticism" of israel's existence, which claims that israel--and ONLY israel--is an "illegal" nation that has no right to exists, and that the jews--and ONLY the jews--have no right to a country.

Or there is Finkelstein's "criticism" of the "holocaust industry", which is really the age-old "the evil jews will do anything to get money by fraud out of the naive and kind-hearted gentiles".

Or there is AUP's criticism of israel "killing A U.S. peace activist" (turned out to be a rabid anti-US flag-burning lunatic who deliberately ignored all warnings by the IDF to keep away from blldozers); or of "killing journalists" (turned out one jouranlist was killed, obviously by a stray bullet and accidentally); or "shooting at journalists" (turned out the soldiers were shooting rubber bullets at a crowd that included journalists to disperse them); or "deliberatly sinking the 'Liberty'" (turned out to be a military SNAFU).

It is THIS sort of "criticism"--denying israel's and the jews' right to exist (for all the right reasons, of course); republishing age-old antisemitic myths in modern dress; criticizing israel with "facts" that just HAPPEN to always be wrong just HAPPEN to always make israel look much worse than it actually is--that is antisemitism, for obvious reason.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


not true. i criticize israeli settlement program, and nobody has labelled me an anti-semite; perhaps because i am not one.

[/qoute]

i think if there is one point i have tried to make, it is that stupidity of the settlement program. i believe, for what it is worth, that if this was halted, and the division and theft of what is left of palestine halted, there would be a real chance for peace.

[quote]

Not all anti-israelis are anti-semites, and none certainly admit to being such; but in my experience, most anti-israelis (by that I mean the people who support the popular 'Israel is evil/bad/unjust/racist, palestinians are just/good/freedom-fighters/etc.' view) fall into one of two categories: anti-semites and dupes. You see, that sentiment is not rationally sustainable. the most an honest and informed person can say, is that both sides are guilty; there is no way to derive predominant blame of israel from the real events.



i have said as much. araft has been a large part of the problem from the palestinian point of view, but it looks like he might be getting pushed out now. i have also pointed out it is israel that holds the whip. it is in the position of dominance, and has the unquestioned militiary superioritiy.



And so we have people who don't care for the truth and who use a fragile weave of half-truths and misrepresentations to shield their true anti-semitic motivations (but who of course don't think of it as half-truths and misrepresentations); and the people who bought into this web of deceit for whatever reason.

Now mind you, this doesn't apply to people who are against certain specific Israeli policies which can be raitonally defended as unreasonable; but rather against the irrationally unilateral 'Israel is bad' crowd, like AUP. I don't know whether he is an anti-semite or a dupe, but the little anti-semitic slips he made, cause me to lean towards the former.



anti-israel? I have said that founding israel was a mistake, but that it now exists and isn't going away. i have not said that 'israel is bad'. there are many israelis who are against the policies of the country that they live in.

little slips? I say so much to try to tell you i am not against, 'the jews', and all you can concentrate on is the 'little anti-semitic slips'. I have spent so much space on the fact that so many jews around the world do not want what is happening in israel to happen, including many jews in isreal. but it's the little slips that give me away. what are you trying to do, convince me that jews really are paranoid dolts. you are doing a good job of it. You really are digging deep. who is dealing in half truths and inference here?

let me say it quite clearly here.

the policies of isreal towards the palestinians are racist and genocidal. this does not represent the aims of all jews or isrealies. many isrealis are probably not aware of what goes on in their name, just as many americans likewise don't.

There is a wall going up, that is taking the last good land from the palestinians, that will probably be going up along the jordanian border as well. it will be the worlds largest prison or ghetto.

the policies of isreal towards palestinians are racist.



if it was just the unjustified name-calling, there woun't be such an obvious anti-semitic tone to so many accusations against Israel, many of them made in private by the prominent public anti-israeli figures.

and we also hear of the private name calling from israeli policitians, such as referring to palestinians as cockroaches.

no, the real problem is that i say it as it is, and for this i am criticised and maligned. but try to get some logical arguments out of people, and it's pretty hard going.

Perhaps the reason i get so heated up about the issue is that it is ultimately so stupid. the number of settlers who are actually pushing for their cause is a minority of israelis. most israelis want them gone. Isreali courts pass judgements that they should be closed, and these are ignored. Sharon uses them for military means as part of a strategy to create a ghetto for the palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I find it annoying that anyone who criticizes anything that Israel or the Jews do is labelled "anti-semetic".

It's not "criticizing anything" that's the point. Many people criticize a lot of things about israel and are not antisemitic, nor are labeled as such by anybody. The problem is when the "criticism" is really a thinly-veiled age-old antisemitic blood libel, which simply replaces the word "jews" by "israelies" or "zionists".

For example, there is the "objective criticism" of israel's existence, which claims that israel--and ONLY israel--is an "illegal" nation that has no right to exists, and that the jews--and ONLY the jews--have no right to a country.

Or there is Finkelstein's "criticism" of the "holocaust industry", which is really the age-old "the evil jews will do anything to get money by fraud out of the naive and kind-hearted gentiles".

Or there is AUP's criticism of israel "killing A U.S. peace activist" (turned out to be a rabid anti-US flag-burning lunatic who deliberately ignored all warnings by the IDF to keep away from blldozers); or of "killing journalists" (turned out one jouranlist was killed, obviously by a stray bullet and accidentally); or "shooting at journalists" (turned out the soldiers were shooting rubber bullets at a crowd that included journalists to disperse them); or "deliberatly sinking the 'Liberty'" (turned out to be a military SNAFU).

It is THIS sort of "criticism"--denying israel's and the jews' right to exist (for all the right reasons, of course); republishing age-old antisemitic myths in modern dress; criticizing israel with "facts" that just HAPPEN to always be wrong just HAPPEN to always make israel look much worse than it actually is--that is antisemitism, for obvious reason.

yeah, well you never bothered to ask me if i think isreal has a right to exist. it shouldn't have been created, but it exists now, and isn't going away. everyone just has to get on with that fact. the points about the repression of a free press have not been denied by you at all. You simply explain away a few incidents as not being all that bad, while totally ignoring what is a pattern of behaviour. you read those links, journalists being humiliiated being forced to plead for their lives.

Israel, however, has not acknowledged the right of palestine to exist in it's own terms, only under isreals terms.

and i have never, ever, once, in any way, at all, repeat, not at all, don't mention this libel again, referred to anything to do with a blood libel, protocols of zion, doubted the holocaust happened, think that you can tell a jew just by looking at them, believed in a worldwide conspiracy of jews, set out to hate the jews. Do not ever repeat these lies again.

[Skeptic]

yeah, well you never bothered to ask me if i think isreal has a right to exist. it shouldn't have been created,

...which means it had no right to come into being, which means it has no right to exist, since you can hardly have a right to exist if you had no right to come into existence. Thanks for clearing up that point.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic

yeah, well you never bothered to ask me if i think isreal has a right to exist. it shouldn't have been created,

...which means it had no right to come into being, which means it has no right to exist, since you can hardly have a right to exist if you had no right to come into existence. Thanks for clearing up that point.

first up, i must thank you for not accusing me of blood libel.

second, as i have already pointed out, much of the world was founded via conquest. you can't undo all that now. however, the process of conquest in palestine that is currently in process is not 'au fait', if you know what i mean.

[Skeptic]

second, as i have already pointed out, much of the world was founded via conquest. you can't undo all that now. however, the process of conquest in palestine that is currently in process is not 'au fait', if you know what i mean.

So, essentially, israel is to be penalized for not simply killing off 99% of the palestinians--like the Australians did to the aboriginies--which made the conquest less complete.

Good idea. I suggest that since, apparently, the more complete and cruel your conquest the more right you have to retain its spoils, that israel simple kill off all the palestinians now, in order to make the conquest 'au fait'.

Then, after a few years of bruhaha, israel could justly say--just like Australia--that, hey, it's now complete conquest and 'au fait', so people should just forget about the palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
second, as i have already pointed out, much of the world was founded via conquest. you can't undo all that now. however, the process of conquest in palestine that is currently in process is not 'au fait', if you know what i mean.

So, essentially, israel is to be penalized for not simply killing off 99% of the palestinians--like the Australians did to the aboriginies--which made the conquest less complete.

Good idea. I suggest that since, apparently, the more complete and cruel your conquest the more right you have to retain its spoils, that israel simple kill off all the palestinians now, in order to make the conquest 'au fait'.

Then, after a few years of bruhaha, israel could justly say--just like Australia--that, hey, it's now complete conquest and 'au fait', so people should just forget about the palestinians.

i can't undo the past, but i do believe their should be recognition and compensation for the past. They can't even get a 'sorry', from a conservative government.

Conquest is no longer considered to be a legitimate act for a country to engage it. Isreal is making sure, for example, with the fence it will build to surround the palestinians, that it has what it wants, and that with time the problem will just die away. The palestinians don't necessarily go along with that idea.

[Mycroft]

oops!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
oops!

What happened? Did you stick your finger in your eye?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What happened? Did you stick your finger in your eye?

I got something in my eye.

I thought this thread could use some bumping as it seems to have become topical again.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1871006252&highlight=mycroft#post1871006252

[The Fool]

Let me guess mycroft...you think you have found something that annoys A_U_P (the sig quote) so you were looking for more?

I encourage you to link more of my quotes as they provide quick access to threads where you are invariably doing something amusing....like referring to Condoleeza Rice as a "negress"...Lol... way to go Massa Mycroft.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I got something in my eye.

I thought this thread could use some bumping as it seems to have become topical again.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1871006252&highlight=mycroft#post1871006252

Don't be such a jerk, you are intent on harrassing me, yet again.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone.

The holocaust was overdone.

Astonishing!

Exactly how does one "overdo" genocide?

[Skeptic]

When it come to the genocide of jews, by refusing to forget it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The holocaust was overdone.

Do you believe thats what he said? Its clear to me that he was refering to the use of the holocaust to justify political and military actions....A prime example would be people who would use this tragic event as part of a cheap campaign of harrasment on the internet. Ever seen that happen? Know of anyone who would be prepared to cheapen the holocaust by using it for that purpose?

[/B]

[fabian_lidman]

(Edit: this may have ended up in the wrong thread... Maybe the one i intended to post in has been moved somewhere else. I got there via a link in someone's signature.)

Why does it matter whether neo-nazis love Finkelstein's book? Clearly they have a lot to benefit from pushing a book which contains even the slightest critique of the holocaust. Point is, you should judge the book by its contents, not by its cover. Neo-nazis tend to love Wagner's operas too, by the way. Does that make Wagner antisemitic?
Is Noam Chomsky a "notorious antisemite"? It's this first time i've ever heard that allegation. References please. Oh, and criticising Israel does not make a person an antisemite. I sometimes criticise China and Iran, but that doesn't mean i hate the ethnic groups in question. (In fact i find persian women very attractive!)
Sorry to revive this infected thread. I'm just genuinely curious to hear the arguments spelled out more clearly. Name-calling isn't an argument in my book.

[Hutch]

Sorry to revive this infected thread. I'm just genuinely curious to hear the arguments spelled out more clearly. Name-calling isn't an argument in my book.

Well, come this topic, you will get very little else, I'm afraid. :catfight:

My suggestion is to put everybody who posted in this thread previously except for The Fool and Webfusion on ignore. It may then be possible to generate some light with the heat from those two posters. Otherwise...
:bwall

Press on.

[Mycroft]

Neo-nazis tend to love Wagner's operas too, by the way. Does that make Wagner antisemitic?

Neo-Nazis love Wagner in part because Wagner was anti-Semitic. Mostly they love Wagner because Hitler loved Wagner, and neo-Nazis love what Hitler loved.

Now in defense of Wagner, it's arguable he wasn't any more anti-Semitic than the society in which he was raised, but when Hitler praised him he also emphasized that they had anti-Semitism in common. Because of this, Wagner is now famous for his anti-Semitism while other artists, who may have been just as anti-Semitic, tend to get that little bit scrubbed from their biographies.


Edited to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner#Anti-Semitism_and_Nazi_appropriation

[fabian_lidman]

Neo-Nazis love Wagner in part because Wagner was anti-Semitic. Mostly they love Wagner because Hitler loved Wagner, and neo-Nazis love what Hitler loved.
You're right. I should have checked the facts better.

[epepke]

At about 0.2% of the world population, and at about 1.3% of the US population, those hook-nosed, Gentile-blood-matzoh-eating Kikes must be regular Uebermenschen to be able to dominate US foreign policy and the history of the entire world like that.

I now eat a half-sour pickle in their honor.

[Beerina]

The big question is, before we do a marlon brando on him out of reactionary angst; is he correct?

What? Eat massive quantities of donuts and greasy fast food breakfast sandwiches, then kick off our shoes to cool down our feet, burning with "metabolic-syndrome"-induced diabetic neuropathy?

[davefoc]

Sometimes it seems people use words in these threads in a way so as to maximize conflict and minimize the possibility of finding any kind of consensus.

This thread starts off with a title that seemed almost guaranteed to generate a thread that accomplishes that.

It seems to me nobody but a raving anti-semite could make a case the the Jews are responsible for the US/UK decision to invade Iraq.

I don't know that even a majority of Jews in the US favored the war and I suspect that a whole lot of the Jews that might have favored the war when it began might have changed their minds if they had realized that Iraq did not have WMD.

A less inflmatory but more probitive subject for the thread would have been whether the war was fought to protect Israel.

It is true that there does seem to be a strong tie-in between aggressive support for Israel and some of the neo-con ideology. I don't know exactly what drives that but I think the majority of neo-cons are not Jewish so the idea that Jews are a principal driver of neocon ideology would seem to be wrong.

There is a current thread on what were the real reasons that the US and the UK invaded Iraq. I listed the six reasons that I thought were the most important to Bush. Protection of Israel was sixth on my list. But I wasn't sure whether that had been a significant factor in Bush's reasoning although I thought it was possible that it was a more important factor to some of the neocons surrounding Bush that were arguing for war.

Part of the argument that the Jews were responsible for the US/UK invasion of Iraq comes from the notion that the Jews in general have manipulated US foreign policy to favor Israel over the best interests of the US. I think there is truth to the notion that some Jews have done that, but there are also many Jews that have worked to get the US to support more peaceful approaches to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Brit Tzedek, a group or American Jews, is campaigning to keep the US congress from cutting off aid to the Palestinians because of the election of Hamas.

I think several other factors are actually more important reasons why the US has sided so strongly with Israel over the years than any direct or indirect control of the US congress by Jews. Among those reasons would be lobbying efforts by the Military-Industrial complex that profits in various ways by the weapons that the US supplies Israel and the fundamentalist Christians who see Jews in Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. In the end US support for Israel is driven by the synergistic efforts of various groups most of who are not Jewish.

[Ziggurat]

In the end US support for Israel is driven by the synergistic efforts of various groups most of who are not Jewish.

Actually, in the end it's driven by the fact that we share a lot of interests, and the fact that in that region, Israel is both the strongest nation and the nation that shares the most values with us. Given those rather simple, basic, and widely-known facts, why even bother to look for some group, ANY group, to drive that support? It's going to happen because it's natural that it should happen, it's the most logical alliance we could have in the region.

[davefoc]

Actually, in the end it's driven by the fact that we share a lot of interests, and the fact that in that region, Israel is both the strongest nation and the nation that shares the most values with us. Given those rather simple, basic, and widely-known facts, why even bother to look for some group, ANY group, to drive that support? It's going to happen because it's natural that it should happen, it's the most logical alliance we could have in the region.

Zig, I think your thoughts on this are consistent with the views of somebody who sees the US support of Israel as both beneficial to US interests and ethically correct. I don't and I don't think the people who are implementing US policy towards Israel do either. As such, I am going to find other less noble reasons as more credible.

This doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong, it just means that each of us uses our overall view of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to influence how we see the reasons for US involvement.

[NoZed Avenger]

Zig, I think your thoughts on this are consistent with the views of somebody who sees the US support of Israel as both beneficial to US interests and ethically correct. I don't and I don't think the people who are implementing US policy towards Israel do either. As such, I am going to find other less noble reasons as more credible.

This doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong, it just means that each of us uses our overall view of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to influence how we see the reasons for US involvement.

This is an excellent example of how I wish these discussions were handled by both sides: clear, cogent, but civil. If this were a typical post in a Palestinian-Israel debate, I would still be reading them on a regular basis (I only opened this one because I was fooled into thinking renata was posting for a split second when I saw it).

Thank you.

[davefoc]

This is an excellent example of how I wish these discussions were handled by both sides: clear, cogent, but civil. If this were a typical post in a Palestinian-Israel debate, I would still be reading them on a regular basis (I only opened this one because I was fooled into thinking renata was posting for a split second when I saw it).

Thank you.

Your comments were very kind and most appreciated NoZed.

As a brief aside one of the little interests of mine is why people believe what they believe. Early on in my life I divided the world between skeptics and non-skeptics. I saw skeptics as the people who were introspective enough to rise above their biases to seek truth and the non-skeptics as those who gave in to the standard human drive that leads us to believe in what makes us feel good.

The only problem with this idea is that it appears that it is not very accurate. Skeptics seem to have the same kind of drive to believe in things that make us feel good as everybody else. It just seems that we are a little more likely than average to seek truth than the average person when we first formulate our views, but once we have formulated a view we seem to be at least as resistant as the average fellow to changing that view or in even seeing the possibility that the truth can lie in the gray area between us being right and us being wrong.

I have participated in these Israel/Palestinian discussions partially because I have certain beliefs about the conflict and wish to express them and partially as an exercise to try to understand how people that I would classify as skeptics can come to such incompatible views on the situation. At this point I think it is fair to say that I have acquired no great insight into the answer to that question.

[NoZed Avenger]

I have participated in these Israel/Palestinian discussions partially because I have certain beliefs about the conflict and wish to express them and partially as an exercise to try to understand how people that I would classify as skeptics can come to such incompatible views on the situation. At this point I think it is fair to say that I have acquired no great insight into the answer to that question.

Yep. Of course, that just means that the forum has done no better or worse than real life with regard to the problem.

Wait, is that supposed to make us feel better, or even more depressed?

[davefoc]

Wait, is that supposed to make us feel better, or even more depressed?

I don't know. I have noticed that despite the heated rhetoric the range of opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in this forum is significantly smaller than in the world as a whole, so is that a good thing?

My thought is that if I was a Palestinian and ZN was my neighbor we might not be killing each other. I don't think ZN would be pushing settlements on to what I thought was my land and telling me about how god gave him the land and I wouldn't be subsidizing people to go and blow ZN up.

[Chaos]

*snip*
Wait, is that supposed to make us feel better, or even more depressed?

If I was a bitter old fart, I´d say that anyone who takes a look at reality and doesn´t get depressed ought to have his cognitive functions checked.

Fortunately, I´m not a bitter old fart, but a bitter young... whatever.